"Irvine" Great Park: a Legacy of Hubris?

R4

The City of Irvine should develop and publish a new 10-year comprehensive REPORT strategic plan for all of the development activities beyond the ALA II plan with 8 time commitments for the Cultural Terrace, including the library, lake, museums, etc. along with all of the funding and expenditure plans (F2, F7, F11). REPORT 9

R4

The City of Irvine should develop and publish a new 10-year comprehensive REPORT strategic plan for all of the development activities beyond the ALA II plan with 8 time commitments for the Cultural Terrace, including the library, lake, museums, etc. along with all of the funding and expenditure plans (F2, F7, F11). REPORT 9

R6

The City should review and ensure compliance with its policies and guidelines REPORT regarding contracts and appropriately restricting the use of sole source and no- 11 bid contracts. (F7) REPORT

R7

The City of Irvine should create a master document that lays out all of the terms 12 and conditions of the ALA, ARDA, ALA II contracts and alterations to the Master Plan and Land Use Agreements. These need to be consolidated into one document of record which clearly indicates each party’s obligations under the REPORT contract (F7). 13

R5

The City of Irvine should discontinue extravagant expenditures in favor of more cost conscious public events. As an example, the City should consider REPORT “grounding” the balloon or severely limiting its use, as this expensive attraction 10 costs over $1 million per year to operate (F10).

R2

The City of Irvine should give serious consideration to dissolving the Orange County Great Park Corporation as it serves no intrinsic purpose (F13). REPORT 6

R8

The City of Irvine needs to provide an explanation as to where the tax increment REPORT of $43 million received by the IRDA from 2005-2011 was utilized. (F13). REQUIRED RESPONSES REPORT The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public 15 agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report 2 (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected REPORT County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment 3 on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to REPORT the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), provides as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: REPORT 5 (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: REPORT (1) The respondent agrees with the finding 6 (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case REPORT the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an 7 explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report REPORT one of the following actions: 8 (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the REPORT implemented action. 9 (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. REPORT 10 (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be REPORT prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being 11 investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of REPORT the Grand Jury report. 12 (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REPORT 13 (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by REPORT the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those 14 budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the REPORT findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal REPORT Code section 933.05 are required from: 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT Responses Required: 2 Irvine City Council – All Findings and Recommendations REPORT : 3 REPORT 4 REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT COMMENDATIONS 2 The Grand Jury is very appreciative of the cooperation and efforts of the staff of REPORT the City of Irvine and the Orange County Great Park Corporation. They could not have 3 been more courteous, professional, and helpful. Appreciation also goes out to the Office of the Orange County District Attorney for their assistance. REPORT 4 REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT ENDNOTES 2 1. Measure W: County Parks Initiative: REPORT Shall the initiative measure: 1) eliminating planned airport uses at the closed 3 El Toro Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS El Toro) by repealing Measure A, and 2) amending the Orange County General Plan to authorize an urban regional park and REPORT a variety of agricultural, material recovery/recycling, recreational, cultural, 4 educational, employment, public and housing land uses at MCAS El Toro, be adopted.” REPORT The intention of the initiative was to cease all activities to transform the 5 former air base into a commercial airport and to “provide Orange County’s three million residents with an opportunity to enjoy a park on par with Golden Gate Park REPORT and The Presidio in San Francisco, Griffith Park in Los Angeles, and Balboa Park in 6 San Diego.” Further rationale included: “The park will generate regional and state- wide economic benefits from tourism, education, and the attraction of businesses to the area.” (Orange County, California Measure W. Retrieved August 13, 2014 from REPORT http://airportnoiselaw.org/orangew.html para H) 7 2. Bosque: The term bosque is from the Spanish meaning “woodlands.” It refers to REPORT clumps of trees found along flood plains of stream and river banks in the 8 southwestern United States. REPORT 3. The Irvine City Manager stated in 2003: 9 “The financial plan for the OC GP will fulfill the promise our City made to the people of Orange County when we drafted Measure W nearly two years ago. REPORT 10 “Working in cooperation with the Navy, we have created a sound financial plan for building and maintaining the Great Park without any federal, state, or local REPORT taxpayer subsidies. 11 “Master-planned communities throughout Southern California, including Irvine, maintain high standards and amenities by requiring developers and property REPORT buyers to contribute to the construction and maintenance of public facilities. 12 “Real estate experts who have reviewed the Orange County GP Plan all REPORT agree that the sale of the developable property will more than support the $200 13 million in development fees. The assessments and special maintenance levies, plus the basic 1% property tax, will not exceed the overall 2% property tax levied on property owners in most master-planned communities. REPORT 14 “The most exciting feature of this plan is the speed in which it allows the GP to be developed. REPORT “We will begin tearing up the runways within days of the completion of the 15 sale of the property. Our children will be playing in the county’s largest Sports Park, and people will be able to enjoy the first phase of the Meadows Park within three REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT years. Within only five years of the sale of the property, the OCGP will be fully 2 landscaped and will serve all of our county for many generations to come.” (p. 1) REPORT 4. According to Orange County Great Park Planning Report (2003): “Other great 3 metropolitan parks have required fifty years or more to develop. By contrast, the Orange County Great Park development strategy—harnessing the power of private REPORT capital and the benefit of enlightened public planning—will enable all key elements 4 of the Great Park to be developed within five to seven years of the sale of the property.” REPORT 5 5. The 2005-2006 Grand Jury stated in their report “Orange County Great Park: Whose Park Is It?”: “By merging the operations of the City of Irvine and the GPC, employees REPORT of the GPC are now employees of the City of Irvine and everything from job 6 assignments to raises and other factors are at the behest of the City of Irvine. It raises the question, what exactly is the purpose or function of the OCGPC if the City of Irvine collects all park related revenue, hires employees whose duties are related REPORT to the park, and pays the other expenses related to the park.” (p. 9) 7 REPORT 8 6. This is not in violation of public law. According to the Health & Safety Code (§33200, sub d). [a]) a city council, in activating the redevelopment agency in its community, is authorized under State law to name itself to members of the redevelopment agency REPORT board, as the Irvine City Council did when it adopted Ordinance 99-04 in 1999 9 activating the Irvine Redevelopment Agency. REPORT 10 7. City of Irvine Contract Award Process: A contract can primarily be awarded in the following three methods. REPORT  Use of Consultant Team Member 11  Request for Proposal (RFP)/Formal Bidding Process  Sole Sourced REPORT 12 The city creates a list of business needs and establishes a list of Consultant Team Members who have been properly vetted. When a need is REPORT discovered the responsible manager is to go to the Consultant Team first, next 13 option is to request a RFP from any and all vendors, and last option is sole sourcing. REPORT The following is a summary of the key levels of contract authority and 14 signature levels contained in the Great Park Procurement policies. Authority to sign a contract must be preceded by approval of the contractor, program or expenditure, either through the budget process or through separate action of the REPORT Corporation’s Board of Directors. The levels and amounts are consistent with 15 comparable functions in the City of Irvine. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT Contract Amount Contract Authority 2 $100,000 or less Orange County Great Park Managers >$100,000 up to $1,000,000 Chief Executive Officer and REPORT Deputy Chief Executive Officer 3 >$1,000,000 Chief Executive Officer and Chairman* *Any contract requiring the Chairman’s signature must first be approved by the Board of Directors. REPORT Additional highlights of the revised Orange County Great Park 4 Procurement Policies include: REPORT Purchases or contracts in excess of $5,000 for supplies, equipment, or 5 construction require three qualified bids or quotes. Professional services or consultants require a formal proposal process for REPORT contracts expected to be greater than $5,000. In this case, three qualified 6 proposals are also required. Pricing, however, is of secondary consideration to qualifications (as required by applicable State law). REPORT The use of a Consultant Team Program whereby certain professional 7 consultants are pre-qualified through a competitive selection process and have master agreements which extend for a period of up to three years. (Consultant REPORT Teams pre-approved by the City are available for use by the Orange County 8 Great Park.) REPORT Sole source—the policies allow for sole source purchase or contract 9 where a competitive bidding or selection process cannot be accomplished. Such situations could occur due to time constraints, proximity, highly specialized knowledge, or unique product. Sole source request, in all cases, must be REPORT accompanied by a justification memo to the Chief Executive Officer. REPORT 8. The following is an excerpt from the Mission Viejo Municipal Code: 11 “The city council and its members shall deal with the administrative services of the city only through the city manager, except for the purpose REPORT of inquiry, and neither the city council nor any member thereof shall give 12 orders to any subordinate of the city manager. For purposes hereof, “inquiry” means any and all communications short of giving orders, directions, or instruction to any member of the administrative staff. Such REPORT members shall provide all information reasonably requested by any 13 councilmember. The city manager shall take his orders and instructions from the city council only when sitting in a duly convened meeting of the REPORT city council and no individual councilmember shall give any orders or 14 instructions to the city manager. The city council shall instruct the city manager in matters of policy. Any action, determination or omission of the REPORT city manager shall be subject to review by the city council. The city council 15 may not overrule, change or modify any such action, determination or omission except by the affirmative vote of at least three members of the REPORT city council.” (Code 1988, § 2.08.070) 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT REFERENCES 2 Aleshire & Wynder Memorandum. (2014a, October). Great Park Audit: Status update. REPORT Irvine, CA. Aleshire & Wynder Memorandum. (2014b, October 14). Great Park Audit: Status update. Irvine, CA. REPORT 4 Aleshire & Wynder (2015, March 24). Report of Special Counsel. Irvine, CA. Author. American Institute of Architects (AIA). (2007, August 27). Standard for of agreement REPORT between owner and architect: Document B141-1997 Part I. Irvine, CA. BLL/PBS&J Program Management Team. (2006, November 17). Review of the Great REPORT Park Design Studio invoices (#2-#7, #9). Irvine, CA. BLL/PBS&J Program Management Team. (2006, October). Review and Comments: Great Park Design Studio contract no. 2 monthly report: October 2007. Irvine, REPORT CA. Bovis Lend Lease. (2008, July 16). Orange County Great Park: Program Management REPORT Team: Schematic Design 70% milestone submitted review and comments. Irvine, 8 CA. Burgess, M.A. (2014, June 24). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. REPORT Newport Beach, CA. City Manager. (2013). 2014 Reorganization plan. City of Irvine, CA. REPORT Clark, C. (2014, April 23). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Newport 10 Beach, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT 11 County Executive Officer, County of Orange. (2006). Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report, “The Orange County Great Park: Whose park is it.” Santa Ana, CA. REPORT 12 Cowan, J. (2014, October 19). Yet another flare-up over Great Park. Los Angeles Times, p. A33. REPORT 13 Design Studio. (2006). Orange County Great Park Preliminary Master Plan. Irvine, CA. Ellzey, M.D. (2014, June 18). Deposition: Orange County Great Park. Newport Beach, REPORT CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp 14 Elmahrek, A. (2014a, September 7). Video derides findings of Great Park audit. Voice of Orange County, http://ww.voiceofoc.org. REPORT 15 Elmahrek, A. (2014b, November 6). Is it the end of an era in Irvine politics? Voice of Orange County, http://ww.voiceofoc.org. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT Elmahrek, A. (2015, February 19). Auditor sees bias in Irvine’s Great Park investigation. 2 http://voiceofoc.org. Ford, A. (2014, August 5). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Irvine, REPORT CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp 3 Fuscoe, P. (2014, July 14). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Irvine, REPORT CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp 4 Gaffen, Y. (2014, August 8). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. San Diego, CA. Retrieved from: REPORT http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp 5 Gibbs Giden (2014). Orange County Great Park audit. Los Angeles, CA. Author. REPORT Great Park Corporation. (2007, August 9). Transcript from OCGP Board Meeting on 6 August 9, 2007. Irvine, CA. REPORT Great Park Corporation. (2010, June 17). Notice of termination without cause of 7 agreement for contract services for the Orange County Great Park for marketing and communication services (No. 7469) dated September 7, 2012. Irvine, CA. REPORT Great Park Corporation. (2013, January 10). Schematic design contract close-out. Irvine, CA. REPORT Great Park Conservancy. (n.d.). Foundation for the Great Park. 9 http://www.orangecountygreatpark.org Hagan, Streiff, Newton, & Ohiro (HSNO). (2014). Orange County Great Park forensic REPORT contract performance review. Newport Beach, CA. Hagan, Streiff, Newton, & Ohiro (HSNO). (2015, March 23). Orange County Great Park REPORT forensic contract performance review. Newport Beach, CA. Irvine, City of. (2006a). Response of City of Irvine - 2006 Report (“The Orange County Great Park: Whose park is it”). Irvine, CA. REPORT 12 Irvine, City of. (2006b). City Council Resolution No. 06-42: A resolution of the City Council of the City of Irvine restating and clarifying the governing structures and REPORT responsibilities relating to the Orange County Great Park. Irvine, CA. Irvine, City of. (2010a). Response of City of Irvine - 2010 Grand Jury Report dated June 3, 2010. Irvine, CA. REPORT 14 Irvine, City of. (2010b, September 13). Agreement concerning close-out of schematic design contract. Irvine, CA. REPORT Irvine, City of. (2012a, August 14). Dismissal agreement in connection with State of 15 California Department of Finance settlement negotiations by and between City of Irvine Successor Agency to the dissolved Redevelopment Agency and Irvine REPORT Community Land Trust. Irvine, CA. 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT Irvine, City of. (2012b). Heritage Fields Project 2012 GPA/ZC: Draft Second 2 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSSEIR). Irvine, CA. REPORT Irvine, City of. (2013a, March 26). Formation of community facilities district no. 2013-3. Irvine, CA. Irvine, City of. (2013b, November 11). Second agreement with City of Irvine as adjacent REPORT landowner (ALAII). Irvine, CA. Irvine, City of. (2013c, November 26). Irvine City Council meeting minutes. Irvine, CA. REPORT Irvine, City of. (2014, January 28). Resolution of the City Council of City of Irvine 5 authorizing an investigation into the financial management of the Orange County Great Park, approving a scope of work for a forensic investigation, and REPORT authorizing the City Council subcommittee and retained special counsel to 6 facilitate the investigation and issue subpoenas. Irvine, CA. REPORT Irvine, City of. (2014b, July 9). Settlement agreement and release of claims. Irvine, CA. Irvine, City of. (2014c). Accounts paid listing: 2012-2013. Irvine, CA. REPORT Irvine, City of. (2014d, March 18). Irvine City Council meeting minutes. Irvine, CA. Jow, L. (2014a, October 28). Irvine ballot measures: Great Park transparency, term limits. Orange County Register, p. L-4. REPORT 9 Jow, L. (2014b, November 4). Irvine voters approve Great Park fiscal reform, term limits. Orange County Register. Retrieved from: http://www.ocregister.com REPORT Jow, L. (2014, November 6). Agran is out after 16 years; Republicans look set for Irvine 10 supermajority. Orange County Register, pp. L1, L5. REPORT Joyce, S. (2014a, February 2). Memo: Reorganization plan. Irvine, CA 11 Joyce, S. (2014b, July 18). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Irvine, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT 12 King, T., & Butow, R. (2011, November 27). So far all the Orange County got was a big ugly balloon. Salem-News. Retrieved from http;//www.salem-news.com REPORT 13 Kogerman, W.G. (2014, June 26). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Newport Beach, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT 14 Kohn, P.D. (2014, August 11). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Irvine, CA. REPORT 15 Kreutzen, W. (2014, April 29). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Newport Beach, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT Krom, B. (2006, September 13). Response of City of Irvine to Orange County Grand 2 Jury 2005-2006 Report (“The Orange County Great Park: Whose Park Is It?”). City of Irvine, CA. REPORT Krom, B. (2015, April 19). Great park now about profits, not people. Orange County 3 Register, Opinion 6. REPORT Landers, S. (2014, July 9). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Newport Beach, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT Lough, M. (2011). Design development quality management checklist. American 5 Institute of Architects. New York. REPORT McDevitt, B. (2014, July 8). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Newport Beach, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT McDonnell, K. (2014, October 22). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Irvine, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT 8 Maxwell-Miller, T. (2014, October 2). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Newport Beach, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT 9 Mollrich, S. (2014, July 30). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Irvine, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT 10 Mission Viejo, City of. (1988). Municipal Code Sec 2.08.070. Mission Viejo, CA. Orange County Great Park Corp. Board of Directors (2008, June 19). Agenda. Irvine, REPORT CA. Orange County Grand Jury Report. (2006). The Orange County Great Park: Whose REPORT park Is it? Santa Ana, CA. Orange County Great Park. (n.d.a.). History of land. Irvine, CA. REPORT Orange County Great Park Corp. (n.d.b.). FY 2009-2020: Strategic business plan. Irvine, CA. Orange County Grand Jury Report. (2010). Financing the Great Park: Now you see it, REPORT now you don’t. Santa Ana, CA. Orange County (2002). Measure W: County Parks Initiative. Retrieved from: REPORT http://www.smartvoter.org/2002/03/05/ca/or/meas/W/.html 15 Orange County Great Park Design Studio. (2007). Major milestone review: 30% schematic estimate construction elements. Irvine, CA. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT Schulman, M. (n.d.). California without redevelopment monies: The ethical issues. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, Santa Clara University, CA. Retrieved from http://www.scu.edu. REPORT 3 Sim, R. (2005, March 14). Great Park Audit: Statement of Richard Sim to Conservancy. Irvine, CA. REPORT Sim, R. (2014, July 29). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Irvine, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT Smith, K. (2014, September 5). Deposition: Orange County Great Park. San Clemente, 5 CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp Smith, G. (n.d.). Declaration of Greg Smith regarding City of Irvine Great Park. Irvine, REPORT CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp 6 Starnes, J.L. (2014, June 30). Deposition: Orange County Great Park. Newport Beach, REPORT CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp 7 Urch, G.T. (2014, August 26). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Newport Beach, CA. Retrieved from: REPORT http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp 8 Wood, T. (2014, July 28). Arnold Forde: Half century of big time politics. Voice of REPORT Orange County, Retrieved from: http://ww.voiceofoc.org. Worthington, G. (n.d.). Declaration of Glen Worthington regarding City of Irvine Great Park. Irvine, CA REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT APPENDIX A: 2 ORANGE COUNTY GREAT PARK CHRONOLOGY REPORT 1993 July Department of Defense places MCAS El Toro on the BRAC closure list. 3 2002, March 5 Orange County voters approve Measure W that creates the Orange County Central Park and Nature Preserve to replace MCAS El Toro. REPORT 2002, March 6 The Department of the Navy announces its intention to sell MCAS El Toro on a 4 bid basis. 2003, January 28 Irvine City Council announces in a press release that the Great Park would cost a projected $353 million to construct. REPORT 5 2003, July 7 The Orange County Great Park is incorporated. 2003, November 12 The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) approves the City of Irvine’s REPORT annexation of the former MCAS El Toro, putting the City of Irvine in control of land use decisions for the entire property. 6 2003, December 5 The Orange County Great Park Corporation (OCGPC) holds its first public meeting and adopts a resolution that expands the Board of Directors to nine (9) REPORT members. 7 2004, January 14 City of Irvine officially annexes former MCAS El Toro. 2004, September The Department of the Navy invites bids for MCAS El Toro. REPORT 8 2004, December 16 The OCGPC approves the 2004-2005 business plan with an anticipated budget to build the park at $401 million. REPORT 2005, March 8 Redevelopment funding for the Great Park is authorized by ordinance. 9 2005, April The OCGPC inaugurates design contest for the Great Park. 2005, June 23 Based on design submittals and recommendation by a “Design Jury,” seven REPORT finalists are selected and each is given $50,000 to develop and Conceptual 10 Master Design Plan. 2005, July 12 Lennar had the winning bid for MCAS El Toro of $649.5 million. Lennar REPORT contributes 1,347 acres to the City of Irvine, pays $200 million in developer fees, and pledges an additional $201 million for joint infrastructure and facilities 11 intended to be funded by a Community Facilities District (CFD) bond sale. 2005, September Finalists present their design plans during the OCGPC public meetings. REPORT 12 2006, January 23 OCGPC board selects the project designer and architect of the Orange County Great Park. 2006, March 9 OCGPC enters into Agreement for Master Designer Services to develop a Great REPORT Park Master Plan for $372 million. The main purpose of the contract is to develop 13 a conceptual design of the Great Park that would be approved by the OCGPC Board and the Irvine City Council. REPORT 2006, March 23 A contractor is selected from among five bidding firms to be the program 14 manager for the Great Park. 2006, October 26 OCGPC Board approves the Preliminary Master Plan in concept. REPORT 2007, January 9 Irvine City Council authorizes approximately $4.1 million in expenditures for 15 design, construction, operations, and insurance for the Great Park balloon. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT 2007, January 25 Original plan designer makes proposal to OCGPC Board to continue services for 2 the design development of the entire park, including park schematics, mass grading, and construction documents for the initial park construction. REPORT 2007, July 14 The Great Park Balloon opens to the public. Features include parking, lighting, 3 temporary visitor center, construction of the observation balloon, and associated infrastructure and utilities. REPORT 2007, July 24 OCGPC Board and Irvine City Council approve a schematic design contract 4 (Contract #5759) for $27.3 million. The purpose of the contract is to develop construction documents in accordance with the Master Design Plan and to establish reasonable cost estimates for the Great Park features included in the REPORT Schematic Design. 5 2007, September 27 The OCGPC Board adopts the Comprehensive Master Plan. Contractor estimates total cost to build park at $979.8 million. REPORT 2007, December 11 Irvine City Council authorizes $11.4 million for design and construction of the 6 Balloon Enhancement Project and $2.5 million for first year operating costs, totaling $13.9 million. Features include new signage and lighting, parking and site access, night flights, a revised multipurpose 5-acre landscaping, and REPORT cleaning and painting an existing hangar that will be used for future events. 7 2008, January 8 Decision to proceed with the Schematic Design to ultimately develop construction documents for the improvements. REPORT 2008, March 25 Balloon Enhancement Project is expanded by Irvine City Council to become the 8 27.5-acre “Preview Park.” Irvine budgets approximately $6.97 million for construction of the entire Preview Park. Balloon project is considered Phase One. REPORT 9 2008, July Second phase of Preview Park is completed. This phase consists of a lawn, trees, park furnishings, additional lighting, timeline prototype, shade structures, and a relocated and improved visitor center. REPORT 10 2008, July 11 Program Manager estimates the cost of horizontal construction (not including buildings) to be over $1.6 billion. 2008, August The City of Irvine hires an independent public accounting firm to audit contract REPORT compliance under the Agreement for Master Designer Services (Contract 1). 11 2009, January OCGP Board commissions consulting firm to evaluate the merits and feasibility of a major fundraising effort to generate private funds for selected facilities and REPORT programs within the Great Park Master Plan. 12 2009, February Schematic design is halted by CEO and states no further work necessary on the design. Staff concludes that the project budget to be approximately $1.4 billion. REPORT 2009, March 19 Contractor presents a 36-month construction plan to develop 500 acres for $61 13 million. 2009, April 23 OCGP Board votes to recommend that the Irvine City Council appropriate $61.2 REPORT million for the 500-acre park from development proposal. 14 2009, May 21 Contractor presents Phase 1 plan of the 500-acre plan and attains an additional $4.7 million to implement Phase 1. REPORT 2009, July Phase 3 of the Preview Park is completed. Third phase included transplanting 15 mature trees into the lawn area and the Farm and Food Lab. REPORT 16 2009, October Accounting firm auditing contract compliance under the Agreement for Master 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT Designer Services delivered their report. 2 2009, October 22 GP CEO submitted a proposal for $65.5 million to develop 200 acres (Western Sector) and to replace the 500-acre plan The proposal was approved by the REPORT OCGPC Board . This area is adjacent to Park Preview. 3 2009, November 10 The City of Irvine approves a sole source contract with WRNS Studio, an architectural firm, for $10.1 million for design and pre-construction services for the Western Sector. Construction design of Western Sector began shortly REPORT thereafter. 4 2009, November 12 Consulting firm delivered its report to the OCGP Board, concluding that it is infeasible to raise enough private funds to construct facilities for the Great Park REPORT due to many obstacles. 5 2010, June 17 A Close Out Agreement between the original designer and the City of Irvine is presented at a joint meeting with OCGPC and Irvine City Council. REPORT 2010, August 13 Final Close Out Agreement with the original designer and City of Irvine is 6 executed. 2011, January Governor Brown proposes statewide elimination of Redevelopment Agencies REPORT (RDA) beginning with 2011-2012 budgets. 7 2011, June 15 California Legislature passes ABX1 26 which eliminates RDAs and sets up Successor Agencies and Oversight Boards to wind down dissolved RDAs. REPORT 2011, November An independent public accounting firm, is engaged by the City of Irvine to review 8 contract compliance of the Schematic Design contract (Contract 2). 2012, June 7 Irvine enters into a contract with USS Cal Builders, Inc. for $22 million to REPORT complete construction of 30 acres of the Western Sector. 9 2012, June 21 Independent accounting firm delivered Schematic Design Contract Compliance Review to Board and city. The report did not reveal any significant or material findings. REPORT 10 2012, November City Council election was held resulting in the composition of the council being significantly changed. Four of the at-large members were dismissed. REPORT 2013, January City Council cancelled the park public relations contract. 11 2013, June 17 The City of Irvine retained Hagen, Streiff, Newton, & Oshiro Accountants, PC (HSNO) for $240,000 to perform a forensic audit of the planning, development, and construction of the Great Park. REPORT 12 2013, November The Prime Contractor proposed 688-acre park project to the Irvine City Council. 2014, August City of Irvine readjusts its Master Plan and Design Review to be in concert with the Prime Contractor proposal. REPORT 13 2014, November The 5-year Master Plan for 688 acres is approved by the City Council. REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT APPENDIX B: 2 PROBLEMS WITH FORMER CONTRACTS REPORT The Grand Jury found many inconsistencies and problems in managing contracts 3 involving the Great Park. An examination of the previous largest contracts revealed that many of them REPORT contained no deliverables or milestones. Several were open-ended, had minor 4 oversights, and provided for no true safeguards. It seems that there was never an outside audit of finances or contracts. REPORT 5 No-Bid Contracts. Very early in the life of the project, the 2005-2006 Grand Jury had recommended that “The Irvine City Council should review current practices involving no-bid contracts to ensure that appropriate business controls are in place to REPORT protect the citizens of the City of Irvine” (p. 11). In the response from the City of Irvine, 6 they “wholly” disagreed with this finding. In the City’s response they referenced the current policy on purchasing8 which they claimed they were following. REPORT 7 However the practice of no-bid contracts continued over the years. In projects costing over $100,000, 29 of 83 (35%) were sole source contracts according to records from the Office of the Irvine City Clerk. This seems extraordinarily high; however, the REPORT law does not prohibit these contracts if they are for highly specialized services. As an 8 example, the Western Sector was built with sole source contracts, but to management’s credit, the project was completed within 10% of its budget ($69.9 million actual versus REPORT budgeted $65.5 million). Change Orders. A review of several contracts revealed an extensive use of REPORT change orders. These change orders allowed for additional expenditures. A cursory 10 review determined that over $15 million was spent on change orders alone. The forensic auditor found strong evidence of a lack of definition of scope in REPORT contracts until after the work had begun (HSNO, 2014). Also found was significant 11 confusion concerning scope of work. There were various testimonies in sworn dispositions that one contractor was performing work outside of its scope. Other REPORT testimony stated that the same contractor would begin work prior to the contract being 12 approved. The magnitude of change orders indicated a lack of definition of scope of work or poor project management by the City. REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT APPENDIX C: 2 CITY OF IRVINE ORGANIZATION CHART REPORT Residents of 3 Irvine REPORT Orange County 4 Great Park Board City Council of Directors REPORT 5 City Manager REPORT 6 Assistant City Assistant City Manager Manager OCGP REPORT 7 Administrative REPORT Services Public Safety 8 Department Department REPORT Community Public 9 Development Communication Department REPORT 10 City Clerk Community Services REPORT Department 11 City Treasurer REPORT Public Works 12 Department City Attorney REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT APPENDIX D: 2 OCGP ORGANIZATION STRUCTURES REPORT 3 Single Organization Staffing Structure (Approved by Irvine City Council) REPORT 4 REPORT 5 OCGP Board City Council RDA REPORT 6 Executive City Manager REPORT Director (RDA) 7 REPORT 8 Assistant City Assistant City Manager/CEO Manager REPORT 9 Deputy CEO/GM (CFO) REPORT City Departments 10 REPORT 11 Manager of Manager of Manager of Manager of Communications Engineering Planning Operations REPORT and Public Affairs 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT Traditional Structure (Rejected by Irvine City Council) 2 REPORT 3 REPORT 4 REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT APPENDIX E: 2 CITY OF IRVINE COUNCIL RESOLUTION OF APRIL, 2006 REPORT Organization 3  The Orange County Great Park Corporation Board of Directors consists of five members of the Irvine City Council and four appointed directors. REPORT  Employees serving the Corporation are employees of the City of Irvine, working 4 within the City’s organizational structure, (i.e., as a distinct operating department of the City) and functioning under the general direction and supervision of the REPORT City Manager. Funding REPORT  Funds for the development of the Park are managed by the City of Irvine in a 6 separate city fund. Operations and Maintenance REPORT 7  Operation and maintenance of the Park shall be based on a self-sustaining budget. REPORT 8 The Great Park Board of Directors REPORT  May develop policies for presentation for City Council adoption. 9  Is responsible for direction and oversight with respect to planning, designing, and constructing the Park. REPORT  Is responsible for ensuring that applicable policy guidelines and design principles 10 are implemented.  Will oversee construction of the Park and will provide recommendations to the City Council for approval of all contracts and change orders. REPORT 11 The Irvine City Council REPORT  Must initiate and approve all land use modifications. 12  Has final authority over all financial matters, including contracts for construction, operation, and maintenance of the Park. REPORT  Is responsible for the management, dispensation, and investment of funds 13 available for the park. REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT