Agenda — Fountain Valley City Council, June 2, 2026 (part 5 of 6)

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration K-3
Monitoring Compliance Verification
Mitigation Measure Action Required Timing Frequency Responsible Agency Initial Date Comments The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be
conducted on foot in the project site, including a
50-foot buffer, and in inaccessible areas (e.g.,
private lands) the use of binoculars should be
used to inspect trees and other suitable nesting
areas. The survey shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist familiar with the identification
of avian species known to occur in Southern
California.
 If nests are found, an avoidance buffer shall be
determined and demarcated by a qualified
biologist with bright orange construction fencing,
flagging, construction lathe, or other means to
mark the boundary. All construction personnel
shall be notified as to the existence of the buffer
zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone until
the young have fledged or the nest is otherwise
no longer active, as determined by the qualified
biologist. No parking, storage of materials, or
construction activities shall occur within this
buffer until the biologist has confirmed that
breeding/nesting is completed, and the young
have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the
buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the
qualified biologist.
 A survey report by the qualified biologist
documenting and verifying compliance with the
mitigation and with applicable State and federal
regulations protecting nesting birds shall be
submitted to the City. The qualified biologist shall
serve as a construction monitor during those
periods when construction activities would occur
near active nests to ensure that no inadvertent
impacts on nesting birds would occur.

Verify completion of a
survey report by the
qualified biologist
documenting compliance
Upon completion of
breeding/nesting
and young have
fledged nests
Once

Page 522 ends

City of Fountain Valley
8550 Warner Avenue Project
K-4
Monitoring Compliance Verification
Mitigation Measure Action Required Timing Frequency Responsible Agency Initial Date Comments Cultural Resources
CR-1: Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources
Prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities, the applicant shall retain an archaeologist meeting the
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (National Park Service 2020)(Qualified
Archaeologist) to respond to and address any
inadvertent discoveries identified for the duration of
construction activities. The Qualified Archaeologist
should possess experience and familiarity with
historic-period and prehistoric archaeological
resources in the region.

In the event that archaeological resources are
unexpectedly encountered during ground-disturbing
activities, work within 50 feet of the find shall halt
and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for
archaeology (National Park Service 1983) shall be
contacted immediately to evaluate the resource. If
the resource is determined by the qualified
archaeologist to be prehistoric, then a Native
American representative shall also be contacted to
participate in the evaluation of the resource. If the
qualified archaeologist and/or Native American
representative determines it to be appropriate,
archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility shall be
completed. If the resource proves to be eligible for
the CRHR and significant impacts to the resource
cannot be avoided via Project redesign, a qualified
archaeologist shall prepare a data recovery plan
tailored to the physical nature and characteristics of
the resource, per the requirements of California Code
of Regulations Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C). The data
recovery plan shall identify data recovery excavation
methods, measurable objectives, and data thresholds
to reduce any significant impacts to cultural
resources related to the resource. Pursuant to the
data recovery plan, the qualified archaeologist and
Verify retention of a
qualified archaeologist
to respond to and
address any inadvertent
discoveries of cultural
resources during
construction
Prior to the start of
ground-disturbing
activities
Once City of Fountain Valley
Community
Development
Department
Verify ground-disturbing
construction activities
have halted within 50
feet of an archaeological
resources find
On an as-needed
basis during
construction
activities if
archaeological
resources are found
Periodically
throughout
construction
Consult with qualified
archaeologist for
evaluation and
appropriate treatment of
find
On an as-needed
basis during
construction
activities if
archaeological
resources are found
On an asneeded basis
Consult with Native
American
representatives for
evaluation and
appropriate treatment of
find, as needed
On an as-needed
basis during
construction
activities if
archaeological
resources are found
On an asneeded basis
Review and approval of
data recovery plan and
archaeological testing if
find is determined to be
CRHR-eligible
Following
identification of a
CRHR-eligible
archaeological
resource and
significant impacts
cannot be avoided
Once

Page 523 ends

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration K-5
Monitoring Compliance Verification
Mitigation Measure Action Required Timing Frequency Responsible Agency Initial Date Comments Native American representative, as appropriate, shall
recover and document the scientifically
consequential information that justifies the
resource’s significance. The City shall review and
approve the treatment plan and archaeological
testing as appropriate, and the resulting
documentation shall be submitted to the regional
repository of the California Historical Resources
Information System, per California Code of
Regulations Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C).

Geology and Soils
GEO-1: Unanticipated Fossil Discovery
Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness
Program
Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall retain a Qualified Professional Paleontologist meeting
the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010)
standards to respond to and address any inadvertent
discoveries identified for the duration of construction activities. Prior to the start of construction, a
Qualified Professional Paleontologist, as defined by
the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010), or
their designee shall conduct a paleontological Worker
Environmental Awareness Program training for
construction personnel regarding the appearance of
fossils and the procedures for notifying
paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by
construction personnel. The Worker Environmental
Awareness Program shall discuss the potential to
discover paleontological resources in the project site, legal obligations to protect paleontological resources, examples of paleontological resources that may be
found in the project site, procedures in case a
paleontological resource is discovered, and contact
information for the Qualified Professional
Paleontologist.

Verify retention of a
qualified paleontologist
to respond to and
address any inadvertent
discoveries of
paleontological
resources during
construction
Prior to issuance of
grading permits
Once City of Fountain Valley
Community
Development
Department
Verify completion of a
Worker Environmental
Awareness Program
training for construction
personnel
Prior to issuance of
grading permits
Once
Verify inclusion of an
inadvertent discovery
clause in final
construction contracts
Prior to issuance of
grading permits
Once
Verify ground-disturbing
construction activities
have halted within 50
feet of a paleontological
resources find
On an as-needed
basis during
construction
activities if
paleontological
resources are found
Periodically
throughout
construction

Page 524 ends

City of Fountain Valley
8550 Warner Avenue Project
K-6
Monitoring Compliance Verification
Mitigation Measure Action Required Timing Frequency Responsible Agency Initial Date Comments Unanticipated Discovery of Paleontological
Resources
The project applicant shall include a standard
inadvertent discovery clause in every construction
contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If
a potential fossil is discovered during project
construction, construction activity within 50 feet of
the find shall cease until the discovery is examined by a Qualified Professional Paleontologist. If the find is determined to be significant, the Qualified
Professional Paleontologist shall direct all mitigation efforts related to paleontological resources
consistent with the Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology (2010) standards, which may include,
but are not limited to: paleontological monitoring;
fossil salvage, preparation, and curation; and
reporting to summarize the paleontological
mitigation efforts. That report shall include a list of all fossils recovered and necessary maps and graphics to
accurately record their original location(s). The
report, when submitted to and accepted by the City,
and the curation of all significant fossils in a fossil repository has occurred, shall signify satisfactory
completion of the project program to mitigate
impacts to any potential nonrenewable
paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) that might
have been lost or otherwise adversely affected
without such a program in place.

Consult with qualified
paleontologist for
evaluation and
appropriate treatment of
find
On an as-needed
basis during
construction
activities if
paleontological
resources are found
On an asneeded basis
Review and approval of
recovery report
Following
identification and
curation of all
paleontological
resource finds
Once

Page 525 ends

From: [email protected]
To: Steven Ayers
Subject: 72 unit apt complex Newland and Warner
Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 11:42:35 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Good morning, I am a resident across from the proposed building site. I just found out about this project recently. I live on El Rancho Ave. I am extremely concerned about this situation. I continually deal with FV PD on homelessness in this area, trash and dog droppings. Traffic issues at the intersection is horrendous, just recently, another accident occurred with a car going into a residence back yard. My neighbor almost lost his life at that intersection year’s ago from someone running a red light. Property values will fall for us who own homes near the proposed site. Fountain Valley will not be a nice place to live for my family. Please let me know what I can do to get involved with Stopping this project. Is there any near future City Council meeting on this matter. Thank you, P TomeckSent from my iPhone

Page 526 ends

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

From: Toni Guchereau
To: Steven Ayers
Subject: Proposed apartment bldg at 8550 Warner
Date: Monday, March 11, 2024 3:14:20 PM
I am TOTALLY OPPOSED to the construction of the 72-unit apartment building, Parkside Fountain Valley!
I have checked the ZONING for the city of Fountain Valley and the area for this apartment complex is C1, NOT R4. You need to rethink what you are planning to do and follow the guidelines that the previous charters have established! I live on Bressel Lane in Huntington Beach which is directly across from the proposed construction site. Getting out of the tract is a nightmare in the morning, especially when trying to cross it to get onto the freeway. PLUS you have all the added cars from the proposed apartments that would overload that ramp, especially the way it is currently laid out from Warner across Magnolia on ONE LANE!
This is in addition to the increased noise and poor air quality that would also ensue, not to mention the effect it will have on the surrounding schools.

Please look elsewhere for your site that is zoned for R4 before upsetting all the surrounding residents.

Toni Guchereau
16912 Bressel Lane
Huntington Beach, CA

Page 527 ends

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

From: Jaye Towne
Subject: Fwd: New FV Development...

Date: Friday, March 8, 2024 1:40:48 PM
This project is at Warner & Newland St. This location doesn’t affect me directly but just “more people, more scars upon the land”! Please forward to your fv contacts. We need community involvement. Thank you & thanks Kim for the heads up! Jaye
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Kim Constantine <[email protected]>
Date: March 8, 2024 at 12:40:07 PM PST
To: Kim Constantine <[email protected]>
Subject: New FV Development...

I SAW this flyer online (attached) It is NOT mine. I did NOT create it, nor do I know who did.

Here's CORRECT information from me ...
?
"They". ?
Who is "they"?
Ah, the "they" IS the property owner who owns THIS particular parcel of land. Paperwork has been filed appropriately at Fountain Valley to change what is now on THIS land for the purpose of apartments.

Let's move on, as there are several errors in this very high emotion flyer that I will address & provide info for. -Who wrote the flyer? Unknown. I am happy that at least someone is notifying the community. Again, there are errors in it; however, good effort.

Here's CORRECT information:
-The residents within 1,000 feet will receive a notification letter from the City of Fountain Valley, as this matter will first be heard by the Fountain Valley Planning Commission, discussed there, public heard, and Commissioners will vote (make a recommendation to Fountain Valley City Council). The public may attend & speak.

I say, DON'T wait for a letter, BE PROACTIVE & stay abreast of these public Meeting agendas, since they come out several days prior to the Meeting. I wouldn't wait for an envelope that may or may not arrive going through our postal system. This way, you won't miss an important City Meeting. I have posted all the Meeting dates below.

Here's the link to the FV Agenda Center:
https://www.fountainvalley.gov/AgendaCenter
Ok, then here's what happens after the Planning Commission Meeting… -Those same residents will get an envelope notification from City Hall about the City Council Meeting in which the public may speak. See all the info above, as it's the same. The only exception is the City Council IS the FINAL DECISION MAKERS. -As for re-election, 2 Fountain Valley City Council Members ARE up for re-election in November. They are Ted Bui & Glenn Grandis.... the top 2 on Council. Campaign season has started & re-election events continue. I was the ONLY FV City Council Member to vote "no" on upping the $500 per campaign contribution limit to $1,600+. So, it passed anyway, as the vote was 4-1. -Have interest to run for City Council this year? Contact our City Clerk for the form you need to file before you campaign & he'll let you know a few particulars. Rick is at 714-593-4445. Yes, campaign season is on now. :) -Connect with me on FB... Google me there. I am very easy to find. Posts on Nextdoor often get lost in the shuffle. Many times, I turn on notifications for posts I want to follow -- very helpful. So, I am on Nextdoor, as I need to.

Unfortunately, so few — if any — people come & speak at our Planning Commission and City Council Meetings. Ok… the Feb. PC Meeting had several — that’s an exception.
-People can pay attention to City matters & make a difference to decision makers. -Here are the dates for our next City Meetings (always open to anyone who wants to attend & speak ... and you may speak on Zoom from wherever you are):
-CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS on TUESDAYS at 6 p.m. for the Open Session (there could be a Study Session earlier -- always open to the public):

March 19th
April 2nd & 16th
May 7th & 21st
June 4th & 18th
July 16th

Page 528 ends

August 20th
September 17th
October 1st & 15th
November 5th & 19th
December 3rd & 17th
-PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS on WEDNESDAYS at 6 p.m:

March 13th
April 10th
May 8th
June 12th
July 10th
August 14th
September 11th
October 9th
November 13th
December 11th
-Our City Meetings, as listed above, are always open to the public -- and you may speak or speak on Zoom in our City Council & Planning Commission Meetings. Meetings are at Fountain Valley City Hall - 10200 Slater, Fountain Valley. (Dates subject to change).
-I won't comment on project specifics, as I am one of the 5 decion makers. If you have questions or want to email or text me at 714-335-2280, feel free. I will respond.
-Email FV City Council, etc...

[email protected] (main City Hall email)
[email protected] (me)
[email protected] (City Manager)
My fellow City Council Members:

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Sure hope this helps. Misinformation is not good. :) And yes, feel free to share this for more community awareness.

Thank you, Kim

Page 529 ends

Page 530 ends

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

From: Perla Ramirez
To: Steven Ayers
Subject: Parkside Fountain Valley
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024 7:06:19 PM
Dear Mr Ayers,
I'm writing to show my disapproval of this planned project if it is true. It's unsafe as the current traffic is unmanageable and almost impossible to cross from the Northside of Warner to the Southside residential areas or to join Warner eastbound/westbound. You can find reports from all of the traffic collisions that happen because of this busy street. This project will only worsen this. It's Environmentally hazardous as pollution will no doubt increase. A CEQA lawsuit will be initiated of this project.

I await your response on this matter.

Regards,
Perla Ramirez
Warner & Magnolia resident
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android

Page 531 ends

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

From: Jaime
To: Steven Ayers
Subject: Parkside Fountain Valley
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024 7:01:59 PM
Dear Mr Ayers,
I'm writing to show my disapproval of this planned project if it is true. It's unsafe as the current traffic is unmanageable and almost impossible to cross from the Northside of Warner to the Southside residential areas or to join Warner eastbound/westbound. You can find reports from all of the traffic collisions that happen because of this busy street. This project will only worsen this. It's Environmentally hazardous as pollution will no doubt increase. A CEQA lawsuit will be initiated of this project.

I await your response on this matter.

Regards,
Jaime Morando
Warner/Magnolia Street resident

Page 532 ends

From: Omar Dadabhoy
To: Steven Ayers
Subject: FW: Objecting to 8550 Warner Project
Date: Monday, March 11, 2024 3:18:23 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2024 3:17 PM
To: Omar Dadabhoy <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Objecting to 8550 Warner Project
Here's another email as well for that project.

Rick Miller, MPA
City Clerk / Administrator
City of Fountain Valley
714-593-4445
-----Original Message-----
From: PAMELA TANSEY <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2024 3:33 PM
To: Rick Miller <[email protected]>
Subject: Objecting to 8550 Warner Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Rick ,
I am vehemently opposed to this proposed project of high density apartment dwellings right around the corner from where I have lived for 35 years Harbor intersecting Edinger at New Chase Condos. We have 164 units in a 2 story complex.

I have noticed traffic the last several years have exponentially increased in our city to the point where it is impossible to make turns going north between the hours of 3 and 6 PM and these new projects are only going to make this worse so I am opposed to this project and I’m also opposed to the project at Euclid & HIEL high-rise high density condos! Why can’t we just have a limit on the height? I think two or three stories is plenty. There’s no reason to continue this massive upheaval of our city.

Please cast my opposition. Thank you.
;-) Pamela Tansey
Live Life Gently

Page 533 ends

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

From: Crystal Leng
To: Steven Ayers
Subject: Parkside Fountain Valley project
Date: Thursday, March 28, 2024 2:47:27 PM
Dear Steven Ayers,
I am writing to express my objection to the Parkside Fountain Valley project. It is my understanding that it is a high density 72 unit apartment building which will house approximately 200 residents.

I am deeply concerned about the impact on traffic in the area. Warner is a street that already receives plenty of traffic, especially during peak hours. It is almost impossible to turn left coming from Bressel to Warner. An additional 200+ cars on this street would not be moving towards the right direction. Due to the fact that the traffic situation is already less than ideal, I believe that this street is not the place to build a high density apartment building.

Westmont Park, which is adjacent to the proposed site of the new building, will also be affected. As of right now, many parts of it are already filled with litter and are run down. It cannot handle serving another 200+ residents on a daily basis due to the lack of maintenance.

In addition, as a resident that lives nearby the site of the proposed project, I am deeply concerned with the noise and environmental implications which may result from the construction. The air quality, noise, and gases which are emitted from such a project will deeply effect the elderly and young children around the area.

This street is not the place to build a high density apartment building. The traffic will worsen, quality of life for the current residents will be impacted, and deterioration of the surrounding areas will occur.

I urge you to reconsider your decision and take my objection into account. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Crystal Leng

Page 534 ends

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

From: Bill Ho
To: Steven Ayers
Subject: Objection to Parkside Fountain Valley Project
Date: Thursday, March 28, 2024 3:02:50 PM
Dear Mr. Steven Ayers,
I am writing to express my objection to the Parkside Fountain Valley project. It is my understanding that it is a high density 72 unit apartment building which will house approximately 200 residents.

I am deeply concerned about the impact on traffic in the area. Warner Ave. is a street that already receives plenty of traffic, especially during peak hours. It is almost impossible to turn left coming from Bressel Ln. to Warner Ave. An additional 200+ cars on this street would not be moving towards the right direction. Due to the fact that the traffic situation is already less than ideal, I believe that this street is not the place to build a high density apartment building.

In addition, as a resident that lives nearby the site of the proposed project, I am deeply concerned with the noise and environmental implications which may result from the construction. The air quality, noise, and gases which are emitted from such a project will deeply affect the elderly and young children around the area.

I urge you to reconsider your decision and take my objection into account. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Bill Ho

Page 535 ends

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

From: Mayela Bragg
To: Steven Ayers; Rick Miller
Subject: Regarding 8550 warner ave construction
Date: Friday, April 26, 2024 8:07:58 PM
Dear Mr. Ayers & Mr. Miller,
I am a homeowner in Fountain Valley, specifically the Tamura Track neighborhood. I am writing to express my concerns regarding the Parkside Fountain Valley high density apartment buildings construction project. I am opposed to this new development because of the negative impact it will have on my property value as well as the increased traffic and noise the new development will bring to the area.

I am very concerned and would NOT like this project to continue.

Respectfully,
Mayela Bragg

Page 536 ends

From: Cheyenne Clark
To: Ryannaglich; Connie Clark; Guenevere Clark
Cc: Rick Miller; Kim Constantine; Steven Ayers; [email protected]; Ted Bui; Jim Cunneen; [email protected]
Subject: Parkside Fountain Valley objection
Date: Friday, June 7, 2024 2:19:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

I am notifying my objection to the building of project Parkside Fountain Valley at 8550 Warner Ave.

Thank you,
Cheyenne Naglich
Sent from my iPhone

Page 537 ends

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

From: [email protected]
To: Kim Constantine
Cc: Rick Miller; Kim Constantine; Steven Ayers; [email protected]; Ted Bui; Jim Cunneen; Patrick Harper
Subject: Re: Parkside Fountain Valley objection
Date: Friday, June 7, 2024 3:17:52 PM
I want to object of the building of Parkside Fountain Valley. These small businesses would get taken down so big cooperations can make money. I don’t know if you’re familiar with the area but Warner is a highly traveled street so adding 72+ tenants to an already busy area would congest this area like no other. Also, I have a daughter and a family filled with women, I’d rather not have the potential for people to peer down in our backyard.

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Friday, June 7, 2024, 2:19 PM, Cheyenne Clark <[email protected]> wrote:

I am notifying my objection to the building of project Parkside Fountain Valley at 8550 Warner Ave.

Thank you,
Cheyenne Naglich
Sent from my iPhone

Page 538 ends

From: Connie Clark
To: Steven Ayers; Rick Miller
Cc: Kim Constantine; Ted Bui; Jim Cunneen
Subject: Apartment Building at 8550 Warner Avenue — project Parkside Fountain Valley Date: Tuesday, June 11, 2024 5:21:04 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

This email is to register my strong opposition to the planned apartment building referenced above. My house is on Santa Isabel St. It is inconceivable to me that you would consider building a multi-story building in that tiny space overlooking my backyard which would virtually destroy the Tamara neighborhood, my house, as well as the others on my street. Pure insanity!
I hope you will stop this project asap.

A suggestion, given the name it might make more sense to build it on Mile Square Park.

Sincerely,
Constance Clark
Sent from my iPhone

Page 539 ends

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

From: [email protected]
To: Steven Ayers; Kim Constantine; Ted Bui; Jim Cunneen; Glenn Grandis; Patrick Harper Subject: Parkside Fountain Valley project
Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 2:01:25 PM
Greetings,
I am writing to address the construction of this high density housing project at 8550 Warner Avenue, extremely close to my home.

I understand the need to build more housing and do not object to that entirely, but would like to know how the increased traffic will be addressed. Turning left from Bressel Lane to Warner Avenue is already quite challenging. With 72 added units across the street, it will be nearly impossible. I anticipate that I will need to switch grocery shopping from Smart & Final to Stater Bros., so I can turn right instead of left. And if I want to take the 405 south, I’ll have to U-turn at Newland.

Have you considered protected turning lanes similar to those in front of Ocean View High School? That might be worth exploring.

Thank you for considering my opinion.

Jean Lombardo, Resident for 36+ years at 16962 Bressel Ln, HB

Page 540 ends

From: Charles Baker
To: Steven Ayers
Subject: 8550 Warner Avenue project information...

Date: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 5:01:03 PM
Hi Steven,
Thanks for receiving my email regarding the 72 unit apartment building that is planning to be built behind my house. The commercial property at 8550 Warner Avenue I heard was going to be re-zoned to put in a 72 unit apartment complex. Could you have a meeting, and include me, to discuss this proposed project, what stage in the planning it is at, and allow discussions with the existing residents that will be impacted by the change of use of this property.

Thanks again,
Eddie Baker
714-655-0001
[email protected]

Page 541 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 26-07

A RESOLUTION OF THE FOUNTAIN VALLEY PLANNING

COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 23-01 TO CHANGE THE

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION FROM

GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 436 TO CHANGE THE ZONING
MAP DESIGNATION FROM C1-LOCAL BUSINESS TO R4-HIGH
DENSITY MULTIPLE DWELLING FOR THE 72-UNIT PARKSIDE
FV DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON A 2.119-ACRE SITE AT 8850

WARNER AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application for General Plan Amendment No. 23-01 (“GPA 23-01”) to change the General Plan Land Use Map Designation from General Commercial to High Density Residential and Zoning Map Amendment No. 436 (“ZMA 436”) to change the Zoning Map Designation from C1-Local Business to R4-High Density Multiple Dwelling was submitted by Robert Franklin (“Applicant”), on behalf of FV Center, LP, for the 72-unit Parkside FV development located on a 2.119-acre site at 8550 Warner Avenue (“Project”); and WHEREAS, FV Center, LP (“Owner”), is the owner of the Site at 8550 Warner Avenue (APN # 167-361-17), which is formally described in the legal description attached hereto as “Exhibit A” (“Site”); and
WHEREAS, the Fountain Valley Planning Commission considered said application at its noticed public hearing on March 25, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the City has complied with the requirements of the Government Code Section 65300 et seq., the current State of California General Plan Guidelines, and the City’s applicable ordinances with respect to review and consideration of the proposed Project, including the General Plan and Zoning Map Amendments (together “Amendments”); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission also considered Precise Plan No. 577 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1929 in a separate action, as contained in Resolution 26-06, at its noticed public hearing on March 25, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the Fountain Valley Planning Commission considered GPA 23-01 and ZMA 436 at its noticed public hearing on March 25, 2026; and WHEREAS, testimony was received from the public regarding the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all evidence and testimony read at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on March 25, 2026, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 4-1, recommended that the City Council deny GPA 23-01 and ZMA 436 and directed Staff to return with a resolution memorializing the denial; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the proposed GPA 23-01 and ZMA 436 are not consistent with the Fountain Valley General Plan.

Page 542 ends

Resolution No. 26-07

Page 2 of 6 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1
The Planning Commission finds that due notice of the public hearing in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 10200 Slater Avenue, was given as required by the FVMC, Title 21, and the Statutes of the State of California.

SECTION 2
Pursuant to CEQA Section 15270, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.

SECTION 3
Findings and Supporting Facts: The Planning Commission finds that the Project meets the criteria for a General Plan Map Amendment, a Zoning Map Amendment, and a Code Amendment found in Chapter 21.34 of the FVMC as follows:

1. The proposed Amendments ensure and maintain internal consistency with the actions, goals, objectives and policies of the general plan, and would not create any inconsistencies with this title, in the case of a title amendment.

The proposed Project would fail to meet the General Plan Goal LU-1 – An arrangement of compatible land uses that protects and maintains attractive and safe neighborhoods while promoting dynamic activity centers and preserving conventional commercial and industrial uses by failing to meet Policy LU-1.1 and Policy LU-1.2 as noted below.

The proposed Project would fail to meet Policy LU-1.1 of General Plan Goal LU-1: Land Use compatibility and viability – Require that new development is located, scaled, buffered, and designed to minimize negative impacts on existing conforming uses and adjacent neighborhoods. Require that new residential developments are located, scaled, buffered, and designed so as to not hinder the economic viability and continuity of areas planned for nonresidential uses.

Also, the proposed Project would fail to meet Policy LU-1.2 of General Plan Goal LU-1:

Land Use Plan consistency – Consider proposed development that is consistent with the Land Use Plan (i.e., it does not require a change in Land Use Designations), to be generally compatible and consistent with surrounding land uses and a community’s identity.

Additionally, the proposed Project would fail to meet the General Plan Goal LU-3 – Neighborhoods, places, and buildings that are well maintained, demonstrate pride and reinvestment, and reinforce a sense of community by failing to meet Policy LU-3.2 as noted below.

The proposed Project would fail to meet Policy LU-3.2 of General Plan Goal LU-3: Scale and character – Ensure that all new development is compatible with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhoods in Fountain Valley.

Page 543 ends

Resolution No. 26-07

Page 3 of 6 ends

The proximity of the Project to, and proposed high density of the Project, would not be compatible with the surrounding low density single-family residential uses, would provide too much of a drastic transition between adjacent land use density (low density residential immediately adjacent to high density residential), and would not be designed to minimize negative impacts on existing conforming uses and adjacent neighborhoods. The proposed change in land use from commercial to high density residential would negatively affect the economic viability and continuity of the site, an area planned for nonresidential uses. Additionally, the Project would not be consistent with the established Land Use Plan and would therefore not be compatible and consistent with surrounding land uses and the community’s identity. Also, the scale and character of the Project would not be compatible with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhoods which are comprised of one-story low density single-family homes with second story elements to the south, a one-story low density single-family home neighborhood in the City of Huntington Beach to the north with only 7 out of 37 homes with second story elements, and commercial uses to the west.

Lastly, the Project Site is not listed as an opportunity site in the Housing Element to meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation of 4,839 units within the 2021-2029 Planning Period. The development of the Housing Element, including the inclusion of the opportunity sites to help the city meet its RHNA target, began in 2019 and concluded on October 4, 2022, when the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9853 approving the 2021-2029 Housing Element. When the Proposed Project was submitted to the city under a preliminary review application on August 15, 2022, selection and analysis of the opportunity sites had already been completed.

Rezoning a property for housing that is not listed as an opportunity site or within the sites inventory of a city’s approved Housing Element presents significant challenges as there is no “by-right” path to approval, the Zoning and General Plan changes are subject to City Council discretion, and the proposed change disrupts the city's pre-approved plan for meeting RHNA requirements. The existing Housing Element sufficiently plans for the RHNA Allocation of 4,839 units without the Project. The Housing Element of the Fountain Valley General Plan identifies and establishes the City's strategy for the maintenance and development of housing to meet the needs of existing and future residents. Within the Housing Element, nine (9) opportunity sites are identified to help reach the City’s RHNA allocation of 4,839 units. Additionally, with State HCD’s blessing, within the approved RHNA allocation, the city has planned for 384 accessory dwelling units. As of April 1, 2026, there have been 290 ADU’s built and the city anticipates reaching the projected number of ADU’s by the end of next year, much earlier than anticipated by 2029. Therefore, sufficient planning and growth toward achieving the RHNA allocation by 2029 has been addressed. Additionally, AB 1397 (2017) restricts the re-use of “opportunity sites” from previous planning periods if they were not developed with housing. Also, SB 166 requires that a jurisdiction maintain adequate sites to meet their RHNA at all times. If a site fails to develop, the municipality must find a replacement site to meet their requirements. For all these reasons, the city wishes to promote development of the sites that are identified as opportunity sites in the Housing Element and not promote development of sites that are not identified as opportunity sites in the Housing Element.

2. The proposed Amendments would not be detrimental to the public convenience, health, interest, safety or welfare of the city.

Page 544 ends

Resolution No. 26-07

Page 4 of 6 ends

The proposed project would be detrimental to the welfare of the adjacent properties. The proximity of the Project to, and proposed high density of the Project, would not be compatible with the surrounding low density single-family residential uses, would provide too much of a drastic transition between adjacent land use density (low density residential immediately adjacent to high density residential), and would not be designed to minimize negative impacts on existing conforming uses and adjacent neighborhoods. The proposed change in land use from commercial to high density residential would negatively affect the economic viability and continuity of the site, an area planned for nonresidential uses. Additionally, the Project would not be consistent with the established Land Use Plan and would therefore not be compatible and consistent with surrounding land uses and the community’s identity. Also, the scale and character of the Project would not be compatible with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhoods which are comprised of one-story low density single-family homes with second story elements to the south, a one-story low density single-family home neighborhood in the City of Huntington Beach to the north with only 7 out of 37 homes with second story elements, and commercial uses to the west.

3. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the city’s environmental review procedures.

Pursuant to CEQA Section 15270, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.

4. Additional Finding for Zoning Map Amendments. The site(s) is/are physically suitable (including access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and absence of physical constraints) for the requested zoning designation(s) and anticipated land use development(s).

Although public access, facilities, and utilities would be adequately provided to the Project as depicted in the MND, the subject site would not physically be suitable for the type and density/intensity of the use being proposed and therefore would not be compatible with adjoining land uses. The proximity of the Project to, and proposed high density of the Project, would not be compatible with the surrounding low density singlefamily residential uses, would provide too much of a drastic transition between adjacent land use density (low density residential immediately adjacent to high density residential), and would not be designed to minimize negative impacts on existing conforming uses and adjacent neighborhoods. The proposed change in land use from commercial to high density residential would negatively affect the economic viability and continuity of the site, an area planned for nonresidential uses. Additionally, the Project would not be consistent with the established Land Use Plan and would therefore not be compatible and consistent with surrounding land uses and the community’s identity. Also, the scale and character of the Project would not be compatible with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhoods which are comprised of one-story low density single-family homes with second story elements to the south, a one-story low density single-family home neighborhood in the City of Huntington Beach to the north with only 7 out of 37 homes with second story elements, and commercial uses to the west.

SECTION 4
The Planning Commission finds that the Amendments noted in GPA 23-01 and ZMA 436 are

Page 545 ends

Resolution No. 26-07

Page 5 of 6 ends

not consistent with the Fountain Valley Municipal Code, as well as the Fountain Valley General Plan.

SECTION 5

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, PURSUANT TO THE ABOVE FINDINGS, that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council deny General Plan Amendment No. 23-01 to change the General Plan Land Use Map Designation from General Commercial to High Density Residential and Zoning Map Amendment No. 436 to change the Zoning Map Designation from C1-Local Business to R4-High Density Multiple Dwelling for the 72-unit Parkside FV development located on a 2.119-acre site at 8550 Warner Avenue.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 ______________________________ ______________________________ Chairman Secretary
ATTACHED: “EXHIBIT A”

Page 546 ends

Resolution No. 26-07

Page 6 of 6 ends

Exhibit A
Legal Description
A.P.N.: 167-361-17
The Land referred to herein below is situated in the City of Fountain Valley, County of Orange, State of California, and is described as follows:

PARCEL NO. 1, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 131, PAGES 46 AND 47 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM AN UNDIVIDED ONE-HALF INTEREST IN ALL OIL, GAS, MINERALS, AND HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES LYING BELOW A DEPTH OF 500 FEET

FROM THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND, BUT WITHOUT THE RIGHT OF ENTRY UPON ANY

PORTION OF THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND FOR REMOVING OR MARKETING SAID SUBSTANCES, AS RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM C.C. BREADING AND WIFE, RECORDED JULY 15, 1955 IN BOOK 3139, PAGE 583, OFFICIAL RECORDS.

Page 547 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 26-06

A RESOLUTION OF THE FOUNTAIN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING PRECISE PLAN NO. 577 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1929 TO CONSTRUCT A 72-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX DEVELOPMENT IN A NEW 76,076 SQUARE FOOT THREE-STORY BUILDING AND AN 800

SQUARE FOOT ONE-STORY CLUBHOUSE BUILDING AND SURFACE

PARKING LOT FOR THE PARKSIDE FV DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON A

2.119-ACRE SITE AT 8550 WARNER AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application for Precise Plan No. 577 (“PP 577”) and Conditional Use Permit No. 1929 (“CUP 1929”) was submitted by Robert Franklin (“Applicant”), on behalf of FV Center, LP, to construct a 72-unit apartment complex development in a new 76,076 square foot three-story building and an 800 square foot one-story clubhouse building and surface parking lot for the Parkside FV development located on a 2.119-acre site at 8550 Warner Avenue (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, FV Center, LP (“Owner”), is the owner of the Site at 8550 Warner Avenue (APN # 167-361-17), which is formally described in the legal description attached hereto as “Exhibit A” (“Site”); and
WHEREAS, the Fountain Valley Planning Commission considered said application at its noticed public hearing on March 25, 2026; and
WHEREAS, testimony was received from the public regarding the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all evidence and testimony read at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on March 25, 2026, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 4-1, denied Precise Plan No. 577 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1929 and directed Staff to return with a resolution memorializing the denial; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the proposed Precise Plan and Conditional Use Permit are not consistent with the Fountain Valley General Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1
The Planning Commission finds that due notice of the public hearings in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 10200 Slater Avenue, was given as required by the Fountain Valley Municipal Code (FVMC), Title 21, and the Statutes of the State of California.

Page 548 ends

Resolution No. 26-06

Page 2 of 11 ends

SECTION 2
Findings and Supporting Facts: In order to approve a Precise Plan, the Planning Commission must find that the following findings of fact can be made in a positive manner:

1. The design and layout of the proposed development would:
a. Be consistent with the actions, goals, objectives, and policies of the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and the development and design standards/guidelines of the C1 zoning district.

The proposed Project would fail to meet Policy LU-1.1 of General Plan Goal LU-1:

Land Use compatibility and viability – Require that new development is located, scaled, buffered, and designed to minimize negative impacts on existing conforming uses and adjacent neighborhoods. Require that new residential developments are located, scaled, buffered, and designed so as to not hinder the economic viability and continuity of areas planned for nonresidential uses.

Also, the proposed Project would fail to meet Policy LU-1.2 of General Plan Goal LU-1: Land Use Plan consistency – Consider proposed development that is consistent with the Land Use Plan (i.e., it does not require a change in Land Use Designations), to be generally compatible and consistent with surrounding land uses and a community’s identity.

The proposed Project would fail to meet Policy LU-3.2 of General Plan Goal LU-3:

Scale and character – Ensure that all new development is compatible with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhoods in Fountain Valley.

Page 549 ends

Resolution No. 26-06

Page 3 of 11 ends

therefore not be compatible and consistent with surrounding land uses and the community’s identity. Also, the scale and character of the Project would not be compatible with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhoods which are comprised of one-story low density single-family homes with second story elements to the south, a one-story low density single-family home neighborhood in the City of Huntington Beach to the north with only 7 out of 37 homes with second story elements, and commercial uses to the west.

Page 550 ends

Resolution No. 26-06

Page 4 of 11 ends

(low density residential immediately adjacent to high density residential), and would not be designed to minimize negative impacts on existing conforming uses and adjacent neighborhoods. The proposed change in land use from commercial to high density residential would negatively affect the economic viability and continuity of the site, an area planned for nonresidential uses. Additionally, the Project would not be consistent with the established Land Use Plan and would therefore not be compatible and consistent with surrounding land uses and the community’s identity. Also, the scale and character of the Project would not be compatible with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhoods which are comprised of one-story low density single-family homes with second story elements to the south, a one-story low density single-family home neighborhood in the City of Huntington Beach to the north with only 7 out of 37 homes with second story elements, and commercial uses to the west. As noted in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Project, the Project would not create any traffic or pedestrian hazards. The Project is anticipated to generate 31 am peak hour trips and 37 pm peak hour trips and a total of 471 average daily traffic.

Additionally, the Project is screened from VMT as it is located within a low VMT generating area. Additionally, the Project will include the relocation of the nearby bus stop 115 feet east to directly in front of the Project. With that said, public testimony and Planning Commissions concerns noted that Project traffic was still a concern. The reasons indicated above would interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or future developments, and may create traffic or pedestrian hazards.
c. Provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good/proper aesthetic use of materials, texture and color, and would remain aesthetically appealing and retain an appropriate level of maintenance.

The proposed Project would use a variety of building materials and the proposed architecture of the Project would be fully finished on all elevations of the buildings.

2. The architectural design of the proposed structure(s) would be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and would maintain and enhance the attractive, harmonious, and orderly development contemplated by the actions, goals, objectives, and policies of the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and this chapter.

The proposed Project would involve the demolition of a 18,782 square foot building and site area that would be replaced with a new 76,076 square foot three-story building, and an 800 square foot one-story clubhouse building, and site improvements.

Although a new contemporary architectural design is proposed for the property, the scale of the Project would not comply with General Plan Policy LU-1.1 of General Plan Goal LU-1: Land Use compatibility and viability, Policy LU-1.2 of General Plan Goal LU-1: Land Use Plan consistency, and General Plan Policy LU-3.2 of General Plan Goal LU-3: Scale and character. The proximity of the Project to, and proposed high density of the Project, would not be compatible with the surrounding low density singlefamily residential uses, would provide too much of a drastic transition between

Page 551 ends

Resolution No. 26-06

Page 5 of 11 ends

adjacent land use density (low density residential immediately adjacent to high density residential), and would not be designed to minimize negative impacts on existing conforming uses and adjacent neighborhoods. The proposed change in land use from commercial to high density residential would negatively affect the economic viability and continuity of the site, an area planned for nonresidential uses. Additionally, the Project would not be consistent with the established Land Use Plan and would therefore not be compatible and consistent with surrounding land uses and the community’s identity. Also, the scale and character of the Project would not be compatible with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhoods which are comprised of one-story low density single-family homes with second story elements to the south, a one-story low density single-family home neighborhood in the City of Huntington Beach to the north with only 7 out of 37 homes with second story elements, and commercial uses to the west.

3. The proposed development would not:
a. Be detrimental to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the immediate vicinity.

Additionally, the Project would not be consistent with the established Land Use Plan and would therefore not be compatible and consistent with surrounding land uses and the community’s identity. Also, the scale and character of the Project would not be compatible with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhoods which are comprised of one-story low density single-family homes with second story elements to the south, a one-story low density single-family home neighborhood in the City of Huntington Beach to the north with only 7 out of 37 homes with second story elements, and commercial uses to the west. b. Substantially depreciate property values in the immediate vicinity or interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the surrounding neighborhood, because of excessive dissimilarity or inappropriateness of design in relation to the surrounding neighborhood.

Property values of the single-family homes to the south could potentially suffer due to the change in land use and density of the Project. The proposed Project would not be consistent with General Plan Policy LU-1.1 of General Plan Goal LU-1: Land Use compatibility and viability, Policy LU-1.2 of General Plan Goal LU-1: Land Use Plan consistency, and and General Plan Policy LU-3.2 of General Plan Goal LU3: Scale and character. The proximity of the Project to, and proposed high density

Page 552 ends

Resolution No. 26-06

Page 6 of 11 ends

of the Project, would not be compatible with the surrounding low density singlefamily residential uses, would provide too much of a drastic transition between adjacent land use density (low density residential immediately adjacent to high density residential), and would not be designed to minimize negative impacts on existing conforming uses and adjacent neighborhoods. The proposed change in land use from commercial to high density residential would negatively affect the economic viability and continuity of the site, an area planned for nonresidential uses. Additionally, the Project would not be consistent with the established Land Use Plan and would therefore not be compatible and consistent with surrounding land uses and the community’s identity. Also, the scale and character of the Project would not be compatible with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhoods which are comprised of one-story low density single-family homes with second story elements to the south, a one-story low density single-family home neighborhood in the City of Huntington Beach to the north with only 7 out of 37 homes with second story elements, and commercial uses to the west.

4. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s Environmental Review Procedures.

Pursuant to CEQA Section 15270, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.

SECTION 3
Findings and Supporting Facts: - In order to approve a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following findings of fact can be made in a positive manner:

1. The proposed use is allowed within the respective zoning district with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Municipal Code.

The proposed project includes entitlement applications to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from General Commercial to High Density Residential through General Plan Amendment No. 23-01 (“GPA 23-01”) and amend the Zoning Map from C1-Local Business to R4-High Density Multiple Dwelling through Zoning Map Amendment No. 436 (“ZMA 436”). With the approval of these entitlements, the proposed use of multifamily dwellings is an allowed use in the R4 zoning district subject to the Planning Commission’s approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Without the approval of GPA 23- 01 and ZMA 436, the proposed use is not permitted in the C1 zone.

2. The proposed use is consistent with the actions, goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.

Page 553 ends

Resolution No. 26-06

Page 7 of 11 ends

The proposed Project would fail to meet Policy LU-1.1 of General Plan Goal LU-1:

Also, the proposed Project would fail to meet Policy LU-1.2 of General Plan Goal LU1: Land Use Plan consistency – Consider proposed development that is consistent with the Land Use Plan (i.e., it does not require a change in Land Use Designations), to be generally compatible and consistent with surrounding land uses and a community’s identity.

The proposed Project would fail to meet Policy LU-3.2 of General Plan Goal LU-3:

Scale and character – Ensure that all new development is compatible with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhoods in Fountain Valley.

The proximity of the Project to, and proposed high density of the Project, would not be compatible with the surrounding low density single-family residential uses, would provide too much of a drastic transition between adjacent land use density (low density residential immediately adjacent to high density residential), and would not be designed to minimize negative impacts on existing conforming uses and adjacent neighborhoods. The proposed change in land use from commercial to high density residential would negatively affect the economic viability and continuity of the site, an area planned for nonresidential uses. Additionally, the Project would not be consistent with the established Land Use Plan and would therefore not be compatible and consistent with surrounding land uses and the community’s identity. Also, the scale and character of the Project would not be compatible with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhoods which are comprised of one-story low density singlefamily homes with second story elements to the south, a one-story low density singlefamily home neighborhood in the City of Huntington Beach to the north with only 7 out of 37 homes with second story elements, and commercial uses to the west.

Page 554 ends

Resolution No. 26-06

Page 8 of 11 ends

Rezoning a property for housing that is not listed as an opportunity site or within the sites inventory of a city’s approved Housing Element presents significant challenges as there is no “by-right” path to approval, the Zoning and General Plan changes are subject to City Council discretion, and the proposed change disrupts the city's preapproved plan for meeting RHNA requirements. The existing Housing Element sufficiently plans for the RHNA Allocation of 4,839 units without the Project. The Housing Element of the Fountain Valley General Plan identifies and establishes the City's strategy for the maintenance and development of housing to meet the needs of existing and future residents. Within the Housing Element, nine (9) opportunity sites are identified to help reach the City’s RHNA allocation of 4,839 units. Additionally, with State HCD’s blessing, within the approved RHNA allocation, the city has planned for 384 accessory dwelling units. As of April 1, 2026, there have been 290 ADU’s built and the city anticipates reaching the projected number of ADU’s by the end of next year, much earlier than anticipated by 2029. Therefore, sufficient planning and growth toward achieving the RHNA allocation by 2029 has been addressed. Additionally, AB 1397 (2017) restricts the re-use of “opportunity sites” from previous planning periods if they were not developed with housing. Also, SB 166 requires that a jurisdiction maintain adequate sites to meet their RHNA at all times. If a site fails to develop, the municipality must find a replacement site to meet their requirements. For all these reasons, the city wishes to promote development of the sites that are identified as opportunity sites in the Housing Element and not promote development of sites that are not identified as opportunity sites in the Housing Element.

3. The design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity.

The design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use would not be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. The proximity of the Project to, and proposed high density of the Project, would not be compatible with the surrounding low density single-family residential uses, would provide too much of a drastic transition between adjacent land use density (low density residential immediately adjacent to high density residential), and would not be designed to minimize negative impacts on existing conforming uses and adjacent neighborhoods. The proposed change in land use from commercial to high density residential would negatively affect the economic viability and continuity of the site, an area planned for nonresidential uses. Additionally, the Project would not be consistent with the established Land Use Plan and would therefore not be compatible and consistent with surrounding land uses and the community’s identity. Also, the scale and character of the Project would not be compatible with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhoods which are comprised of one-story low density singlefamily homes with second story elements to the south, a one-story low density singlefamily home neighborhood in the City of Huntington Beach to the north with only 7 out of 37 homes with second story elements, and commercial uses to the west.

4. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed including the provision of public access (e.g., width and pavement type), facilities, and utilities (e.g., drainage, fire protection, sewers, water), shape, size, the absence of physical constraints, and compatibility with adjoining land uses.

Page 555 ends

Resolution No. 26-06

Page 9 of 11 ends

Although public access, facilities, and utilities would be adequately provided to the Project as depicted in the MND, the subject site would not physically be suitable for the type and density/intensity of the use being proposed and therefore would not be compatible with adjoining land uses. The proximity of the Project to, and proposed high density of the Project, would not be compatible with the surrounding low density single-family residential uses, would provide too much of a drastic transition between adjacent land use density (low density residential immediately adjacent to high density residential), and would not be designed to minimize negative impacts on existing conforming uses and adjacent neighborhoods. The proposed change in land use from commercial to high density residential would negatively affect the economic viability and continuity of the site, an area planned for nonresidential uses. Additionally, the Project would not be consistent with the established Land Use Plan and would therefore not be compatible and consistent with surrounding land uses and the community’s identity. Also, the scale and character of the Project would not be compatible with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhoods which are comprised of one-story low density single-family homes with second story elements to the south, a one-story low density single-family home neighborhood in the City of Huntington Beach to the north with only 7 out of 37 homes with second story elements, and commercial uses to the west.

5. Granting the Conditional Use Permit would not be detrimental to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or welfare, or injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located.

The proposed project would be detrimental to the welfare of the adjacent properties.

The proximity of the Project to, and proposed high density of the Project, would not be compatible with the surrounding low density single-family residential uses, would provide too much of a drastic transition between adjacent land use density (low density residential immediately adjacent to high density residential), and would not be designed to minimize negative impacts on existing conforming uses and adjacent neighborhoods. The proposed change in land use from commercial to high density residential would negatively affect the economic viability and continuity of the site, an area planned for nonresidential uses. Additionally, the Project would not be consistent with the established Land Use Plan and would therefore not be compatible and consistent with surrounding land uses and the community’s identity. Also, the scale and character of the Project would not be compatible with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhoods which are comprised of one-story low density singlefamily homes with second story elements to the south, a one-story low density singlefamily home neighborhood in the City of Huntington Beach to the north with only 7 out of 37 homes with second story elements, and commercial uses to the west.

6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s Environmental Review Procedures.

Pursuant to CEQA Section 15270, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.

Page 556 ends

Resolution No. 26-06

Page 10 of 11 ends

7. By signing this Resolution, the applicant has demonstrated his/her understanding of the conditions imposed in the Conditional Use Permit granted to him/her and has agreed on the record to abide by those conditions.

Not applicable. There are no conditions of approval for this denial of the Precise Plan No. 577 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1929.

SECTION 4
The Planning Commission hereby denies Precise Plan No. 577 and Conditional Use Permit No.1929 to construct a 72-unit apartment complex development in a new 76,076 square foot three-story building and an 800 square foot one-story clubhouse building and surface parking lot for the Parkside FV development located on a 2.119-acre site at 8550 Warner Avenue.

DENIED ON THIS 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
______________________________ ________________________________ Chairman Secretary
ATTACHED: “EXHIBIT A”

Page 557 ends

Resolution No. 26-06

Page 11 of 11 ends

Exhibit A
Legal Description
A.P.N.: 167-361-17
The Land referred to herein below is situated in the City of Fountain Valley, County of Orange, State of California, and is described as follows:

PARCEL NO. 1, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 131, PAGES 46 AND 47 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM AN UNDIVIDED ONE-HALF INTEREST IN ALL OIL, GAS, MINERALS, AND HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES LYING BELOW A DEPTH OF 500 FEET

FROM THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND, BUT WITHOUT THE RIGHT OF ENTRY UPON ANY

PORTION OF THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND FOR REMOVING OR MARKETING SAID SUBSTANCES, AS RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM C.C. BREADING AND WIFE, RECORDED JULY 15, 1955 IN BOOK 3139, PAGE 583, OFFICIAL RECORDS.

Page 558 ends

Page 559 ends

Page 560 ends

Page 561 ends

Page 562 ends

Page 563 ends

Page 564 ends

Page 565 ends

Page 566 ends

Page 567 ends

Page 568 ends

Page 569 ends

Page 570 ends

Page 571 ends

Page 572 ends

Page 573 ends

RESOLUTION NO. ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 23-01 TO

CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION FROM

GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND
DENYING ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 436 TO CHANGE THE
ZONING MAP DESIGNATION FROM C1-LOCAL BUSINESS TO R4-HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE DWELLING FOR THE 72-UNIT PARKSIDE FV
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON A 2.119-ACRE SITE AT 8550 WARNER AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application for General Plan Amendment No. 23-01 (“GPA 23-01”) to change the General Plan Land Use Map Designation from General Commercial to High Density Residential and Zoning Map Amendment No. 436 (“ZMA 436”) to change the Zoning Map Designation from C1-Local Business to R4-High Density Multiple Dwelling was submitted by Robert Franklin (“Applicant”), on behalf of FV Center, LP, for the 72-unit Parkside FV development located on a 2.119-acre site at 8550 Warner Avenue (“Project”); and WHEREAS, FV Center, LP (“Owner”), is the owner of the Site at 8550 Warner Avenue (APN # 167-361-17), which is formally described in the legal description attached hereto as “Exhibit A” (“Site”); and
WHEREAS, the Fountain Valley Planning Commission considered GPA 23-01 and ZMA 436 at its noticed public hearing on March 25, 2026; and WHEREAS, the City has complied with the requirements of the Government Code Section 65300 et seq., the current State of California General Plan Guidelines, and the City’s applicable ordinances with respect to review and consideration of the proposed Project, including the General Plan and Zoning Map Amendments (together “Amendments”); and WHEREAS, testimony was received from the public regarding the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all evidence and testimony read at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on March 25, 2026, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 4- 1, recommended that the City Council deny GPA 23-01 and ZMA 436 and directed Staff to return with a resolution memorializing the recommendation for denial; and WHEREAS, on April 8, 2026, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 2-1-1, approved Resolution No. 26-07 recommending that the City Council deny GPA 23-01 and ZMA 436; and WHEREAS, in accordance with FVMC 21.60, on April 20, 2026, Applicant filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s adoption of Resolution No. 26-07 recommending the City Council deny GPA 23-01 and ZMA 436 as well as the Planning Commission’s adoption of Resolution No. 26-06 to deny Precise Plan No. 577 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1929; and WHEREAS, per FVMC 21.32.020 General Plan Amendments and Zoning Map Amendments are subject to final review by the City Council, and the Planning Commission’s

Page 574 ends

action on those entitlements was a recommendation only; however, the City Council has considered the applicant’s appeal arguments regarding GPA 23-01 and ZMA 436 as part of its de novo review of the full Project and requested entitlements; and WHEREAS, the Site is currently designated General Commercial under the General Plan and zoned C1-Local Business, and multifamily residential development is not permitted on the Site unless the City Council approves GPA 23-01 and ZMA 436; and WHEREAS, the requested entitlements are interdependent because denial of GPA 23- 01 and ZMA 436 would leave the proposed residential use inconsistent with the existing General Plan land use designation and zoning, and PP 577 and CUP 1929 could not be approved for the proposed multifamily residential Project; and
WHEREAS, the Project Site is not identified as a Housing Element opportunity site and is not included in the City’s adopted Housing Element sites inventory for meeting the City’s 2021–2029 RHNA allocation; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Housing Element identifies a separate strategy for accommodating RHNA through identified sites, ADU assumptions, inclusionary housing, and other programs, and HCD has notified the City that it has completed the rezoning requirements of Programs 1a and 1e of the 6th Cycle Housing Element; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered that the Project includes 10 deed-restricted very-low-income units and requests density bonus benefits, including concessions and application of state parking ratios; however, the City Council finds that the Density Bonus Law request does not independently require approval of an applicant-initiated General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment for a site where the proposed residential use is not currently permitted; and
WHEREAS, the City Council also considered the applicant’s state housing-law arguments, including any asserted Housing Accountability Act concerns, and finds that the City is not denying an otherwise permitted residential use based on subjective preferences, but is instead determining whether to approve discretionary legislative amendments and whether the required FVMC findings can be made for a commercial site outside the Housing Element sites inventory; and
WHEREAS, per FVMC 21.60.050(c), an appeal hearing was set within 45 days of the filing of the appeal; and
WHEREAS, the appeal was heard before the City Council of the City of Fountain Valley at a duly noticed public hearing on June 2, 2026; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to FVMC section 21.60.050(f), the City Council’s review of the appeal is de novo, and the City Council may consider any issue associated with the appeal, in addition to the specific grounds for the appeal; and
WHEREAS, the City Council independently considered the full administrative record, including the Planning Commission proceedings, the staff report, the applicant’s appeal materials, the Project plans, the environmental documentation, public testimony, written comments, and all evidence submitted before and during the public hearing; and

Page 575 ends

WHEREAS, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were prepared for the Project and included in the administrative record, and the City Council considered the environmental documentation as part of its review; however, because the City Council is denying the Project and requested entitlements, CEQA Guidelines section 15270 applies and the City Council is not required to adopt the MND or MMRP or make CEQA findings approving the environmental document; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Fountain Valley does hereby resolve and determine as follows:

SECTION 1
The City Council finds that due notice of the public hearing on June 2, 2026, conducted in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 10200 Slater Avenue, was given as required by the FVMC, Title 21, and the Statutes of the State of California.

SECTION 2
Pursuant to Fountain Valley Municipal Code section 21.34.050 the City Council does hereby find as follows:

1. The proposed amendments ensure and maintain internal consistency with the actions, goals, objectives and policies of the general plan, and would not create any inconsistencies with this title, in the case of a title amendment.

The City Council cannot make this finding. Based on the City Council’s independent review of the full administrative record, including the Planning Commission proceedings, the staff report, the applicant’s appeal materials, the Project plans, the environmental documentation, public testimony, written comments, and all evidence submitted before and during the public hearing, the City Council finds that the proposed amendments would not ensure or maintain internal consistency with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan.

The proposed Project would fail to meet General Plan Goal LU-1 – An arrangement of compatible land uses that protects and maintains attractive and safe neighborhoods while promoting dynamic activity centers and preserving conventional commercial and industrial uses by failing to meet Policy LU-1.1 and Policy LU-1.2 as noted below.

Also, the proposed Project would fail to meet Policy LU-1.2 of General Plan Goal LU-1:

Page 576 ends

The proposed land use is incompatible with the surrounding development pattern, which consists of an established corridor of commercial uses extending from Newland Avenue past the 405 Freeway to Bushard Street, as well as adjacent low-density single-family residential neighborhoods. As discussed above, this incompatibility results in inconsistency with key policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Specifically, the Project’s proposed density and intensity substantially exceed and conflict with the prevailing development pattern.

The requested General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment would represent a significant departure from the City’s established corridor of commercial uses along Warner Avenue, undermining its intended commercial function. Retention of the existing commercial zoning designation and General Commercial land use designation preserves the City’s limited commercially designated land inventory and maintains opportunities for local-serving commercial uses, employment, economic development, and long-term fiscal sustainability, consistent with the City’s planning objectives.

The City Council further finds that the Site is currently designated General Commercial and zoned C1-Local Business, and that the Project would permanently convert the Site from commercial use to high-density residential use. The applicant’s vacancy and highest-and-best-use evidence is part of the record and has been considered by the City Council. However, current vacancy, current ownership decisions, or the applicant’s preferred economic use do not require the City to amend its General Plan or Zoning Map or to permanently convert commercially designated land to residential use. The City Council may determine that retaining the Site’s commercial designation better implements the General Plan and the City’s long-term land use and fiscal-sustainability objectives.

While the Housing Element encourages the production of additional housing, it does not require approval of projects that conflict with other adopted General Plan policies. Policy LU-1.1 (Land Use Compatibility and Viability) requires that new development be appropriately located, scaled, and designed to minimize adverse impacts on existing conforming uses and surrounding neighborhoods, and that residential development not impair the economic viability or continuity of areas planned for non-residential uses. The Project fails to meet these standards. Its location, scale, and intensity are inconsistent with the City’s long-term vision for the south side of Warner Avenue and would introduce an abrupt and incompatible transition between high-density residential uses and adjacent low-density single-family neighborhoods.

The Project would also establish a precedent for incompatible intensification within an established corridor of commercial uses, eroding the integrity of the General Plan. The proposed conversion from commercial to high-density residential would diminish the economic viability and continuity of the area designated for non-residential uses.

Page 577 ends

Furthermore, the Project is inconsistent with the Land Use Plan and fails to maintain compatibility with the surrounding community character.

Finally, the Project’s scale and architectural character are not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, which are predominantly comprised of one-story singlefamily homes, with limited two-story elements to the south, and a similarly low-density neighborhood to the north in the City of Huntington Beach, where only a small minority of homes include second-story features. This contrast in scale and intensity would result in an incompatible land use transition and an incompatible interface with adjacent residential uses.

The Project Site is not listed as an opportunity site in the Housing Element and is not included in the City’s adopted Housing Element sites inventory to meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation of 4,839 units within the 2021-2029 Planning Period. The development of the Housing Element, including the inclusion of the opportunity sites to help the City meet its RHNA target, began in 2019 and concluded on October 4, 2022, when the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9853 approving the 2021-2029 Housing Element. When the Proposed Project was submitted to the City under a preliminary review application on August 15, 2022, selection and analysis of the opportunity sites had already been completed.

Rezoning a property for housing that is not listed as an opportunity site or within the sites inventory of a city’s approved Housing Element presents significant challenges as there is no “by-right” path to approval, the requested Zoning Map Amendment and General Plan Amendment are subject to City Council discretion, and the City Council must be able to make the findings required by FVMC section 21.34.050. The existing Housing Element identifies the City’s adopted strategy for accommodating the RHNA Allocation of 4,839 units without the Project. The Housing Element of the Fountain Valley General Plan identifies and establishes the City's strategy for the maintenance and development of housing to meet the needs of existing and future residents. Within the Housing Element, nine (9) opportunity sites are identified to help reach the City’s RHNA allocation of 4,839 units. Additionally, as reflected in the City’s HCD-certified Housing Element, within the approved RHNA allocation, the City has planned for 384 accessory dwelling units. As of April 1, 2026, there have been 290 ADU’s built and the City anticipates reaching the projected number of ADU’s by the end of next year, much earlier than anticipated by 2029. The City recognizes that it must continue implementing its Housing Element and facilitating housing production. However, the City’s remaining RHNA obligation does not, by itself, require approval of an applicant-initiated GPA and ZMA for a commercial site outside the adopted Housing Element sites inventory.

Page 578 ends

total surplus of 577 units from these two Projects (195+382), this exceeds the 500 additional unit surplus noted in Program 1a. As such, on May 6, 2026, HCD notified the city that the City of Fountain Valley has completed the rezoning requirements of Programs 1a and 1e of the Housing Element 6th Cycle. Additionally, AB 1397 (2017) restricts the re-use of “opportunity sites” from previous planning periods if they were not developed with housing. Also, SB 166 requires that a jurisdiction maintain adequate sites to meet their RHNA at all times. If a site fails to develop, the municipality must find a replacement site to meet their requirements. For these reasons, the City Council finds that approval of GPA 23-01 and ZMA 436 is not required to implement the City’s Housing Element or to complete the City’s HCD-reviewed rezoning program. The City may continue to promote housing production on sites identified in the Housing Element and through other approved Housing Element programs while declining to convert this commercially designated and zoned Site to high-density residential use.

The City Council has considered the Project’s proposed affordable housing component, including the 10 deed-restricted very-low-income units, and the requested Density Bonus Law benefits. If GPA 23-01 and ZMA 436 were approved, the Project would be evaluated under Density Bonus Law and applicable local density bonus provisions. However, Density Bonus Law does not eliminate the need for the underlying General Plan and Zoning Map Amendments, and it does not independently require the City Council to approve an applicant-initiated conversion of a General Commercial/C1 site to High Density Residential/R4.

The City Council has also considered the applicant’s state housing-law arguments, including any asserted Housing Accountability Act concerns. The City Council finds that the denial is based on the existing General Commercial land use designation and C1 zoning, the requested discretionary legislative amendments, the Site’s exclusion from the Housing Element sites inventory, and adopted General Plan policies regarding land use compatibility, commercial continuity, fiscal sustainability, and neighborhood transition.

The City Council is not denying an otherwise permitted residential use based on subjective preferences. Rather, the City Council is declining to amend the City’s adopted land use framework because it cannot make the findings required by FVMC section

21.34.050.

2. The proposed amendments would not be detrimental to the public convenience, health, interest, safety or welfare of the city.

The proposed amendments would be detrimental to the public welfare and to adjacent properties. As described above, the Project is not compatible with the surrounding land use pattern, which consists of commercial uses along the south side of Warner Avenue extending from Newland Avenue past the 405 Freeway to Bushard Street, in conjunction with adjacent low-density single-family residential neighborhoods. The Project’s proximity, density, and intensity are inconsistent with these surrounding uses and would create an abrupt and incompatible transition between high-density residential development and immediately adjacent low-density single-family residences, without adequate intervening land use or buffering.

The Project’s proposed density and intensity are inconsistent with the established development pattern of the surrounding area of single-family residential and commercial uses. As such, the Project fails to appropriately transition between differing land uses

Page 579 ends

and would not be designed in a manner that minimizes impacts on existing conforming uses and surrounding neighborhoods.

In addition, the proposed change in land use from commercial to high-density residential would adversely affect the economic viability and continuity of the site, which is currently designated and planned for nonresidential uses. The amendments would constitute a significant deviation from the City’s adopted land use framework of an established corridor of commercial uses along Warner Avenue, including its planned function as a commercial corridor, and would undermine the orderly implementation of the General Plan.

Retention of the existing commercial zoning designation is necessary to preserve the City’s supply of viable commercial land and to support long-term economic development objectives. While the Housing Element encourages housing production, it does not require approval of projects that are inconsistent with other adopted General Plan policies. In particular, Policy LU-1.1 (Land Use Compatibility and Viability) requires that new development be located, scaled, buffered, and designed to minimize impacts on adjacent conforming uses and neighborhoods, and that residential development not impair the economic viability or continuity of areas designated for nonresidential uses.

The Project does not satisfy these requirements.

The City Council has considered the Project’s proposed housing benefits, including the 10 deed-restricted very-low-income units and requested Density Bonus Law benefits.

However, the City Council finds that those benefits do not require approval of the requested GPA 23-01 and ZMA 436 where the proposed residential use is not currently permitted on the Site and where the Council cannot make the required findings for the Amendments. The Project Site is not included in the City’s adopted Housing Element sites inventory, and HCD has confirmed that the City has completed the rezoning requirements of Programs 1a and 1e of the 6th Cycle Housing Element. Preserving the Site’s commercial designation and zoning therefore does not prevent the City from continuing to implement its Housing Element, while also protecting the public welfare by preserving limited commercially designated land within the established commercial corridor along Warner Avenue for local-serving commercial uses, economic development, and long-term fiscal sustainability.

Finally, the Project’s location, scale, and intensity are inconsistent with the City’s longterm planning framework for the south side of Warner Avenue and would establish an undesirable precedent for incompatible intensification within a planned commercial corridor, contrary to the intent and vision of the General Plan.

3. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the city’s environmental review procedures.

An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were prepared for the Project and included in the administrative record. The MND was circulated for public review from January 14, 2026, through February 13, 2026, and the City received and considered comments and responses to comments.

The City Council has reviewed and considered the environmental documentation as part of the full administrative record.

Page 580 ends

Because the City Council is denying GPA 23-01 and ZMA 436 and denying the Project, CEQA Guidelines section 15270 applies. CEQA does not apply to projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves. Accordingly, the City Council is not required to adopt the MND or MMRP or make CEQA findings approving the environmental document.

4. Additional finding for Zoning Map Amendments. The site(s) is/are physically suitable (including access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and absence of physical constraints) for the requested zoning designation(s) and anticipated land use development(s).

As noted above, the proposed land use is incompatible with the surrounding development pattern, which consists of an established corridor of commercial uses extending from Newland Avenue past the 405 Freeway to Bushard Street, as well as adjacent lowdensity single-family residential neighborhoods. As discussed above, this incompatibility results in inconsistency with key policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan.

Specifically, the Project’s proposed density and intensity substantially exceed and conflict with the prevailing development pattern.

Page 581 ends

an abrupt and incompatible transition between high-density residential uses and adjacent low-density single-family neighborhoods.

The Project would also establish a precedent for incompatible intensification within an established corridor of commercial uses along Warner Avenue, eroding the integrity of the General Plan. The proposed conversion from commercial to high-density residential would diminish the economic viability and continuity of the area designated for nonresidential uses. Furthermore, the Project is inconsistent with the Land Use Plan and fails to maintain compatibility with the surrounding community character.

The City Council’s finding is not based on lack of utilities, access, or public services, but on compatibility with adjoining land uses and the physical suitability of the Site for the requested R4 zoning designation and anticipated high-density residential use in this specific location. The City Council finds that the Site’s location within the established corridor of commercial uses along Warner Avenue, its direct relationship to adjacent lowdensity residential neighborhoods, and the lack of an adequate land-use transition support denial of the requested zoning designation.

SECTION 3
The City Council hereby finds that, based on the findings set forth above and the full administrative record, the City Council cannot make the findings required by FVMC section

21.34.050 for GPA 23-01 and ZMA 436. The requested Amendments are inconsistent with the Fountain Valley General Plan, the Fountain Valley Municipal Code, and the City’s adopted land use framework for the Site and the established corridor of commercial uses along Warner Avenue.

SECTION 4

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, BASED ON THE CITY COUNCIL’S INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE FULL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD AND PURSUANT TO THE ABOVE FINDINGS, that the City Council of the City of Fountain Valley denies General Plan Amendment No. 23-01 to change the General Plan Land Use Map Designation from General Commercial to High Density Residential and Zoning Map Amendment No. 436 to change the Zoning Map Designation from C1-Local Business to R4-High Density Multiple Dwelling for the 72-unit Parkside FV development located on a 2.119-acre site at 8550 Warner Avenue.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026.

ATTEST:

Page 582 ends

Rick Miller, City Clerk Jim Cunneen, Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM

HARPER & BURNS LLP
_____
Attorneys for the City
City of Fountain Valley
ATTACHED: “EXHIBIT A”

Page 583 ends

Exhibit A
Legal Description
A.P.N.: 167-361-17
The Land referred to herein below is situated in the City of Fountain Valley, County of Orange, State of California, and is described as follows:

PARCEL NO. 1, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 131, PAGES 46 AND 47 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM AN UNDIVIDED ONE-HALF INTEREST IN ALL OIL, GAS, MINERALS, AND HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES LYING BELOW A DEPTH OF 500 FEET

FROM THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND, BUT WITHOUT THE RIGHT OF ENTRY UPON ANY

PORTION OF THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND FOR REMOVING OR MARKETING SAID SUBSTANCES, AS RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM C.C. BREADING AND WIFE, RECORDED JULY 15, 1955 IN BOOK 3139, PAGE 583, OFFICIAL RECORDS.

Page 584 ends

RESOLUTION NO.____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOUNTAIN

VALLEY DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION‘S DENIAL OF PRECISE PLAN NO. 577 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1929 TO CONSTRUCT A 72-UNIT APARTMENT
COMPLEX DEVELOPMENT IN A NEW 76,076 SQUARE FOOT THREESTORY BUILDING AND AN 800 SQUARE FOOT ONE-STORY CLUBHOUSE

BUILDING AND SURFACE PARKING LOT FOR THE PARKSIDE FV
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON A 2.119-ACRE SITE AT 8550 WARNER AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application for Precise Plan No. 577 (“PP 577”) and Conditional Use Permit No. 1929 (“CUP 1929”) was submitted by Robert Franklin (“Applicant”), on behalf of FV Center, LP, to construct a 72-unit apartment complex development in a new 76,076 square foot three-story building and an 800 square foot one-story clubhouse building and surface parking lot for the Parkside FV development located on a 2.119-acre site at 8550 Warner Avenue (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, FV Center, LP (“Owner”), is the owner of the Site at 8550 Warner Avenue (APN # 167-361-17), which is formally described in the legal description attached hereto as “Exhibit A” (“Site”); and
WHEREAS, the Fountain Valley Planning Commission considered said application at its noticed public hearing on March 25, 2026; and
WHEREAS, testimony was received from the public regarding the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all evidence and testimony read at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on March 25, 2026, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 4-1, denied Precise Plan No. 577 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1929 and directed Staff to return with a resolution memorializing the denial; and
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2026, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 2-1-1, approved Resolution No. 26-06 denying PP 577 and CUP 1929; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with FVMC 21.60, on April 20, 2026, Applicant filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s adoption of Resolution No. 26-07 as well as the Planning Commission’s adoption of Resolution No. 26-06 to deny Precise Plan No. 577 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1929; and
WHEREAS, per FVMC 21.60.050(c), an appeal hearing was set within 45 days of the filing of the appeal; and
WHEREAS, the appeal was heard before the City Council of the City of Fountain Valley at a duly noticed public hearing on June 2, 2026; and

Page 585 ends

WHEREAS, pursuant to FVMC section 21.60.050(f), the City Council’s review of the appeal is de novo, and the City Council may consider any issue associated with the appeal, in addition to the specific grounds for the appeal; and WHEREAS, the City Council independently considered the full administrative record, including the Planning Commission proceedings, the staff report, the applicant’s appeal materials, the Project plans, the environmental documentation, public testimony, written comments, and all evidence submitted before and during the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Site is currently designated General Commercial under the General Plan and zoned C1-Local Business, and multifamily residential development is not permitted on the Site unless the City Council approves General Plan Amendment No. 23-01 (“GPA 23- 01”) and Zoning Map Amendment No. 436 (“ZMA 436”); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has denied GPA 23-01 and ZMA 436, and therefore the proposed residential use remains inconsistent with the existing General Plan land use designation and zoning, and PP 577 and CUP 1929 cannot be approved for the proposed multifamily residential Project; and
WHEREAS, the Project Site is not identified as a Housing Element opportunity site and is not included in the City’s adopted Housing Element sites inventory for meeting the City’s 2021–2029 RHNA allocation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered that the Project includes 10 deed-restricted very-low-income units and requests density bonus benefits, including concessions and application of state parking ratios; however, the City Council finds that the Density Bonus Law request does not independently require approval of PP 577 and CUP 1929 where the underlying General Plan and Zoning Map Amendments have been denied and the proposed residential use is not currently permitted; and
WHEREAS, the City Council also considered the applicant’s state housing-law arguments, including any asserted Housing Accountability Act concerns, and finds that the City is not denying an otherwise permitted residential use based on subjective preferences, but is instead denying dependent project entitlements because the required General Plan and Zoning Map Amendments have been denied and the required FVMC findings cannot be made; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were prepared for the Project and included in the administrative record, and the City Council considered the environmental documentation as part of its review; however, because the City Council is denying the Project and requested entitlements, CEQA Guidelines section 15270 applies and the City Council is not required to adopt the MND or MMRP or make CEQA findings approving the environmental document; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Fountain Valley does hereby resolve and determine as follows:

Page 586 ends

SECTION 1
The City Council finds that due notice of the public hearings in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 10200 Slater Avenue, was given as required by the Fountain Valley Municipal Code (FVMC), Title 21, and the Statutes of the State of California.

SECTION 2
Findings and Supporting Facts: In order to approve a Precise Plan, the City Council must find that the following findings of fact can be made in a positive manner:

The City Council cannot make this finding. The City Council has denied GPA 23- 01 and ZMA 436. As a result, the Site remains designated General Commercial and zoned C1-Local Business, and the proposed multifamily residential use is not permitted under the existing General Plan land use designation and zoning. For this independent reason, the design and layout of the proposed development cannot be found consistent with the General Plan, the FVMC, or the applicable zoning district.

Although the proposed Project is generally consistent with the design standards and guidelines of the R4 zoning district, excluding the requested concessions, it is not consistent with several applicable General Plan Goals and Policies.

The proposed Project would fail to meet Policy LU-1.1 of General Plan Goal LU-1:

Page 587 ends

The proposed Project would fail to meet Policy LU-3.2 of General Plan Goal LU-3:

Scale and character – Ensure that all new development is compatible with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhoods in Fountain Valley.

The proposed land use is incompatible with the surrounding development pattern, which consists of an established corridor of commercial uses extending along the south side of Warner Avenue from Newland Avenue past the 405 Freeway to Bushard Street, as well as adjacent low-density single-family residential neighborhoods. As discussed above, this incompatibility results in inconsistency with key policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Specifically, the Project’s proposed density and intensity substantially exceed and conflict with the prevailing development pattern.

Retention of the existing commercial zoning designation and General Commercial land use designation preserves the City’s limited commercially designated land inventory and maintains opportunities for local-serving commercial uses, employment, economic development, and long-term fiscal sustainability, consistent with the City’s planning objectives.

The Project would also establish a precedent for incompatible intensification within an established corridor of commercial uses. The proposed conversion from commercial to high-density residential would diminish the economic viability and continuity of the area designated for non-residential uses. Furthermore, the Project is inconsistent with the Land Use Plan and fails to maintain compatibility with the surrounding community character.

Page 588 ends

a small minority of homes include second-story features. This contrast in scale and intensity would result in an incompatible land use transition and an incompatible interface with adjacent residential uses.

The Project Site is not listed as an opportunity site and is not included in the City’s adopted Housing Element sites inventory for meeting the 2021–2029 RHNA allocation. The City’s Housing Element identifies the City’s adopted strategy for accommodating RHNA through identified sites, ADU assumptions, inclusionary housing, and other programs. As reflected in the City’s HCD-certified Housing Element, the City planned for 384 accessory dwelling units as part of its RHNA strategy. As of April 1, 2026, 290 ADUs had been built, and the City anticipates reaching the projected ADU number before the end of the planning period. The City recognizes that it must continue implementing its Housing Element and facilitating housing production. However, the City’s remaining RHNA obligation does not, by itself, require approval of dependent project entitlements for a proposed residential use that is not permitted because GPA 23-01 and ZMA 436 have been denied.

Lastly, per Program 1a of the Housing Element, the “City will work to identify surplus housing sites to accommodate between 100 and 500 additional units, with a focus on identifying sites in high and highest resource areas. This effort will be undertaken to reduce the likelihood that the City’s capacity will fall short during the planning period and provide greater flexibility for other opportunity sites.” Although the city has only permitted 710 units so far in the RHNA Planning Period, there are approved projects in the pipeline including the Euclid/Heil Project of 606 units, the Our Lady of Guadalupe Project of 29 units, and the 16800 Magnolia Project (Boomers) of 657 units. Additionally, per Table H-22 of the Housing Element, the Euclid/Heil Project was projected to provide a total of 411 units but was approved by the Planning Commission for 606 units yielding a surplus of 195 units. Also, the Boomers Project was projected to provide a total of 275 units but was approved by the Planning Commission for 657 units yielding a surplus of 382 units. With a total surplus of 577 units from these two Projects (195+382), this exceeds the 500 additional unit surplus noted in Program 1a. As such, on May 6, 2026, HCD notified the city that the City of Fountain Valley has completed the rezoning requirements of Programs 1a and 1e of the Housing Element 6th Cycle. Additionally, AB 1397 (2017) restricts the re-use of “opportunity sites” from previous planning periods if they were not developed with housing. Also, SB 166 requires that a jurisdiction maintain adequate sites to meet their RHNA at all times. If a site fails to develop, the municipality must find a replacement site to meet their requirements. For these reasons, the City Council finds that approval of PP 577 and CUP 1929 is not required to implement the City’s Housing Element or to complete the City’s HCDreviewed rezoning program. The City may continue to promote housing production on sites identified in the Housing Element and through other approved Housing Element programs while denying dependent project entitlements for a residential use that is not permitted under the Site’s existing General Plan designation and zoning.
b. Not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or future developments, and would not create traffic or pedestrian hazards.

Page 589 ends

Because GPA 23-01 and ZMA 436 have been denied, the proposed residential use remains inconsistent with the Site’s existing General Commercial land use designation and C1 zoning.

The proposed Project does not demonstrate consistency with applicable objective land use planning standards governing adjacency, transitions, and intensity differentials as set forth in the General Plan.

The Project proposes residential development at a substantially higher density than adjacent single-family residential parcels. The Project site directly abuts existing low-density single-family residential zoning and development. The proposed change results in a direct interface between high-density multifamily residential development and low-density single-family residential development without an intervening land use buffer or transitional zoning designation.

The Project also converts a site designated for commercial use to residential use, resulting in a discontinuity in the established corridor of commercial uses along Warner Avenue as designated in the General Plan Land Use Map.

These conditions reflect objective differences in land use designation, zoning classification, and development intensity between the Project and adjacent parcels. For these reasons, the Project does not demonstrate consistency with objective standards requiring compatibility with surrounding land uses and does not adequately avoid interference with the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties.
c. Provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good/proper aesthetic use of materials, texture and color, and would remain aesthetically appealing and retain an appropriate level of maintenance.

The proposed Project would use a variety of building materials and the proposed architecture of the Project would be fully finished on all elevations of the buildings.

However, the overall building scale, massing, and intensity of development are not consistent with applicable General Plan policies governing site planning and development intensity. As a result, the Project does not demonstrate consistency with objective standards intended to ensure appropriate site design and integration with surrounding land uses.

The architectural design and massing of the proposed development do not demonstrate consistency with applicable General Plan policies addressing scale, character, and neighborhood transition (including Policies LU-1.1, LU-1.2, and LU3.2).

Page 590 ends

The Project proposes demolition of an existing approximately 18,782-square-foot commercial structure and replacement with a 76,076-square-foot, three-story residential building and an accessory clubhouse structure. While contemporary architecture is proposed, the intensity of development represent a substantial increase in building height and density relative to surrounding development patterns.

The surrounding area is predominantly characterized by one-story single-family residential structures, with limited two-story elements in select locations to the south, and a similar low-density residential pattern to the north in the City of Huntington Beach. The proposed three-story structure introduces a substantially greater building height and scale than surrounding development, without a transitional rise in intensity.

These are measurable differences in building height and density relative to the surrounding parcels.

Based on these objective physical and spatial differences, the Project does not demonstrate consistency with applicable policies requiring that development be compatible in scale and character with surrounding uses or that it maintain orderly neighborhood transitions.

The Project does not demonstrate consistency with applicable objective land use compatibility and planning standards necessary to ensure protection of the public welfare.

As described above, the Project introduces a high-density residential use adjacent to low-density single-family residential neighborhoods without adequate transitional buffering and converts a designated commercial site, within an established corridor of commercial uses stretching along the south side of Warner Avenue from Newland Street to Bushard Street, to residential use. This results in a land use condition that is inconsistent with the City’s adopted General Plan.

The Project’s scale, intensity, and land use conversion are not consistent with objective General Plan policies requiring compatibility with surrounding uses, maintenance of planned nonresidential areas, and orderly transitions between differing land use intensities.
b. Substantially depreciate property values in the immediate vicinity or interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the surrounding neighborhood, because of excessive dissimilarity or inappropriateness of design in relation to the surrounding neighborhood.

The Project introduces a significantly higher-intensity residential use, with an increased scale, height, and intensity, adjacent to established low-density singlefamily neighborhoods. The Project also replaces a commercially designated use with residential development, thereby altering the planned economic and land use

Page 591 ends

function of the site. This conversion is inconsistent with adopted General Plan policies governing land use continuity and viability of nonresidential areas.

Based on these objective differences in use type and intensity, the Project does not demonstrate consistency with applicable policies requiring compatible development and orderly transitions between land uses and thus would interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the surrounding neighborhood because of excessive dissimilarity or inappropriateness of design in relation to the surrounding neighborhood.

4. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s Environmental Review Procedures.

Because the City Council is denying PP 577 and CUP 1929 and denying the Project, CEQA Guidelines section 15270 applies. CEQA does not apply to projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves. Accordingly, the City Council is not required to adopt the MND or MMRP or make CEQA findings approving the environmental document.

SECTION 3
Findings and Supporting Facts: - In order to approve a Conditional Use Permit, the City Council must find that the following findings of fact can be made in a positive manner:

Because the City Council has denied GPA 23-01 and ZMA 436, the Site remains designated General Commercial and zoned C1-Local Business. Therefore, the proposed multifamily residential use is not allowed within the applicable zoning district and the finding cannot be made.

Page 592 ends

2. The proposed use is consistent with the actions, goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.

The City Council cannot make this finding. Because GPA 23-01 and ZMA 436 have been denied, the proposed residential use remains inconsistent with the Site’s existing General Commercial land use designation and C1 zoning. The proposed use is therefore not consistent with the General Plan or the FVMC.

The proposed use would fail to meet General Plan Goal LU-1 – An arrangement of compatible land uses that protects and maintains attractive and safe neighborhoods while promoting dynamic activity centers and preserving conventional commercial and industrial uses by failing to meet Policy LU-1.1 and Policy LU-1.2 as noted below.

The proposed Project would fail to meet Policy LU-1.1 of General Plan Goal LU-1:

The proposed Project would fail to meet Policy LU-3.2 of General Plan Goal LU-3:

Scale and character – Ensure that all new development is compatible with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhoods in Fountain Valley.

Retention of the existing commercial zoning designation and General Commercial land use designation preserves the City’s limited commercially designated land

Page 593 ends

inventory and maintains opportunities for local-serving commercial uses, employment, economic development, and long-term fiscal sustainability, consistent with the City’s planning objectives.

Finally, the Project’s scale and architectural character are not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, which are predominantly comprised of one-story single-family homes, with limited two-story elements to the south, and a similarly low-density neighborhood to the north in the City of Huntington Beach, where only a small minority of homes include second-story features. This contrast in scale and intensity would result in an incompatible land use transition and an incompatible interface with adjacent residential uses.

Page 594 ends

needs of existing and future residents. Within the Housing Element, nine (9) opportunity sites are identified to help reach the City’s RHNA allocation of 4,839 units. Additionally, as reflected in the City’s HCD-certified Housing Element, within the approved RHNA allocation, the city has planned for 384 accessory dwelling units. As of April 1, 2026, there have been 290 ADU’s built and the city anticipates reaching the projected number of ADU’s by the end of next year, much earlier than anticipated by 2029. The City recognizes that it must continue implementing its Housing Element and facilitating housing production; however, the City’s remaining RHNA obligation does not, by itself, require approval of dependent project entitlements for a proposed residential use that is not permitted because GPA 23-01 and ZMA 436 have been denied.

Lastly, per Program 1a of the Housing Element, the “City will work to identify surplus housing sites to accommodate between 100 and 500 additional units, with a focus on identifying sites in high and highest resource areas. This effort will be undertaken to reduce the likelihood that the City’s capacity will fall short during the planning period and provide greater flexibility for other opportunity sites.” Although the City has only permitted 710 units so far in the RHNA Planning Period, there are approved projects in the pipeline including the Euclid/Heil Project of 606 units, the Our Lady of Guadalupe Project of 29 units, and the 16800 Magnolia Project (Boomers) of 657 units. Additionally, per Table H-22 of the Housing Element, the Euclid/Heil Project was projected to provide a total of 411 units but was approved by the Planning Commission for 606 units yielding a surplus of 195 units. Also, the Boomers Project was projected to provide a total of 275 units but was approved by the Planning Commission for 657 units yielding a surplus of 382 units. With a total surplus of 577 units from these two Projects (195+382), this exceeds the 500 additional unit surplus noted in Program 1a. As such, on May 6, 2026, HCD notified the city that the City of Fountain Valley has completed the rezoning requirements of Programs 1a and 1e of the Housing Element 6th Cycle. Additionally, AB 1397 (2017) restricts the re-use of “opportunity sites” from previous planning periods if they were not developed with housing. Also, SB 166 requires that a jurisdiction maintain adequate sites to meet their RHNA at all times. If a site fails to develop, the municipality must find a replacement site to meet their requirements. For these reasons, the City Council finds that approval of PP 577 and CUP 1929 is not required to implement the City’s Housing Element or to complete the City’s HCDreviewed rezoning program. The City may continue to promote housing production on sites identified in the Housing Element and through other approved Housing Element programs while denying dependent project entitlements for a residential use that is not permitted under the Site’s existing General Plan designation and zoning.

3. The design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity.

Because GPA 23-01 and ZMA 436 have been denied, the proposed residential use remains inconsistent with the Site’s existing General Commercial land use designation and C1 zoning.

Page 595 ends

The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use do not demonstrate consistency with applicable objective land use planning standards governing site adjacency, land use designation, and development intensity.

The Project site is designated for commercial use within an established corridor of commercial uses along Warner Avenue. The Project proposes a change in land use to a high-density residential use. This represents a change in the land use designation from nonresidential to residential within an established corridor of commercial uses along the south side of Warner Avenue stretching from Newland Street to Bushard Street.

The Project site directly abuts parcels developed with low-density single-family residential uses. The proposed development introduces a higher-density residential use immediately adjacent to these properties without an intervening land use designation or zoning transition.

The Project also increases building height and density relative to surrounding development. Adjacent residential neighborhoods are predominantly developed with one-story structures, with limited two-story development. The proposed three-story building exceeds the height and intensity of development on adjacent parcels.

These conditions reflect measurable differences in land use designation, zoning classification, building height, and development intensity between the Project and surrounding properties.

Because GPA 23-01 and ZMA 436 have been denied, the proposed residential use remains inconsistent with the Site’s existing General Commercial land use designation and C1 zoning.

The subject site is not physically suitable for the type and intensity of use proposed when evaluated against applicable objective land use planning standards. Public access, utilities, and infrastructure may be available to serve the site, as identified in the environmental analysis. However, the proposed land use designation, density, and building intensity are not consistent with the site’s designation within an established corridor of commercial uses stretching from Newland Street to Bushard Street or its direct adjacency to low-density residential zoning.

The proposed Project would convert a commercially designated parcel to residential use and introduce a development intensity that differs from adjacent land uses in terms of density and building height. The site shares property lines with low-density residential development without an intervening zoning designation or transition area.

These conditions demonstrate that the proposed use does not align with the site’s planned land use designation or its physical relationship to adjacent parcels as defined by zoning and development intensity.

Page 596 ends

Because GPA 23-01 and ZMA 436 have been denied, the proposed residential use remains inconsistent with the Site’s existing General Commercial land use designation and C1 zoning.

Granting the Conditional Use Permit would not be consistent with applicable objective General Plan and zoning standards governing land use designation and development intensity and would therefore be detrimental to the welfare of adjacent properties.

The Project would convert a site designated for commercial use within an established corridor of commercial uses stretching along the south side of Warner Avenue from Newland Street to Bushard Street to residential use, resulting in a reduction of commercially designated land as identified in the General Plan Land Use Map.

The Project also introduces a higher-density residential development adjacent to lower-density residential zoning and development. This results in measurable differences in land use designation, density, and building height between the Project site and adjacent properties.

These changes are not consistent with the adopted land use framework for the site and surrounding area as defined by the General Plan and zoning regulations.

6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s Environmental Review Procedures.

Not applicable. There are no conditions of approval for this denial of the Precise Plan No. 577 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1929.

Page 597 ends

SECTION 4
Four (4) of the required findings cannot be made to approve Precise Plan No. 577 as required by the Fountain Valley Municipal Code Section 21.44.050.

SECTION 5
Six (6) of the required findings cannot be made to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 1929 as required by the Fountain Valley Municipal Code Section 21.36.050.

SECTION 6
Based on the City Council’s independent review of the full administrative record and the findings set forth above, the City Council hereby denies the appeal and upholds the denial of Precise Plan No. 577 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1929.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026.

ATTEST:

Rick Miller, City Clerk Jim Cunneen, Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM

HARPER & BURNS LLP
Attorneys for the City
City of Fountain Valley
ATTACHED: “EXHIBIT A”

Page 598 ends

Exhibit A
Legal Description
A.P.N.: 167-361-17
The Land referred to herein below is situated in the City of Fountain Valley, County of Orange, State of California, and is described as follows:

PARCEL NO. 1, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 131, PAGES 46 AND 47 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM AN UNDIVIDED ONE-HALF INTEREST IN ALL OIL, GAS, MINERALS, AND HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES LYING BELOW A DEPTH OF 500 FEET

FROM THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND, BUT WITHOUT THE RIGHT OF ENTRY UPON ANY

PORTION OF THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND FOR REMOVING OR MARKETING SAID SUBSTANCES, AS RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM C.C. BREADING AND WIFE, RECORDED JULY 15, 1955 IN BOOK 3139, PAGE 583, OFFICIAL RECORDS.

Page 599 ends

CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY

CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST
To: Honorable Mayor and Agenda Date: June 2, 2026
Members of the City Council
SUBJECT: Conduct a Public Protest Hearing Regarding a Five-Year Residential Solid Waste Rate Adjustment Schedule, Based on Increased County Disposal Fees Under the WISE Agreement
_________________________________________________________________________ Three-Year Strategic Goals
☐ Cultivate a welcoming culture and safe environment that makes our community “A Nice Place to Live.”
☐ Ensure long-term fiscal stability by evaluating processes, and attract and retain revenue producing businesses/opportunities.
☐ Attract and retain quality staff through best practices and trends. ☐ Maintain, build, plan for, and modernize infrastructure to support the growth and future needs of the City.
☒ Not applicable.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Commencing July 1, 2026, the County of Orange (County) is increasing landfill fees for municipal solid waste disposal and services.

On April 7, 2026, the City Council authorized staff to distribute the “Notice of Proposition 218 Public Protest Hearing Regarding Proposed Residential Trash Collection Rate Adjustment” in accordance with Proposition 218. Notices were distributed to all residential trash ratepayers in adequate time to meet the minimum 45-day period required prior to the public protest hearing, wherein affected customers can protest the proposed rates. At the time of this writing, the City has received five (5) letters of protest regarding the proposed rate increases.

It is recommended that the City Council conduct a public protest hearing regarding the proposed residential trash disposal rate adjustment schedule in compliance with Proposition 218 and, if a majority protest does not exist, adopt a resolution establishing the adjusted residential trash rates and five-year rate adjustment schedule.

DISCUSSION
The County, through Orange County Waste & Recycling (OCWR), operates the Countyowned landfill system, including three (3) active landfills and approximately 20 inactive sites.

Since 1997, Orange County cities have participated in the Waste Disposal Agreement (WDA),

Page 600 ends

WISE Agreement Prop. 218 Hearing
June 2, 2026

Page 2 ends

which provided guaranteed landfill capacity and disposal rates of at least 10% below noncontract customers. The WDA has been amended several times, in 2004, 2009, 2015, and most recently for a one-year extension in 2025.

As the WDA neared expiration, OCWR developed the successor Waste Infrastructure System Enterprise (WISE) Agreement. The Orange County City Managers Association (OCCMA), representing cities, sanitary districts, and special districts that rely on the landfill system, coordinated review and negotiation beginning in late 2024. In 2025, OCCMA secured a one-year extension of the WDA through June 30, 2026, allowing additional time for negotiations.

The current WDA limits annual rate increases to CPI and does not account for rising operational, regulatory, and environmental compliance costs. OCWR also indicated that additional capital was needed to fund the Brea (Olinda Alpha) landfill closure and to significantly expand the capacity of the landfill in San Juan Capistrano (Prima Deshecha) over the course of the 10-year term. Through negotiations, OCCMA reached an agreement on a phased rate structure for the first three years of the agreement.

Starting in FY 2029-30, the County contract disposal rate is subject to the CPI-based adjustment formula set forth in the WISE Agreement (which is a blended CPI index (60% Solid Waste, Water, and Sewer; 40% All Urban Consumers).

Fiscal Year Contract Rate
2026–27 $67.00/ton
2027–28 $74.00/ton
2028–29 $81.00/ton
2029–30 Prior year + CPI
2030-31 Prior year + CPI
Effective July 1, 2026, the increased County disposal fees result in an 8.3% increase to monthly residential customer bills, as shown in the table below. This landfill disposal fee increase will be passed through to residential customers through solid waste service rates (subject to applicable legal requirements) and collected through water bills.

Initial Residential Rate Increase Effective July 1, 2026 Resident 1/1/2026 Disposal
Adjustment 7/1/2026 Increase
Trash $ 30.88 8.3% $ 33.44 $ 2.56
Admin Fee - City Billed $ 1.39 0.0% $ 1.39 $ -
Total $ 32.27 $ 34.83 $ 2.56

Page 601 ends

WISE Agreement Prop. 218 Hearing
June 2, 2026

Page 3 ends

Senior (62 years and older) 1/1/2026 Disposal
Adjustment 7/1/2026 Increase
Trash $ 26.89 8.3% $ 29.12 $ 2.23
Admin Fee - City Billed $ 1.39 0.0% $ 1.39 $ -
Total $ 28.28 $ 30.51 $ 2.23
For the July 1, 2026, residential rate adjustment, the amount of the annual residential rate adjustment is determined by applying the percentage increase in the County contract landfill disposal rate under the WISE Agreement to the fixed disposal portion of the monthly residential trash rate and the monthly senior residential trash rate, excluding the City administrative fee. Future annual adjustments will be determined by applying the percentage increase in the County contract landfill disposal rate under the WISE Agreement from the immediately preceding year to the applicable adjustment year to that same fixed disposal portion of the monthly residential trash rate and the monthly senior residential trash rate, excluding the City administrative fee.

For purposes of the proposed five-year schedule, the disposal portion of the monthly residential and senior residential trash rate is fixed at 15.62% of the monthly rate. That 15.62% figure is not the annual rate increase; it is the fixed disposal portion used to calculate the rate adjustment. These proposed adjustments apply only to the disposal-cost portion of the residential trash rate and do not apply to the collection portion of the rate or to the City administrative fee. The City will not retain revenue from these adjustments beyond the amount necessary to recover increased County landfill disposal costs attributable to residential service.

This five-year schedule does not modify or extend the separate hauler CPI adjustment schedule previously authorized by the City Council for Republic Services, which remains in effect through December 31, 2027.

PROPOSED 5-YEAR RESIDENTIAL TRASH RATE INCREASE

DUE TO INCREASED COUNTY DISPOSAL FEES
(per dwelling unit per month)
Effective Date Monthly Increase in
Standard Residential Rate
Monthly Increase in
Senior Residential Rate
July 1, 2026 $2.56 $2.23
July 1, 2027 $0.74 $0.64
July 1, 2028 $0.75 $0.65
July 1, 2029 Previous year + CPI Increase1 Previous year + CPI Increase1 July 1, 2030 Previous year + CPI Increase1 Previous year + CPI Increase1

Page 602 ends

WISE Agreement Prop. 218 Hearing
June 2, 2026

Page 4 ends

1 “Consumer Price Index” or “CPI” means a blend of the following two indexes based on the following percentage of each: 60% of the CPI shall be comprised of the Consumer Price Index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for All Urban Consumers: Water and Sewer and Trash Collection Services in U.S. City Average (CUSR0000EHG); and, 40% of the CPI shall be comprised of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, not seasonally adjusted, all items index (CPI-U) – All items in Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim (CUURS49ASA0). In the event either of the forgoing indexes is no longer published during the term of this Agreement, such other index identified by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as a replacement or otherwise generally accepted as a replacement shall be used for purposes of this Agreement; and, in the absence thereof, the Orange County Board of Supervisors shall select an index that it determines most closely reflects the forgoing and best implements the intent of this Agreement.

At the time of this writing, the City has received five (5) letters of protest regarding the proposed rate increases. In addition to the protest letters, City staff have received and assisted with several inquiries about Senior Rate discounts.

Under California's Proposition 218, a "majority protest" for this item is defined as a simple majority of 50% plus one of the affected residential customers. If 50% plus one customer (7,317 of 14,632 metered residential customers) file written protests to the subject rate increases, the threshold will be met, and the City Council may not impose the proposed rate adjustments. If the threshold is not met, the City Council can move forward with the proposed rate increases.

FISCAL REVIEW
The residential rate adjustment and any future adjustments included in the five-year schedule are intended to only recover increased County landfill disposal costs attributable to residential solid waste service under the WISE Agreement. The adjustments do not affect the City administrative fee and are not intended to generate revenue beyond the amount necessary to recover those increased disposal costs.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
This item was noticed as a public protest hearing for June 2, 2026, in accordance with rules and regulations regarding the noticing of public hearings and agendized items and topics for discussion and/or action. In addition, notices were mailed to all residential trash customers a minimum of 45 days prior to June 2, 2026, public protest hearing in accordance with Proposition 218.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW
Not applicable.

ATTORNEY REVIEW
The Attorneys for the City have reviewed and approved the resolution and the procedure as it pertains to Proposition 218 requirements.

Page 603 ends

WISE Agreement Prop. 218 Hearing
June 2, 2026

Page 5 ends

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative No. 1: Conduct a public protest hearing regarding the proposed residential trash disposal rate adjustment schedule, based on increased County fees, in compliance with Proposition 218. If a majority protest does not exist, adopt a resolution establishing adjusted residential trash rates and the five-year rate adjustment schedule. This is the recommended alternative.

Alternative No. 2: Conduct a public protest hearing regarding the proposed residential trash disposal rate adjustment schedule, based on increased County fees, in compliance with Proposition 218, but do not adopt a resolution establishing the adjusted residential trash rates or five-year rate adjustment schedule. No residential rate adjustment or rate adjustment schedule would be presented to property owners unless separately authorized by the City Council at a later date. This is not recommended as the County’s increased disposal fee will then need to be paid through City funds, which will likely impact (reduce or eliminate) other existing City services.

Alternative No. 3: Conduct a public protest hearing regarding the proposed residential trash disposal rate adjustment schedule in compliance with Proposition 218 and, if a majority protest does not exist, amend and adopt the resolution at a rate lower than the adjusted rate. This is not recommended as the County’s increased disposal fee will then need to be paid through City funds, which will likely impact (reduce or eliminate) other existing City services.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve Alternative No. 1, which is to conduct a public protest hearing regarding the proposed residential trash disposal rate adjustment schedule in compliance with Proposition 218 and, if a majority protest does not exist, adopt a resolution establishing the adjusted residential trash rates and five-year rate adjustment schedule.

Prepared by: Scott Smith, Public Works Director
Fiscal review by: Ryan Smith, Finance Director
Approved by: Maggie Le, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Resolution Establishing Adjusted Residential Trash Rates and Five-Year Rate Adjustment Schedule

2. Notice of Prop 218 Protest Hearing

3. Proof of Mailing

Page 604 ends

Attachment #1
RESOLUTION NO. ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

FOUNTAIN VALLEY ESTABLISHING ADJUSTED RESIDENTIAL

TRASH RATES AND A FIVE-YEAR RATE ADJUSTMENT

SCHEDULE BASED ON INCREASED COUNTY DISPOSAL FEES

UNDER THE WASTE INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEM ENTERPRISE

AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Fountain Valley provides for the collection and disposal of residential solid waste within the City and participates in the County of Orange landfill disposal system for the disposal of municipal solid waste generated within the City; and WHEREAS, the County of Orange, through Orange County Waste & Recycling, owns and operates the County landfill system, and, commencing July 1, 2026, is increasing landfill fees for municipal solid waste disposal and services under the Waste Infrastructure System Enterprise Agreement, also known as the WISE Agreement; and WHEREAS, the increased County disposal fees will increase the cost of providing residential solid waste disposal services to properties within the City; and WHEREAS, the proposed residential trash rate adjustment and five-year rate adjustment schedule are intended to recover increased County landfill disposal costs attributable to residential solid waste service under the WISE Agreement; and WHEREAS, the proposed adjustments apply only to the disposal-cost portion of the residential trash rate and do not apply to the collection portion of the rate or to the City administrative fee, which will remain unchanged; and WHEREAS, the City will not retain revenue from these adjustments beyond the amount necessary to recover increased County landfill disposal costs attributable to residential service; and
WHEREAS, the proposed five-year residential trash rate adjustment schedule does not modify or extend the separate hauler Consumer Price Index adjustment schedule previously authorized by the City Council for Republic Services, which remains in effect through December 31, 2027; and
WHEREAS, Article XIIID of the California Constitution, commonly known as Proposition 218, requires that before a property-related fee or charge is imposed or increased, written notice must be mailed to affected property owners or ratepayers at least 45 days before a public protest hearing; and
WHEREAS, on April 7, 2026, the City Council authorized staff to distribute the “Notice of Proposition 218 Public Protest Hearing Regarding Proposed Residential

Page 605 ends

Attachment #1
Trash Collection Rate Adjustment” in accordance with Proposition 218, and the City caused notices to be mailed to all affected residential trash ratepayers in adequate time to meet the minimum 45-day notice period required before the public protest hearing; and
WHEREAS, on June 2, 2026, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public protest hearing to consider the proposed residential trash disposal rate adjustment schedule, and written protests were accepted before and during the public protest hearing, up to the conclusion of the hearing; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public protest hearing, a majority protest did not exist; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 53756 authorizes the City to adopt a schedule of property-related fees or charges for a period not to exceed five years, including a schedule of adjustments based on a clearly defined formula; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff report, staff presentation, written protests, public testimony, and all other evidence presented; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed residential trash rate adjustment and five-year rate adjustment schedule comply with the procedural and substantive requirements of Proposition 218; and
WHEREAS, the City Council further finds that the proposed rates do not exceed the funds required to provide the service, will not be used for any purpose other than that for which the rates are imposed, are proportionate to the cost of providing service to the affected parcels, and are imposed only for services actually used by, or immediately available to, the affected properties.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Fountain Valley does hereby RESOLVE as follows:

SECTION 1. RECITALS. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. PROPOSITION 218 PUBLIC PROTEST HEARING. The City Council hereby finds that the public protest hearing was properly noticed and conducted in accordance with Article XIIID of the California Constitution and applicable law.

SECTION 3. NO MAJORITY PROTEST. The City Council hereby finds that a majority protest does not exist. Therefore, the City Council may impose the proposed residential trash rate adjustments.

SECTION 4. APPROVAL OF ADJUSTED RESIDENTIAL TRASH RATES AND FIVE-YEAR RATE ADJUSTMENT SCHEDULE. The City Council hereby approves and

Page 606 ends

Attachment #1
adopts the adjusted residential trash rates and five-year rate adjustment schedule set forth in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE OF ADJUSTED RATES. The adjusted residential trash rates shall become effective July 1, 2026.

SECTION 6. FUTURE RATE ADJUSTMENTS. Future adjustments within the five-year rate adjustment schedule shall be calculated and implemented in accordance with the methodology set forth in Exhibit “A,” limited to the disposal-cost portion of the residential trash rates, and subject to applicable law.

SECTION 7. IMPLEMENTATION. The City Manager, or designee, is authorized and directed to take all actions necessary or appropriate to implement this Resolution, including calculating and applying the approved rate adjustments and causing the adjusted rates to be billed and collected through the City’s utility billing system.

SECTION 8. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Resolution, or the application of any provision of this Resolution to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this Resolution, and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.

SECTION 9. FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Fountain Valley this 2nd day of June 2026.
____________________________
Mayor Jim Cunneen
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
_____________________________
Rick Miller, City Clerk Harper & Burns LLP
Attorneys for the City

Page 607 ends

Attachment #1
EXHIBIT “A”

ADJUSTED RESIDENTIAL TRASH RATES AND FIVE-YEAR

RATE ADJUSTMENT SCHEDULE BASED ON INCREASED

COUNTY DISPOSAL FEES
The residential trash rate adjustment adopted by this Resolution is intended to recover increased County landfill disposal costs attributable to residential solid waste service under the WISE Agreement. The adjustment applies only to the disposal-cost portion of the residential trash rate and does not apply to the collection portion of the rate or to the City administrative fee.

The City administrative fee remains unchanged.

INITIAL RESIDENTIAL RATE ADJUSTMENT EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2026 Standard Residential Rate
Rate Component Current
1/1/2026
Disposal
Adjustment
Effective
7/1/2026 Increase
Trash $30.88 8.3% $33.44 $2.56
Admin Fee - City
Billed $1.39 0.0% $1.39 $0.00
Total $32.27 $34.83 $2.56
Senior Residential Rate, 62 Years and Older
Rate Component Current
1/1/2026
Disposal
Adjustment
Effective
7/1/2026 Increase
Trash $26.89 8.3% $29.12 $2.23
Admin Fee - City
Billed $1.39 0.0% $1.39 $0.00
Total $28.28 $30.51 $2.23

PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR RESIDENTIAL TRASH RATE ADJUSTMENT SCHEDULE

DUE TO INCREASED COUNTY DISPOSAL FEES

PER DWELLING UNIT PER MONTH

Page 608 ends

Attachment #1
Effective
Date
Monthly Increase in Standard
Residential Rate
Monthly Increase in Senior
Residential Rate
July 1, 2026 $2.56 $2.23
July 1, 2027 $0.74 $0.64
July 1, 2028 $0.75 $0.65
July 1, 2029 Previous year + CPI Increase Previous year + CPI Increase July 1, 2030 Previous year + CPI Increase Previous year + CPI Increase For purposes of the five-year rate adjustment schedule, the disposal portion of the monthly residential and senior residential trash rates is fixed at 15.62% of the applicable monthly rate. This 15.62% figure is not the annual rate increase; it is the fixed disposal portion used to calculate the rate adjustment. The adopted adjustments apply only to the disposal-cost portion of the residential trash rate and do not apply to the collection portion of the rate or to the City administrative fee. “Consumer Price Index” or “CPI” means a blend of the following two indexes based on the following percentage of each: 60% of the CPI shall be comprised of the Consumer Price Index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for All Urban Consumers: Water and Sewer and Trash Collection Services in U.S. City Average (CUSR0000EHG); and 40% of the CPI shall be comprised of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, not seasonally adjusted, all items index (CPI-U) – All items in Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim (CUURS49ASA0). In the event either of the foregoing indexes is no longer published during the term of the WISE Agreement, such other index identified by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as a replacement or otherwise generally accepted as a replacement shall be used for purposes of the WISE Agreement; and, in the absence thereof, the Orange County Board of Supervisors shall select an index that it determines most closely reflects the foregoing and best implements the intent of the WISE Agreement.

Page 609 ends

NOTICE OF PROPOSITION 218 PROTEST HEARING REGARDING PROPOSED

RESIDENTIAL TRASH COLLECTION RATE ADJUSTMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Fountain Valley City Council will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, June 2, 2026, at 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 10200 Slater Avenue, to consider a proposed increase to the residential trash collection rates effective July 1, 2026, together with a proposed five-year schedule of annual residential trash rate adjustments, necessary to pay for increased County landfill disposal fees. The current residential trash collection rates are:

Category Current Proposed 7/1/2026 Monthly Increase
Standard Residential $32.27 $34.83 $2.56
Senior Residential $28.28 $30.51 $2.23
• The standard residential trash collection rates consist of three subcomponents:
o (1) collection (80.8%), (2) disposal (14.9%), and (3) administrative (4.3%). • The senior residential trash collection rates consist of three subcomponents:
o (1) collection (80.2%), (2) disposal (14.9%), and (3) administrative (4.9%).

The current amount of each subcomponent is shown below:

Category Collection Disposal Administrative Total
Standard Residential $26.06 $4.82 $1.39 $32.27
Senior Residential $22.69 $4.20 $1.39 $28.28
The proposed increase is to the disposal component. The proposed increases to the disposal component over the next five years are as follows:

Effective Date Monthly Increase in Standard
Residential Disposal Component
Monthly Increase in Senior
Residential Disposal Component
July 1, 2026 $2.56 $2.23
July 1, 2027 $0.74 $0.64
July 1, 2028 $0.75 $0.65
July 1, 2029 Previous year + CPI* Increase Previous year + CPI* Increase July 1, 2030 Previous year + CPI* Increase Previous year + CPI* Increase * For the calculation of CPI, see below
• “Consumer Price Index” or “CPI” means a blend of the following two indexes based on the following percentage of each: 60% of the CPI shall be comprised of the Consumer Price Index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for All Urban Consumers: Water and Sewer and Trash Collection Services in U.S. City Average (CUSR0000EHG); and, 40% of the CPI shall be comprised of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, not seasonally adjusted, all items index (CPI-U) – All items in Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim (CUURS49ASA0). In the event either of the forgoing indexes is no longer published during the term of this Agreement, such other index identified by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as a replacement or otherwise generally accepted as a replacement shall be used for purposes of this Agreement; and, in the absence thereof, the Orange County Board of Supervisors shall select an index that it determines most closely reflects the forgoing and best implements the intent of this Agreement.

Under Proposition 218, protests to the proposed rate adjustment schedule must be delivered in writing to the City Clerk, City of Fountain Valley, 10200 Slater Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 92708, prior to the conclusion of the Public Protest Hearing on June 2, 2026. Please include the Fountain Valley address of the affected property with any correspondence.

Questions or comments regarding the proposed rate adjustment may be directed to the City of Fountain Valley Public Works Department at (714) 593-4441 or e-mailed to [email protected].

Attachment #2

Page 610 ends

CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY
10200 Slater Avenue
Fountain Valley, CA 92708-4736
Resident
Billing Address
Fountain Valley, CA 92708

Page 611 ends

Invoice
Reference No.: 308627
Date: 30-Apr-2026
Due Date: 30-Apr-2026
Customer ID: FVL
InfoSend, Inc.
4240 East La Palma Avenue
Anaheim, CA, 92807-1816
Phone: 800-955-9330
Currency: USD
BILL TO: SHIP TO:

City Of Fountain Valley
PO Box 8030
Fountain Valley CA 92708-4736
United States of America
Attn: Accounts Payable
City of Fountain Valley
PO Box 8030
Fountain Valley CA 92708-4736
United States of America
CUSTOMER REF. NUMBER TERMS CONTACT
FVL | Prop 218 Due on receipt
SO TYPE SO NUMBER SHIPMENT NUMBER CUSTOMER P.O. NO.

IN 18833 <NEW> FVL | Prop 218
NO. ITEM QTY. UOM UNIT PRICE DISC. EXTENDED PRICE
1 DC MANUAL-PAPER: FVM0413A ; Paper:

8.5x11 Plain Uncoated White
14,632.00 PIECE 0.01600 0% 234.11
2 DC MANUAL-DATA PROCESSINGPRINT:

Data Processing/Print: CASS, stnd, presort,
walk sequence, merge to reverse, print 1/1
14,632.00 PIECE 0.17000 0% 2,487.44
3 DC MANUAL-OUTGOING ENVELOPE:

FVM0413A : Outgoing Envelope: ENV-INF-#10-
MM-IND
14,632.00 PIECE 0.02700 0% 395.06
4 DC MANUAL-MAILING SERVICES: FVM0413A
; Mailing Services: Bindery, trim, sort, insert,
deliver to Post Office
14,632.00 PIECE 0.04000 0% 585.28
5 DC MANUAL-POSTAGE: FVM0413A : Postage:
14632 Mail Pieces

1.00 PIECE 5,400.27000 0% 5,400.27
6 SET UP FEE: FVM0413A : Set Up Fee 1.00 PIECE 150.00000 0% 150.00 7 DC MANUAL-DATA PROCESSINGPRINT:

FVM0413A : ** Three Day Rush Fee **

1.00 PIECE 300.00000 0% 300.00
NOTE: Sales Total: 9,552.16
Tax Total: 264.78
We accept payments on our payment portal: https://www.onlinebiller.com/invoicepay. Please note payments via ACH are free of charge. Total (USD): 9,816.94
Page: 1 of 1
Attachment #3

Page 612 ends

CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY

CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST
To: Honorable Mayor and Agenda Date: June 2, 2026
Members of the City Council
SUBJECT: Amendment and Repeal of Municipal Code Provisions to Ensure Compliance with the California Fair Chance Act

THREE-YEAR STRATEGIC GOAL
☐ Cultivate a welcoming culture and safe environment that makes our community “A Nice Place to Live.”
☐ Ensure long-term fiscal stability by evaluating processes and attract and retain revenue producing businesses/opportunities.
☒ Attract and retain quality staff through best practices and trends. ☐ Maintain, build, plan for, and modernize infrastructure to support the growth and future needs of the City.
☐ Not applicable

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to ensure that the City’s Municipal Code and hiring practices are in compliance with the California Fair Chance Act (Government Code section 12952; Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 2, § 11017.1), which governs how employers consider an applicant’s criminal history during the hiring process.

Staff recommends the repeal of Municipal Code Sections 2.52.075 and 2.52.076, which currently automatically disqualify job applicants from employment based on felony convictions and outline associated appeal procedures. These sections in the Municipal Code conflict with state law because the California Fair Chance Act prohibits inquiring into the criminal history of applicants before a conditional employment offer is made for covered positions and requires an individualized assessment rather than a blanket disqualification based solely on the existence of a felony conviction.

Additionally, staff recommends amending Municipal Code Sections 2.52.060 and

2.52.070 to ensure compliance with state law regarding the timing and use of criminal background checks during the hiring process. Municipal Code Section 2.52.077 governing qualifications of peace officer applicants will also be updated to remove the now-outdated reference to appeal rights.

Page 613 ends

Amendment and Repeal of Municipal Code Provisions to Ensure Compliance with the California Fair Chance Act
June 2, 2026

Page 2 ends

DISCUSSION
Municipal Code Section 2.52.075 currently states that applicants “shall be prima facie disqualified from employment, licensing, or certification if convicted of a felony”, including nolo contendere pleas. Section 2.52.076 provides a discretionary appeal process to the City Manager, who may consider mitigating factors but is not required to perform an individualized assessment.

These sections in the Municipal Code conflict with current state law because the California Fair Chance Act prohibits inquiring into the criminal history of applicants before a conditional employment offer is made for covered positions and requires an individualized assessment rather than a blanket disqualification based solely on the existence of a felony conviction
Furthermore, Municipal Code Section 2.52.077 provides that peace officer applicants shall be conclusively disqualified for a felony conviction and makes reference to general appeal rights given to applicants. However, the referenced appeal rights in 2.52.060 are proposed for repeal, making this reference outdated. The automatic disqualification of felons from peace officer roles is still permitted under state law, but removing the reference to “general appeal rights” is warranted to eliminate confusion.

Additionally, staff recommends amending Municipal Code Sections 2.52.060 and

2.52.070 to ensure compliance with state law concerning the timing and use of criminal background and fingerprinting checks during the hiring process and align the Code with the City’s current practices. Employers can still obtain criminal history information and submit applicants to fingerprinting identification, but only after an offer is made.

To bring the City’s policies into compliance with state law, the proposed actions include:

1. Repeal existing Municipal Code Sections 2.52.075 and 2.52.076 to eliminate the automatic disqualification of felony convictions and a non-compliant appeal process; and

2. Amend Municipal Code Sections 2.52.060, 2.52.070, and 2.52.077 to specify that access to criminal history and fingerprinting shall occur after a conditional offer of employment is made, unless otherwise required by state or federal law (e.g. Peace Officer positions), and ensure peace officers disqualification procedures are consistent with the California Fair Chance Act; and

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
There is no fiscal impact anticipated as a result of the proposed changes.

ATTORNEY REVIEW
The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the proposed Ordinance repealing Municipal Code Sections 2.52.075 and 2.52.076 and amending Municipal Code Sections

Page 614 ends

Amendment and Repeal of Municipal Code Provisions to Ensure Compliance with the California Fair Chance Act
June 2, 2026

Page 3 ends

2.52.060, 2.52.070, and 2.52.077 to ensure compliance with the California Fair Chance Act (Government Code Section 12952; Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 2, § 11017.1.)

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative No.1: Ensure legal compliance with the California Fair Chance Act and proceed with staff’s recommendation to:

1. Repeal Municipal Code Sections 2.52.075 and 2.52.076.

2. Amend Municipal Code Sections 2.52.060, 2.52.070, and 2.52.077.

Alternative No. 2: Take no action, and do not:

1. Repeal Municipal Code Sections 2.52.075 and 2.52.076.

2. Amend new Municipal Code Sections 2.52.060, 2.52.070 and 2.52.077.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 and requests council take the following actions:

1. Repeal Municipal Code Sections 2.52.075 and 2.52.076.

2. Amend Municipal Code Sections 2.52.060, 2.52.070 and 2.52.077.

Prepared by: Vanessa Lassooy, Attorney for the City
Reviewed by: Tamaryn Roberts, Human Resources Manager
Reviewed by: Tania Knauerhaze, Human Resources Director Approved by: Maggie Le, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Fountain Valley Repealing Fountain Valley Municipal Code Sections 2.52.075 and 2.52.076 and amending Municipal Code Sections 2.52.060, 2.52.070, and 2.52.077 Regarding Consideration of Criminal History in Employment Decisions.

Page 615 ends

ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

FOUNTAIN VALLEY REPEALING FOUNTAIN VALLEY
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.52.075 AND 2.52.076 AND
AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 2.52.060,

2.52.070 AND 2.52.077 TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH
THE CALIFORNIA FAIR CHANCE ACT.

WHEREAS, the California Fair Chance Act (Government Code Section 12952) prohibits employers from inquiring or considering an applicant’s criminal history prior to extending a conditional offer of employment; and
WHEREAS, the California Fair Chance Act further requires that any consideration of criminal conviction history be preceded by an individualized assessment of the applicant with an opportunity for the applicant to respond before a conditional offer of employment is rescinded; and
WHEREAS, Municipal Code Section 2.52.075 allows a prima facie disqualification of job applicants based solely the applicant’s criminal history, and Municipal Code Section

2.52.076 establishes an appeal process that is not in compliance with the requirements of the California Fair Chance Act; and

WHEREAS, Municipal Code Section 2.52.077 governs an applicant’s qualification for peace officer positions and includes a reference to “general appeal rights” for applicants, which will become outdated following the repeal of Municipal Code Section

2.52.076; and
WHEREAS, Municipal Code Sections 2.52.060 and 2.52.070 authorizes access to an applicant’s employment history and fingerprinting at stages during the hiring process that conflict with the California Fair Chance Act; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to revise its Municipal Code to ensure compliance with state law and to ensure the Code aligns with the City’s current practices.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Fountain Valley does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Repeal of Fountain Valley Municipal Code Sections 2.52.075 and

2.52.076
Fountain Valley Municipal Code Sections 2.52.075 and 2.52.076 are hereby repealed in their entirety.
///
///

Page 616 ends

SECTION 2. Amendment of Fountain Valley Municipal Code Section 2.52.060 Municipal Code Section 2.52.060 is hereby amended to read as follows:

2.52.060 – State and Federal Summary Criminal History Access The City is authorized to access federal and state summary criminal history information for employment (including volunteers), licensing, or certification purposes, to the extent permitted by state and federal law, pursuant to the authority provided in Penal Code Sections 11105 and 13300, and may not disseminate said information to any private person or entity except as expressly permitted or required by law.

Except where state and federal law requires a criminal history background check or otherwise authorizes earlier access, the City shall obtain criminal history information only after a conditional offer of employment has been made.

SECTION 3. Amendment of Fountain Valley Municipal Code Section 2.52.070 Municipal Code Section 2.52.070 is hereby amended to read as follows:

2.52.070 – Fingerprinting/ investigation required
Appointees, applicants, and prospective employees for positions for which fingerprinting is required or authorized by law, shall submit to fingerprinting as directed by City. The Police or Human Resources department shall submit the fingerprinting identifying information to the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Fingerprinting or similar identification shall only be initiated after a conditional offer of employment has been made, except where state or federal law requires or expressly authorizes the fingerprinting or similar identification to occur earlier.

SECTION 4. Amendment of Fountain Valley Municipal Code Section 2.52.077 Municipal Code Section 2.52.077 is hereby amended to read as follows:

2.52.077 – Peace Officers
Applicants for a position as a peace officer shall be conclusively disqualified for convictions of a felony.

Page 617 ends

SECTION 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days following its adoption.

SECTION 6. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted in the manner required by law.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of Fountain Valley, held on the ___ day of _____, 2026.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Fountain Valley, on the ____ day of ______, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:
________________________ _____________________
Rick Miller, City Clerk Jim Cunneen, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

HARPER & BURNS LLP
________________________
Attorneys for the City

Page 618 ends

CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY

CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST
To: Honorable Mayor and Agenda Date: June 2, 2026
Members of the City Council
SUBJECT: Accept the bids and award a construction contract to ONYX Paving Company Inc. for the Residential Roadway Rehabilitation Project (City Quadrant B4), Project No. 26002, in the amount not-to-exceed $2,317,000.

Three-Year Strategic Goals
☒ Cultivate a welcoming culture and safe environment that makes our community “A Nice Place to Live.”
☐ Ensure long-term fiscal stability by evaluating processes, and attract and retain revenue producing businesses/opportunities.
☐ Attract and retain quality staff through best practices and trends. ☒ Maintain, build, plan for, and modernize infrastructure to support the growth and future needs of the City.
☐ Not applicable.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the bids and award a construction contract to ONYX Paving Company Inc. for the Residential Roadway Rehabilitation Project (City Quadrant B4) in the amount not-to-exceed $2,317,000. Staff intends to administratively issue a Purchase Order to Willdan Engineering for Construction Management Services with Inspection Services in the amount not-to-exceed $85,132, and a Purchase Order to The Converse Professional Group for Materials Testing Services in the amount not-to-exceed $20,535.

In a continuing effort to increase the longevity of the City of Fountain Valley’s residential streets, the Engineering Division is preparing the next residential roadway rehabilitation project. This Project provides rehabilitation and resurfacing of City streets in Quadrant B4, bounded by Slater Avenue, Newland Street, Warner Avenue, and Magnolia Street.

Construction is anticipated to begin in July 2026 and be completed by the end of September 2026.

The construction of this project is funded by the following funds: Gas Tax Fund, RMRA (SB1) Fund, General Fund, Measure HH Fund, Enterprise Water and Sewer Funds, and Solid Waste Fund. There is adequate funding within the FY2026/2027 Adopted Budget.

Page 619 ends

Residential Roadway Rehabilitation Project (City Quadrant B4) – ONYX Paving Company June 2, 2026

Page 2 ends

DISCUSSION
The City’s residential roadway rehabilitation program maintains quality pavement conditions by virtue of the use of varying pavement rehabilitation treatment types. The residential roadway rehabilitation program also includes improvements to deficient curbs, gutters, parkways, and non-ADA compliant sidewalks and curb ramps.

The FY2026/2027 Residential Roadway Rehabilitation Project (City Quadrant B4) will consist of a combination of the following methods, depending upon pavement conditions and appropriate treatment:
 Mill and overlay of asphalt concrete;
 Removal and reconstruction of deteriorated sections of curb and gutter;  Removal and reconstruction of damaged sidewalk panels;  Removal and reconstruction of deteriorated driveway approaches;  Removal and reconstruction of deteriorated cross gutters;  Adjustment of utility covers to grade;
 Restoration and installation of traffic delineation/striping and traffic loops;  Removal, furnishing, and replantation of deteriorated trees; and,  De-weeding and epoxy treatment of concrete areas as needed.

PROCUREMENT:

Page 620 ends

Residential Roadway Rehabilitation Project (City Quadrant B4) – ONYX Paving Company June 2, 2026

Page 3 ends

On April 14, 2026, the City publicly advertised Request for Bid (RFB) No. 26-007, Residential Roadway Rehabilitation Project (City Quadrant B4), Project 26002. On May 13, 2026, the City received 11 bids. The lowest responsible and responsive bidder, ONYX Paving Company Inc., submitted a bid for $2,317,000, in accordance with City requirements and purchasing policies.

Contractor Total Bid Amount

1. ONYX Paving Company Inc. $2,317,000.00

2. Towo Enterprise Inc. $2,385,667.40

3. Calmex Engineering, Inc. $2,472,104.34

4. All American Asphalt $2,474,112.00

5. Elegant Construction Inc. $2,538,628.76

6. Hardy & Harper, Inc. $2,565,000.00

7. Sequel Contractors, Inc. $2,674,162.34

8. R.J. Noble Company

9. Excel Paving Company

10. LCR Earthwork & Engineering, Corp.

11. Van Engineering Inc.
$2,717,081.90
$2,747,734.50
$2,892,777.04
$3,606,145.30
Engineer’s Estimate: $ 3,188,887.00
ONYX Paving Company Inc. has completed similar projects for other California municipalities, including the Cities of Downey, West Covina, Temple City, Diamond Bar, and Aliso Viejo.

ONYX Paving Company Inc. performed exceptional work in constructing the previous City of Fountain Valley Residential Roadway Rehabilitation Project in City Quadrant D1. Additionally, all referenced agencies recommended the contractor, noting their exceptional workmanship and excellent communication with staff and residents during construction.

ONYX Paving Company Inc. is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for the Residential Roadway Rehabilitation (City Quadrant B4), Project 26002, and submitted a bid in accordance with City requirements and purchasing policies.

On-Call Consultant Services
Due to the project size and nature of the work, dedicated construction management, construction inspection, and materials testing services will be required on this project to ensure timely responses, contract compliance, and proper Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) during construction activities. Therefore, City staff intends to utilize the City Council-approved On-Call consultant lists to administratively issue Purchase Orders for the construction management, construction inspection, and materials testing services that are needed for this project.

Construction Management and Construction Inspection Services City staff solicited and received proposals from Bureau Veritas, Interwest Consulting Group, Onward Engineering, Psomas, and Willdan Engineering, from the City’s On-Call consultant list for construction management services and construction inspection services. Bureau Veritas submitted a proposal in the amount of $75,735, Interwest Consulting Group submitted a proposal in the amount of $79,860, Onward Engineering submitted a proposal in the amount

Page 621 ends

Residential Roadway Rehabilitation Project (City Quadrant B4) – ONYX Paving Company June 2, 2026

Page 4 ends

of $83,175, Psomas submitted a proposal in the amount of $224,713, and Willdan Engineering submitted a proposal in the amount of $85,132.

City staff recommends Willdan Engineering for construction management and inspection services for this project. Bureau Veritas, Interwest Consulting Group, and Willdan Engineering provided the three (3) most competitive proposals. Bureau Veritas proposed a higher hourly rate and significantly less construction management hours. Interwest Consulting Group also proposed less construction management hours than Willdan Engineering. Both Interwest Consulting Group and Willdan Engineering proposed similar hourly rates. However, although the total cost for the Interwest Consulting Group proposal was slightly lower, Willdan Engineering was selected over Interwest Consulting Group because they are highly experienced, and City staff is ensuring an equitable distribution of projects across the City’s on-call consultants list.

Willdan Engineering is a well-known civil engineering and construction management services firm with a good reputation. Willdan Engineering has demonstrated to be best equipped to facilitate this project as they offer the best value, and the selected construction manager and construction inspector offers more than 20 years of specialized expertise in large scale pavement rehabilitation projects similar to this project. Willdan Engineering has previously provided construction management and construction inspection services for street improvement projects with the cities of Garden Grove, Brea, Inglewood, and Pico Rivera. As such, staff intends to administratively issue a Purchase Order to Willdan Engineering in the amount of $85,132.

Materials Testing Services
City staff solicited and received proposals from The Converse Professional Group, Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants (Ninyo and Moore), and Twining, Inc. from the City’s On-Call consultant list for materials testing services. The Converse Professional Group submitted a proposal in the amount of $20,535, Ninyo and Moore submitted a proposal in the amount of $28,540, and Twining submitted a proposal in the amount of $67,062.

The Converse Professional Group has successfully provided materials and soils testing services for numerous capital improvement projects throughout Southern California. Recently, The Converse Professional Group was selected to provide materials testing service for the upcoming 2025 Sewer Rehabilitation and Replacement Project. As such, staff intends to administratively issue a Purchase Order to The Converse Professional Group in the amount of $20,535.

FISCAL REVIEW
The current adopted FY2026/2027 budget includes sufficient funding for this project. The budget allocations and project expenses/costs are as follows:

Page 622 ends

Residential Roadway Rehabilitation Project (City Quadrant B4) – ONYX Paving Company June 2, 2026

Page 5 ends

Project Budget Allocation
Funding Source Project Budget Amount
General Fund $1,150,000
Measure HH $1,150,000
Gas Tax $605,000
RMRA (SB1) $225,000
Water Fund $50,000
Sewer Fund $40,000
Solid Waste Fund $380,000
Total Budget $3,600,000
Construction Project Expenses/Costs
Vendor/Item Project
String Amount
Construction (ONYX Paving Company Inc.) 56012 $2,317,000 10% Contingency 56013 $231,700
Construction Management and Construction Inspection (Willdan Engineering) *
56011 $85,132
Materials Testing Services (The Converse Professional Group) * 56011 $20,535 Project Plans and Bid Documents Printing Costs 56011 $3,000 Total Project Costs $2,657,367
*Purchase Orders to be issued administratively
Note that, as in all of the City’s Public Works contracts, the contract itself provides the Director of Public Works authority to issue change orders of up to 10% of the original contract amount. When the Council approves the contract, it approves this authority. Ten percent is generally considered within the normal range of changed conditions on a Public Works construction project and, by providing change order authority upfront, Council helps to reduce the possibility of delay damages that could be incurred when a contractor must stop work and wait for authorization to proceed.

Overall Project String Break down for Project No. 26002:

Project String Amount
Design/Planning for Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Residential Paving Project (56010)* $3,200 Construction Management (56011)
(Including Construction Management, Inspection, Materials Testing, and Printing Costs)
$108,667
Construction (56012) $2,317,000
Contingency – Construction (56013) $231,700
Total $2,660,567
*DMS Consultants, Inc. FY2025/2026 P.O. was for $69,340, with a FY2026/2027 carry over amount of $3,200

Page 623 ends

Residential Roadway Rehabilitation Project (City Quadrant B4) – ONYX Paving Company June 2, 2026

Page 6 ends

Construction Management and Construction Inspection Services:

Willdan Engineering (CON 1544)
Total On-Call Contract for Willdan Engineering* $600,000.00 Construction Management and Construction Inspection Expenditure – Residential Roadway Rehabilitation Project (City Quadrant B4) ($85,132.00) Total Remaining in Contract $514,868.00
*Approved by City Council on February 18, 2025
Materials Testing Services: The Converse Professional Group (CON 1576) Total On-Call Contract for Materials Testing for The Converse Professional Group* $600,000.00
Materials Testing Expenditure – 2025 Sewer Rehabilitation and Replacement Project ($19,848.00)
Materials Testing Expenditure – Residential Roadway Rehabilitation Project (City Quadrant B4) ($20,535.00)
Total Remaining in Contract $559,617.00
*Approved by City Council on April 15, 2025

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Not applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW
Not applicable.

ATTORNEY REVIEW
The Attorney for the City has reviewed and approved the ONYX Paving Company Inc. contract for construction. The Attorney for the City has also reviewed the Willdan Engineering contract from the City Council-approved Construction Management and Construction Inspection consultant list approved on February 18, 2025, and the Converse Professional Group contract from the City Council-approved Materials Testing Services consultant list approved on April 15, 2025.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative No. 1: Accept the bids and award a construction contract to ONYX Paving Company Inc. for the Residential Roadway Rehabilitation Project (City Quadrant B4), Project No. 26002, in the amount not-to-exceed $2,317,000.

Page 624 ends

Residential Roadway Rehabilitation Project (City Quadrant B4) – ONYX Paving Company June 2, 2026

Page 7 ends

Alternative No. 2: Reject all bids and do not move forward with the award of the contract.

This is not the recommended alternative as the bids received are competitive bids and Contractor is a reputable contractor that has completed similar municipal projects throughout Southern California.

Moving forward with this project will prevent further degradation of the City’s residential streets that, if not performed now, will cost considerably more in the future due to continued deterioration, rising fuel costs, and inflation.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff is requesting City Council approval of Alternative No. 1, which is to:

Accept the bids and award a construction contract to ONYX Paving Company Inc. for the Residential Roadway Rehabilitation Project (City Quadrant B4), Project No. 26002, in the amount not-to exceed $2,317,000.

Support by: Terri Phan, Management Aide
Prepared by: Jessenia Penaloza, Assistant Engineer
Recommended by: Kyle Knoke, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer Reviewed by: Temo Galvez, P.E., Deputy Public Works Director / City Engineer Approved by: Scott Smith, P.E., Director of Public Works Fiscal Review by: Ryan Smith, Finance Director / City Treasurer Approved by: Maggie Le, City Manager
Attachment 1: ONYX Paving Company Inc. Contract
Attachment 2: Willdan Engineering Proposal
Attachment 3: The Converse Professional Group Proposal

Page 625 ends

Attachment #1

Page 626 ends

Page 627 ends

Page 628 ends

Page 629 ends

Page 630 ends

Page 631 ends

Page 632 ends

Page 633 ends

Page 634 ends

Page 635 ends

Page 636 ends

Page 637 ends

Page 638 ends

Page 639 ends

Page 640 ends

Page 641 ends

Page 642 ends

Page 643 ends

Page 644 ends

Page 645 ends

Page 646 ends

Page 647 ends

Page 648 ends

May 20, 2026
Jessenia Penaloza, Assistant Engineer
City of Fountain Valley
10200 Slater Avenue
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Subject: (REVISED) Request for Proposal for Construction Management and Construction Inspection Services for Roadway Rehabilitation Project Quadrant B4 Dear Ms. Penaloza:

Willdan Engineering is pleased to present the City of Fountain Valley with this revised proposal to assist in inspecting the City’s proposed Roadway Rehabilitation Project. Willdan Engineering has been providing construction engineering services to California cities and counties for 61 years, including Newport Beach, Santa Ana, Garden Grove, Long Beach, and other nearby cities. We are well-suited to partner with the City of Fountain Valley on this vital public works improvement project.

Willdan provides staffing professionals committed to delivering top-quality service to the City of Fountain Valley. Willdan's proposed public works construction manager and inspector are experienced in working together as an integral part of a municipal agency. The following strengths are what set us apart from the competition and make us the best-qualified team for this assignment:

Highly Skilled Construction Manager and Inspector. Our
proposed Construction Manager, Mr. Arne Cvek, has over
20 years of experience. His experience includes construction management of large-scale projects in pavement
rehabilitation, sewer installations, sewer lining, water systems, park improvements, storm drains, asphalt
resurfacing (including asphalt-rubber products), concrete paving, landscaped medians, and traffic signals.

Our proposed Construction Inspector, Mr. John Crowe, has over 25 years of public works construction inspection
experience, specializing in street improvements, water
improvements, building code compliance, material testing, traffic signals, and HMA/ARHM paving projects.

Mr. Arne Cvek and Mr. Crowe
offer extensive experience
overseeing street
improvement projects.

Unmatched Improvement Project Experience. Willdan
has provided construction management and/or inspection for pavement improvement projects for the past 61 years. Our proposed construction inspection personnel have recent
experience with street improvements in Southern California, including Inglewood, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, Long Beach, Newport Beach, Pico Rivera, Downey, and Brea.

Our project team has recent
experience working together
in the Cities of Pico Rivera
and Inglewood.

Large Company with Boutique Company Approach. We
have the resources of a large company but are staffed by individuals who respect our clients' unique needs. Every Willdan employee – including those working at City offices – seeks to understand each city's goals, policies, and practices based on what is written in their general plans and
development codes, and on how those goals and policies
have been applied over time. This approach has contributed to Willdan’s success.

We have worked with nearly
90% of California cities and
counties to deliver 13,000+
projects, serving over 3,400
clients.

Attachment #2

Page 649 ends

City of Fountain Valley
May 20, 2026

Page 2 ends

Willdan looks forward to the opportunity to assist the City of Fountain Valley on this especially important project. Should you have any questions regarding our proposal, please do not hesitate to contact me at (562) 695-2120.

Respectfully submitted, Approval and Authorization to Proceed By:

WILLDAN ENGINEERING CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY
Chris Baca, RCI, CESSWI
Director of Construction Services Signature

Date
910005\WW.00.40\P26-078R2_28158

Page 650 ends

City of Fountain Valley
May 20, 2026

Page 3 ends

WILLDAN CONSTRUCTION SERVICES EXPERTISE
Our proposed public works construction manager and inspector offer reliable service, quality workmanship, sound judgment, fair and equitable treatment, and adherence to our corporate integrity. Our proposed construction services personnel have the experience to identify and correct discrepancies, ambiguities, omissions, or conflicts in plans, specifications, and bid schedules that may lead to misinterpretation and/or agency and contractor disagreements. Our proposed team is adept at anticipating issues before they arise through continual review of project plans, specifications, contractors’ schedules, and contract documents. Potential problems are brought to the attention of the City's Project Manager and/or the contractor, along with constructive recommendations for solutions, to mitigate costly delays and negative impacts on the public and the project.

UNDERSTANDING SCOPE OF SERVICES
Project Understanding
The City of Fountain Valley’s Quadrant B4 Residential Roadway Rehabilitation Project (Project No. 27001) consists of large-scale pavement rehabilitation and related improvements within an active residential neighborhood, as shown in the improvement plans. The work includes cold milling of approximately 900,000 square feet of existing asphalt concrete pavement, localized deep milling, and placement of approximately 11,350 tons of ½” PG 64-10 asphalt concrete overlay. Additional improvements include removal and reconstruction of PCC curb and gutter, sidewalks, ADA-compliant curb ramps, driveway approaches, cross gutters, utility frame and cover adjustments, survey monument resetting, tree removal and replanting, and restoration of pavement striping and markings. All work must conform to the Greenbook Specifications, Caltrans Standard Specifications, and the City of Fountain Valley’s Standard Plans and Special Provisions.

From a Construction Management and Inspection perspective, we understand that successful delivery will require proactive coordination, rigorous quality assurance, and continuous field oversight within a constrained 45 working-day construction window. Inspection efforts will focus on verifying milling depths, proper preparation of pavement surfaces, placement and compaction of asphalt concrete to achieve the required minimum 95% relative compaction, compliance with approved mix designs, and conformance with ADA slope and detectable warning requirements for curb ramps.

Equally critical will be enforcement of traffic control requirements, maintenance of two-way traffic during designated hours, coordination of property access, implementation of advanced public notification procedures, and adherence to NPDES stormwater and public safety standards.

Our CM team recognizes the importance of thorough documentation, daily reporting, materials tracking, coordination with the City’s testing laboratory, review of contractor schedules and submittals, and timely resolution of field issues to maintain progress and avoid delay claims. Through consistent communication with the City, contractor, residents, and stakeholders, the CM and inspection team will support delivery of a compliant, durable, and publicly sensitive roadway rehabilitation project.

Scope of Work
Construction Management

1. Assist City with public awareness and information program to keep residents and local stakeholders informed of project status along with impacts to traffic flow circulation, including answering public’s questions about project.

2. Prepare construction file. A copy of Willdan’s file checklist can be provided upon request.

3. Ensure contractor distributes public construction notices and places construction and information signs.

4. Prepare special concerns to be presented at preconstruction conference.

5. Conduct preconstruction meeting, prepare meeting minutes, and distribute to attendees.

Page 651 ends

City of Fountain Valley
May 20, 2026

Page 4 ends

6. Review contractor’s safety program in consultation with City staff.

7. Through Willdan’s system of project control, monitor activities related to project such that project is constructed in timely fashion pursuant to contract documents.

8. Log, track, and process submittals, RFIs, releases for construction (RFCs), contract change orders (CCOs), field directives, notices of proposed change (NOPCs), non-conformance reports (NCRs), construction schedule, and detailed traffic control plan.

9. Closely review schedule and advise contractor to act on schedule slippage.

10. Document contractor’s 20-day notices, mechanic’s liens, and stop notices.

11. Assume responsibility for coordination with inspection staff and City staff.

12. Monitor and coordinate activities of design engineering support, surveying, testing, and work by utilities or other agencies.

13. Coordinate contractor’s field work with utility companies and other agencies.

14. Prepare weekly statement of working days and submit it to contractor and City.

15. Establish and conduct weekly construction progress meetings to:
a. Resolve all old business issues to maximum extent possible b. Address all items of new business as presented by any party c. Review project schedule and address any deviations
d. Review submittal log in terms of items needed and resubmittals required and review RFI, RFC, CCO, NCR, and NOPC logs
e. List status of construction items recently undertaken or ongoing f. List planned construction items for next two weeks (two-week look ahead schedule) g. Review SWPPP issues
h. Review contractor’s safety program

16. Prepare minutes for weekly construction progress meeting.

17. Provide claims mitigation monitoring, including proactively applying foresight to discover unforeseen conflicts prior to contractor encounter.

18. Evaluate and respond to contractor’s requests for clarification of plans and specifications.

19. Ensure that all questions, conflicts, and issues are immediately brought to City’s attention and addressed with appropriate directives to contractor.

20. Conduct special site meetings, when necessary, with contractor and City staff to review job progress, scheduling, and coordination.

21. Perform quantity, time, and cost analyses required for negotiation of contract changes.

22. Negotiate and prepare change orders, including memorandum of explanation and cost estimates, to substantiate change order and send to City for review.

23. Monitor and perform immediate and thorough analysis of validity of all potential claims that arise.

24. Maintain all data for change orders and record information regarding time of dispute, time of notification by contractor, and action taken by inspector.

25. Monitor materials documentation and testing results and enforce corrections.

26. Review for approval contractor’s progress payment requests; negotiate differences over amount with contractor; and process payments through City's Project Manager.

27. Monitor preparation of punch list at substantial completion and follow up.

28. Routinely review construction files to ensure conformance to City standards and good construction management practices.

29. Ensure City receives as-built set of drawings at completion.

30. Assist City with stop notices and release of retention.

31. Provide memorandum of clearance to issue notice of completion.

32. Finalize and deliver all construction files and supplies to City for their records.

Construction Inspection

1. Review plans, specifications, and all other contract- and construction-related documents.

Page 652 ends

City of Fountain Valley
May 20, 2026

Page 5 ends

2. Conduct a field investigation of the project area to become familiar with the existing facilities and the project environment.

3. Become familiar with traffic control plans, construction schedule, construction sequence, and permit requirements from other agencies.

4. Verify that the contractor conforms to the design survey line and grades.

5. Attending weekly progress meetings with the construction manager, contractor, and subcontractors.

6. Provide full-time and as-needed construction inspection, of the work to monitor materials and methods for compliance with plans, specifications, and contract documents; address and document non-conforming items as they are discovered.

7. Monitor compliance with Cal OSHA requirements and compliance with all local, state, and federal regulations. Although Willdan will monitor the activities, it is the contractor’s sole responsibility to provide workers with a safe working environment.

8. Monitor compliance with the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System – NPDES best management practices). Also, monitor the contractor’s compliance with approved SWPPP.

9. Meet with the contractor at the beginning of each day and review the proposed work plan, including specific details that may affect progress.

10. Conduct daily measurements of quantities of work with the contractor.

11. Review actual contractor performance throughout the day and discuss discrepancies with the contractor as they occur.

12. Assist in coordination of engineering support, surveying, specialty inspections, and fieldwork by utility companies.

13. Ensure compliance of Underground Service Alert notification/delineation.

14. Evaluate the contractor’s operation and production with respect to quality and progress and report to the City’s Project Manager and Construction Manager.

15. Photograph continuous property frontages along the street alignment once prior to construction and once immediately following construction. Maintain a photographic record of key elements of each major operation of work each day, with increased detail in situations of potential changes or claims.

16. Closely monitor testing results and require the contractor to provide corrective measures to achieve compliance.

17. Maintain copies of all permits needed to construct the project and enforce special requirements of each.

18. Prepare and maintain detailed daily diary inspector reports on construction progress.

19. Prepare clear and concise letters and memoranda, as needed. Establish a solid paper trail.

20. Maintain field file bound workbooks and Willdan electronic file during construction, including a cumulative record of quantities constructed, daily and weekly reports, working day reports, change order documentation, photographs, and other documentation.

21. Analyze delays and review claims on a timely basis and make recommendations to the construction manager.

22. Assist with the review and evaluation of up to (3) change orders.

23. Provide complete measurements and calculations documented to administer progress payments.

24. Maintain and submit a clean set of plans marked in red for as-built corrections on record drawings to be filed with the City. (City’s design consultant will transfer the contractor’s record drawings to original Mylar drawings).

25. Prepare a punch list at substantial completion and follow up with the contractor regarding progress of corrections.

26. Schedule a final inspection with the City and applicable agencies; prepare, distribute, and inspect corrections to the final punch list for completion; and recommend final acceptance.

Page 653 ends

City of Fountain Valley
May 20, 2026

Page 6 ends

27. Prepare documentation for final payment to the contractor.

28. Upon project completion, provide the finished set of project workbooks to the City.

Page 654 ends

City of Fountain Valley
Page | 7

FEE PROPOSAL
Willdan proposes performing the required inspection services on a time-and-materials (T&M) basis. Willdan’s proposal is based upon the City’s estimated 45 working Day construction schedule. Our proposed not-to-exceed fee for the Scope of Work identified above is $85,132.00.

Page 655 ends

City of Fountain Valley
Page | 8

RESUMES
Arne Cvek
Construction Manager
Profile Summary
Education:  Master of Science, Construction Management, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge
 Post-Baccalaureate Certificate, Construction Management, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge
 Bachelor of Science, Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder
Certifications:  Caltrans Resident Engineer Academy
 FEMA IS-0008.a, IS-00005.a, IS-00100.b, IS-00200.c, IS-00320, IS-00700.a Experience:  20 Years
Mr. Arne Cvek possesses 20 years of professional experience in the field of full lifecycle construction management/project management. He is proficient in leading and managing projects and executing extensive scopes of work on strict deadlines. He is adept at communicating effectively and developing working relationships across diverse populations, while working toward a common goal of delivering quality projects within established timeframes and budget. He is specifically skilled at managing contractors, equipment, personnel, and resources to maximize productivity. He ensures excellent communication with contractors regarding construction obligations and legal requirements across multiple trades, and he is especially adept at maintaining excellent quality control of construction projects.

Relevant Project Experience
Phase I Crenshaw Boulevard Project, City of Inglewood, California, $4.5M. Construction Manager. Willdan is currently providing construction management, inspection, and material testing services for this $20 million project to beautify and improve the Crenshaw Boulevard corridor between the I-105 freeway and Century Boulevard. The work includes removal and reconstruction of existing asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete roadways, driveway approaches, sidewalks, curb and gutter, cross gutters, curb ramps, and bus pads; new irrigation water services; median and parkway landscaping; traffic signal modifications; ITS improvements; street lighting; and cold milling and asphalt rubber hot mix overlay. Traffic signal installations and/or modifications are being made at 7 intersections along Crenshaw Blvd, including one Caltrans intersection at the I-105 freeway. The project involves regular coordination with Caltrans, the City of Hawthorne, and multiple City of Inglewood departments.

City of Santa Ana Fire Station Capital Improvement Projects, California, $4.5M. Construction Manager. City-owned Fire Station Facility maintenance was determined to be a priority for fiscal year 22/23. Projects include roof replacements, mold remediation and landscaping, flooring replacement, kitchen and dayroom ADA and gender-neutral remodel, HVAC, above-ground fuel storage tank removal and replacement. Mr. Cvek was responsible for project scope development, design, bidding, award, inspection and project closeout.

Various Projects, City of Santa Ana, California. Contract Administrator. Mr. Cvek provided comprehensive contract and plan reviews, delineating construction and legal requirements and technical specifications across various trades, including electrical, mechanical, plumbing, landscape, and building. Specifically, he evaluated and reported on contractor compliance with contract provisions, conditions, and municipal codes. He determined and investigated code or contract violations and provided recommendations for corrective action. He developed, reviewed, and implemented contract proposal and design-build plans for various public works projects. He served as point of contact for RFIs.

Page 656 ends

City of Fountain Valley
Page | 9
Child Development Center Structural Repairs and Roofing, City La Habra, California.

Construction Manager. Due to climatic pressures experienced in recent years, the Child Development Center experienced severe damage to the roof and structural members. On a oncall basis, Mr. Cvek responded to the City’s request for assistance in management of contractors, material, and schedule associated with structural repairs to the roof system, as well as monitored construction for the removal and replacement of the roof system.

Santa Ana City Hall Second, Fifth, and Eighth Floor Tenant Improvements, City of Santa Ana, California, $2.5M. Construction Manager. Facilities at Santa Ana City Hall and Ross Annex were selected to undergo renovations. To minimize impact to daily operations, work has been programmed to take place in phases. This project includes updating lighting, plumbing fixtures, finishes, demolition and installation of non-load bearing interior partition walls, ceiling finishes, as well as data and electrical relocations. Mr. Cvek was responsible for coordination with design consultant, RFI and Submittal review, stakeholder updates, contract administration, and scheduling.

Santa Anita Park Field and Park Improvements, City of Santa Ana, California, $9.5M.

Construction Manager. The comprehensive project enabled a total park renovation that includes new synthetic turf soccer field, new sports lighting, the incorporation of built-in concrete bleacher seating into adjacent grass slopes, upper terraces to allow for group event canopies, a new basketball court, new playground equipment, a parking lot expansion, new concrete walkways, new site lighting, and new landscape and irrigation. Mr. Cvek was responsible for contractor inspection coordination and contract administration.

Musco Sports Lighting Dan Young Sports Complex, Memorial, Thornton Park/George Upton Park, City of Santa Ana, California, $4M. Construction Manager. City staff determined selected parks for sports field lighting replacement. The replacement of old fixtures, poles, conduits and electrical cabinets occurred through a Sourcewell contract with MUSCO LED lighting. Mr. Cvek was responsible for construction management and project delivery.

Universally Accessible Playground at Thornton Park, City of Santa Ana, California, $2.3M.

Construction Manager. City staff selected George Upton All Access Park, located at Thornton Park, for the installation of the first universally accessible playground. Working through Sourcewell, Landscape Structures was selected for the playground installation through Coast Recreation. Mr. Cvek coordinated and directed Coast Recreation through the pre-construction phase of the project. The project is set to break ground in the Fall of 2023, whereby Mr. Cvek will deliver the project.

Fire Station Above-Ground Storage Tanks, City of Santa Ana, California, $4.5M.

Construction Manager. Aging underground fuel storage tanks located at three fire stations in the City require the removal and installation of above-ground fuel storage tanks. Mr. Cvek worked on the design phase of the projects.

Tec Engineers and Managers, City of Irvine, California. Quality Control Manager. Mr. Cvek provided management services on the Los Angeles World Airport (LAWA) terminal cores and Automated People Mover projects. He adhered strictly to contract specifications to deliver a quality project. He attended project meetings to gain knowledge and designer/builder intent to facilitate planning. He was involved from the preconstruction phase to ensure all paperwork and documentation requirements were met. Working with contractors, he encouraged collaboration and emphasized the inspection process. Meeting with client superintendents and project managers, as well as contractors, he worked toward transparency and collaboration regarding testing, inspections, and construction. He was the primary point of contact for all issues relating to the quality control of the project.

Don Wright Contractors, City of Fontana, California. Project Manager. Mr. Cvek led interior and exterior renovations for multi-family dwellings, overseeing scheduling and hiring, as well as

Page 657 ends

City of Fountain Valley
Page | 10
material procurement, including drywall, paint, electrical, plumbing, fencing, ensuring work was completed on schedule and at a high level of quality control.

Bolco Construction, City of Burlingame, California. Superintendent. Mr. Cvek directed planning and scheduling of construction teams, working on various multi-family residential projects, encompassing electrical and structural. He oversaw budgets and managed costs. He conducted progress and process meetings to achieve strategic relationships between vendors, contractors, and stakeholders.

Page 658 ends

City of Fountain Valley
Page | 11
John Crowe
Senior Public Works Observer
Profile Summary
Education:  National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies (NICET) 97346  Level I Certification in Transportation Engineering Technology/Highway Construction.  Level II Certification in the field of Construction Materials Testing Asphalt, Concrete and Soil.
 American Concrete Institute (ACI) Level I Concrete Field Technician  Caltrans Certificate of Proficiency for Acceptance Testing for the following test methods: 125, 201, 202, 216, 227, 231, 375, 504, 518, 526, 533, 539, 540, 547 and D2922.
 Boart Longyear (CPN) Radiation Safety and Use of Nuclear Gauges  California B-1 General Contractor’s License No. 560363 Experience:  23 Years
Mr. John Crowe has 23 years of practical experience with a strong versatile background in construction. He is a licensed General Contractor, holds numerous construction certifications, and is knowledgeable in all areas of roadway construction, concrete structures, drainage construction and traffic signal requirements. He has shown the ability to work well with developers, contractors, utility agencies and all parties involved on a project.

Relevant Project Experience
Regional Bikeway Project CIP No. 21280 Federal Project No. ATPL-5351(032), City of Pico Rivera, California. Public Works Inspector. Willdan is providing Construction Management and Public Works Inspection services on this project, which consists of construction of a 1.1-mile-long Class IV bike lane along Mines Avenue from Paramount Boulevard to the San Gabriel River.

Additional improvements along Mines Avenue include construction of bio-swales and planting of drought tolerant landscaping, sidewalk and ADA improvements, pavement reconstruction, and signal modifications at the intersections of Paramount Boulevard at Mines Avenue and Rosemead Boulevard at Mines Avenue. Construction costs are approximately $6.5 million.

I-605 Hot Spots Intersection Improvements Rosemead Blvd and Beverly Blvd, City of Pico Rivera, California. Public Works Inspector. This project included increased left turn storage, additional left turn lanes, additional travel lanes, dedicated right turn pockets, reconstruction of existing medians to accommodate additional travel lanes, modifying existing traffic signals and striping, pavement rehabilitation, construction of curb ramps, driveway approaches and miscellaneous sidewalk improvements.

Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation, City of Pico Rivera, California. Public Works Inspector.

Willdan is providing public works observation and construction management services for the Citywide Street Rehabilitation Project- Overlay and Reconstruction. Improvements include pavement rehabilitation on various roadway segments and parkway improvements, such as reconstruction of existing damaged and uplifted concrete sidewalk, curb and gutter, and drive approaches, curb ramps, utility adjustments, signing and striping, and replacement of traffic loops.

Various Arterial-Residential Street Improvements, City Project No. 7212, 7215, and 7292, City of Garden Grove, California. Public Works Inspector. Willdan provided street rehabilitation with full depth reclamation for Brookhurst Street from Lampson Avenue to Chapman Avenue and for Euclid Street from Lampson Avenue to Chapman. In addition, Willdan completed street rehabilitation with removal and reconstruction of Lampson Avenue from Brookhurst Street to Nelson Street, Magnolia Street from Shelly Drive to Katella Avenue, and La Vaughn, Russell, and Earle Streets at Imperial Avenue. We also performed street rehabilitation with micro surfacing of Brookhurst Street from Westminster Avenue to Trask Avenue. The projects included cement treatment, roadway excavation, cold milling and micro milling; installation of ARAM Interlayer; asphalt paving; replacement of PCC curb and gutter, cross gutter, sidewalk, wheel chair ramps, and stamped color concrete; landscaping and irrigation; adjustment of utility covers to finish

Page 659 ends

City of Fountain Valley
Page | 12
grade; removal of existing and installation of new traffic signal controller and cabinet including foundation; installation of traffic detector loops; installations of traffic striping, signing, pavement markings and markers; and reestablish of centerline ties and monuments.

Pavement Rehabilitation Project STR200002A Pacific, City of Highland, California. Public Works Inspector. Willdan is providing construction management and inspection services for this project which involves pavement rehabilitation, including pavement grinding, cold central plant recycling, pavement removal and replacement, and asphalt rubber overlay, as well as minor removal and replacement of damaged concrete sidewalk, curb and gutter, and cross gutter, grinding raised sidewalk panels, slurry seal, crack repair, crack seal, adjustment of valve covers to final grade, protection of manholes, and installation of striping and markings.

Lakewood 2022 Major Street Paving and Rehabilitation Project, City of Lakewood, California. Public Works Inspector. Willdan provided construction management, public works observation, labor compliance, and materials testing services for this project, which involved pavement rehabilitation (cold milling, leveling course, asphalt rubber hot mix overlay, thermoplastic striping, traffic loops, curb ramps, sidewalk, curb and gutter) of eight major and collector streets for an estimated total distance of 8 linear miles.

Slurry Seal FY 20-21, City of La Puente, California. Public Works Inspector. Willdan provided construction management and public works inspection for the City’s Annual Slurry Seal Program on various streets throughout the City.

Puente Street Water Improvements, City of Brea, California. Public Works Inspector. Willdan is providing construction management and public works inspection for the City of Brea’s Puente Water Improvement project. This project encompasses water system and street rehabilitation/reconstruction improvements on Puente Street between Briarwood Drive and Lambert Road and on Gemini Avenue and Titan Way within the City of Brea.

Alley Rehabilitation, City of Brea, California. Public Works Inspector. Project included the reconstruction of three alleys and involved removal of the existing pavement, new alley approaches, asphalt, paving, and other appurtenant work.

Sewer and Park Improvement at La Puente Community Park, City of La Puente, California.

Public Works Inspector. The project consists of the removal of existing asphalt concrete pavement and base, concrete sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveways, chain link fence, manhole structures; construction of asphalt concrete over aggregate base, curb and gutter, PCC driveways, PCC curb ramps, PCC sidewalk, decorative concrete paving, tree wells, catch basins, infiltration trench, parkway drains, trash enclosures; installation of sewer line, storm drain lines, iron fence, electrical conduit, lighting, loop detectors, signing and striping, and landscape improvements. The work also includes manholes, laterals, sewer bypass, CCTV camera inspection and other appurtenant work.

De Luz FEMA Project, De Luz Community Services. Public Works Inspector. Willdan provided inspection, construction management, and labor compliance. This was a FEMA project to repair drainage issues at 23 identified locations. These locations had drainage concerns causing roadway improvements to washout. These washouts were to be repaired via storm drain and grading repairs to allow proper drainage to mitigate any further infrastructure damage and help enhance roadway safety. Work included Earthwork, Paving, Storm Drain Improvements and Pipe Lining.

Elliott /Amar Improvement Project, City of La Puente, California. Public Works Observer.

Willdan provided construction observation, project management and labor compliance services for right-of-way improvements for Elliott Avenue/ Amar Road Project.

Page 660 ends

Converse Consultants
Geotechnical Engineering & Consulting, Environmental & Groundwater Science, Materials Testing & Inspection Services
3176 Pullman Street, Suite 108, Costa Mesa, California 92626 Telephone: (714) 444-9660 ♦ Facsimile: (714) 444-9640 ♦ www.converseconsultants.com March 3, 2026
Revised May 13, 2026
Ms. Jessenia Penaloza
Assistant Engineering
City of Fountain Valley
Public Works Department
10200 Slater Avenue
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Subject: REVISED PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE AS-NEEDED GEOTECHNICAL,

ASPHALT CONCRETE, AND LABORATORY TESTING SERVICES
Residential Roadway Rehabilitation Project No. 27001
City of Fountain Valley, Orange County, California
Converse Project No. 26-32-115-00 (30/40)
Dear Ms. Penaloza:

Converse Consultants (Converse) is pleased to submit this proposal outlining our scope of work and cost estimate providing as-needed geotechnical, asphalt concrete and laboratory testing services that will be required during rehabilitation of the above-referenced project.

In preparation of this proposal, we performed the following.  Reviewed the information you transmitted to us via email on March 2 and May 13, 2026.
 Discussed the project with you over the phone on March 3, 2026.

Based on your email dated May 13, 2026, we have revised our proposal to 45 working days.

SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of work and cost breakdown is presented in the tables below.

Field Services Costs
Service Type Unit Total
Units
Unit Rate Cost
Field Technician to take density and moisture tests
of compacted soil for street subgrade, aggregate
base and asphalt concrete (20 trips & 5 hours/trip
= 100 hours)
Hr. 100 $149.00 $14,900.00
Sample pick-up Hr. 8 $65.00 $520.00
Field Services Cost Total $15,420.00
Attachment #3

Page 661 ends

Revised Proposal To Provide As-Needed Geotechnical, Asphalt Concrete, & Laboratory Testing Services Residential Roadway Rehabilitation Project No. 27001
City of Fountain Valley, Orange County, California
March 3, 2026
Revised May 13, 2026

Page 2 ends

Converse Consultants
R:\2026\32\26-32-115 City of Fountain Valley, Quadrant 4 Roadway Rehab\Proposal\26-32-115_pro(30)Fountain Valley-sewerpipe Laboratory Testing Costs
Number
of Tests
Cost Per
Test Total Cost
Modified proctor for optimum moisture and density (soils) 5 $200.00 1,000.00 Modified proctor for optimum moisture and density
(Aggregate base) 2 $200.00 $400.00
Hveem asphalt density 2 $230.00 $460.00
Extraction and Gradation of AC samples 2 $230.00 $460.00 Laboratory Testing Cost Total $2,320.00
Office Support Costs
Type of Activity Unit Total
Units Unit Rate Total Cost
Office Support Hr. 8 $90.00 $720.00
Project Manager Hr. 6 $175.00 $1,050.00
QC by a Principal Engineer Hr. 1 $225.00 $225.00
Close-out report Lump
Sum 1 $800.00 $800.00
Office Support Cost Total $2,795.00
Cost Summary
Item Cost
Field Services Costs $15,420.00
Laboratory Testing Costs $2,320.00
Office Support Costs $2,795.00
TOTAL $20,535.00

ASSUMPTIONS
In general, our fees are based on the following conditions and assumptions described below.  The technician’s field hours are an estimate. It will vary depending on the contractor’s schedule and progress. We will charge only for the hours of work we perform.  When full-time observation by a Converse representative is not required, the testing services described above will be performed on a test-results-only basis at the request of your authorized representative, who will be responsible for coordinating our services with the construction schedule. No comments regarding compaction procedures or observations will be made for test result only services.  For on-call services, the test locations will be prepared and ready for testing by Converse field personnel upon their arrival at the site.  Work will be conducted during an eight-hour day at the site. Overtime will be charged at 1.5 times the regular hourly rate.
 All requests for field service should be received by this office not less than one working day (24 hours) prior to the time the services are to be performed.

Page 662 ends

Page 3 ends

Converse Consultants
R:\2026\32\26-32-115 City of Fountain Valley, Quadrant 4 Roadway Rehab\Proposal\26-32-115_pro(30)Fountain Valley-sewerpipe  There will be a 2-hour minimum charge in case of work cancellation after our field personnel have been dispatched.
 There may be a 2-hour minimum charge if services are cancelled within 6 hours of the scheduled call out time.
 There will be a 4-hour minimum charge for field services performed for less than 4 hours.
 The contractor and/or client will be responsible for excavating and backfilling all test locations.
 Our field representative will not direct, supervise or lay out the work of the contractor.  Our services will not include a review of the contractor's safety measures on or near the job site.
 If any additional inspection or laboratory testing is required, it will be performed in accordance with the attached Schedule of Fees.
 Converse field reports will be provided to your authorized representative in the field on a daily basis as the testing is completed. The field reports will summarize test results and time charged per day, and document work performed.  Meetings and consultations not described above, which are requested by the client, are not included in the cost summary, but will be charged on a time-and-materials basis in accordance with the attached Schedule of Fees.  Should additional services be required other than those presented herein, we will discuss the matter with you. If requested, we will prepare a detailed proposal and cost estimate for such services. Additional services will not be performed without prior written authorization.
 No services will be provided prior to our signature of an agreement with you. No additional work required will be provided without written authorization and a budget amendment from your authorized representative.

CLOSURE
Our services will be provided in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering and engineering geological principles and practice in this area of Southern California. Unless we are informed otherwise, we will assume that these conditions are acceptable to you.

This proposal will expire 60 days from its issuance, if not accepted at that time. Our billing rates are reviewed at the beginning of each year and are subject to adjustment.

Please sign 2 copies of the Acceptance of Agreement and Authorization to Proceed at the end of this proposal. Retain one copy of this proposal for your files and return one signed copy to our office to formally authorize our services.

We understand that this project is a prevailing wage project as determined by local Labor Code.

Special billing instructions, including backup documentation requirements, should be mutually agreed upon and indicated in the authorization. Subsequent additions or changes should be likewise mutually agreed upon and submitted in writing with appropriate authorization.

Page 663 ends

Page 4 ends

Converse Consultants
R:\2026\32\26-32-115 City of Fountain Valley, Quadrant 4 Roadway Rehab\Proposal\26-32-115_pro(30)Fountain Valley-sewerpipe Converse has the resources to meet your project schedule. We will ensure that personnel with appropriate background and experience are assigned to this project. We will also ensure that all deliverables are submitted on schedule.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this very important project. If you have any questions, or if we can provide any additional assistance, please call the undersigned at 909-474-2847.

CONVERSE CONSULTANTS
Hashmi Quazi, PhD, PE, GE
Principal/Regional Manager
Dist.: 1/Addressee (e-mail)
Attach: Schedule of Fees and General Conditions
HSQ/kvg

Page 664 ends

Page 5 ends

Converse Consultants
R:\2026\32\26-32-115 City of Fountain Valley, Quadrant 4 Roadway Rehab\Proposal\26-32-115_pro(30)Fountain Valley-sewerpipe

REVISED PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE AS-NEEDED GEOTECHNICAL, ASPHALT

CONCRETE, AND LABORATORY TESTING SERVICES
Residential Roadway Rehabilitation Project No. 27001
City of Fountain Valley, Orange County, California
Converse Project No. 26-32-115-00 (30/40)
ACCEPTANCE OF AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED3
Firm Name: (Client)1
By: (Print Name)
(Signature)
Title: Date:

Telephone No. ( ) Email:

P.O. No./Billing Instructions2:
1 Invoices to be sent to the Client, who shall be responsible for payment thereof, unless notified otherwise. The Client is represented by a person with authority to financially commit to the scope of work herein and acknowledges that the person signing has read and understands the enclosed General Conditions. 2 Billing requirements, including backup documentation, should be mutually agreed upon and indicated here. Subsequent additions or changes should likewise be mutually agreed upon and submitted in writing with appropriate authorization.
3 Converse has been informed by the Client that this is a prevailing wage project for geotechnical services as determined by local Labor Code Sections 1770-1780.

Page 665 ends

Appendix

Page 666 ends

Converse Consultants PW2026 Geotech

CONVERSE CONSULTANTS
Prevailing Wage Schedule of Fees
Geotechnical Personnel
Introduction
It is the objective of Converse Consultants to provide its clients with quality professional and technical services and a continuing source of professional advice and opinions. Services will be performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions. This fee schedule is valid through December 31, 2026.

Hourly Charges for Personnel
Staff assignments will depend on personnel availability, job complexity, project site location, and experience level required to satisfy the technical requirements of the project and to meet the prevailing standard of professional care.

Field Technical Services (hourly rate including vehicle and equipment) Construction Inspector – ACI/ICC and/or AWS/CWI certified (concrete, post-tension, masonry, structural steel, fireproofing; includes concrete batch plant and local steel fabrication inspections) ............................... $149 DSA Masonry Inspector ...........................................................................................................................................................149 Non-Destructive Testing Inspector (ultrasonic, magnetic particle, dye penetrant, skidmore, pull testing, torque testing, Schmidt hammer, and pachometer) ..........................................................................................................154 Coating Inspector/Coring Technician .......................................................................................................................................154 Soils Technician (soil, base, asphalt concrete, and moisture emission testing) .......................................................................149 Sample Pick-Up .........................................................................................................................................................................65 Professional Services (consultation for field and office, if requested) Staff Professional ...................................................................................................................................................................$145 Senior Staff Professional..........................................................................................................................................................155 Project Professional ................................................................................................................................................................. 165 Project Manager.......................................................................................................................................................................175 Senior Professional ..................................................................................................................................................................175 Principal Professional............................................................................................................................................................... 225 Principal Consultant ................................................................................................................................................................. 235 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory Technician...................................................................................................................................................... Per Test (see Geotechnical Laboratory Testing and Materials Testing Services fee schedules.) Laboratory Supervisor............................................................................................................................................................ $100 Office Support
Clerical/Word Processing .........................................................................................................................................................$90 Drafting.......................................................................................................................................................................................90 CAD Operator/Drafting Manager..............................................................................................................................................100 Overtime and special shift rates for Field Services personnel are determined in accordance with Prevailing Wage law. Travel time to and from the job site will be charged at the hourly rates for the appropriate personnel.

Expenses

1. Exploration expenses (drilling, trenching, etc.) are charged at cost plus fifteen percent.

2. Travel and subsistence expenses (transportation, room and board, etc.) for individuals on projects requiring travel and/or living 50 miles away from the project site are charged at cost plus fifteen percent.

3. Automobile and truck expenses are charged at cost plus fifteen percent (rentals) or at the current IRS milage rate per mile for company-owned vehicles traveling between principal office and project.

4. Other out-of-pocket direct project expenses (aerial photos, long-distance telephone calls, permits, bonds, outside printing services, tests, etc.) are charged at cost plus fifteen percent.

Invoices

1. Invoices will be submitted to the Client on a monthly basis, and a final bill will be submitted upon completion of services.

2. Payment is due upon presentation of invoice and is past-due thirty days from invoice date. In the event Client fails to make any payment to Converse when due, Converse may immediately cease work hereunder until said payment, together with a service charge at the rate of eighteen percent per annum (but not exceeding the maximum allowed by law) from the due date, has been received.

Further, Converse may at its sole option and discretion refuse to perform any further work irrespective of payment from Client in the event Client fails to pay Converse for services when said payments are due.

3. Client shall pay attorneys’ fees or other costs incurred in collecting any delinquent amount.

General Conditions
The terms and provisions of the Converse General Conditions are incorporated into this fee schedule as though set forth in full. If a copy of the General Conditions does not accompany this fee schedule, Client should request a copy from this office.

Page 667 ends

Converse Consultants GLT2026

CONVERSE CONSULTANTS
Schedule of Fees – Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
Compensation for laboratory testing services will be made in accordance with this fee schedule which includes test report(s) and engineering time. Costs of tests not on this schedule will be by quote and/or in accordance with our current hourly fee schedule. The rates are based on non-contaminated soil. A surcharge will be charged for handling contaminated material, which will be determined based on the project.

IDENTIFICATION AND INDEX PROPERTIES TESTS
Visual Classification, ASTM D2488...................................20.00 Engineering Classification, ASTM D2487 ......................... 25.00 Moisture Content and Dry (bulk) Density,
ASTM D2216 and D2937 ............................................. 25.00 Moisture Content, ASTM D2216 ..................................20.00 Shrinkage Limit, ASTM D4943..........................................85.00 Atterberg Limits, ASTM D4318
Several points ............................................................ 150.00 One Point .....................................................................50.00 Particle Size Analysis, ASTM D6913
Fine Sieve, from +#200 to #4.....................................100.00 Coarse and Fine Sieve, from #200 to 3 in..................180.00 Hydrometer ................................................................ 120.00 Percent Passing #200 Sieve, ASTM D1140...................... 80.00 Specific Gravity
Fine, passing #4 sieve, ASTM D854..........................100.00 Coarse, retained on #4 sieve, ASTM C127................100.00 Sand Equivalent Test, ASTM D2419............................... 130.00 Double Hydrometer Dispersion, ASTM D4221................150.00

COMPACTION AND BEARING STRENGTH
Standard Proctor Compaction, ASTM D698 or ASTM D1557
Method A or B............................................................ 210.00 Method C, 6” mold...................................................... 220.00 California Impact Method, Caltrans 216 .......................... 220.00 R-value, ASTM D2844 and CTM301............................... 280.00 California Bearing Ratio (CBR), ASTM D1883
1 Point........................................................................ 550.00 3 Points ......................................................................750.00 Relative Density

0.1 Cubic Foot Mold...................................................200.00

0.5 Cubic Foot Mold...................................................300.00

SHEAR STRENGTH
Torvane/Pocket Penetrometer ..........................................25.00 Direct Shear
Quick Test....................................................................75.00 Consolidated, Drained, granular soil,
ASTM D3080 ........................................................ 230.00 Consolidated, Drained, fine grained soil,
ASTM D3080 ........................................................ 260.00 Consolidated, Undrained, fine grained soil................. 230.00 Residual Strength, per cycle ........................................ 70.00 Remolded Specimens .................................................. 70.00

STATIC UNIAXIAL AND TRIAXIAL STRENGTH TESTS
(PER POINT)
Unconfined Compression, ASTM D2166 ........................150.00 Unconsolidated, Undrained, ASTM D2850 .....................160.00 Consolidated, Undrained, per point ................................700.00 Consolidated, Drained, per point ....................................700.00 With Pore Pressure Measurement, per load...................150.00 Remolded Specimen......................................................... 90.00 CONSOLIDATION (ASTM2435) AND SWELL COLLAPSE
(ASTM D4546) TESTS
8 Load Increments .......................................................... 260.00 Additional Load Increment ................................................ 50.00 Time-Ratio, per load increment......................................... 90.00 Single Point, collapse test................................................. 90.00 Single Load Swell, ASTM D4546
Ring Sample, Field Moisture......................................... 95.00 Ring Sample, Air Dried ................................................. 95.00 Remolded Sample.............................................................. 70.00 Expansion Index Test, UBC 29-2/ASTM D4829............... 140.00

HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTS
Constant Head, ASTM D2434.......................................... 250.00 Falling Head Flexible Wall, ASTM D5084 ........................ 300.00 Triaxial Permeability, EPA 9100....................................... 350.00 Remolded Specimen.......................................................... 60.00

CHEMICAL TESTS
Corrosivity (pH, resistivity, sulfates, chlorides)................. 225.00 Organic Content, ASTM D2974........................................ 100.00 Conditions: Unit rates presented on this fee schedule are for routinely performed geotechnical laboratory tests. Numerous other earth material physical tests can be performed in our geotechnical laboratories, including rock core, soil cement and soil lime mixture tests. Tests not listed can be quoted upon request. This fee schedule is valid through December 31, 2026.

Prices are based on the assumption that samples are uncontaminated and do not contain heavy metals, acids, carcinogens and/or volatile organics which can be measured by an organic vapor analyzer or photoionization detector with a concentration greater than 50 parts-per-million (ppm). Quoted testing fees are based on the assumption that no protective clothing will be required to handle samples. If Level D protective clothing will be required during handling of samples (as defined in Federal CFR Part 1910.120), then a 40% increase in fees presented in this schedule will be applied. Level C protective clothing will be a 60% increase in fees. Converse will not handle samples that require either Level B or Level A protection in our geotechnical laboratories.

Contaminated samples will be returned to the client. Uncontaminated samples will be disposed of 30 days after presentation of test results. The client must disclose the source of samples. Samples imported from out of state will be incinerated after testing in accordance with requirements of the United States Department of Agriculture. Soil samples obtained within the State of California currently designated quarantine areas will also be incinerated in accordance with the requirement of the State of California, Department of Food and Agriculture, Division of Plant Industry, Pest Exclusion. A $5.00 incineration fee will be added to each sample that is required to be incinerated in accordance with State and Federal law.

Test results requiring plots will be presented in a publishable format generated from computer programs. Otherwise, raw test numbers will be presented. A minimum laboratory fee of $50.00 will be charged to present and mail test results. Beyond the standard U.S. Mail delivery, specialized transmittal will be charged at additional cost (e.g., Federal Express, UPS, etc.). Geotechnical testing does not include engineering and/or geologic review and analysis.

Typical turnaround for geotechnical laboratory testing is two weeks (or roughly ten working days). To expedite test turnaround to five working days, a 50% increase in the fees in this schedule will be applied. Many geotechnical tests require at least one week to perform in accordance with ASTM or other standard specifications. Fees presented in this schedule for relatively undisturbed direct shear, consolidation or expansion pressure tests are based on the assumption that 2.416-inch inside diameter brass ring samples will be provided to the geotechnical laboratory for testing. Remolded specimens will be compacted in standard 2.5-inch outside diameter brass rings for direct shear, consolidation and expansion pressure tests. All fees presented in this schedule are based on the assumption that the client will deliver samples to our laboratory at no additional cost to Converse.

Invoices will be issued monthly and are payable on receipt unless otherwise agreed upon. Interest of 1.5% per month (but not exceeding the maximum allowed by law) will be payable on any amount not paid within thirty days; payment thereafter to be applied first to accrued interest and then to the principle unpaid amount. The Client shall pay any attorneys' fees or other costs incurred in collecting any delinquent amounts.

Page 668 ends

Converse Consultants MTS2026

CONVERSE CONSULTANTS
Schedule of Fees – Materials Laboratory Testing
Compensation for laboratory testing services will be based on rates in accordance with this fee schedule which includes test report(s) and engineering time. Costs of tests not on this schedule will be by quote and/or in accordance with our current hourly fee schedule. Our services will be performed in accordance with the General Conditions. This fee schedule is valid through December 31, 2026.

AGGREGATES
Moisture Content, ASTM D2216 ............................................... 25.00 Particle Size Analysis
Coarse, ASTM C136, each................................................ 120.00 Coarse and Fine, ASTM C136 & C137), each .................. 180.00 Specific Gravity & Absorption
Coarse Aggregate, ASTM C127 ........................................ 115.00 Fine Aggregate, ASTM C128............................................. 175.00 Unit Weight per Cubic Foot, ASTM C29.............................. 75.00 Soundness, Sodium or Magnesium, ASTM C88, each ..... 550.00 Potential Alkali Reactivity, ASTM D289............................. 700.00 Freeze Thaw Soundness ................................................... 175.00 Los Angeles Abrasion, per class, ASTM C131, C535....... 375.00 Sand Equivalent, ASTM D2419 ......................................... 180.00 Lightweight Particles, ASTM C123, each .......................... 300.00 Clay Lumps & Friable Particles, ASTM C142, each.......... 290.00 Stripping Test, ASTM D1664, each ..................................... 85.00 Organic Impurities, ASTM C40 .......................................... 140.00 Durability ........................................................................By Quote

CONCRETE TESTS
Laboratory Trial Batch, ASTM C192 ...................................By Quote Laboratory Mix Design, Historical Data...............................By Quote Compression Test, 6”x12” Cylinder, ASTM C39, each ............. 55.00 Lightweight Concrete
Compression ........................................................................ 55.00 Unit Weight........................................................................... 55.00 Specimen Preparation, Trimming or Coring, each.................... 75.00 Bond Strength, ASTM C321
Prepared by Converse ....................................................... 250.00 Prepared by Others............................................................ 150.00 Core Compression Test, ASTM C12, each............................. 120.00 Flexure Test, 6”x6” Beams, ASTM C78, each ........................ 130.00 Modulus of Elasticity, Static, ASTM C469, each..................... 275.00 Length Change, ASTM C157, 3 bars, 5 readings each,
up to 26 days...................................................................... 550.00 Splitting Tensile, 6”x12” Cylinders, each................................. 110.00 Field Concrete Control (sampling, slump, temperature,
cast 4 cylinders, molds, cylinder pick-up, within 10 miles of office, stand-by extra), ASTM/UBC, hourly rate
schedule, or each cylinder ................................................... 95.00 Field Concrete Control (same as above plus air content test), ASTM/UBC, each cylinder ................................................... 95.00 Hold Cylinder............................................................................. 10.00 Cylinder Mold, sent to job site but not cast by Converse or returned to Converse ............................................................. 7.00 MASONRY (ASTM C140, E447, UBC STANDARD 24-22)
Moisture Content, as received, each....................................... 105.00 Absorption, each........................................................................ 85.00 Compression, each.................................................................... 85.00 Shrinkage, ASTM C426, each................................................. 250.00 Net Area and Volume, each ...................................................... 30.00 Masonry Blocks, per set of 9 ................................................ 1,500.00 Masonry Core Compression, each.......................................... 125.00 Masonry Core Shear, each ..................................................... 245.00 Masonry Core Trimming, each................................................ 150.00 Compression Test, grouted prisms, 8”x8”x16”, each .............. 300.00 Compression Test, grouted prisms, 12”x16”x16”, each .......... 425.00 Compression Test
2”x4” Mortar Cylinder, each ................................................. 55.00 3”x6” Grout Prisms, each..................................................... 55.00 2” Cubes, ASTM C109, each............................................... 55.00 Cast by Others........................................................................... 55.00 Mortar or Grout Mix Designs ...............................................By Quote

FIREPROOFING TESTS
Oven Dry Density, per sample ..................................................80.00

MOISTURE EMISSION TEST
Moisture Emission Test Kit ...................................................... 85.00

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE
Stability, Flow, and Unit Weight, ASTM D6927 ..................... 500.00 Marshall ASTM D1559, ASTM D2726................................... 450.00 Measured Maximum Specific Gravity of Mix, ASTM D2041,
Rice Method, each ........................................................... 350.00 Void Analysis of Cores or Marshall Specimens,
Calculations Only, ASTM D3203, set of 2 or 3 .................. 60.00 Laboratory Mixing of Asphalt & Concrete, per sample............ 75.00 Complete Asphalt Concrete Mix Design
Hveem or Marshall....................................................... By Quote Extraction of Asphalt and Gradation, ASTM D2172, Method B, or California 310, including ash correction, each............. 455.00 Extraction of Rubberized Asphalt & Gradation, each............ 350.00 Specific Gravity, ASTM D2726 or ASTM D1188
Uncoated ............................................................................ 95.00 Coated .............................................................................. 125.00 Immersion-Compression ........................................................ 650.00 Particle Coating, ASTM D2489................................................ 95.00 Stripping, ASTM D1664........................................................... 85.00 Moisture or Volatile Distillates in Paving Mixtures, or Materials Containing Petroleum Products or
By-Products ...................................................................... 350.00 Retained Strength, ASTM D1074/D1075, 6 specimens.... By Quote Retained Stability, Mil, Std, 520A, Method 104,
6 specimens ................................................................. By Quote CBR, ASTM D1883, including M/D Curve, 1 point................ 400.00 Asphalt Temperature ............................................................... 20.00

STRUCTURAL STEEL
Tensile Test #9 Bar or Smaller, each ...................................... 65.00 Bend Test #9 Bar or Smaller, each ......................................... 65.00 Tensile Test #10 Bar or Greater, each .................................. 300.00 Tensile Test #14 Bar, each.................................................... 330.00 Rebar Coupler Tensile Test................................................... 160.00 Tensile Test, Welded #9 Bar or Smaller, each...................... 160.00 Tensile Test, Welded #10 Bar or Greater, each.................... 300.00 Tensile Test, Welded #14 Bar, each ..................................... 330.00 Tensile Test, Mechanically Spliced, #9 Bar or Smaller,
each .................................................................................. 210.00 Tensile Test, Mechanically Spliced, #10 Bar or Greater, each .................................................................................. 350.00

HIGH STRENGTH BOLT, NUT, AND WASHER TESTING
Wedge Tensile Test, A490 Bolts
Under 100,000 lbs., each................................................. 130.00 Over 100,000 lbs., each................................................... 140.00 Wedge Tensile Test, A325 Bolts
Under 100,000 lbs., each................................................. 160.00 Tensile Test, Anchor Bolts, tested with displacement
transducers, each............................................................. 300.00 Nut Hardness, Proof & Cone Proof Load Test, each .............. 65.00 Washer Hardness, each .......................................................... 55.00 A325 or A490, Bolt Hardness Only, each................................ 55.00 Bolt A325 or A490 Wedge Tensile
Under 100,000 lbs. & Hardness, each............................. 240.00 Over 100,000 lbs. & Hardness, each............................... 280.00 Bolt, Nut & Washer, all tests per set with bolts
Under 100,000 lbs............................................................ 400.00 Over 100,000 lbs.............................................................. 500.00 See Schedule of Fees – Geotechnical Laboratory Testing for soil testing. Hourly rates are available upon request. Field Laboratory rates are available upon request. Listed unit rates are based upon the assumption that samples will be delivered to our laboratory at no cost to Converse.

Page 669 ends

Converse Consultants GC99-1

CONVERSE CONSULTANTS
General Conditions –
Right of Entry
Client warrants to Converse that it has full legal right to authorize Converse's entry upon the real property where Converse's services are to be performed ("Site" herein) and upon all property, if any, required for ingress and egress to the Site.

Client authorizes Converse to enter upon the Site and such adjoining property as is necessary to allow Converse to perform its services.

Converse will take reasonable precautions to minimize any damage to the Site; however, Client acknowledges that during the normal course of the performance of Converse's services, some damage to the Site may occur. The correction of any damage to the Site (surface or subterranean) shall be the obligation of the Client.

Information Supplied by Client
Client warrants the accuracy of any information supplied by it to Converse, acknowledges that Converse will not verify the accuracy of such information, and agrees that Converse is entitled to rely upon any such information.

Client shall immediately notify Converse in writing of any data, information or knowledge in the possession of or known to Client relating to conditions existing at the Site and shall provide Converse with the location, size and depth of any and all underground tanks, piping or structures existing upon the Site.

Client shall defend, indemnify and save harmless Converse, its officers, agents and employees from and against any and all claims, costs, suits and damages, including attorneys' fees, arising out of errors, omissions and inaccuracies in documents and information provided to Converse by Client.

Ownership of Data and Documents; Samples
All reports, boring logs, field data, field notes, laboratory test data, calculations, estimates and other documents prepared by Converse shall remain the sole property of Converse.

Client shall have the right to the use of all data, recommendations, proposals, reports, design criteria and similar information provided to it by Converse ("information" herein); provided, however, that the information shall not be used or relied upon by any party other than Client, save and except as may be required by the design and licensing requirements of the project for which the information is provided; further, such use shall be limited to the particular site and project for which the information is provided. To the extent Client utilizes Converse’s information by providing or making the same available to any third party (a) Client agrees to give written notice to any such third party that it may not utilize or rely on any aspect of Converse’s information and (b) Client agrees to defend, indemnify and hold Converse harmless against any and all claims, demands, costs, losses, damages and expenses, including attorneys fees, that may be asserted against or sought from Converse by any such third party.

Client's right to the use of the information is expressly conditioned upon Client's prompt payment to Converse of all sums due under the Client/Converse agreement. In the event of Client's nonpayment or partial payment of said amounts, Client agrees that it shall not use any of the information for any purpose whatsoever and shall return the same to Converse within 2 business days upon demand.

Converse will retain all samples of soil, rock or other materials obtained in the course of performing its services for a period of thirty (30) days. Thereafter, further storage or transfer of samples to Client may be made at Client's expense upon written request from Client to Converse received by Converse prior to the expiration of the 30-day period.

Converse shall retain permanent records relating to the Converse services for a period of five (5) years following submittal of Converse's report, during which period the records will be made available to Client upon reasonable notice given by Client and upon payment to Converse of an amount sufficient to reimburse Converse for its necessary and reasonable expenses in making said records available.

Standard of Care and Professional Responsibility
Client acknowledges that the services to be performed by Converse involve the use of tests, calculations, analyses and procedures which are in a constant state of development, improvement and refinement and that, as such, improvements, changes in methods, and modifications of procedures have been made in the past, are now being made, and are expected to continue to be made in the future.

Further, Client recognizes that, while necessary for investigations, commonly used exploration methods, such as drilling borings or excavating trenches, involve an inherent risk. For example, exploration on a site containing contaminated materials may result in inducing crosscontamination, the prevention of which may not be complete using presently recognized sealing methods.

Client recognizes that the state of practice, including but not limited to the practice relating to contamination or hazardous waste conditions, is changing and evolving and that standards existing at the present time may subsequently change as knowledge increases and the state of the practice continues to improve.

Client recognizes that projects containing contaminated materials may not perform as anticipated by Client, even though Converse's services are performed in accordance with the level of care and skill required of it. Further, certain governmental regulations relating to hazardous waste sites may purport to require achievement of results which cannot be accomplished in an absolute sense. It is recognized that a satisfactorily designed, constructed and maintained monitoring system may assist in the early detection of environmental changes allowing for early correction of problems. Unless it is specifically included in the scope of services to be performed by Converse, Client understands that Converse shall not perform such monitoring.

The services to be provided by Converse pursuant to the agreement to which these General Conditions are a part shall be provided in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering, environmental, and geologic practice in the area where these services are to be rendered and at the time that services are rendered. Client acknowledges that the present standard in the engineering and environmental professions does not include, and Converse does not extend to Client, a guarantee of perfection of the work contemplated hereby; further, that even in the exercise of normal and reasonable care, errors or omissions may from time to time occur. Except as expressly set forth in these General Conditions, no other warranty, express or implied, is extended by Converse.

Converse shall have no duty to supervise, coordinate or otherwise be involved in the performance of services or work by any third-party consultant, contractor or subcontractor.

Where Converse's services involve field observation of grading, filling and compaction (or any of them), it is agreed:
a. That Converse shall in no way be responsible for the manner in which such work is performed by any third party.
b. That in the event Converse is to provide periodic observation, Client acknowledges that Converse cannot be responsible for any work performed at a time or times when Converse was not performing its observation services.

Converse will not provide an opinion concerning the performance of any third party, save and except to the extent that said work was in fact observed and tested by Converse during the course of construction.
c. That where Converse's services include continuous observation, Client agrees not to allow grading, filling or compaction to be performed at any time or times when Converse is not physically present upon the Site and shall restrict the amount and extent of such grading, filling and compaction to that which can be properly observed by Converse personnel present on the Site. d. That in the event Converse is to conduct test borings for Client, Client acknowledges that the accuracy of said test borings relates only to the specific location in which the boring itself was performed and that the nature of many sites is such that differing subsurface soil characteristics can be experienced within a small distance. As such, Client acknowledges that greater accuracy is obtained when the number of test borings is increased.

Technical Limitations
Client acknowledges and agrees that: (1) it is unreasonable to expect Converse to be able to completely evaluate subsurface conditions, even after the most comprehensive exploratory program; (2) site conditions change frequently due to the passage of time, human activities, and climatic conditions and uncertainties are therefore inherent in the nature of Converse’s services and impossible to avoid; (3) the identification of geotechnical and environmental conditions and the prediction of future or concealed conditions is an inexact scientific endeavor; (4) the state of the art of geotechnical and environmental practice is such that Converse cannot guarantee that its recommendations will prove adequate on this project and the Client assumes the risk of any such failure, except as otherwise provided in these General Conditions and that (5) these General Conditions contains specific LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY.

Indemnity of Client and Limitation of Liability
Converse shall indemnify Client, its officers, directors, agents or employees from any claim, demand or liability arising from personal injury or property loss or damage caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of Converse.

Anything to the contrary in the agreement to which these General Conditions are attached or in these General Conditions notwithstanding, Converse's liability shall be limited to the lesser of the fees charged to Client by Converse for the services performed for Client, or the sum of fifty thousand dollars. Client may, at its option, increase the maximum amount for which Converse shall be liable by payment of an additional fee.

For the maximum liability sum of one hundred thousand dollars, the additional amount to be paid shall be four percent of the total Converse fee charged hereunder; for the maximum liability sum of one million dollars, the additional amount to be paid shall be five percent of the total Converse fees charged hereunder Client acknowledges and agrees that its recovery, if any, shall be satisfied, in the first instance, from the proceeds of Converse’s insurance, and to the extent of any deficiency in the available insurance proceeds, then and only then, by Converse.

Client acknowledges that Converse has agreed to charge Client a reduced fee for services in exchange for the above limitation of liability and that said reduction in fees is consideration for said limitation.

Client shall defend and save harmless Converse, its officers, directors, agents and employees from all liability, claims and demands, including expenses of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees arising from personal injuries, including disease and death, property loss or damage, injury to others (including personnel of Client, Converse or

Page 670 ends

Converse Consultants GC99-1
subcontractors performing work hereunder), and air or ground pollution or environmental impairment arising out of or in any manner connected with or related to the performance of Converse's services, except where there is a judicial determination that such injury, loss or damage shall have been caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of Converse.

Client acknowledges that Converse has charged Client a reduced fee for services to be performed by it in exchange for this hold harmless and that the reduction in fees is consideration for said hold harmless provision.

Converse will not be liable for consequential damages of any kind, nature or description.

Hazardous Waste, Pollution and Health Hazard Projects ("Hazardous Projects" Herein)
Prior to the commencement of services by Converse on any hazardous project, Client agrees to advise Converse in writing of any known hazardous waste or materials existing on or near the Site or if any of said services are to be performed in an area where dust, fumes, gas, noise, vibrations or other particulate or nonparticulate matter is in the atmosphere where it raises a potential or possible health hazard or nuisance to anyone working within the area.

Anything in these General Conditions notwithstanding, Client shall indemnify and hold Converse, its officers, directors, agents, servants and employees, harmless from any claim, demand or action brought by any party whomsoever, including employees of Converse which claim, demand or action is based upon injury or damage caused or alleged to have been caused by hazardous wastes or hazardous materials whether or not such waste or materials were known to exist prior to the commencement of services.

Client agrees to be responsible for the removal and disposal of any hazardous waste uncovered as a result of the site investigation, including drill cuttings, unless specifically included within the scope of work
It is agreed that the discovery of unanticipated hazardous materials constitutes a changed condition mandating an immediate renegotiation of the scope of services or termination of services. Converse will at all times endeavor to perform in a faithful and trustworthy manner. Client understands that Client or Converse may be required by local and/or state and/or federal statute to report the discovery of hazardous materials to a government agency. Client also understands that Converse may be required by local and/or state and/or federal statute to report the discovery of hazardous materials to a government agency, and that Converse, when practical, will do so only after notifying Client. In the event Converse discovers hazardous material that we believe poses an immediate threat to public health and safety, Converse will use its best judgment to notify appropriate emergency personnel for immediate containment. Client agrees to take no action of any kind against Converse when Converse makes a good-faith effort to fulfill its obligations.

Client's Responsibilities
Client shall immediately provide Converse with full information in writing as to Client's requirements for the services to be provided by Converse and shall designate in writing within five (5) days of the effective date of the agreement to which these General Conditions are a part, a representative to act on Client's behalf in conjunction with the services to be provided hereunder. Client shall promptly review all documents, reports, data and recommendations submitted by Converse and shall communicate with Converse concerning such reviews for the purpose of avoiding delay in the performance of the services to be rendered by Converse.

Client shall notify any third party who may perform on the Site of the standard of care being undertaken by Converse pursuant hereto and of the limitations of liability contained herein.

Client shall require as a condition to the performance of any such third party a like indemnity and limitation of liability on their part against Converse.

Confidentiality
Converse shall hold all information provided to it by Client and the results of the work performed by it confidential and shall not disclose the same to any third party except where required by Governmental regulatory agencies or as otherwise required by law.

Disputes
Converse shall have the right to bring a legal action in a state or federal court against Client for any sums due or alleged to be due to it or for services rendered. Except for this right, Converse and Client agree that as an express condition to the right of either party to bring a legal action against the other, they shall first submit any dispute to mediation by a neutral person acceptable to both parties.

Each party shall bear its own attorneys' fees, costs and other expenses, except that each party shall be responsible and pay for one-half of the costs and expenses of the mediator.

In the event that legal action is required, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all of its costs incurred in connection therewith including, without limitation, staff time, court costs, attorneys' fees, consultant and expert witness fees and any other related expenses. In this regard, in order to make the prevailing party whole, the parties acknowledge and agree that the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all of its costs incurred in connection with the legal action and shall not be limited to “reasonable attorneys fees” as defined in any statute or rule of court.

The obligations, responsibilities, warranties and liabilities of the parties shall be solely those expressly set forth herein. Remedies and limitations of liability shall apply regardless of whether an action is brought in contract, or is based on either party’s negligence, or another theory of law. All of the rights, remedies, obligations, terms, conditions and limitations of liability stated herein shall extend collectively to and be binding upon the parties’ partners, joint ventures, licensors, successors, assigns, insurers, and affiliates. Client and Converse agree that any legal action with respect to the services to be performed under these General Conditions shall be brought against the parties, and not against individual officers, employees or former employees of the parties. All legal actions by either party against the other for breach of these General Conditions or for the failure to perform in accordance with the applicable standard of care, however framed, that are essentially based upon such breach or failure shall be barred two (2) years from the time claimant knew or should have known of its right to make a claim, but, in any event, not later than four (4) years from substantial completion of Converse’s services.

Jobsite Safety
Converse shall be responsible for its activity and that of its employees on the Site.

This shall not be construed to relieve the Client, its general contractor or any subcontractor of their obligation to maintain a safe jobsite.

Neither the professional activities nor the presence of Converse or its employees and subcontractors shall be understood to control the operations of others, nor shall it be construed to be an acceptance of the responsibility for jobsite safety.

Converse will not direct, supervise or lay out the work of the Client, contractor, or any subcontractors. Converse's services will not include a review or evaluation of the adequacy of the contractor's safety measures on or near the Site.

Schedules
Unless otherwise specified in the agreement, Converse shall be obligated to perform within a reasonable period of time. Converse shall not be responsible for delays in the completion of its services created by reason of any unforeseeable cause or causes beyond the control and/or without the fault or negligence of Converse, including but not restricted to acts of God or the public enemy, acts of the Government of the United States or of the several states, or any foreign country, or any of them acting in their sovereign capacity, acts of other contractors with Client, fire, floods, epidemics, riots, quarantine restrictions, strikes, civil insurrections, freight embargoes, and unusually severe weather.

Should completion of any portion of the services to be rendered by Converse be delayed beyond the estimated date of completion for any reason which is beyond the control of or without default or negligence of Converse, then and in that event Client and Converse shall mutually agree on the terms and conditions upon which the services may be continued or terminated.

Invoices
Converse shall submit monthly progress invoices to Client, and a final bill shall be submitted upon completion of the services. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of an invoice, Client shall pay the full amount of the invoice. If Client objects to all or any portion of any invoice, it shall so notify Converse of the same within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of said invoice and shall pay that portion of the invoice not in dispute, and the parties shall immediately make every effort to settle the disputed portion of the invoice.

If Client fails to make payment within thirty (30) days after receipt of an invoice, then Client shall pay an additional monthly service charge of one and one-half percent (1½ %) on all such amounts outstanding. The additional charge shall not apply to any disputed portion of any invoice resolved in favor of Client. In the event Client fails to pay any undisputed amount to Converse when due, Converse may immediately cease work until said payment together with a service charge at the rate of 1½ % per month, as specified above, from the due date has been received.

Further, Converse may, at its sole option and discretion, refuse to perform any further work irrespective of payment from Client.

In the event that all or any portion of the 1½ % service charge provided for herein is deemed to be an interest charge, then and in that event said interest charge shall be limited to the maximum amount legally allowed by law.

Client acknowledges Converse’s fee schedules are revised annually and agrees that the fee schedule in effect at the time the services are performed shall apply to such services.

Insurance
Converse represents that it now carries, and will continue to carry during the term of the contract to which these General Conditions are a part, Workers Compensation insurance and that, if requested, Converse shall provide to Client certificates as evidence of the aforementioned insurance.

Assignments
Client shall not assign this contract or any portion thereof to any other person or entity without the express written consent of Converse. Nothing contained in this contract or any part thereof shall be construed to create a right in any third party whomsoever, and nothing herein shall inure to the benefit of any third party.

Severability
If any provision of these General Conditions is finally determined to be contrary to, prohibited by, or invalid under applicable laws or regulations, such provision will be renegotiated so as to give effect to the intent of the parties to the maximum possible extent. Such determination and renegotiation shall not affect of invalidate the remaining provisions or these General Conditions.

Governing Law
These General Conditions shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of California.

Page 671 ends

Fountain Valley City CouncilJune 2, 2026

Fountain Valley City Council
June 2, 2026