Costa Mesa City Council
October 17, 2023

CITY OF COSTA MESA

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND HOUSING AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended
City Council Chambers
77 Fair Drive
6:00 PMTuesday, October 17, 2023
*Note: All agency memberships are reflected in the title "Council Member" 4:00 P.M. Closed Session
AMENDED AGENDA - NEW BUSINESS #4 HAS BEEN REMOVED
The City Council meetings are presented in a hybrid format, both in-person at City Hall and as a courtesy virtually via Zoom Webinar. If the Zoom feature is having system outages or experiencing other critical issues, the meeting will continue in person.

TRANSLATION SERVICES AVAILABLE / SERVICIOS DE TRADUCCIÓN DISPONIBLE Please contact the City Clerk at (714) 754-5225 to request language interpreting services for City meetings. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make arrangements.

Favor de comunicarse con la Secretaria Municipal al (714) 754-5225 para solicitar servicios de interpretación de idioma para las juntas de la Ciudad. Se pide notificación por lo mínimo 48 horas de anticipación, esto permite que la Ciudad haga los arreglos necesarios.

Members of the public can view the City Council meetings live on COSTA MESA TV (SPECTRUM CHANNEL 3 AND AT&T U-VERSE CHANNEL 99) or
http://costamesa.granicus.com/player/camera/2?publish_id=10&redirect=true and online at youtube.com/costamesatv.

1 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND
HOUSING AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended October 17, 2023
Zoom Webinar: (For both 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. meetings) Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/98376390419?pwd=dnpFelc5TnU4a3BKWVIyRVZMallZZz09 Or sign into Zoom.com and “Join a Meeting”
Enter Webinar ID: 983 7639 0419/ Password: 905283
• If Zoom is not already installed on your computer, click “Download & Run Zoom” on the launch page and press “Run” when prompted by your browser. If Zoom has previously been installed on your computer, please allow a few moments for the application to launch automatically.
• Select “Join Audio via Computer.”
• The virtual conference room will open. If you receive a message reading, “Please wait for the host to start this meeting,” simply remain in the room until the meeting begins.
• During the Public Comment Period, use the “raise hand” feature located in the participants’ window and wait for city staff to announce your name and unmute your line when it is your turn to speak. Comments are limited to 3 minutes, or as otherwise directed.

Participate via telephone: (For both 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. meetings) Call: 1 669 900 6833 Enter Webinar ID: 983 7639 0419/ Password: 905283 During the Public Comment Period, press *9 to add yourself to the queue and wait for city staff to announce your name/phone number and press *6 to unmute your line when it is your turn to speak. Comments are limited to 3 minutes, or as otherwise directed.

Note, if you have installed a zoom update, please restart your computer before participating in the meeting.

Additionally, members of the public who wish to make a written comment on a specific agenda item, may submit a written comment via email to the City Clerk at [email protected].

Comments received by 12:00 p.m. on the date of the meeting will be provided to the City Council, made available to the public, and will be part of the meeting record.

Please know that it is important for the City to allow public participation at this meeting. If you are unable to participate in the meeting via the processes set forth above, please contact the City Clerk at (714) 754-5225 or [email protected] and staff will attempt to accommodate you. While the City does not expect there to be any changes to the above process for participating in this meeting, if there is a change, the City will post the information as soon as possible to the City’s website.

2 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND
HOUSING AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended October 17, 2023
Note that records submitted by the public will not be redacted in any way and will be posted online as submitted, including any personal contact information. All pictures, PowerPoints, and videos submitted for display at a public meeting must be previously reviewed by staff to verify appropriateness for general audiences. No links to YouTube videos or other streaming services will be accepted, a direct video file will need to be emailed to staff prior to each meeting in order to minimize complications and to play the video without delay. The video must be one of the following formats, .mp4, .mov or .wmv. Only one file may be included per speaker for public comments, for both videos and pictures. Please e-mail to the City Clerk at [email protected] NO LATER THAN 12:00 Noon on the date of the meeting. If you do not receive confirmation from the city prior to the meeting, please call the City Clerks office at 714-754-5225.

Note regarding agenda-related documents provided to a majority of the City Council after distribution of the City Council agenda packet (GC §54957.5): Any related documents provided to a majority of the City Council after distribution of the City Council Agenda Packets will be made available for public inspection. Such documents will be posted on the city’s website and will be available at the City Clerk's office, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626.

All cell phones and other electronic devices are to be turned off or set to vibrate. Members of the audience are requested to step outside the Council Chambers to conduct a phone conversation.

Free Wi-Fi is available in the Council Chambers during the meetings. The network username available is: CM_Council. The password is: cmcouncil1953.

As a LEED Gold Certified City, Costa Mesa is fully committed to environmental sustainability.

A minimum number of hard copies of the agenda will be available in the Council Chambers.

For your convenience, a binder of the entire agenda packet will be at the table in the foyer of the Council Chambers for viewing. Agendas and reports can be viewed on the City website at https://costamesa.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Assistive Listening headphones are available and can be checked out from the City Clerk. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (714) 754-5225. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II].

En conformidad con la Ley de Estadounidenses con Discapacidades (ADA), aparatos de asistencia están disponibles y podrán ser prestados notificando a la Secretaria Municipal. Si necesita asistencia especial para participar en esta junta, comuníquese con la oficina de la Secretaria Municipal al (714) 754-5225. Se pide dar notificación a la Ciudad por lo mínimo 48 horas de anticipación para garantizar accesibilidad razonable a la junta. [28 CFR

35.102.35.104 ADA Title II].

3 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND
HOUSING AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended October 17, 2023
CLOSED SESSION - 4:00 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENTS Members of the public are welcome to address the City Council only on those items on the Closed Session agenda. Each member of the public will be given a total of three minutes to speak on all items on the Closed Session agenda.

CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:

1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION – ONE CASE Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: Schaefer v. Costa Mesa
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2022-01286737-CU-PO-CJC

2. THREAT TO SECURITY
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957(a) Consultation with: Costa Mesa Director of Emergency Services, City Manager, Police Chief, Fire Chief.

3. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.8
APN: 420-012-16
Agency Negotiators: Lori Ann Farrell Harrison, City Manager Negotiating Parties: State of California

4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION - ONE CASE Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2)

4 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND
HOUSING AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended October 17, 2023

REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY

TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND HOUSING AUTHORITY
OCTOBER 17, 2023 – 6:00 P.M.

JOHN STEPHENS
Mayor

JEFFREY HARLAN ANDREA MARR Mayor Pro Tem - District 6 Council Member - District 3

MANUEL CHAVEZ LOREN GAMEROS
Council Member - District 4 Council Member - District 2

ARLIS REYNOLDS DON HARPER
Council Member - District 5 Council Member - District 1

KIMBERLY HALL BARLOW LORI ANN FARRELL HARRISON
City Attorney City Manager

CALL TO ORDER

NATIONAL ANTHEM AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

MOMENT OF SOLEMN EXPRESSION
[Per Council Policy 000-12, these presentations are made by community volunteers stating their own views. The City Council disclaims any intent to endorse or sponsor the views of any speaker.]

ROLL CALL

CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT
PRESENTATIONS:

1. Proclamation: 2023 Domestic Violence Awareness Month 23-1421 10-17-2023 Domestic Violence Awareness MonthAttachments:

5 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND
HOUSING AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended October 17, 2023

2. Proclamation: 2023 National Crime Prevention Month 23-1422 10-17-2023 National Crime Prevention MonthAttachments:

3. Presentation: CalOptima Health- Medi-Cal Renewals 23-1425 PUBLIC COMMENTS – MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
Comments on Consent Calendar items may also be heard at this time.

Comments are limited to 3 minutes, or as otherwise directed.

COUNCIL MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS Each council member is limited to 4 minutes. Additional comments will be heard at the end of the meeting.

1. Council Member Marr

2. Council Member Reynolds

3. Council Member Chavez

4. Council Member Gameros

5. Council Member Harper

6. Mayor Pro Tem Harlan

7. Mayor Stephens
REPORT – CITY MANAGER
REPORT – CITY ATTORNEY

CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be acted upon in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the City Council, staff, or the public request specific items to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.

1. PROCEDURAL WAIVER: WAIVE THE FULL READING OF ALL

ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
23-1413
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council, Agency Board, and Housing Authority approve the reading by title only and waive full reading of Ordinances and Resolutions.

6 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND
HOUSING AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended October 17, 2023

2. READING FOLDER 23-1415
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council receive and file Claims received by the City Clerk: Alexandra Lee Atalla, Luca Farren Atalla, Theresa Atalla, Jeremiah Duran, Violeta Vushcan.

3. ADOPTION OF WARRANT RESOLUTION 23-1420
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council approve Warrant Resolution No. 2707.

1. Summary Check Register 10-2-2023

2. Summary Check Register 10-5-2023
Attachments:

4. MINUTES 23-1414
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council approve the minutes of the regular meeting of October 3, 2023. 10-03-2023 Draft MinutesAttachments:

5. REQUEST TO CANCEL THE REGULAR MEETING OF TUESDAY,
NOVEMBER 21, 2023 DUE TO THANKSGIVING RECESS

CALENDARS
23-1385
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council cancel the regular meeting of Tuesday, November 21, 2023 due to Thanksgiving Holiday and academic recess calendars.

7 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND
HOUSING AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended October 17, 2023

6. ACCEPTANCE AND ALLOCATION OF THE 2023-24 OFFICE OF

TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANT FOR THE SELECTIVE TRAFFIC

ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
23-1406
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Approve the proposed Resolution No. 2023-XX, which ratifies the application for a grant award from the State of California - Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) for the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute all grant documents, including the Grant Agreement, and accept and administer the grant.

2. Approve revenue and expense appropriations in the amount of $285,000, respectively, for the 2023-24 OTS STEP Grant.

1. OTS STEP Grant Agreement

2. Resolution No. 23-XX OTS STEP Grant
Attachments:

7. ACCEPTANCE OF THE ORGANIZED RETAIL THEFT PREVENTION
GRANT FOR THE COSTA MESA POLICE DEPARTMENT OF $ 3.5

MILLION
23-1407
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Approve the proposed resolution 2023-XX authorizing participation in the Organized Retail Theft (ORT) Prevention Grant Program and the City Manager, or designee, to execute the ORT Standard Agreement.

2. Approve revenue and expense appropriations in the amount of $3,518,133, respectively, for the Organized Retail Theft (ORT) Prevention Grant.

1. 23-27 ORTP Grant Agreement

2. Resolution
Attachments:

8 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND
HOUSING AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended October 17, 2023

8. RESPONSE TO THE GRAND JURY REPORT TITLED “WELCOME TO

THE NEIGHBORHOOD- ARE CITIES RESPONSIBLY MANAGING THE
INTEGRATION OF GROUP HOMES?”
23-1408
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Approve the attached response to the 2022-23 Orange County Grand Jury Report, “Welcome to the Neighborhood- Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes?”

2. Authorize the Mayor to submit the response to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05 (a) and (b).

1. Orange County Grand Jury Report (Welcome to the
Neighborhood)

2. Response to Grand Jury Report
Attachments:

AT THIS TIME COUNCIL WILL ADDRESS ANY ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT

CALENDAR
------------------------------END OF CONSENT CALENDAR-------------------------------

9 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND
HOUSING AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended October 17, 2023
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(Pursuant to Resolution No. 05-55, Public Hearings begin at 7:00 p.m.)

1. APPEAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION 22-05 FOR A RETAIL
CANNABIS STOREFRONT BUSINESS LOCATED AT 1505 MESA
VERDE DRIVE EAST (“C21+”)
23-1401
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission’s decision and adopt a Resolution to approve Planning Application 22-05. The City Council may also overturn the Planning Commission’s decision and deny the request, and direct staff to prepare a Resolution reflecting the City Council’s findings for denial.

1. Resolution for Approval

2. Filed Appeal

3. Planning Commission Resolution

4. Planning Commission approved minutes

5. Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachments:

OLD BUSINESS: NONE.

NEW BUSINESS: (Next Page)

10 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND
HOUSING AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended October 17, 2023

1. APPOINTMENTS TO VARIOUS CITY COMMITTEES 23-1119
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council make appointments as follows:

1. Animal Services Committee - Make three ( 3) member appointments with a term expiration of April 2025. One nomination by Council Member Marr, Council Member Chavez, and Council Member Reynolds. A Council Member may defer his or her nomination to a Council Liaison (Mayor Stephens, Council Member Harper).

2. Active Transportation Committee - Make three ( 3) member appointments with a term expiration of April 2025. Two of the appointments are at-large to ensure broad representation of different mobility options and experiences (e.g. walk, bike, bus, and age ability). One nomination by Council Member Marr, Council Member Chavez, and Council Member Reynolds. A Council Member may defer his or her nomination to the Council Liaison ( Council Member Reynolds).

3. Fairview Park Steering Committee - Make three ( 3) member appointments with a term expiration of April 2027. One nomination by Council Member Marr, Council Member Chavez, and Council Member Reynolds. A Council Member may defer his or her nomination to a Council Liaison ( Council Member Reynolds, Alternate Mayor Pro Tem Harlan and Council Member Chavez).

4. Finance and Pension Advisory Committee - Make three ( 3) member appointments with a term expiration of April 2027. One nomination by Council Member Marr, Council Member Chavez, and Council Member Reynolds. A Council Member may defer his or her nomination to a Council Liaison (Mayor Stephens, Alternate Council Member Marr, and Council Member Harper).

5. Housing and Public Service Grants Committee - Make three ( 3) regular member appointments with a term expiration of April 2025. One nomination by Council Member Marr, Council Member Chavez, and Council Member Reynolds. A Council Member may defer his or her nomination to a Council Liaison (Council Member Chavez, Alternate Council Member Harper).

6. Mobile Home Park Advisory Committee - Make two ( 2) Park Owner or Representative appointments, two ( 2) Mobile Home Park Resident appointments, and one (1) Independent Citizen At-large appointment, all with a term expiration of April 2027. Nominations by Council Member Marr, Council Member Chavez, and Council Member Reynolds. A Council Member may defer his or her nomination to the Council Liaison ( Council Member Reynolds).

11 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND
HOUSING AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended October 17, 2023

7. Correct the term expiration dates for the Arts Commissioners. Terms ending in 2024 should be 2025 and terms ending in 2026 should be 2027 to coincide with the concurrent term of the respective appointing Council Member.

1. Animal Services Committee Applications

2. Active Transportation Committee Applications

3. Fairview Park Steering Committee Applications

4. Finance and Pension Advisory Committee Applications

5. Housing and Public Service Grants Committee Applications

6. Mobile Home Park Advisory Committee Applications
Attachments:

2. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA AMENDING TITLE 9 (LICENSES AND

BUSINESS REGULATIONS) OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL

CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER II (REGULATION OF CERTAIN
BUSINESSES, ARTICLE 24 (JUST CAUSE RESIDENTIAL TENANT

PROTECTIONS)
23-1412
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council introduce and give first reading, waiving further reading, to Ordinance No. 23-XX Amending Title 9 (Licenses and Business Regulations) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code by Adding Chapter II (Regulation of Certain Businesses, Article 24 (Just Cause Residential Tenant Protections) to support Costa Mesa renters facing no-fault just cause eviction.

1.Draft OrdinaceAttachments:

12 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND
HOUSING AUTHORITY*
Agenda - Final Amended October 17, 2023

3. STATUS UPDATE REGARDING THE CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF
EMERGENCY SERVICES’ (CAL OES) SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

REGIONAL EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER (EOC) PROJECT

AT THE FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER SITE
23-1427
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:
· Provide feedback, as needed, regarding the City ’s comment letter on the State’s Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Cal OES Southern California Regional EOC Project; and
· Authorize the City Manager or designee to finalize the draft letter incorporating feedback from the City Council and submit it to the State.

1. Draft Comment Letter-Outline re EOC Project Draft EIR.pdf

2. April 17 2023 City Comment Letter re: FDC OES Notice of Preparation

3. Public Comments
Attachments:

ADDITIONAL COUNCIL /BOARD MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND

SUGGESTIONS

ADJOURNMENT

13 CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 23-1421 Meeting Date: 10/17/2023
TITLE:

Proclamation: 2023 Domestic Violence Awareness Month
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office

14 WHEREAS, October is annually recognized as National Domestic Violence Awareness Month; and WHEREAS, although progress has been made toward preventing and ending domestic violence and providing support to survivors and their families, important work remains to be done; and
WHEREAS, policymakers and communities must work together to transform the conditions that cause domestic violence and support survivor - centered solutions; and
WHEREAS, domestic violence programs in California provide essential lifesaving services for survivors, their children, and communities; and WHEREAS, there is a need to provide education, awareness, and understanding of domestic violence and its causes; and WHEREAS, there is a need to support and amplify prevention programs and community -based strategies to create healthy environments and decrease the likelihood of perpetration, thereby stopping domestic violence from occurring in the first place; and WHEREAS, there is a need to focus on the individualized needs of domestic violence survivors; and WHEREAS, approximately 35% of California women and 31% of California men experience physical intimate partner violence in their lifetimes; and WHEREAS, California has higher rates of domestic violence experienced by both men and women when compared to the national average; and WHEREAS, women 18-24 years of age are significantly more likely to be survivors of physical intimate partner violence than women in other age groups; and
WHEREAS, domestic violence affects people of all genders, sexual orientations, ages, racial, ethnic, cultural, social, religious, and economic groups in the United States and here in California; and
WHEREAS, the marginalization of certain groups i n society, including undocumented individuals, transgender individuals, and people living with disabilities, increases their vulnerability to domestic violence; and WHEREAS, approximately four out of every ten non-Hispanic Black women, four out of every ten American Indian or Alaska Native women, and 1 in 2 multiracial non-Hispanic women have been the victim of rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime. These rates are 30%-50% higher than those experienced by Hispanic, White non-Hispanic women, and Asian or Pacific non-Hispanic women; and WHEREAS, according to the American Psychological Association, women with disabilities have a 40 percent greater risk of intimate partner violence than women without disabilities; and
WHEREAS, domestic violence is the third leading cause of homelessness among families in the United States; and WHEREAS, domestic violence has a significant economic impact on women; throughout the country, an estimated 8 million days of paid work are lost because of domestic violence lose 8 million paid work days each year as the result of intimate partner violence. Domestic violence costs $8.3 billion in expenses annually: a combination of higher medical costs ($5.8 billion) and lost productivity ($2.5 billion); and WHEREAS, children exposed to domestic violence can experience long -term consequences , including difficulty at school, substance abuse, behavioral problems in adolescence, and serious adult health problems; and

WHEREAS, recognizing the need to understand the complexity of violence as perpetuated within communities and against communities and t he fear of many survivors to report to law enforcement; and

WHEREAS, in 2022 , domestic violence shelter programs served 13,370 in dividuals in shelters and 54,521 individuals through non -shelter supportive services; and
WHEREAS, there were 84 domestic violence-related homicides in California in 2022, of which 63 of the fatalities were female, and 21 were male; and
WHEREAS, all survivors deserve access to culturally responsive programs and services to increase their safety and self-sufficiency; and WHEREAS, all communities deserve access to culturally responsive prevention programs and initiatives to improve overall community health and safety by challenging the societal norms that perpetuate violence; and WHEREAS, Human Options is igniting social change by educating Orange County to recognize relationship violence as an issue that threat ens everyone, advocating for those affected by abuse, extending a safe place for victims, and empowering survivors on their journey of healing; and WHEREAS, Human Options is committed to a future in which every person and family in Orange County experiences safe, healthy relationsh ips and lives free from abuse; and
WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa recognizes the vital role that all Californians can play in preventing and one day ending domestic violence.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, John B. Stephens, Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby proclaim the month o f October 2023 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. I urge Costa Mesa residents to become involved in efforts to prevent and respond to domestic violence and recognize the impact of domestic violence in our community.

DATED this 17th day of October 2023.

______________________________________________________
John B. Stephens, Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa
15 CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 23-1422 Meeting Date: 10/17/2023
TITLE:

Proclamation: 2023 National Crime Prevention Month
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office

16 WHEREAS, the vitality of the City of Costa Mesa depends on how safe we keep our homes, neighborhoods, schools, workplaces, and communities; and
WHEREAS, crime destroys our trust in others and civic institutions, threatening the community’s health, prosperity, and quality of life; and
WHEREAS, people of all ages must be made aware of what they can do to prevent themselves and their families, neighbors, and coworkers from being harmed by crime; and WHEREAS, residents and the Costa Mesa Police Department work together to establish Neighborhood Watch Programs, currently 47 groups, around the city to reduce crime in their neighborhoods effectively; and WHEREAS, through voluntary programs such as Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design and reporting suspicious activity to police, residents empower greater vigilance and oversight in their neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, successful crime prevention involves more than vigilance and caution; the Costa Mesa Police Department partners with residents in meaningful ways , including promoting and hosting several community events such as Coffee with a Cop , Chief Listening Tours, School Bike Rodeos, Walk to School, a 70th Birthday Open House, and a Christmas Shop with a Cop , hosting Car Safety Checks, Citizens Police Academy and Teen Academy, staffing a Community Policing Unit with a Bike Patrol Detail that engages in community outreach to residents in need of resources, and a Gang Unit with three School Resource Officers in Costa Mesa’s high schools, who conduct youth - specific outreach events to bridge gaps between at-risk youth and law enforcement; and WHEREAS, effective crime prevention programs succeed because of partne rships with law enforcement, other government agencies, civic groups, schools, faith communities, businesses, and individuals as they help to nurture communal responsibility and instill pride.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, John Stephens, Mayor of the City of Costa Me sa, do hereby proclaim the month of October 2023 as National Crime Prevention Month. I urge all residents to invest in the power of prevention and work together to make the City of Costa Mesa a safer, stronger, and more caring community.

DATED this 17th day of October 2023.

______________________________________________________
John B. Stephens, Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa

17 CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 23-1425 Meeting Date: 10/17/2023
TITLE:

Presentation: CalOptima Health- Medi-Cal Renewals
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office

18 CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 23-1413 Meeting Date: 10/17/2023
TITLE:

PROCEDURAL WAIVER: WAIVE THE FULL READING OF ALL ORDINANCES AND

RESOLUTIONS
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council, Agency Board, and Housing Authority approve the reading by title only and waive full reading of Ordinances and Resolutions.

19 CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 23-1415 Meeting Date: 10/17/2023
TITLE:

READING FOLDER
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office/City Clerk’s Division RECOMMENDATION:

City Council receive and file Claims received by the City Clerk: Alexandra Lee Atalla, Luca Farren Atalla, Theresa Atalla, Jeremiah Duran, Violeta Vushcan.

20 CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 23-1420 Meeting Date: 10/17/2023
TITLE:

ADOPTION OF WARRANT RESOLUTION
DEPARTMENT: Finance Department
PRESENTED BY: Carol Molina, Finance Director
CONTACT INFORMATION: Carol Molina at (714) 754-5243
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council approve Warrant Resolution No. 2707.

BACKGROUND:

In accordance with Section 37202 of the California Government Code, the Director of Finance or their designated representative hereby certify to the accuracy of the following demands and to the availability of funds for payment thereof.

FISCAL REVIEW:

Funding Payroll Register No. 23-20 On Cycle for $3,342,370.75 and City operating expenses for $2,847,463.37.

21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 78
79 80
81 82
83 84
85 86
87 88
89 90
91 CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 23-1414 Meeting Date: 10/17/2023
TITLE:

MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office/City Clerk’s Division RECOMMENDATION:

City Council approve the minutes of the regular meeting of October 3, 2023.

92 Minutes – Regular Meeting – October 3, 2023 Page 1 of 8

REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY

TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND HOUSING AUTHORITY
OCTOBER 3, 2023 – MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER – The Closed Session meeting was called to order by Mayor Stephens at 4:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present: Council Member Chavez, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Harper, Council Member Marr (Arrived 4:02 p.m.) Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Harlan, and Mayor Stephens.

Absent: None.

PUBLIC COMMENTS – NONE.

Ms. Hall Barlow, City Attorney requested to add one additional closed session item be added to the agenda, regarding litigation that was brought to the attention of the City after the agenda had been posted and needed to be considered before the next regularly scheduled meeting.

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION - ONE CASE Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2) MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Stephens/Council Member Chavez
MOTION: Add the Closed Session item as requested by Ms. Hall Barlow, City Attorney.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Chavez, Council Member Gameros Council Member Harper, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Harlan, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None

Absent: Council Member Marr
Abstain: None
Motion carried: 6-0
CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:

1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION - TWO CASES
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2) 93 Minutes – Regular Meeting – October 3, 2023 Page 2 of 8

2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.8
APN: 420-012-16
Agency Negotiators: Lori Ann Farrell Harrison, City Manager Negotiating Parties: State of California
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment
City Council recessed at 4:03 p.m. for Closed Session.

Closed Session adjourned at 5:50 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER – The Regular City Council and Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency, and Housing Authority meeting was called to order by Mayor Stephens at 6:00 p.m.

NATIONAL ANTHEM AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A video was played of the National Anthem and Mayor Stephens led the Pledge of Allegiance.

MOMENT OF SOLEMN EXPRESSION – Led by Pastor Christine Nolf, Redemption Church.

ROLL CALL

Present: Council Member Chavez, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Harper, Council Member Marr Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Harlan and Mayor Stephens.

Absent: None.

CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT – No reportable action.

PRESENTATIONS:

Mayor Stephens presented a proclamation in honor of 2023 Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

Mayor Stephens presented a proclamation in honor of 2023 Fire Prevention Week.

Mayor Stephens presented a proclamation in honor 2023 Code Enforcement Appreciation Week.

Mayor Stephens presented a proclamation in honor of 2023 Walktober Month.

PUBLIC COMMENTS – MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
Speaker, spoke on walkable Cities and accessibility for everyone and spoke in favor of reduced road speeds.

Juana Trejo expressed support for policing efforts, spoke on problems with rental assistance, and to monitor contracts.

Wendy Simoa spoke on noise problems at The 12 gym and the Conditional Use Permit.

Speaker, spoke on Senate Bill 567 being approved and housing rights being violated. 94 Minutes – Regular Meeting – October 3, 2023 Page 3 of 8 Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa, spoke on attending the State meeting regarding the Fairview Developmental Center and requested the City to encourage residents to make comments during the EIR review period, and appreciates the Council reconsidering the cannabis ordinance.

Speaker, spoke on being evicted due to the owner making renovations, the high expense to move, and requested assistance.

Megan Wilson, Costa Mesa, spoke on the feral cats on West 20th Street, and requested the City review the policies on animal hoarding.

Speaker, Costa Mesa, spoke on being evicted due to the owner making renovations, and spoke on the barriers to qualify for services.

Speaker spoke on parking minimums.

Speaker, requested assistance as they have received an eviction notice.

Speaker, representing Resilience Orange County, spoke on the barriers to receiving housing assistance and people being denied assistance.

Speaker, spoke on the proposed State Emergency Operations Center at the Fairview Developmental Center and spoke on repairs at the dog park.

Speaker, thanked the Council for the street improvements on Placentia Ave., spoke on Strong Towns and a new Orange County Chapter, and spoke on the Emergency Operations Center meeting at the Fairview Developmental Center.

Speaker, spoke on parking on Monrovia Street, requested to not reduce parking requirements, spoke on the West 19th Street improvements, and spoke on notification for the State Emergency Operations Center meeting at the Fairview Developmental Center.

Kim Hendricks spoke on Fairview Park.

COUNCIL MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS Council Member Harper spoke on the timeline for addressing the Cannabis Ordinance, on the number of Cannabis Businesses, requested a moratorium on addressing Cannabis Businesses until the Ordinance is addressed, requested an update on the Tennis Center contract, requested police presence due to street takeovers, spoke on the State Emergency Operations Center meeting at the Fairview Developmental Center, and spoke on parking minimums.

Council Member Marr requested staff review the Families Forward contract and funding, spoke in support of a housing clinic, requested staff review the issues associated with evictions, spoke on the State Emergency Operations Center meeting at the Fairview Developmental Center, and spoke in support of a cannabis business moratorium. 95 Minutes – Regular Meeting – October 3, 2023 Page 4 of 8 Council Member Reynolds spoke on access gaps to resources on housing, requested data on the number of people being denied services and the causes of these decisions, spoke on Walktober, participating in A Week Without Driving, spoke on the new striping on W. 19th St. and requested delineators between the bike lanes, spoke on the kickoff for Strong Towns Orange County, spoke on a sidewalk condition index, and spoke on funds for supporting community-based events.

Council Member Chavez spoke on Walk to School Day on October 4th, spoke on the Fire Station Open House on October 7th, spoke on Back to SOY Night on October 12th, spoke in support of a housing clinic and a cannabis moratorium, and requested to adjourn the meeting in memory of Brandon Accola.

Council Member Gameros recognized first responders.

Mayor Pro Tem Harlan spoke on Walk to School Day on October 4th, spoke on the meeting on the proposed State Emergency Operations Center at Fairview Developmental Center, expressed support for housing at the Fairview Developmental Center site and is opposed to an Emergency Operations Center at the location.

Mayor Stephens spoke on the meeting on the proposed State Emergency Operations Center at Fairview Developmental Center and supports housing at the location, spoke on Jake Knapp from Estancia High School receiving a PGA card, spoke on the sustainability Decathlon October 5th through October 15th at the Fairgrounds, spoke on evictions and that legal aid will be at future Council meetings to provide assistance, spoke on Placentia Ave. street improvements, and spoke on Adjourning the meeting in honor of Brandon Accola, Dianne Feinstein, Jordan Brandman, and Ronnie J. Coleman,
REPORT – CITY MANAGER – Ms. Farrell Harrison spoke on the proposed State Emergency Operations Center at the Fairview Developmental Center and providing comments on the EIR, spoke on the Nationwide Emergency Alert and Wireless Emergency Alert Test on October 4th, spoke on the new Costa Mesa App CM311, and spoke on bringing forth an eviction ordinance.

REPORT – CITY ATTORNEY – None.

CONSENT CALENDAR
MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Reynolds/Council Member Marr MOTION: Approve the Consent Calendar.

Ayes: Council Member Chavez, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Harper, Council Member Marr, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Harlan, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None

Absent: None.

Abstain: None
Motion carried: 7-0
96 Minutes – Regular Meeting – October 3, 2023 Page 5 of 8

1. PROCEDURAL WAIVER: WAIVE THE FULL READING OF ALL ORDINANCES AND

RESOLUTIONS
ACTION:

City Council, Agency Board, and Housing Authority approved the reading by title only and waived full reading of Ordinances and Resolutions.

2. READING FOLDER
ACTION:

City Council received and filed Claims received by the City Clerk: Gloria Aquino, Monique Low, Albert Jack Pacheco, Bonnie Winslow.

3. ADOPTION OF WARRANT RESOLUTION
ACTION:

City Council approved Warrant Resolution No. 2706.

4. MINUTES
ACTION:

City Council approved the minutes of the regular meeting of September 19, 2023.

5. DESIGNATION OF CITY NEGOTIATORS FOR THE COSTA MESA CITY

FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION (CMFA) MEET AND CONFER AND

AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH THE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE

CURRENT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) PER THE

TRANSPARENCY IN LABOR NEGOTIATIONS COUNCIL POLICY
ACTION:

1. City Council designated City Manager Lori Ann Farrell Harrison as the City’s Principal Negotiator, Deputy City Manager Alma Reyes, Human Resources Manager Kasama Lee, Human Resources Administrator Fanni Acosta, and Finance Director Carol Molina as the City’s representatives in negotiations with the CMFA.

2. Authorized staff to have the independent fiscal analysis of the current CMFA 2017-2024 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) completed per the requirements of the Transparency in Labor Negotiations Council Policy.

6. AUTHORIZE THE USE OF A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH LONG BEACH BMW FOR THE PURCHASE OF FOUR NEW 2024 BMW R1250 RT-P POLICE

MOTORCYCLES
ACTION:

1. City Council approved the purchase of four (4) new 2024 BMW R1250RT-P police motorcycles based on pricing provided through a cooperative agreement with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, PO-SH-23008318-1.

2. Authorized the City Manager to execute the necessary documents for the purchase in the amount of $129,033.94 from Long Beach BMW Motorcycles located at 2125 E. Spring Street, Long Beach, CA 90806.
97 Minutes – Regular Meeting – October 3, 2023 Page 6 of 8

7. ACCEPTANCE OF THE CITYWIDE PARKWAY MAINTENANCE, STREET REHABILITATION, AND SLURRY SEAL PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 21-03 ACTION:

1. City Council accepted the work performed by All American Asphalt, Inc., 400 East Sixth Street, Corona, California 92879 for the Citywide Parkway Maintenance, Street Rehabilitation, and Slurry Seal Project, City Project No. 21-03, and authorize the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion.

2. Authorized the City Manager to release the retention monies thirty-five (35) days after the Notice of Completion filing date; release the Labor and Material Bond seven (7) months after the filing date; and release the Faithful Performance Bond one (1) year after the filing date.
----------------------------------------END OF CONSENT CALENDAR----------------------------------------- PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE
(Pursuant to Resolution No. 05-55, Public Hearings begin at 7:00 p.m.) OLD BUSINESS: NONE
City Council recessed into a break at 7:55 p.m.

City Council reconvened at 8:05 p.m.

NEW BUSINESS:

1. COSTA MESA FIRE & RESCUE DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW
Presentation by Fire Chief Stefano, Assistant Fire Chief Pyle, Emergency Medical Services Manager Horner, Training Safety & Professional Standards Captain Torres, Battalion Chief Coates, Fire Marshal Neal, and EOC Manager Emrick.

Public Comment:

Speaker, spoke on strategies to add speed humps and slower speeds, size of fire trucks and negotiating the width of streets, hybrid fire trucks, single staircase buildings, and lithium ion batteries.

MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Stephens/Council Member Chavez
MOTION: Receive and file the report and presentation.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Chavez, Council Member Gameros Council Member Harper, Council Member Reynolds, Council Member Marr, Mayor Pro Tem Harlan, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 7-0
ACTION:

City Council received and filed the report and presentation. 98 Minutes – Regular Meeting – October 3, 2023 Page 7 of 8

2. COSTA MESA POLICE DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW
Presentation by Police Chief Lawrence, Deputy Police Chief LaPointe, Field Operations Captain Wadkins, and Support Services Captain Chamness.

Public Comment:

Speaker, spoke on supporting mental health and spoke on recruitment efforts.

MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Stephens/Council Member Chavez
MOTION: Receive and file the report and presentation.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Chavez, Council Member Gameros Council Member Harper, Council Member Reynolds, Council Member Marr, Mayor Pro Tem Harlan, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 7-0
ACTION:

City Council received and filed the report and presentation.

ADDITIONAL COUNCIL/BOARD MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS – NONE.

ADJOURNMENT – Mayor Stephens adjourned the meeting at 11:04 p.m. in honor of Brandon Accola, Dianne Feinstein, Jordan Brandman, and Ronnie J. Coleman, 99 Minutes – Regular Meeting – October 3, 2023 Page 8 of 8 Minutes adopted on this 17th day of October, 2023.
___________________________
John Stephens, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk
100

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 23-1385 Meeting Date: 10/17/2023
TITLE:

REQUEST TO CANCEL THE REGULAR MEETING OF TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2023 DUE TO

THANKSGIVING RECESS CALENDARS
DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE /CITY CLERK DIVISION
PRESENTED BY: BRENDA GREEN, CITY CLERK
CONTACT INFORMATION: BRENDA GREEN, CITY CLERK, 714-754-5221 RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council cancel the regular meeting of Tuesday, November 21, 2023 due to Thanksgiving Holiday and academic recess calendars.

BACKGROUND:

The City conducts regularly scheduled City Council meetings on the first and third Tuesdays of the month. However, the third Tuesday of the month this year, which is November 21, 2023, takes place the same week as the Thanksgiving Holiday and academic recess schedules for K-12 and post- secondary schools.

ANALYSIS:

The City Council has the legal authority to establish meeting dates and times and to cancel or reschedule such meetings with proper public notice. Canceling the November 21, 2023 meeting in advance allows staff enough time to place items on the November 7th or December 5th City Council meeting agendas.

ALTERNATIVES:

City Council may choose to hold the meeting on November 21st; however this action is not recommended as many residents may not be able to attend due to preparations and family responsibilities related to the Thanksgiving Holiday.

FISCAL REVIEW:

Not Applicable.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed the report and approved as to form.

101
File #: 23-1385 Meeting Date: 10/17/2023
CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This item is administrative in nature.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council cancel the regular meetings of Tuesday, November 21, 2023.

102

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 23-1406 Meeting Date: 10/17/2023
TITLE:

ACCEPTANCE AND ALLOCATION OF THE 2023-24 OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANT FOR

THE SELECTIVE TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
DEPARTMENT: POLICE DEPARTMENT
PRESENTED BY: JARED BARNES, SERGEANT
CONTACT INFORMATION: JARED BARNES, SERGEANT, (714) 754-5125 RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Approve the proposed Resolution No. 2023-XX, which ratifies the application for a grant award from the State of California - Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) for the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute all grant documents, including the Grant Agreement, and accept and administer the grant.

2. Approve revenue and expense appropriations in the amount of $285,000, respectively, for the 2023-24 OTS STEP Grant.

BACKGROUND:

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration distributes federal funding to California through the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS). Grants are used to mitigate traffic safety program deficiencies, expand ongoing programs, and/or develop new programs. Grant funding cannot replace existing program expenditures, nor can traffic safety funds be used for program maintenance, research, rehabilitation, and/or construction. The Police Department has been awarded similar grants in the past, which have significantly assisted the objectives of the Traffic Safety Bureau and improved traffic safety for residents and visitors in Costa Mesa.

ANALYSIS:

Since 2005, the Office of Traffic Safety has awarded the Costa Mesa Police Department eighteen (18) traffic safety related grants. The funds associated with these grants were used to purchase specialized equipment and to fund the cost of personnel working targeted traffic safety, education and enforcement operations.

The Office of Traffic Safety assembles collision data rankings based on city population numbers. The most recent year of compiled statistics used by OTS was for 2020. Costa Mesa was then ranked with 61 other cities with a population of 100,001-250,000.

Along with injury collisions, impaired driving enforcement has always been a top priority for the Police

103
File #: 23-1406 Meeting Date: 10/17/2023
Along with injury collisions, impaired driving enforcement has always been a top priority for the Police Department. From 1986-2014, the Department staffed a full-time impaired driving enforcement team consisting of two (2) full-time officers. However, based upon Police Department contraction in previous years, the full-time DUI Team was discontinued in 2014. The DUI Team was reestablished in January 2021. The previous STEP Grant was used to supplement the DUI Team by funding officers to saturate the area looking for suspected DUI drivers. Without this grant, the Department’sability to address DUI drivers is limited.

Aside from the DUI enforcement team, the STEP Grant funds DUI checkpoints. These checkpoints are educational, highly visible, and provide a deterrent against impaired driving. Additionally, the Department promotes these checkpoints through press releases and social media posts and provides educational handouts to each driver contacted to further spread the word about the dangers and consequences of driving under the influence. The Department’scommitment to DUI enforcement is evident in the OTS data rankings. In the CHP Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) report, Costa Mesa had the best ranking for DUI arrests in 2012 (847 arrests) and 2013 (717 arrests) out of 56 cities in the population group. During those years, the Department had a full-time DUI team.

As set forth in the OTS rankings, in 2013, the Costa Mesa Police Department made 717 DUI arrests for the year. With the absence of the DUI team, the Department made 380 DUI arrests in 2014, 356 DUI arrests in 2015, 421 DUI arrests in 2016, and 345 arrests in 2017. Based on the City’sdata, the Department made 397 DUI arrests in 2018, 461 DUI arrests in 2019, 308 DUI arrests in 2020, 1093 DUI arrests in 2021, and 941 DUI arrests in 2022.

With the 2014 addition of driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) provisions to the California Vehicle Code (CVC) (Sections 23152(f) and (g)), we are now able to accurately track the DUID problem in Costa Mesa. In 2014, 37 arrests were made for DUID or combinations of drugs/alcohol and that number nearly doubled in 2015 to 63. Subsequently, there were 75 DUID arrests in 2016, 107 DUID arrests in 2017, 106 DUID arrests in 2018, 65 DUID arrests in 2019, 127 DUID arrests in 2020, 135 DUID arrests in 2021, and 150 DUID arrests in 2022.

A portion of OTS grant funding supports public awareness campaigns focusing on bicycle and pedestrian safety, as well as other educational programs. The Police Department has historically utilized this support to focus efforts on educating school age children and young adults. In 2023, the Police Department conducted bicycle safety presentations at Tewinkle Middle School and College Park Elementary School for hundreds of students. These presentations include bicycle safety education related to rules of the road and helmet safety. Furthermore, in April 2023, the Traffic Safety Bureau assisted at a bike safety assembly and rodeo at Victoria Elementary School for the entire student body.

The Traffic Safety Bureau also provided support and outreach for the Walk N’Rollers bike safety event/rodeo at Estancia High School. Additionally, we have leveraged social media to raise public awareness about E-bike safety, given the significant increase in E-bike usage within our community in recent years. Additionally, this grant funds enforcement campaigns specifically focused on preventing dangerous driving that endangers pedestrians and bicyclists.

The Police Department submitted applications and received tentative approval for the 2023 OTS STEP Grant. The grant will allow the Department to implement the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP). This program will provide a comprehensive approach to reducing violations, which commonly lead to collisions while maintaining a focus on impaired and suspended/unlicensed drivers. Grant funds will be used to staff sobriety/driver license checkpoints and to staff targeted enforcement operations. In addition, funds will be used to purchase operation related equipment and support additional law

104
File #: 23-1406 Meeting Date: 10/17/2023
addition, funds will be used to purchase operation related equipment and support additional law enforcement training related to DUI investigations and enforcement activities. The implementation of this training, along with the STEP enforcement operations, will help achieve the overall goal of reducing injury collisions, saving lives, and reducing liability.

The Department’scurrent grant expired on September 30, 2023. The 2023-24 grant will enable the Police Department to build upon successes achieved to date, while providing new objectives for increasing traffic safety, education, and awareness throughout the City. The funding will allow the Department additional resources to combat impaired driving and enforce traffic laws aimed at saving lives. Objectives of the OTS grant include DUI saturation patrols; traffic enforcement operations focused on red light violations, excessive speed; reckless driving; distracted driving violations; traffic enforcement at high collision intersections; and sobriety/driver license checkpoints.

Some specific project objectives from the Grant Agreement include:
· Conduct four (4) DUI/DL checkpoints.
· Conduct 20 DUI saturation patrols.
· Conduct 26 special traffic enforcement operations focused on red light violations, excessive speed and other violations at or near intersections with a disproportionate number of traffic collisions.
· Conduct four (4) special enforcement operations targeting distracted driving violations. · Conduct two (2) bicycle and pedestrian safety operations. · Provide advanced officer training in DUI enforcement to eight (8) officers.

OTS grant funding is based on the federal fiscal year, which begins on October 1, 2023, and ends on September 30, 2024. The Grant Agreement allocates $285,000, which will be utilized over the federal fiscal year 12-month period. OTS will reimburse the City for approved grant expenditures throughout the grant period.

This grant supports the Traffic Safety Bureau’s goals of reducing injury traffic collisions through education and enforcement efforts.

In 2024, the Traffic Safety Bureau will pursue additional efforts to improve roadway safety unrelated to this grant, including collaborating on a city service agreement to provide bicycle safety programming for students and the community at all Newport Mesa Unified School District schools in Costa Mesa. The Traffic Safety Bureau will continue to work cooperatively with the City’sTransportation Services Office to identify hazards that can be mitigated through environmental design. Additionally, City departments will work collaboratively on additional educational programming to include public service announcements and educational videos on traffic safety.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council may elect to not accept the grant; however, the Department would not be able to pursue the specific goals outlined in the report.

105
File #: 23-1406 Meeting Date: 10/17/2023
FISCAL REVIEW:

Upon acceptance of the 2023-24 OTS STEP Grant, revenue and expense appropriations in the amount of $285,000 respectively will be established for the grant. The grant period is from October 1, 2023, to September 30, 2024.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed the 2023-24 OTS STEP Grant Agreement, proposed resolution, and this report, and has approved them as to form.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This item supports the City Council Goal:
· Strengthen Public Safety and Improve the Quality of Life CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Approve the proposed Resolution No. 2023-XX, which ratifies the application for a grant award from the State of California - Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) for the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute all grant documents, including the Grant Agreement, and accept and administer the grant.

2. Approve revenue and expense appropriations in the amount of $285,000, respectively, for the 2023-24 OTS STEP Grant.

106
8/15/2023 1:05:17 PM Page 1 of 18
State of California – Office of Traffic Safety

GRANT AGREEMENT

GRANT NUMBER
PT24052

1. GRANT TITLE
Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP)

2. NAME OF AGENCY 3. Grant Period
Costa Mesa From:

To:
10/01/2023
09/30/2024 4. AGENCY UNIT TO ADMINISTER GRANT
Costa Mesa Police Department

5. GRANT DESCRIPTION
Best practice strategies will be conducted to reduce the number of persons killed and injured in crashes involving alcohol and other primary crash factors. The funded strategies may include impaired driving enforcement, enforcement operations focusing on primary crash factors, distracted driving, night-time seat belt enforcement, special enforcement operations encouraging motorcycle safety, enforcement and public awareness in areas with a high number of bicycle and pedestrian crashes, and educational programs. These strategies are designed to earn media attention thus enhancing the overall deterrent effect.

6. Federal Funds Allocated Under This Agreement Shall Not Exceed: $285,000.00

7. TERMS AND CONDITIONS: The parties agree to comply with the terms and conditions of the following which are by this reference made a part of the Agreement:
 Schedule A – Problem Statement, Goals and Objectives and Method of Procedure  Schedule B – Detailed Budget Estimate and Sub-Budget Estimate (if applicable)  Schedule B-1 – Budget Narrative and Sub-Budget Narrative (if applicable)  Exhibit A – Certifications and Assurances
 Exhibit B* – OTS Grant Program Manual
 Exhibit C – Grant Electronic Management System (GEMS) Access *Items shown with an asterisk (*), are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this agreement as if attached hereto.

These documents can be viewed at the OTS home web page under Grants: www.ots.ca.gov.

We, the officials named below, hereby swear under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that we are duly authorized to legally bind the Grant recipient to the above described Grant terms and conditions.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties hereto.

8. Approval Signatures
A. GRANT DIRECTOR B. AUTHORIZING OFFICIAL
NAME:

TITLE:

EMAIL:

PHONE:

ADDRESS:

Jared Barnes
Traffic Sergeant
[email protected]
(714) 754-5125
99 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
NAME:

TITLE:

EMAIL:

PHONE:

ADDRESS:

Lori Ann Farrell Harrison
City Manager
[email protected]
(714) 754-5328
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
(Signature) (Date) (Signature) (Date)
C. FISCAL OFFICIAL D. AUTHORIZING OFFICIAL OF OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY NAME:

TITLE:

EMAIL:

PHONE:

ADDRESS:

Carol Molina
Finance Director
[email protected]
(714) 754-5036
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
NAME:

TITLE:

EMAIL:

PHONE:

ADDRESS:

Barbara Rooney
Director
[email protected]
(916) 509-3030
2208 Kausen Drive, Suite 300
Elk Grove, CA 95758
(Signature) (Date) (Signature) (Date)
ATTACHMENT 1
107

8/15/2023 1:05:17 PM Page 2 of 18

10. PROJECTED EXPENDITURES
FUND CFDA ITEM/APPROPRIATION F.Y. CHAPTER STATUTE PROJECTED

EXPENDITURES

AGREEMENT
TOTAL $285,000.00

AMOUNT ENCUMBERED BY THIS DOCUMENT
I CERTIFY upon my own personal knowledge that the budgeted funds for the current budget year are available for the period and purpose of the expenditure stated above.
$285,000.00

PRIOR AMOUNT ENCUMBERED FOR THIS

AGREEMENT
$ 0.00
OTS ACCOUNTING OFFICER’S SIGNATURE DATE SIGNED TOTAL AMOUNT ENCUMBERED TO DATE $285,000.00

E. ACCOUNTING OFFICER OF OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY 9. SAM INFORMATION NAME: Carolyn Vu

SAM #:

REGISTERED
ADDRESS:

CITY:

ZIP+4:

VLGSYJVFJ4M7

77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa
92627-6520
ADDRESS: 2208 Kausen Drive, Suite 300

Elk Grove, CA 95758

108

8/15/2023 1:05:17 PM Page 3 of 18

State of California – Office of Traffic Safety

GRANT AGREEMENT
Schedule A

GRANT NUMBER
PT24052

1. PROBLEM STATEMENT
The city of Costa Mesa is located just one mile from the Pacific Coast, in the heart of Orange County, California. The city encompasses 16 square miles. Since its incorporation in 1953, Costa Mesa has evolved from a semi-rural farming community of 15,000 to a city with robust local economy and a population of approximately 112,780. Costa Mesa offers 28 parks, two municipal golf courses, 20 public schools and three libraries. Orange Coast College, Coastline Community College and Vanguard University have their campuses in Costa Mesa. The Orange County Fair and Event Center is also within the city limits. The city is home to South Coast Plaza, one of the nation’s largest shopping centers, and the world-class Segerstrom Center for the Arts and South Coast Repertory theater. Costa Mesa is also the capitol of the action sports industry and the headquarters for companies such as Hurley International, Volcom, RVCA and Vans.

The last year of successfully obtaining zero fatalities was in 2012. Since 2015 (8 fatalities), we have had a slight decrease in yearly fatalities, until 2022 when we saw a large increase in fatalities with eight (8). The overall decrease can be attributed to OTS funding for additional enforcement. We had six fatalities during the calendar year of 2018, five in 2019, five in 2020, five in 2021, and eight in 2022. The majority of fatal traffic crashes involved motorcycles and pedestrians. During the course of our fatal traffic crash investigations, the Costa Mesa Police Department observed a variety contributing factors, including driving under the influence of both alcohol and/or drugs and right of way violations involving motorcyclists, bicycles and pedestrians. According to SWITRS (2020), Costa Mesa ranked 20th worst for total fatal and injury crashes out of 61 other cities in our population group.

Costa Mesa has always had a serious DUI problem due to numerous ABC establishments located within the city boundaries, a highly traveled freeway terminating in our city, and our city roadways being used for freeway access to two large beach cities, Newport Beach and Huntington Beach. Since 2019 when we had two DUI involved fatalities, we have seen a decline in DUI involved fatalities, with just one DUI involved fatality each of the last three years. There has been a significant increase in DUI arrests the last three years, attributed to OTS DUI saturation patrols and increased officer education through SFST's and ARIDE programs. There were 422 DUI arrests in 2020, 1093 DUI arrests in 2021, and 941 DUI arrests in 2022. Officers new to the Traffic Safety Bureau will attend SFST, ARIDE, and DRE training in the near future. According to SWITRS (2020), Costa Mesa ranked 13th worst for alcohol-involved crashes out of 61 other cities in our population group.

Nationally, there has been an increase in distracted driving involved traffic crashes, both non-injury, and injury. An OTS Statewide Intercept Opinion Survey revealed that 36.3 percent of Californians stated texting and talking on cellular telephones are the biggest safety concerns on California roadways. Although we are unable to quantify the number of traffic crashes in the City of Costa Mesa related to distracted driving, we believe it is responsible for a major portion of our unsafe speed, rear-end traffic crashes.

The problem of driving under the influence while drugged (DUID) continues to rise. Of all drivers killed in motor vehicle crashes, who were tested, 29 percent proved positive for legal and/or illegal drugs. This percentage has been increasing every year since 2006. With the 2014 addition of the DUID law subsections, CVC 23152(f) and CVC 23152(g), we are now able to accurately track the DUID problem in the City of Costa Mesa. There has been an increase of DUID arrests since 2019 when we had 93 arrests. This is due to the easy accessibility of drugs, namely marijuana and prescription drugs. Costa Mesa now has 15 marijuana dispensaries, with 45 more set to open in the near future. Because of the continued training classes offered to officers regarding DUID through OTS grant-funded training, the City of Costa Mesa continues to make a significant number of arrests for DUID or Driving under the influence of a combination of alcohol and drugs. There were 127 DUID arrests in 2020, 182 arrets in 2021, and 150 arrests in 2022.

In the city of Costa Mesa, the number of motorcyclist fatalities has remained consistent over the past five years 2018(1), 2019 (2), 2020 (0), 2021 (1), 2022 (1). According to SWITRS (2020), the City of Costa Mesa ranked 18th worst for total motorcycle injury crashes out of 61 other cities in our population group.

109

8/15/2023 1:05:17 PM Page 4 of 18

Pedestrians and bicyclists are the most vulnerable to injury and death when involved in a motor vehicle traffic crash. High visibility enforcement is a direct contribution to the decline in both bicycle and pedestrian fatal and injury traffic crashes. The Costa Mesa Police Department has investigated numerous pedestrian and bicycle fatal and injury traffic crash over the past five years. Those fatal traffic crash investigations include: one pedestrian fatality in 2018, two pedestrian fatalities in 2019, two pedestrian and two bicyclist fatalities in 2020, one pedestrian fatality in 2021, and four pedestrian fatalities in 2022.

Street racing and sideshows continue to be a problem in Costa Mesa. Costa Mesa had one fatal traffic crash in 2019 when a car crashed during a street racing intersection takeover. There were 136 reported street racing incidents in Costa Mesa in 2020, 68 incidents in 2021, and 61 incidents in 2022. The reduction in incidents can be attributed to the Costa Mesa Police Department's participation in the Orange County Strategic Enforcement Against Racing and Reckless Driving (STEARRD) taskforce, since 2021.

Police Department budgets and staffing levels have reduced the number of officers on the street enforcing traffic laws. In the past, the Costa Mesa Police Department was adversely affected by a decrease in sworn personnel. The Traffic Safety Bureau staffing was severely impacted. As of 2023, we are currently at 131 sworn officers of the fully authorized staffing level of 141 sworn officers. Of the 131 sworn officers, four are on long-term, injured-on-duty leave, with uncertain return to work dates. We currently have nine dedicated Traffic Officers, one Special Events Officer, one Traffic Investigator, and two Traffic Sergeants. The Costa Mesa Police Department Traffic Safety Bureau has had a dedicated, two-officer DUI enforcement team since January 2021.

2. PERFORMANCE MEASURES
A. Goals:

1. Reduce the number of persons killed in traffic crashes.

2. Reduce the number of persons injured in traffic crashes.

3. Reduce the number of pedestrians killed in traffic crashes.

4. Reduce the number of pedestrians injured in traffic crashes.

5. Reduce the number of bicyclists killed in traffic crashes.

6. Reduce the number of bicyclists injured in traffic crashes.

7. Reduce the number of persons killed in alcohol-involved crashes.

8. Reduce the number of persons injured in alcohol-involved crashes.

9. Reduce the number of persons killed in drug-involved crashes.

10. Reduce the number of persons injured in drug-involved crashes.

11. Reduce the number of persons killed in alcohol/drug combo-involved crashes.

12. Reduce the number of persons injured in alcohol/drug combo-involved crashes.

13. Reduce the number of motorcyclists killed in traffic crashes.

14. Reduce the number of motorcyclists injured in traffic crashes.

15. Reduce hit & run fatal crashes.

16. Reduce hit & run injury crashes.

17. Reduce nighttime (2100 - 0259 hours) fatal crashes.

18. Reduce nighttime (2100 - 0259 hours) injury crashes.

B. Objectives: Target Number

1. Issue a press release announcing the kick-off of the grant by November 15. The kick-off press releases and media advisories, alerts, and materials must be emailed to the OTS Public Information Officer at [email protected], and copied to your OTS Coordinator, for approval 14 days prior to the issuance date of the release.
1 2. Participate and report data (as required) in the following campaigns; Quarter 1:

National Walk to School Day, National Teen Driver Safety Week, NHTSA Winter Mobilization; Quarter 3: National Distracted Driving Awareness Month, National Motorcycle Safety Month, National Bicycle Safety Month, National Click it or Ticket Mobilization; Quarter 4: NHTSA Summer Mobilization, National Child Passenger Safety Week, and California's Pedestrian Safety Month.
2 3. Develop (by December 31) and/or maintain a “DUI BOLO” program to notify patrol and traffic officers to be on the lookout for identified repeat DUI offenders with a suspended or revoked license as a result of DUI convictions. Updated DUI BOLOs should be distributed to patrol and traffic officers monthly. 10 110

8/15/2023 1:05:17 PM Page 5 of 18

4. Send law enforcement personnel to the NHTSA Standardized Field Sobriety Testing (SFST) (minimum 16 hours) POST-certified training. 12 5. Send law enforcement personnel to the NHTSA Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) 16 hour POST-certified training. 10 6. Send law enforcement personnel to the Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) training. 2

7. Send law enforcement personnel to the DRE Recertification training. 4

8. Send law enforcement personnel to DRE Instructor training. 1

9. Conduct DUI/DL Checkpoints. A minimum of 1 checkpoint should be conducted during the NHTSA Winter Mobilization and 1 during the Summer Mobilization. To enhance the overall deterrent effect and promote high visibility, it is recommended the grantee issue an advance press release and conduct social media activity for each checkpoint. For combination DUI/DL checkpoints, departments should issue press releases that mention DL's will be checked at the DUI/DL checkpoint. Signs for DUI/DL checkpoints should read "DUI/Driver's License Checkpoint Ahead." OTS does not fund or support independent DL checkpoints. Only on an exception basis and with OTS pre-approval will OTS fund checkpoints that begin prior to 1800 hours. When possible, DUI/DL Checkpoint screeners should be DRE- or ARIDE-trained.
4 10. Conduct DUI Saturation Patrol operation(s). 20

11. Conduct Traffic Enforcement operation(s), including but not limited to, primary crash factor violations.
26 12. Conduct highly publicized Distracted Driving enforcement operation(s) targeting drivers using hand held cell phones and texting.
4 13. Conduct highly publicized Motorcycle Safety enforcement operation(s) in areas or during events with a high number of motorcycle incidents or crashes resulting from unsafe speed, DUI, following too closely, unsafe lane changes, improper turning, and other primary crash factor violations by motorcyclists and other drivers. 2 14. Conduct highly publicized pedestrian and/or bicycle enforcement operation(s) in areas or during events with a high number of pedestrian and/or bicycle crashes resulting from violations made by pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers. 2 15. Conduct Traffic Safety educational presentation(s) with an effort to reach community members. Note: Presentation(s) may include topics such as distracted driving, DUI, speed, bicycle and pedestrian safety, seat belts and child passenger safety.
2 16. Participate in highly visible collaborative DUI Enforcement operations. 4

17. Participate in highly visible collaborative Traffic Enforcement operations. 2

18. Send law enforcement personnel to DUI Checkpoint Planning and Management training.
2 19. Conduct specialized enforcement operations focusing specifically on street racing and sideshow activities.
2 20. Identify straight time personnel and report on activities completed. Include any vacancies or staff changes that have occurred.
1 3. METHOD OF PROCEDURE
A. Phase 1 – Program Preparation (1st Quarter of Grant Year)  The department will develop operational plans to implement the “best practice” strategies outlined in the objectives section.
 All training needed to implement the program should be conducted in the first quarter.  All grant related purchases needed to implement the program should be made in the first quarter.  In order to develop/maintain the “DUI BOLOs,” research will be conducted to identify the “worst of the worst” repeat DUI offenders with a suspended or revoked license as a result of DUI convictions. The DUI BOLO may include the driver’s name, last known address, DOB, description, current license status, and the number of times suspended or revoked for DUI. DUI BOLOs should be updated and distributed to traffic and patrol officers at least monthly.  Implementation of the STEP grant activities will be accomplished by deploying personnel at high crash locations.

Media Requirements Issue a press release approved by the OTS PIO announcing the kick-off of the grant by November 15, but no sooner than October 1. The kick-off release must be approved by the 111

8/15/2023 1:05:17 PM Page 6 of 18

OTS PIO and only distributed after the grant is fully signed and executed. If you are unable to meet the November 15 deadline to issue a kick-off press release, communicate reasons to your OTS coordinator and OTS PIO.

B. Phase 2 – Program Operations (Throughout Grant Year)  The department will work to create media opportunities throughout the grant period to call attention to the innovative program strategies and outcomes.

Media Requirements

The following requirements are for all grant-related activities:
 Send all media advisories, alerts, videos, graphics, artwork, posters, radio/PSA/video scripts, storyboards, digital and/or print educational materials for grant-related activities to the OTS PIO at [email protected] for approval and copy your OTS coordinator. Optimum lead time would be 7 days before the scheduled release but at least 3 business days prior to the scheduled release date for review and approval is appreciated.
 The OTS PIO is responsible for the approval of the design and content of materials. The agency understands OTS PIO approval is not authorizing approval of budget expenditure or cost. Any cost approvals must come from the Coordinator.
 Pre-approval is not required when using any OTS-supplied template for media advisories, press releases, social media graphics, videos or posts, or any other OTS-supplied educational material.

However, copy the OTS PIO at [email protected] and your OTS coordinator when any material is distributed to the media and public, such as a press release, educational material, or link to social media post. The OTS-supplied kick-off press release templates and any kickoff press releases are an exception to this policy and require prior approval before distribution to the media and public.
 If an OTS-supplied template, educational material, social media graphic, post or video is substantially changed, the changes shall be sent to the OTS PIO at [email protected] for approval and copy to your OTS Coordinator. Optimum lead time would be 7 days prior to the scheduled release date, but at least 3 business days prior to the scheduled release date for review and approval is appreciated.
 Press releases, social media posts and alerts on platforms such as NextDoor and Nixle reporting immediate and time-sensitive grant activities (e.g. enforcement operations, day of event highlights or announcements, event invites) are exempt from the OTS PIO approval process. The OTS PIO and your Coordinator should still be notified when the grant-related activity is happening (e.g. car seat checks, bicycle rodeos, community presentations, DUI checkpoints, etc.).
 Enforcement activities such as warrant and probation sweeps, court stings, etc. that are embargoed or could impact operations by publicizing in advance are exempt from the PIO approval process. However, announcements and results of activities should still be copied to the OTS PIO at [email protected] and your Coordinator with embargoed date and time or with “INTERNAL ONLY: DO NOT RELEASE” message in subject line of email.  Any earned or paid media campaigns for TV, radio, digital or social media that are part of a specific grant objective, using OTS grant funds, or designed and developed using contractual services by a subgrantee, requires prior approval. Please send to the OTS PIO at [email protected] for approval and copy your grant coordinator at least 3 business days prior to the scheduled release date.
 Social media posts highlighting state or national traffic safety campaigns (Distracted Driving Month, Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month, etc.), enforcement operations (DUI checkpoints, etc.), or any other grant-related activity such as Bicycle rodeos, presentations, or events, are highly encouraged but do not require prior approval.
 Submit a draft or rough-cut of all digital, printed, recorded or video material (brochures, posters, scripts, artwork, trailer graphics, digital graphics, social posts connected to an earned or paid media campaign grant objective) to the OTS PIO at [email protected] and copy your OTS Coordinator for approval prior to the production or duplication.  Use the following standard language in all press, media, and printed materials, space permitting:

Funding for this program was provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 112

8/15/2023 1:05:17 PM Page 7 of 18

 Space permitting, include the OTS logo on all grant-funded print materials, graphics and paid or earned social media campaign grant objective; consult your OTS Coordinator for specifics, format-appropriate logos, or if space does not permit the use of the OTS logo.  Email the OTS PIO at [email protected] and copy your OTS Coordinator at least 21 days in advance, or when first confirmed, a short description of any significant grant-related traffic safety event or program, particularly events that are highly publicized beforehand with anticipated media coverage so OTS has sufficient notice to arrange for attendance and/or participation in the event.

If unable to attend, email the OTS PIO and coordinator brief highlights and/or results, including any media coverage (broadcast, digital, print) of event within 7 days following significant grant- related event or program. Media and program highlights are to be reflected in QPRs.  Any press releases, work plans, scripts, storyboards, artwork, graphics, videos or any educational or informational materials that received PIO approval in a prior grant year needs to be resubmitted for approval in the current grant year.
 Contact the OTS PIO or your OTS Coordinator for consultation when changes from any of the above requirements might be warranted.

C. Phase 3 – Data Collection & Reporting (Throughout Grant Year)

1. Prepare and submit grant claim invoices (due January 30, April 30, July 30, and October 30)

2. Prepare and submit Quarterly Performance Reports (QPR) (due January 30, April 30, July 30, and October 30)
 Collect and report quarterly, appropriate data that supports the progress of goals and objectives.  Provide a brief list of activity conducted, procurement of grant-funded items, and significant media activities. Include status of grant-funded personnel, status of contracts, challenges, or special accomplishments.
 Provide a brief summary of quarterly accomplishments and explanations for objectives not completed or plans for upcoming activities.
 Collect, analyze and report statistical data relating to the grant goals and objectives.

4. METHOD OF EVALUATION
Using the data compiled during the grant, the Grant Director will complete the “Final Evaluation” section in the fourth/final Quarterly Performance Report (QPR). The Final Evaluation should provide a brief summary of the grant’s accomplishments, challenges and significant activities. This narrative should also include whether goals and objectives were met, exceeded, or an explanation of why objectives were not completed.

5. ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
This program has full administrative support, and every effort will be made to continue the grant activities after grant conclusion.

113

8/15/2023 1:05:17 PM Page 8 of 18

State of California – Office of Traffic Safety

GRANT AGREEMENT
Schedule B

GRANT NUMBER
PT24052

FUND NUMBER CATALOG

NUMBER (CFDA)

FUND DESCRIPTION TOTAL AMOUNT
164AL-24 20.608 Minimum Penalties for Repeat
Offenders for Driving While
Intoxicated
$185,000.00
402PT-24 20.600 State and Community Highway
Safety
$100,000.00

COST CATEGORY FUND
NUMBER

UNIT COST OR
RATE

UNITS TOTAL COST TO
GRANT
A. PERSONNEL COSTS

Straight Time
$0.00
Overtime
DUI/DL Checkpoints 164AL-24 $13,600.00 4 $54,400.00
DUI Saturation Patrols 164AL-24 $3,725.00 20 $74,500.00 Collaborative DUI Enforcement 164AL-24 $2,600.00 4 $10,400.00 Benefits for 164AL - OT @ 23.82% 164AL-24 $139,300.00 1 $33,181.00 Traffic Enforcement 402PT-24 $1,525.00 26 $39,650.00
Distracted Driving 402PT-24 $2,000.00 4 $8,000.00
Motorcycle Safety 402PT-24 $2,000.00 2 $4,000.00
Pedestrian and Bicycle Enforcement 402PT-24 $2,000.00 2 $4,000.00 Street Racing and Sideshow Enforcement
Operations
402PT-24 $2,000.00 2 $4,000.00
Collaborative Traffic Enforcement 402PT-24 $2,000.00 2 $4,000.00 Benefits for 402PT - OT @ 23.82% 402PT-24 $63,650.00 1 $15,161.00 Category Sub-Total $251,292.00
B. TRAVEL EXPENSES
In State Travel 402PT-24 $4,489.00 1 $4,489.00
$0.00
Category Sub-Total $4,489.00
C. CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
$0.00
Category Sub-Total $0.00
D. EQUIPMENT
$0.00
Category Sub-Total $0.00
E. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
DUI Checkpoint Supplies 164AL-24 $9,019.00 1 $9,019.00
Trailer Paint/Wrap 164AL-24 $3,500.00 1 $3,500.00
Lidar Device 402PT-24 $2,100.00 7 $14,700.00
Collaborative Meetings 402PT-24 $500.00 4 $2,000.00
Category Sub-Total $29,219.00
F. INDIRECT COSTS
$0.00
Category Sub-Total $0.00
114

8/15/2023 1:05:17 PM Page 9 of 18

GRANT TOTAL $285,000.00

115

8/15/2023 1:05:17 PM Page 10 of 18

State of California – Office of Traffic Safety

GRANT AGREEMENT
Schedule B-1

GRANT NUMBER
PT24052

BUDGET NARRATIVE

PERSONNEL COSTS
DUI/DL Checkpoints - Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel.

DUI Saturation Patrols - Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel.

Collaborative DUI Enforcement - Overtime for grant funded Collaborative DUI Enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel
Benefits for 164AL - OT @ 23.82% - Benefits breakdown:

Medicare 1.45%
Unemployment .16%
Workers Comp 10.47%
Other Comp 11.74%
Traffic Enforcement - Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel.

Distracted Driving - Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel.

Motorcycle Safety - Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Enforcement - Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel.

Street Racing and Sideshow Enforcement Operations - Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel.

Collaborative Traffic Enforcement - Overtime for grant funded Collaborative Traffic Enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel
Benefits for 402PT - OT @ 23.82% - Benefits breakdown:

Medicare 1.45%
Unemployment .16%
Workers Comp 10.47%
Other Comp 11.74%

TRAVEL EXPENSES
In State Travel - Costs are included for appropriate staff to attend conferences and training events supporting the grant goals and objectives and/or traffic safety. Local mileage for grant activities and meetings is included. Anticipated travel may include the OTS Traffic Safety Law Enforcement Forum and the California Traffic Safety Summit. All conferences, seminars or training not specifically identified in the Budget Narrative must be approved by OTS. All travel claimed must be at the agency approved rate. Per Diem may not be claimed for meals provided at conferences when registration fees are paid with OTS grant funds.

CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
-

EQUIPMENT
-

OTHER DIRECT COSTS
DUI Checkpoint Supplies - On-scene supplies needed to conduct sobriety checkpoints. Costs may include 28" traffic cones, MUTCD compliant traffic signs, MUTCD compliant high visibility vests (maximum of 10), traffic counters (maximum of 2), generator, gas for generators, lighting, reflective banners, electronic flares, PAS Device/Calibration Supplies, heater, propane for heaters, fan, anti-fatigue mats, and canopies.

Additional items may be purchased if approved by OTS. The cost of food and beverages will not be reimbursed. Each item must have a unit cost of less than $5,000 (including tax and shipping). 116

8/15/2023 1:05:17 PM Page 11 of 18

Trailer Paint/Wrap - Method of applying signage or paint to a trailer turning it into a mobile billboard. The design must include a traffic safety message and include the OTS logo. Draft graphics must be submitted to OTS for prior approval. OTS will not pay for paid media space under this line item.

Lidar Device - Light detection and ranging device used to measure the speed of motor vehicles. This device will be used for speed enforcement. Costs may include lidar devices, batteries, tax, and shipping.

Collaborative Meetings - Costs for law enforcement agencies to discuss traffic safety trends and plan collaborative operations. Costs may include food and beverages for attendees, additional costs may be included if approved by OTS. Adequate records including an agenda must be maintained.

INDIRECT COSTS
-

STATEMENTS/DISCLAIMERS
There will be no program income generated from this grant.

Nothing in this “agreement” shall be interpreted as a requirement, formal or informal, that a particular law enforcement officer issue a specified or predetermined number of citations in pursuance of the goals and objectives here under.

Benefits for personnel costs can only be applied to straight time or overtime hours charged to the grant.

117

8/15/2023 1:05:17 PM Page 12 of 18

State of California – Office of Traffic Safety

GRANT AGREEMENT
Exhibit A

GRANT NUMBER
PT24052

Certifications and Assurances for Fiscal Year 2024 Highway Safety Grants (23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 or Section 1906, Public Law 109-59, as amended by Section 25024, Public Law 117-58)

The officials named on the grant agreement, certify by way of signature on the grant agreement signature page, that the Grantee Agency complies with all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, and directives and State rules, guidelines, policies, and laws in effect with respect to the periods for which it receives grant funding. Applicable provisions include, but are not limited to, the following:

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
The State will comply with applicable statutes and regulations, including but not limited to:

 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4—Highway Safety Act of 1966, as amended;  Sec. 1906, Public Law 109-59, as amended by Sec. 25024, Public Law 117-58;  23 CFR part 1300—Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs;  2 CFR part 200—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards;
 2 CFR part 1201—Department of Transportation, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.

NONDISCRIMINATION
(applies to all subrecipients as well as States)
The State highway safety agency [and its subrecipients] will comply with all Federal statutes and implementing regulations relating to nondiscrimination (“Federal Nondiscrimination Authorities”). These include but are not l imited to:

 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq., 78 stat. 252), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin);
 49 CFR part 21 (entitled Non-discrimination in Federally -Assisted Programs of the Department of Transportation—Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964);  28 CFR 50.3 (U.S. Department of Justice Guidelines for Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964);  The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, (42 U.S.C. 4601), (prohibits unfair treatment of persons displaced or whose property has been acquired because of Federal or Federal-aid programs and projects);
 Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, (23 U.S.C. 324 et seq.), and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1681-1683 and 1685-1686) (prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex);  Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (29 U.S.C. 794 et seq.), as amended, (prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability) and 49 CFR part 27;  The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of age);
 The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, (Pub. L. 100-209), (broadens scope, coverage, and applicability of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, by expanding the definition of the terms “programs or activities” to include all of the programs or activities of the Federal aid recipients, subrecipients and contractors, whether such programs or activities are Federally- funded or not);
 Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12131-12189) (prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the operation of public entities, public and private transportation systems, places of public accommodation, and certain testing) and 49 CFR parts 37 and 38;  Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low- Income Populations (preventing discrimination against minority populations by discouraging programs, policies, and activities with disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations);
 Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency (requiring that recipients of Federal financial assistance provide meaningful access for applicants and beneficiaries who have limited English proficiency (LEP));
 Executive Order 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities through the Federal Government (advancing equity across the Federal Government); and  Executive Order 13988, Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation (clarifying that sex discrimination includes discrimination on the grounds of gender identity or sexual orientation).

118

8/15/2023 1:05:17 PM Page 13 of 18

The preceding statutory and regulatory cites hereinafter are referred to as the “Acts” and “Regulations,” respectively.

GENERAL ASSURANCES

In accordance with the Acts, the Regulations, and other pertinent directives, circulars, policy, memoranda, and/or guidance, the Recipient hereby gives assurance that it will promptly take any measures necessary to ensure that:

“No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity, for which the Recipient receives Federal financial assistance from DOT, including NHTSA.”

The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 clarified the original intent of Congress, with resp ect to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other non-discrimination requirements (the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973), by restoring the broad, institutional-wide scope and coverage of these nondiscrimination statutes and requirements to include all programs and activities of the Recipient, so long as any portion of the program is Federally assisted.

SPECIFIC ASSURANCES
More specifically, and without limiting the above general Assurance, the Recipient agrees with and gives the following Assurances with respect to its Federally assisted Highway Safety Grant Program:

1. The Recipient agrees that each “activity,” “facility,” or “program,” as defined in 49 CFR part 21 will be (with regard to an “activity”) facilitated, or will be (with regard to a “facility”) operated, or will be (with regard to a “program”) conducted in compliance with all requirements imposed by, or pursuant to the Acts and the Regulations.

2. The Recipient will insert the following notification in all solicitations for bids, Requests For Proposals for work, or material subject to the Acts and the Regulations made in connection with all Highway Safety Grant Programs and, in adapted form, in all proposals for negotiated agreements regardless of funding source:
“The [name of Recipient], in accordance with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 Sta t. 252, 42 U.S.C 2000d to 2000d-4) and the Regulations, hereby notifies all bidders that it will affirmatively ensure that in any contract entered into pursuant to this advertisement, disadvantaged business enterprises will be afforded full and fair opportunity to submit bids in response to this invitation and will not be discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in consideration for an award.”

3. The Recipient will insert the clauses of appendix A and E of this Assurance (also referred in every contract or agreement subject to the Acts and the Regulations.

4. The Recipient will insert the clauses of appendix B of DOT Order 1050.2A, as a covenant running with the land, in any deed from the United States effecting or recording a transfer of real property, structures, use, or improvements thereon or interest therein to a Recipient.

5. That where the Recipient receives Federal financial assistance to construct a facility, or part of a facility, the Assurance will extend to the entire facility and facilities operated in connection therewith.

6. That where the Recipient receives Federal financial assistance in the form of, or for the acquisition of, real property or an interest in real property, the Assurance will extend to rights to space on, over, or under such property.

7. That the Recipient will include the clauses set forth in appendix C and appendix D of this DOT Order 1050.2A, as a covenant running with the land, in any future deeds, leases, licenses, permits, or similar instruments entered into by the Recipient with other parties:
a. for the subsequent transfer of real property acquired or improved under the applicable activity, project, or program; and
b. for the construction or use of, or access to, space on, over, or under real property acquired or improved under the applicable activity, project, or program.

8. That this Assurance obligates the Recipient for the period during which Federal financial assistance is extended to the program, except where the Federal financial assistance is to provide, or is in the form of, personal property, or real property, or interest therein, or structures or improvements thereon, in which case the Assurance obligates the Recipient, or any transferee for the longer of the following periods:
a. the period during which the property is used for a purpose for which the Federal financial assistance is extended, or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits; or b. the period during which the Recipient retains ownership or possession of the property.

9. The Recipient will provide for such methods of administration for the program as are found by the Secretary of Transportation or the official to whom he/she delegates specific authority to give reasonable guarantee that it, other recipients, sub-recipients, sub- grantees, contractors, subcontractors, consultants, transferees, successors in interest, and other participants of Federal financial assistance under such program will comply with all requirements imposed or pursuant to the Acts, the Regulations, and this Assurance.

10. The Recipient agrees that the United States has a right to seek judicial enforcement with regard to any matter arising under the Acts, the Regulations, and this Assurance. 119

8/15/2023 1:05:17 PM Page 14 of 18

By signing this ASSURANCE, the State highway safety agency also agrees to comply (and require any sub-recipients, sub-grantees, contractors, successors, transferees, and/or assignees to comply) with all applicable provisions governing NHTSA's access to records, accounts, documents, information, facilities, and staff. You also recognize that you must comply with any program or compliance reviews, and/or complaint investigations conducted by NHTSA. You must keep records, reports, and submit the material for review upon request to NHTSA, or its designee in a t imely, complete, and accurate way. Additionally, you must comply with all other reporting, data collection, and evaluation requirements, as prescribed by law or detailed in program guidance.

The State highway safety agency gives this ASSURANCE in consideration of and for obtaining any Federal grants, loans, contracts, agreements, property, and/or discounts, or other Federal-aid and Federal financial assistance extended after the date hereof to the recipients by the U.S. Department of Transportation under the Highway Safety Grant Program. This ASSURANCE is binding on the State highway safety agency, other recipients, sub -recipients, sub-grantees, contractors, subcontractors and their subcontractors', transferees, successors in interest, and any other partici pants in the Highway Safety Grant Program. The person(s) signing below is/are authorized to sign this ASSURANCE on behalf of the Recipient.

THE DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE ACT OF 1988 (41 U.S.C. 8103)
The Subgrantee will provide a drug-free workplace by:
a. Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace, and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition; b. Establishing a drug-free awareness program to inform employees about:

1. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;

2. The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;

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

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

5. Making it a requirement that each employee engaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement required by paragraph (a);
c. Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph (a) that, as a condition of employment under the grant, the employee will—

1. Abide by the terms of the statement;

2. Notify the employer of any criminal drug statute conviction for a violation occurring in the workplace no later than five days after such conviction; d. Notifying the agency within ten days after receiving notice under subparagraph (c)(2) from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction;
e. Taking one of the following actions, within 30 days of receiving notice under subparagraph (c)(2), with respect to any employee who is so convicted—

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

2. Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency;
f. Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of all of the paragraphs above.

POLITICAL ACTIVITY (HATCH ACT)
(applies to all subrecipients as well as States)
The State will comply with provisions of the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. 1501-1508), which limits the political activities of employees whose principal employment activities are funded in whole or in part with Federal funds.

CERTIFICATION REGARDING FEDERAL LOBBYING
(applies to all subrecipients as well as States)

CERTIFICATION FOR CONTRACTS, GRANTS, LOANS, AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS

The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:

1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement; 120

8/15/2023 1:05:17 PM Page 15 of 18

2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,” in accordance with its instructions;

3. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all sub-awards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grant, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.

This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.

RESTRICTION ON STATE LOBBYING
(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

None of the funds under this program will be used for any activity specifically designed to urge or influence a State or loca l legislator to favor or oppose the adoption of any specific legislative proposal pending before any State or local legislative body. Such activities include both direct and indirect (e.g., “grassroots”) lobbying activities, with one exception. This does not preclude a State official whose salary is supported with NHTSA funds from engaging in direct communications with State or local legislative officials, in accordance with customary State practice, even if such communications urge legislative officials to favor or oppose the adoption of a specific pending legislative proposal.

CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION
(applies to all subrecipients as well as States)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PRIMARY TIER PARTICIPANT CERTIFICATION (STATES)

1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective primary tier participant is providing the certification set out below and agrees to comply with the requirements of 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200.

2. The inability of a person to provide the certification required below will not necessarily result in denial of participation in this covered transaction. The prospective primary tier participant shall submit an explanation of why it cannot provide the certification set out below. The certification or explanation will be considered in connection with the department or agency's determination whether to enter into this transaction. However, failure of the prospective primary tier participant to furnish a certification or an explanation shall disqualify such person from participation in this transaction.

3. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when the department or agency determined to enter into this transaction. If it is later determined that the prospective primary tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency may terminate this transaction for cause or default or may pursue suspension or debarment.

4. The prospective primary tier participant shall provide immediate written notice to the department or agency to which this proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective primary tier participant learns its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.

5. The terms covered transaction, civil judgment, debarment, suspension, ineligible, participant, person, principal, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, are defined in 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200. You may contact the department or agency to which this proposal is being submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations.

6. The prospective primary tier participant agrees by submitting this proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency entering into this transaction.

7. The prospective primary tier participant further agrees by submitting this proposal that it will include the clause titled “Instructions for Lower Tier Participant Certification” including the “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion—Lower Tier Covered Transaction,” provided by the department or agency entering into this covered transaction, without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions and will require lower tier participants to comply with 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200.

8. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective part icipant in a lower tier covered transaction that it is not proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant is responsible for ensuring that its principals are not suspended, debarred, or 121

8/15/2023 1:05:17 PM Page 16 of 18

otherwise ineligible to participate in covered transactions. To verify the eligibility of its principals, as well as the eligibility of any prospective lower tier participants, each participant may, but is not required to, check the System for Award Management Exclusions website
(https://www.sam.gov/).

9. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings.

10. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 6 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency may terminate the transaction for cause or default.

CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS —

PRIMARY TIER COVERED TRANSACTIONS

1. The prospective primary tier participant certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it and its principals:
a. Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participating in covered transactions by any Federal department or agency; b. Have not within a three-year period preceding this proposal been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State, or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property;
c. Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State, or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1)(b) of this certification; and
d. Have not within a three-year period preceding this application/proposal had one or more public transactions (Federal, State, or local) terminated for cause or default.

2. Where the prospective primary tier participant is unable to certify to any of the Statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR LOWER TIER PARTICIPANT CERTIFICATION

1. By signing and submitting this proposal, the prospective lower tier participant is providing the certification set out below and agrees to comply with the requirements of 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200.

2. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was entered into. If it is later determined that the prospective lower tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension or debarment.

3. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide immediate written notice to the person to which this proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective lower tier participant learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.

4. The terms covered transaction, civil judgment, debarment, suspension, ineligible, participant, person, principal, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, are defined in 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200. You may contact the person to whom this proposal is submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations.

5. The prospective lower tier participant agrees by submitting this proposal that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency with which this transaction originated.

6. The prospective lower tier participant further agrees by submitting this proposal that it will include the clause titled “Instructions for Lower Tier Participant Certification” including the “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion—Lower Tier Covered Transaction,” without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions and will require lower tier participants to comply with 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200.

7. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that it is not proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant is responsible for ensuring that its principals are not suspended, debarred , or 122

8/15/2023 1:05:17 PM Page 17 of 18

otherwise ineligible to participate in covered transactions. To verify the eligibility of its principals, as well as the eligibility of any prospective lower tier participants, each participant may, but is not required to, check the System for Award Management Exclusions website
( https://www.sam.gov/).

8. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings.

9. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 5 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension or debarment.

CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, INELIGIBILITY AND VOLUNTARY EXCLUSION —

LOWER TIER COVERED TRANSACTIONS

1. The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this proposal, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participating in covered transactions by any Federal department or agency.

2. Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal.

BUY AMERICA
(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

The State and each subrecipient will comply with the Buy America requirement (23 U.S.C. 313) when purchasing items using Federal funds. Buy America requires a State, or subrecipient, to purchase with Federal funds only steel, iron and manufactured products produced in the United States, unless the Secretary of Transportation determines that such domestically produced items would be inconsistent with the public interest, that such materials are not reasonably available and of a satisfactory quality, or that inclusion of domestic materials wil l increase the cost of the overall project contract by more than 25 percent. In order to use Federal funds to purchase foreign produced items, the State must submit a waiver request that provides an adequate basis and justification for approval by the Secr etary of Transportation.

CERTIFICATION ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST
(applies to subrecipients as well as States)

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

No employee, officer, or agent of a State or its subrecipient who is authorized in an official capacity to negotiate, make, accept, or approve, or to take part in negotiating, making, accepting, or approving any subaward, including contracts or subcontracts, in connection with this grant shall have, directly or indirectly, any financial or personal interest in any suc h subaward. Such a financial or personal interest would arise when the employee, officer, or agent, any member of his or her immediate family, his or her partner, or an organization which employs or is about to employ any of the parties indicated herein, has a financial or personal interest in or a tangible personal benefit from an entity considered for a subaward. Based on this policy:

1. The recipient shall maintain a written code or standards of conduct that provide for disciplinary actions to be applied for violations of such standards by officers, employees, or agents. a. The code or standards shall provide that the recipient's officers, employees, or agents may neither solicit nor accept gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value from present or potential subawardees, including contractors or parties to subcontracts. b. The code or standards shall establish penalties, sanctions, or other disciplinary actions for violations, as permitted by State or local law or regulations.

2. The recipient shall maintain responsibility to enforce the requirements of the written code or standards of conduct.

123

8/15/2023 1:05:17 PM Page 18 of 18

DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS

No State or its subrecipient, including its officers, employees, or agents, shall perform or continue to perform under a grant or cooperative agreement, whose objectivity may be impaired because of any related past, present, or currently planned interest, financial or otherwise, in organizations regulated by NHTSA or in organizations whose interests may be substantially affected by NHTSA activities. Based on this policy:

1. The recipient shall disclose any conflict of interest identified as soon as reasonably possible, making an immediate and full disclosure in writing to NHTSA. The disclosure shall include a description of the action which the recipient has taken or proposes to take to avoid or mitigate such conflict.

2. NHTSA will review the disclosure and may require additional relevant information from the recipient. If a conflict of interest is found to exist, NHTSA may (a) terminate the award, or (b) determine that it is otherwise in the best interest of NHTSA to continue the award and include appropriate provisions to mitigate or avoid such conflict.

3. Conflicts of interest that require disclosure include all past, present, or currently planned organizational, financial, contractual, or other interest(s) with an organization regulated by NHTSA or with an organization whose interests may be substantially affected by NHTSA activities, and which are related to this award. The interest(s) that require disclosure include those of any recipient, affiliate, proposed consultant, proposed subcontractor, and key personnel of any of the above. Past interest shall be limited to within one year of the date of award. Key personnel shall include any person owning more than a 20 percent interest in a recipient, and the officers, employees or agents of a recipient who are responsible for making a decision or taking an action under an award where the decision or action can have an economic or other impact on the in terests of a regulated or affected organization.

PROHIBITION ON USING GRANT FUNDS TO CHECK FOR HELMET USAGE (applies to all subrecipients as well as States)
The State and each subrecipient will not use 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 grant funds for programs to check helmet usage or to create checkpoints that specifically target motorcyclists.

POLICY ON SEAT BELT USE
In accordance with Executive Order 13043, Increasing Seat Belt Use in the United States, dated April 16, 1997, the Grantee is encouraged to adopt and enforce on-the-job seat belt use policies and programs for its employees when operating company-owned, rented, or personally-owned vehicles. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for providing leadership and guidance in support of this Presidential initiative. For information and resources on traffic safety programs and policies for employers, please contact the Network of Employers for Traffic Safety (NETS), a public-private partnership dedicated to improving the traffic safety practices of employers and employees. You can download information on seat belt programs, costs of motor vehicle crashes to employers, and other traffic safety initiatives at www.trafficsafety.org. The NHTSA website (www.nhtsa.gov) also provides information on statistics, campaigns, and program evaluations and references.

POLICY ON BANNING TEXT MESSAGING WHILE DRIVING
In accordance with Executive Order 13513, Federal Leadership On Reducing Text Messaging While Driving, and DOT Order 3902.10, Text Messaging While Driving, States are encouraged to adopt and enforce workplace safety policies to decrease crashes caused by distracted driving, including policies to ban text messaging while driving comp any- owned or rented vehicles, Government-owned, leased or rented vehicles, or privately-owned vehicles when on official Government business or when performing any work on or behalf of the Government. States are also encouraged to conduct workplace safety initiatives in a manner commensurate with the size of the business, such as establishment of new rules and programs or re-evaluation of existing programs to prohibit text messaging while driving, and education, awareness, and other outreach to employees about the safety risks associated with texting while driving.

124
R
esolution No. 2023-xx Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-xx

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

CALIFORNIA, RATIFYING THE APPLICATION FOR A GRANT AWARD FROM THE

CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY FOR THE SELECTIVE TRAFFIC

ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HER

DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE ALL GRANT DOCUMENTS , AND ACCEPT AND

ADMINISTER THE GRANT
T

HE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) has establi shed the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) grant with the objective of reducing the number of persons killed and injured in crashes involving alcohol and other primary collision factors; and
WHEREAS, OTS has allocated to the City of Costa Mesa $285,000 in grant funds for the period of October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2024; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa supports the Program goals and wishes to participate in the Program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to authorize the City Manager or her designee to execute all grant documents and accept and administer the grant.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa as follows:

Section 1. The City Council hereby ratifies the application for a STEP grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety.

Section 2. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager or her designee is to execute all grant documents, including the grant agreement, accept and administer the grant, and take all steps necessary to implement this authorization and STEP requirements and objectives.

P
ASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of October, 2023.
___
__________________________
John Stephens, Mayor
ATTACHMENT 2
125

Resolution No. 2023-xx Page 2 of 2

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________ _____________________________ Brenda Green, City Clerk Kimberly Hall Barlow, City Attorney

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss

CITY OF COSTA MESA )

I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2023-xx and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 17
th day of October, 2023, by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 17
th day of October, 2023.

________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk

126

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 23-1407 Meeting Date: 10/17/2023
TITLE:

ACCEPTANCE OF THE ORGANIZED RETAIL THEFT PREVENTION GRANT FOR THE COSTA MESA POLICE DEPARTMENT OF $3.5 MILLION
DEPARTMENT: POLICE DEPARTMENT
PRESENTED BY: BRYAN WADKINS, CAPTAIN
CONTACT INFORMATION: BRYAN WADKINS, CAPTAIN, (714) 754-5672 RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Approve the proposed resolution 2023-XX authorizing participation in the Organized Retail Theft (ORT) Prevention Grant Program and the City Manager, or designee, to execute the ORT Standard Agreement.

2. Approve revenue and expense appropriations in the amount of $3,518,133, respectively, for the Organized Retail Theft (ORT) Prevention Grant.

BACKGROUND:

The Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) Organized Retail Theft (ORT) Prevention Grant Program was established under the Budget Act of 2022. This state-funded program, as mandated by Senate Bill 154, is designed to provide competitive grants to city police departments, county sheriffs' departments, and probation departments to support local law enforcement agencies in preventing and responding to organized retail theft, motor vehicle or motor vehicle accessory theft, or cargo theft. A total of $242,250,000 was made available through a competitive process for projects that addressed the Program Purpose Areas.

The Costa Mesa Police Department (CMPD) has been proactively addressing the escalating issue of organized retail theft within our community that has been experienced in other jurisdictions throughout our region and state. To bolster the CMPD's efforts in tackling organized retail theft, the department pursued funding opportunities that could provide the necessary resources to enhance its strategies.

CMPD submitted a comprehensive grant application to the Organized Retail Theft Prevention Grant Program in July 2023. This application outlined the specific challenges facing our community, proposed strategies for mitigating these issues, and articulated the budgetary requirements necessary for effective implementation.

127
File #: 23-1407 Meeting Date: 10/17/2023
ANALYSIS:

In September of 2023, CMPD was one of only 37 out of 114 applicants in California selected as a recipient of the ORT Grant in the amount of $3,518,133. Accepting the ORT Grant will be a significant step towards strengthening the Costa Mesa Police Department's ability to combat and address organized retail theft within our community.

The utilization of the BSCC grant funds will be allocated for various initiatives designed to combat organized retail theft, vehicle theft, and accessory theft. Key components include expanding the license plate reader (LPR) program, implementing GPS bait tag operations to gather intelligence on theft patterns, providing supplemental staffing and high-visibility patrols at South Coast Plaza or other retail centers, conducting retailer training programs, sending personnel to specialized training, procuring modern data analytics software to enhance information sharing, employing investigative technologies and software as investigative tools, and obtaining a cellular phone digital forensics system to access and analyze phone data used by criminals.

These initiatives aim to reduce organized retail theft incidents, increase awareness of theft among retail employees and the public through training and education programs and improve investigative capabilities to increase apprehension rates for targeted crimes.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council may elect to not accept the grant; however, the Department would not be able to pursue the specific goals outlined in the report.

FISCAL REVIEW:

Upon acceptance of the Organized Retail Theft (ORT) Prevention Grant, revenue and expense appropriations in the amount of $3,518,133 will be established for the grant. The grant period is from October 1, 2023, to June 1, 2027.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed the Organized Retail Theft (ORT) Prevention Grant Agreement, proposed resolution, and this report, and has approved them as to form.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This item supports the following City Council Goal:
· Strengthen Public Safety and Improve the Quality of Life

128
File #: 23-1407 Meeting Date: 10/17/2023
CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Approve the proposed resolution 2023-XX authorizing the participation in the Organized Retail Theft (ORT) Prevention Grant Program and the City Manager, or designee, to execute the ORT Standard Agreement.

2. Approve revenue and expense appropriations in the amount of $3,518,133, respectively, for the Organized Retail Theft (ORT) Prevention Grant.

129
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES SCO ID:5227-BSCC- 1149-23 STANDARD AGREEMENT AGREEMENT NUMBER PURCHASING AUTHORITY NUMBER (If Applicable) STD 213 (Rev 03/2019) BSCC 1149- 23

1. This Agreement is entered into between the Contracting Agency and the Contractor named below:

CONTRACTING AGENCY NAME

BOARD OF STATE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS

CONTRACTOR NAME
Costa Mesa Police Department

2. The term of this Agreement is:

START DATE
OCTOBER 1, 2023

THROUGH END DATE
JUNE 1, 2027

3. The maximum amount of this Agreement is:
$3,518,133.00

4. The parties agree to comply with the terms and conditions of the following exhibits, attachments, and appendices which ar e by this reference made a part of the Agreement.

EXHIBITS TITLE PAGES
Exhibit A Scope of Work 3
Exhibit B Budget Detail and Payment Provisions 4
Exhibit C General Terms and Conditions (04/2017) 4
Exhibit D

Special Terms and Conditions 5
Attachment 1* Organized Retail Theft Prevention Grant Program Request for Proposals * Attachment 2 Organized Retail Theft Prevention Grant Program Grant Proposal 31 Appendix A

Organized Retail Theft Grant Program Scoring Panel Roster 1 Appendix B Grantee Assurance for Non-Governmental Organizations 2 * This item is hereby incorporated by reference and can be viewed at: https://www.bscc.ca.gov/organized-retail-theft-grant-program/ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THIS AGREEMENT HAS BEEN EXECUTED BY THE PARTIES HERETO.

CONTRACTOR
CONTRACTOR NAME (if other than an individual, state whether a corporation, partnership, etc.) Costa Mesa Police Department

CONTRACTOR BUSINESS ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP
99 Fair Drive Costa Mesa CA 92626

PRINTED NAME OF PERSON SIGNING TITLE
Ronald Lawrence Chief of Police

CONTRACTOR AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE DATE SIGNED


STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CONTRACTING AGENCY NAME

BOARD OF STATE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS

CONTRACTING AGENCY ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP
2590 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 200 Sacramento CA 95833

PRINTED NAME OF PERSON SIGNING TITLE
COLLEEN CURTIN Deputy Director

CONTRACTING AGENCY AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE DATE SIGNED


CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES APPROVAL: EXEMPT PER SCM, VOLUME 1, CH. 4.06 ATTACHMENT 1
130
Costa Mesa PD
BSCC 1149-23

EXHIBIT A: SCOPE OF WORK

1. GRANT AGREEMENT – Organized Retail Theft Grant Program This Grant Agreement is between the State of California, Board of State and Community Corrections (hereafter referred to as BSCC) and Costa Mesa Police Department (hereafter referred to as the Grantee).

2. PROJECT SUMMARY AND ADMINISTRATION
A. The Organized Retail Theft Grant Program was established in Senate Bill 154 (SB 154) (Chapter 43, Statutes of 2022). Organized Retail Theft Grant Program funds shall be used to support local law enforcement agencies in preventing and responding to organized retail theft, motor vehicle or motor vehicle accessory theft, or cargo theft.

B. Grantee agrees to administer the project in accordance with Attachment 1: Organized Retail Theft Grant Program Request for Proposals (incorporated by reference) and Attachment 2: Organized Retail Theft Grant Program Grant Proposal, which is attached and hereto and made part of this agreement.

3. PROJECT OFFICIALS
A. The BSCC's Executive Director or designee shall be the BSCC's representative for administration of the Grant Agreement and shall have authority to make determinations relating to any controversies that may arise under or regarding the interpretation, performance, or payment for work performed under this Grant Agreement.

B. The Grantee’s project officials shall be those identified as follows:

Authorized Officer with legal authority to sign:

Name: Ronald Lawrence
Title: Chief of Police
Address: 99 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa CA 92626
Phone: 714-754-5117
Email: [email protected]

Designated Financial Officer authorized to receive warrants:

Name: Carol Molina
Title: Finance Director
Address: 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa CA 92626
Phone: 714-754-5036
Email: [email protected]

Project Director authorized to administer the project:

Name: Bryan Wadkins
Title: Police Captain
Address: 99 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa CA 92626
Phone: 714-754-5672
Email: [email protected]

C. Either party may change its project representatives upon written notice to the other party. 131
Costa Mesa PD
BSCC 1149-23

EXHIBIT A: SCOPE OF WORK

D. By signing this Grant Agreement, the Authorized Officer listed above warrants that he or she has full legal authority to bind the entity for which he or she signs.

4. DATA COLLECTION
Grantees will be required to comply with all data collection and reporting requirements as described in Attachment 1: Organized Retail Theft Grant Program Request for Proposals (incorporated by reference) and Attachment 2: Organized Retail Theft Grant Program Grant Proposal.

5. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
A. Grantee will submit quarterly progress reports in a format prescribed by the BSCC. These reports, which will describe progress made on program objectives and include required data, shall be submitted according to the following schedule:

Quarterly Progress Report Periods Due no later than:

1. October 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023 February 15, 2024

2. January 1, 2024 to March 31, 2024 May 15, 2024

3. April 1, 2024 to June 30, 2024 August 15, 2024

4. July 1, 2024 to September 30, 2024 November 15, 2024

5. October 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024 February 15, 2025

6. January 1, 2025 to March 31, 2025 May 15, 2025

7. April 1, 2025 to June 30, 2025 August 15, 2025

8. July 1, 2025 to September 30, 2025 November 15, 2025

9. October 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025 February 15, 2026

10. January 1, 2026 to March 31, 2026 May 15, 2026

11. April 1, 2026 to June 30, 2026 August 15, 2026

12. July 1, 2026 to September 30, 2026 November 15, 2026

13. October 1, 2026 to December 31, 2026 February 15, 2027

B. Evaluation Documents Due no later than:

1. Local Evaluation Plan April 1, 2024

2. Final Local Evaluation Report June 1, 2027

C. Other Due no later than:

Financial Audit Report June 1, 2027

Grantees that are unable to demonstrate that they are making sufficient progress toward project goals and objectives and show that funds are being spent in accordance with the Grant Agreement could be subject to a withholding of funds.

6. PROJECT RECORDS
A. The Grantee shall establish an official file for the project. The file shall contain adequate documentation of all actions taken with respect to the project, including copies of this Grant Agreement, approved program/budget modifications, financial records and required reports.
132
Costa Mesa PD
BSCC 1149-23

EXHIBIT A: SCOPE OF WORK

B. The Grantee shall establish separate accounting records and maintain documents and other evidence sufficient to properly reflect the amount, receipt, and disposition of all project funds, including grant funds and any matching funds by the Grantee and the total cost of the project. Source documentation includes copies of all awards, applications, approved modifications, financial records, and narrative reports.

C. Personnel and payroll records shall include the time and attendance reports for all individuals reimbursed under the grant, whether they are employed full-time or part-time.

Time and effort reports are also required for all subcontractors and consultants.

D. The grantee shall maintain documentation of donated goods and/or services, including the basis for valuation.

E. Grantee agrees to protect records adequately from fire or other damage. When records are stored away from the Grantee’s principal office, a written index of the location of records stored must be on hand and ready access must be assured.

F. All Grantee records relevant to the project must be preserved a minimum of three (3) years after closeout of the grant project and shall be subject at all reasonable times to inspection, examination, monitoring, copying, excerpting, transcribing, and auditing by the BSCC or designees. If any litigation, claim, negotiation, audit, or other action involving the records has been started before the expiration of the three-year period, the records must be retained until the completion of the action and resolution of all issues which arise from it or until the end of the regular three-year period, whichever is later.

7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
A. Existing law prohibits any grantee, subgrantee, partner or like party who participated on the Organized Retail Theft Grant Program Scoring Panel from receiving funds awarded under the Organized Retail Theft Grant Program RFP. Applicants who are awarded grants under this RFP are responsible for reviewing the Organized Retail Theft Grant Program Scoring Panel roster (Appendix A) and ensuring that no grant dollars are passed through to any entity represented by the members of the Organized Retail Theft Grant Program Scoring Panel.

B. In cases of an actual conflict of interest with a Scoring Panel member, the Board may revoke the grant award and legal consequences could exist for the parties involved, including, but not limited to, repayment of the grant award. 133
Costa Mesa PD
BSCC 1149-23

EXHIBIT B: BUDGET DETAIL AND PAYMENT PROVISIONS

1. INVOICING AND PAYMENT
A. The Grantee shall be paid quarterly in arrears by submitting an invoice (Form 201) to the BSCC that outlines actual expenditures claimed for the invoicing period.

Quarterly Invoicing Periods: Due no later than:

1. October 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023 February 15, 2024

2. January 1, 2024 to March 31, 2024 May 15, 2024

3. April 1, 2024 to June 30, 2024 August 15, 2024

4. July 1, 2024 to September 30, 2024 November 15, 2024

5. October 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024 February 15, 2025

6. January 1, 2025 to March 31, 2025 May 15, 2025

7. April 1, 2025 to June 30, 2025 August 15, 2025

8. July 1, 2025 to September 30, 2025 November 15, 2025

9. October 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025 February 15, 2026

10. January 1, 2026 to March 31, 2026 May 15, 2026

11. April 1, 2026 to June 30, 2026 August 15, 2026

12. July 1, 2026 to September 30, 2026 November 15, 2026

13. October 1, 2026 to December 31, 2026 February 15, 2027

Final Invoicing Periods*: Due no later than:

14. January 1, 2027 to March 31, 2027 May 15, 2027

15. April 1, 2027 to June 1, 2027 August 15, 2027
*Note: Project activity period ends December 31, 2026 . The period of January 1, 2027, to June 1, 2027, is for completion of Final Local Evaluation Report and financial audit only.

B. All project expenses must be incurred by the end of the project activity period, December 31, 2026, and included on the final invoice due February 15, 2027. Project expenditures incurred after December 31, 2026 will not be reimbursed.

C. The Final Local Evaluation Report is due to BSCC by June 1, 2027. Expenditures incurred for the completion of the Final Local Evaluation Report during the period of January 1, 2027, to June 1, 2027, must be submitted during the Final Invoicing Periods, with the final invoice due on August 15, 2027. Supporting fiscal documentation will be required for all expenditures claimed on during the Final Invoicing Periods and must be submitted with the final invoice.

D. The Financial Audit Report is due to BSCC by June 1, 2027 . Expenditures incurred for the completion of the financial audit during the period of January 1, 2027, to June 1, 2027, must be submitted during the Final Invoicing Periods, with the final invoice due on August 15, 2027. Supporting fiscal documentation will be required for all expenditures claimed during the Final Invoicing Periods and must be submitted with the final invoice.

E. Grantee shall submit an invoice to the BSCC each invoicing period, even if grant funds are not expended or requested during the invoicing period.

F. Upon the BSCC’s request, supporting documentation must be submitted for project expenditures. Grantees are required to maintain supporting documentation for all 134
Costa Mesa PD
BSCC 1149-23

EXHIBIT B: BUDGET DETAIL AND PAYMENT PROVISIONS

expenditures on the project site for the life of the grant and make it readily available for review during BSCC site visits. See Exhibit A. Scope of Work, Item 6. Project Records.

2. GRANT AMOUNT AND LIMITATION
A. In no event shall the BSCC be obligated to pay any amount in excess of the grant award.

Grantee waives any and all claims against the BSCC, and the State of California on account of project costs that may exceed the sum of the grant award.

B. Under no circumstance will a budget item change be authorized that would cause the project to exceed the amount of the grant award identified in this Grant Agreement. In no event shall changes be authorized for the Administrative Salaries and Benefits line item that would result in that item exceeding ten percent (10%) of the grant award.

3. BUDGET CONTINGENCY CLAUSE
A. This grant agreement is valid through Organized Retail Theft funding generated from the General Fund. The Grantee agrees that the BSCC’s obligation to pay any sum to the grantee under any provision of this agreement is contingent upon the availability of sufficient funding granted through the passage of Senate Bill 154 (Chapter 43, Statutes of 2022), also known as the California Budget Act of 2022 . It is mutually agreed that if the Budget Act of the current year and/or any subsequent years covered under this Grant Agreement does not appropriate sufficient funds for the program, this Grant Agreement shall be of no further force and effect. In this event, the BSCC shall have no liability to pay any funds whatsoever to Grantee or to furnish any other considerations under this Agreement and Grantee shall not be obligated to perform any provisions of this Grant Agreement.

B. If Organized Retail Theft funding is reduced or falls below estimates contained within the Organized Retail Theft Request for Proposals, the BSCC shall have the option to either cancel this Grant Agreement with no liability occurring to the BSCC or offer an amendment to this agreement to the Grantee to reflect a reduced amount.

C. If BSCC cancels the agreement pursuant to Paragraph 3(B) or Grantee does not agree to an amendment in accordance with the option provided by Paragraph 3(B), it is mutually agreed that the Grant Agreement shall have no further force and effect. In this event, the BSCC shall have no liability to pay any funds whatsoever to Grantee or to furnish any other considerations under this Agreement and Grantee shall not be obligated to perform any provisions of this Grant Agreement except that Grantee shall be required to maintain all project records required by Paragraph 6 of Exhibit A for a period of three (3) years following the termination of this agreement.

4. PROJECT COSTS
A. The Grantee agrees to comply with the BSCC Grant Administration Guide requirements as posted on the BSCC website (currently the BSCC Grant Administration Guide July 2020) including any updated version that may be posted during term of the grant 135
Costa Mesa PD
BSCC 1149-23

EXHIBIT B: BUDGET DETAIL AND PAYMENT PROVISIONS

agreement. BSCC will notify grantees whenever an updated version is posted. The BSCC Grant Administration Guide is available at:
https://www.bscc.ca.gov/s_correctionsplanningandprograms/ B. The provisions of the BSCC Grant Administration Guide are incorporated by reference into this agreement and Grantee shall be responsible for adhering to the requirements set forth therein. To the extent any of the provisions of the BSCC Grant Administration Guide and this agreement conflict, the language in this agreement shall prevail.

C. Grantee is responsible for ensuring that statements of expenditures submitted to the BSCC claim actual expenditures for eligible project costs.

D. Grantee shall, upon demand, remit to the BSCC any grant funds not expended for eligible project costs or an amount equal to any grant funds expended by the Grantee in violation of the terms, provisions, conditions or commitments of this Grant Agreement.

E. Grant funds must be used to support new program activities or to augment existing funds that expand current program activities. Grant funds shall not replace (supplant) any federal, state and/or local funds that have been appropriated for the same purpose.

Violations can result in recoupment of monies provided under this grantor suspension of future program funding through BSCC grants.

5. PROMPT PAYMENT CLAUSE
Payment will be made in accordance with, and within the time specified in, Government Code Chapter 4.5, commencing with Section 927.

6. WITHHOLDING OF GRANT DISBURSEMENTS
A. The BSCC may withhold all or any portion of the grant funds provided by this Grant Agreement in the event the Grantee has materially and substantially breached the terms and conditions of this Grant Agreement.

B. At such time as the balance of state funds allocated to the Grantee reaches five percent (5%), the BSCC may withhold that amount as security, to be released to the Grantee upon compliance with all grant provisions, including:
1) submittal and approval of the final invoice;
2) submittal and approval of the final progress report; and C. The BSCC will not reimburse Grantee for costs identified as ineligible for grant funding. If grant funds have been provided for costs subsequently deemed ineligible, the BSCC may either withhold an equal amount from future payments to the Grantee or require repayment of an equal amount to the State by the Grantee.

D. In the event that grant funds are withheld from the Grantee, the BSCC’s Executive Director or designee shall notify the Grantee of the reasons for withholding and advise the Grantee of the time within which the Grantee may remedy the failure or violation leading to the withholding.

7. EXECUTIVE ORDER N-6-22 – RUSSIA SANCTIONS
136
Costa Mesa PD
BSCC 1149-23

EXHIBIT B: BUDGET DETAIL AND PAYMENT PROVISIONS

On March 4, 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N -6-22 (the EO) regarding Economic Sanctions against Russia and Russian entities and individuals. “Economic Sanctions” refers to sanctions imposed by the U.S. government in response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine, as well as any sanctions imposed under state law. The EO directs state agencies to terminate contracts with, and to refrain from entering any new contracts with, individuals or entities that are determined to be a target of Economic Sanctions. Accordingly, should the State determine Contractor is a target of Economic Sanctions or is conducting prohibited transactions with sanctioned individuals or entities, that shall be gr ounds for termination of this agreement. The State shall provide Contractor advance written notice of such termination, allowing Contractor at least 30 calendar days to provide a written response. Termination shall be at the sole discretion of the State.

8. PROJECT BUDGET
BSCC Budget Line Item A.

Grant Funds

1. Salaries and Benefits $2,523,958

2. Services and Supplies $0

3. Professional Services or Public Agency Subcontracts $0

4. Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Subcontracts $0

5. Data Collection and Evaluation $75,000

6. Equipment/Fixed Assets $804,175

7. Financial Audit (Up to $25,000) $0

8. Other (Travel, Training, etc.) $115,000

9. Indirect Costs $0
TOTALS $3,518,133
137
Costa Mesa PD
BSCC 1149-23

EXHIBIT C: GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS (04/2017)

1. APPROVAL: This Agreement is of no force or effect until signed by both parties and approved by the Department of General Services, if required. Contractor may not commence performance until such approval has been obtained.

2. AMENDMENT: No amendment or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing, signed by the parties and approved as required. No oral understanding or Agreement not incorporated in the Agreement is binding on any of the parties.

3. ASSIGNMENT: This Agreement is not assignable by the Contractor, either in whole or in part, without the consent of the State in the form of a formal written amendment.

4. AUDIT: Contractor agrees that the awarding department, the Department of General Services, the Bureau of State Audits, or their designated representative shall have the right to review and to copy any records and supporting documentation pertaining to the performance of this Agreement. Contractor agrees to maintain such records for possible audit for a minimum of three (3) years after final payment, unless a longer period of records retention is stipulated. Contractor agrees to allow the auditor(s) access t o such records during normal business hours and to allow interviews of any employees who might reasonably have information related to such records. Further, Contractor agrees to include a similar right of the State to audit records and interview staff in a ny subcontract related to performance of this Agreement. (Gov. Code §8546.7, Pub. Contract Code §10115 et seq., CCR Title 2, Section 1896).

5. INDEMNIFICATION: Contractor agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the State, its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any and all contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, laborers, and any other person, firm or corporation furnishing or supplying work services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of this Agreement, and from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any person, firm or corporation who may be injured or damaged by Contractor in the performance of this Agreement. This obligation shall survive any termination of this agreement.

6. DISPUTES: Contractor shall continue with the responsibilities under this Agreement during any dispute.

7. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE: The State may terminate this Agreement and be relieved of any payments should the Contractor fail to perform the requirements of this Agreement at the time and in the manner herein provided. In the event of such termination the State may proceed with the work in any manner deemed proper by the State. All costs to the State shall be deducted from any sum due the Contractor under this Agreement and the balance, if any, shall be paid to the Contractor upon demand.

138
Costa Mesa PD
BSCC 1149-23

EXHIBIT C: GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS (04/2017)

8. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: Contractor, and the agents and employees of Contractor, in the performance of this Agreement, shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers or employees or agents of the State.

9. RECYCLING CERTIFICATION: The Contractor shall certify in writing under penalty of perjury, the minimum, if not exact, percentage of post -consumer material as defined in the Public Contract Code Section 12200, in products, materials, goods, or supplies offered or sold to the State regardless of whether the product meets the requirements of Public Contract Code Section 12209. With respect to printer or duplication cartridges that comply with the requirements of Section 12156(e), the certification required by this subdivision shall specify that the cartridges so comply (Pub. Contract Code §12205).

10. NON-DISCRIMINATION CLAUSE: During the performance of this Agreement, Contractor and its subcontractor s shall not deny the contract’s benefits to any person on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status, nor shall they discriminate unlawfully against any employee or applicant for empl oyment because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status. Contractor shall insure that the evaluation and treatment of employees and applicants for employment are free of such discrimination.

Contractor and subcontractors shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code §12900 et seq.), the regulations promulgated thereunder (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, §11000 et seq.), the provisions of Article 9.5, Chapter 1, Part 1, Division 3, Title 2 of the Government Code (Gov. Code §§11135-11139.5), and the regulations or standards adopted by the awarding state agency to implement such article. Contractor shall permit access by representatives of the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the awarding state agency upon reasonable notice at any time during the normal business hours, but in no case less than 24 hours’ notice, to such of its books, records, accounts, and all other sources of information and its facilities as said Department or Agency shall require to ascertain compliance with this clause. Contractor and its subcontractors shall give written notice of their obligations under this clause to labor organizations with which they have a collective bargaining or other agreement. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, §11105.) Contractor shall include the nondiscrimination and compliance provisions of this clause in all subcontracts to perform work under the Agreement.

11. CERTIFICATION CLAUSES: The CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION CLAUSES contained in the document CCC 04/2017 ( https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OLS/Resources/Page- Content/Office-of-Legal-Services-Resources-List-Folder/Standard-Contract-Language) are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this Agreement by this reference as if attached hereto.

139
Costa Mesa PD
BSCC 1149-23

EXHIBIT C: GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS (04/2017)

12. TIMELINESS: Time is of the essence in this Agreement.

13. COMPENSATION: The consideration to be paid Contractor, as provided herein, shall be in compensation for all of Contractor's expenses incurred in the performance hereof, including travel, per diem, and taxes, unless otherwise expressly so provided.

14. GOVERNING LAW: This contract is governed by and shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

15. ANTITRUST CLAIMS: The Contractor by signing this agreement hereby certifies that if these services or goods are obtained by means of a competitive bid, the Contractor shall comply with the requirements of the Government Codes Sections set out below.

A. The Government Code Chapter on Antitrust claims contains the following definitions:
1) "Public purchase" means a purchase by means of competitive bids of goods, services, or materials by the State or any of its political subdivisions or public agencies on whose behalf the Attorney General may bring an action pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 16750 of the Business and Professions Code.
2) "Public purchasing body" means the State or the subdivision or agency making a public purchase. Government Code Section 4550.

B. In submitting a bid to a public purchasing body, the bidder offers and agrees that if the bid is accepted, it will assign to the purchasing body all rights, title, and interest in and to all causes of action it may have under Section 4 of the Clayton Act ( 15 U.S.C. Sec. 15) or under the Cartwright Act (Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 16700) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code), arising from purchases of goods, materials, or services by the bidder for sale to the purchasing body pursuant to the bid.

Such assignment shall be made and become effective at the time the purchasing body tenders final payment to the bidder. Government Code Section 4552.

C. If an awarding body or public purchasing body receives, either through judgment or settlement, a monetary recovery for a cause of action assigned under this chapter, the assignor shall be entitled to receive reimbursement for actual legal costs incurred and may, upon demand, recover from the public body any portion of the recovery, including treble damages, attributable to overcharges that were paid by the assignor but were not paid by the public body as part of the bid price, less the expenses incurred in obtaining that portion of the recovery. Government Code Section 4553.

D. Upon demand in writing by the assignor, the assignee shall, within one year from such demand, reassign the cause of action assigned under this part if the assignor has been or may have been injured by the violation of law for which the cause of action aros e and (a) the assignee has not been injured thereby, or (b) the assignee declines to file a court action for the cause of action. See Government Code Section 4554.

16. CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE ACT: For any Agreement in excess of $100,000, the contractor acknowledges in accordance with Public Contract Code 7110, that:
140
Costa Mesa PD
BSCC 1149-23

EXHIBIT C: GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS (04/2017)

A. The contractor recognizes the importance of child and family support obligations and shall fully comply with all applicable state and federal laws relating to child and family support enforcement, including, but not limited to, disclosure of information and compliance with earnings assignment orders, as provided in Chapter 8 (commencing with section 5200) of Part 5 of Division 9 of the Family Code; and
B. The contractor, to the best of its knowledge is fully complying with the earnings assignment orders of all employees and is providing the names of all new employees to the New Hire Registry maintained by the California Employment Development Department.

17. UNENFORCEABLE PROVISION: In the event that any provision of this Agreement is unenforceable or held to be unenforceable, then the parties agree that all other provisions of this Agreement have force and effect and shall not be affected thereby.

18. PRIORITY HIRING CONSIDERATIONS: If this Contract includes services in excess of $200,000, the Contractor shall give priority consideration in filling vacancies in positions funded by the Contract to qualified recipients of aid under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 11200 in accordance with Pub. Contract Code §10353.

19. SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION AND DVBE PARTICIPATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS:

A. If for this Contract Contractor made a commitment to achieve small business participation, then Contractor must within 60 days of receiving final payment under this Contract (or within such other time period as may be specified elsewhere in this Contract) report to the awarding department the actual percentage of small business participation that was achieved. (Gov. Code § 14841.)
B. If for this Contract Contractor made a commitment to achieve disabled veteran business enterprise (DVBE) participation, then Contractor must within 60 days of receiving final payment under this Contract (or within such other time period as may be specified elsewhere in this Contract) certify in a report to the awarding department: (1) the total amount the prime Contractor received under the Contract; (2) the name and address of the DVBE(s) that participated in the performance of the Contract; (3) the amount each DVBE received from the prime Contractor; (4) that all payments under the Contract have been made to the DVBE; and (5) the actual percentage of DVBE participation that was achieved. A person or entity that knowingly provides false information shall b e subject to a civil penalty for each violation. (Mil. & Vets. Code § 999.5(d); Govt. Code § 14841.)

20. LOSS LEADER: If this contract involves the furnishing of equipment, materials, or supplies then the following statement is incorporated: It is unlawful for any person engaged in business within this state to sell or use any article or product as a “loss leader” as defi ned in Section 17030 of the Business and Professions Code. (PCC 10344(e).) 141
Costa Mesa PD
BSCC 1149-23

EXHIBIT D: SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. GRANTEE’S GENERAL RESPONSIBILITY
A. Grantee agrees to comply with all terms and conditions of this Grant Agreement. Review and approval by the BSCC is solely for the purpose of proper administration of grant funds, and shall not be deemed to relieve or restrict the Grantee’s responsibility.

B. Grantee is responsible for the performance of all project activities identified in Attachment 1: Organized Retail Theft Grant Program Request for Proposals (incorporated by reference) and Attachment 2: Organized Retail Theft Grant Program Grant Proposal.

C. Grantee shall immediately advise the BSCC of any significant problems or changes that arise during the course of the project.

2. GRANTEE ASSURANCES AND COMMITMENTS
A. Compliance with Laws and Regulations
This Grant Agreement is governed by and shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Grantee shall at all times comply with all applicable State laws, rules and regulations, and all applicable local ordinances.

B. Fulfillment of Assurances and Declarations
Grantee shall fulfill all assurances, declarations, representations, and statements made by the Grantee in Attachment 1: Organized Retail Theft Grant Program Request for Proposals (incorporated by reference) and Attachment 2: Organized Retail Theft Grant Program Grant Proposal , documents, amendments, approved modifications, and communications filed in support of its request for grant funds.

C. Permits and Licenses
Grantee agrees to procure all permits and licenses necessary to complete the project, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices necessary or incidental to the due and lawful proceeding of the project work.

3. POTENTIAL SUBCONTRACTORS
A. In accordance with the provisions of this Grant Agreement, the Grantee may subcontract for services needed to implement and/or support program activities. Grantee agrees that in the event of any inconsistency between this Grant Agreement and Grantee’s agreement with a subcontractor, the language of this Grant Agreement will prevail.

B. Nothing contained in this Grant Agreement or otherwise, shall create any contractual relation between the BSCC and any subcontractors, and no subcontract shall relieve the Grantee of his responsibilities and obligations hereunder. The Grantee agrees to be as fully responsible to the BSCC for the acts and omissions of its subcontractors and of persons either directly or indirectly employed by any of them as it is for the acts and omissions of persons directly employed by the Grantee. The Grantee's obligation to pay its subcontractors is an independent obligation from the BSCC's obligation to make payments to the Grantee. As a result, the BSCC shall have no obligation to pay or to enforce the payment of any moneys to any subcontractor. 142
Costa Mesa PD
BSCC 1149-23

EXHIBIT D: SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

C. Grantee shall ensure that all subcontractors comply with the eligibility requirements stated in the ARG Rehabilitation of Existing Property or Building Project RFP and described in Appendix B.

D. Grantee assures that for any subcontract awarded by the Grantee, such insurance and fidelity bonds, as is customary and appropriate, will be obtained.

E. Grantee agrees to place appropriate language in all subcontracts for work on the project requiring the Grantee’s subcontractors to:
1) Books and Records
Maintain adequate fiscal and project books, records, documents, and other evidence pertinent to the subcontractor’s work on the project in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Adequate supporting documentation shall be maintained in such detail so as to permit tracing transactions from the invoices, to the accounting records, to the supporting documentation. These records shall be maintained for a minimum of three (3) years after the acceptance of the final grant project audit under the Grant Agreement, and shall be subject to examination and/or audit by the BSCC or designees, state government auditors or designees, or by federal government auditors or designees.
2) Access to Books and Records
Make such books, records, supporting documentations, and other evidence available to the BSCC or designee, the State Controller’s Office, the Department of General Services, the Department of Finance, California State Auditor, and their designated representatives during the course of the project and for a minimum of three (3) years after acceptance of the final grant project audit. The Subcontractor shall provide suitable facilities for access, monitoring, inspection, and copying of books and records related to the grant-funded project.

4. PROJECT ACCESS
Grantee shall ensure that the BSCC, or any authorized representative, will have suitable access to project activities, sites, staff and documents at all reasonable times during the grant period including those maintained by subcontractors. Access to program records will be made available by both the grantee and the subcontractors for a period of three (3) years following the end of the grant of the project.

5. ACCOUNTING AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS
A. Grantee agrees that accounting procedures for grant funds received pursuant to this Grant Agreement shall be in accordance with generally accepted government accounting principles and practices, and adequate supporting documentation shall be maintained in such detail as to provide an audit trail. Supporting documentation shall permit the tracing of transactions from such documents to relevant accounting records, financial reports and invoices.
143
Costa Mesa PD
BSCC 1149-23

EXHIBIT D: SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

B. The BSCC reserves the right to call for a program or financial audit at any time between the execution of this Grant Agreement and three years following the end of the grant period. At any time, the BSCC may disallow all or part of the cost of the activity or action determined to not be in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Grant Agreement or take other remedies legally available.

6. DEBARMENT, FRAUD, THEFT OR EMBEZZLEMENT
It is the policy of the BSCC to protect grant funds from unreasonable risks of fraudulent, criminal, or other improper use. As such, the Board will not enter into contracts or provide reimbursement to grantees that have been:

1. debarred by any federal, state, or local government entities during the period of debarment; or

2. convicted of fraud, theft, or embezzlement of federal, state, or local government grant funds for a period of three years following conviction.

Furthermore, the BSCC requires grant recipients to provide an assurance that there has been no applicable debarment, disqualification, suspension, or removal from a federal, state or local grant program on the part of the grantee at the time of application and that the grantee will immediately notify the BSCC should such debarment or conviction occur during the term of the Grant contract.

BSCC also requires that all grant recipients include, as a condition of award to a subgrantee or subcontractor, a requirement that the subgrantee or subcontractor will provide the same assurances to the grant recipient. If a grant recipient wishes to consi der a subgrantee or subcontractor that has been debarred or convicted, the grant recipient must submit a written request for exception to the BSCC along with supporting documentation.

All Grantees must have on file with the BSCC a completed and signed Certification of Compliance with BSCC Policies on Debarment, Fraud, Theft and Embezzlement (Required as Appendix E of the original Proposal Package).

7. MODIFICATIONS
No change or modification in the project will be permitted without prior written approval from the BSCC. Changes may include modification to project scope, changes to performance measures, compliance with collection of data elements, and other significant changes in the budget or program components contained in the Attachment 1: Organized Retail Theft Grant Program Request for Proposals and Attachment 2: Organized Retail Theft Grant Program Grant Proposal. Changes shall not be implemented by the project unt il authorized by the BSCC.

8. TERMINATION
A. This Grant Agreement may be terminated by the BSCC at any time after grant award and prior to completion of project upon action or inaction by the Grantee that constitutes a 144
Costa Mesa PD
BSCC 1149-23

EXHIBIT D: SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

material and substantial breach of this Grant Agreement. Such action or inaction includes but is not limited to:
1) substantial alteration of the scope of the grant project without prior written approval of the BSCC;
2) refusal or inability to complete the grant project in a manner consistent with Attachment 1: Organized Retail Theft Grant Program Request for Proposals and Attachment 2: Organized Retail Theft Grant Program Grant Proposal , or approved modifications;
3) failure to meet prescribed assurances, commitments, recording, accounting, auditing, and reporting requirements of the Grant Agreement.

B. Prior to terminating the Grant Agreement under this provision, the BSCC shall provide the Grantee at least 30 calendar days written notice stating the reasons for termination and effective date thereof. The Grantee may appeal the termination decision in ac cordance with the instructions listed in Exhibit D: Special Terms and Conditions, Number 9.

Settlement of Disputes.

9. SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
A. The parties shall deal in good faith and attempt to resolve potential disputes informally. If the dispute persists, the Grantee shall submit to the BSCC Corrections Planning and Grant Programs Division Deputy Director a written demand for a final decision regarding the disposition of any dispute between the parties arising under, related to, or involving this Grant Agreement. Grantee’s written demand shall be fully supported by factual information. The BSCC Corrections Planning and Grant Programs Division D eputy Director shall have 30 days after receipt of Grantee’s written demand invoking this Section “Disputes” to render a written decision. If a written decision is not rendered within 30 days after receipt of the Grantee’s demand, it shall be deemed a deci sion adverse to the Grantee’s contention. If the Grantee is not satisfied with the decision of the BSCC Corrections Planning and Grant Programs Division Deputy Director, the Grantee may appeal the decision, in writing, within 15 days of its issuance (or the expiration of the 30- day period in the event no decision is rendered), to the BSCC Executive Director, who shall have 45 days to render a final decision. If the Grantee does not appeal the decision of the BSCC Corrections Planning and Grant Programs Divi sion Deputy Director, the decision shall be conclusive and binding regarding the dispute and the Contractor shall be barred from commencing an action in court, or with the Victims Compensation Government Claims Board, for failure to exhaust Grantee’s administrative remedies.

B. Pending the final resolution of any dispute arising under, related to or involving this Grant Agreement, Grantee agrees to diligently proceed with the performance of this Grant Agreement, including the providing of services in accordance with the Grant Agreement.

Grantee’s failure to diligently proceed in accordance with the State’s instructions regarding this Grant Agreement shall be considered a material breach of this Grant Agreement.
145
Costa Mesa PD
BSCC 1149-23

EXHIBIT D: SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

C. Any final decision of the State shall be expressly identified as such, shall be in writing, and shall be signed by the Executive Director, if an appeal was made. If the Executive Director fails to render a final decision within 45 days after receipt of the Grantee’s appeal for a final decision, it shall be deemed a final decision adverse to the Grantee’s contentions. The State’s final decision shall be conclusive and binding regarding the dispute unless the Grantee commences an action in a court of competent jurisdiction to contest such decision within 90 days following the date of the final decision or one (1) year following the accrual of the cause of action, whichever is later.

D. The dates of decision and appeal in this section may be modified by mutual consent, as applicable, excepting the time to commence an action in a court of competent jurisdiction.

10. UNION ACTIVITIES
For all agreements, except fixed price contracts of $50,000 or less, the Grantee acknowledges that applicability of Government Code §§16654 through 16649 to this Grant Agreement and agrees to the following:

A. No State funds received under the Grant Agreement will be used to assist, promote or deter union organizing.

B. Grantee will not, for any business conducted under the Grant Agreement, use any State property to hold meetings with employees or supervisors, if the purpose of such meetings is to assist, promote or deter union organizing, unless the State property is equally available to the general public for holding meetings.

C. If Grantee incurs costs or makes expenditures to assist, promote or deter union organizing, Grantee will maintain records sufficient to show that no reimbursement from State funds has been sought for these costs, and that Grantee shall provide those records to the Attorney General upon request.

11. WAIVER
The parties hereto may waive any of their rights under this Grant Agreement unless such waiver is contrary to law, provided that any such waiver shall be in writing and signed by the party making such waiver.
146
BSCC
Powered by Submittable
Title
Costa Mesa Police Department
by
Costa Mesa PD

in
Organized Retail Theft
Prevention Grant Program
[email protected]
07/07/2023
id. 41333505
Original Submission
07/07/2023
The Organized Retail Theft (ORT) Prevention Grant Program Application is divided into five (5) sections as identified below:

Background Information Contact Information Program Information Proposal Narrative and Budget
Mandatory Attachments Each section
has a series of questions requiring a response.

Applicants will be
prompted to provide written text, select options from a drop down menu, select options from a multiple choice menu, or upload attachments. Questions with a red asterisk require responses.

Applicants will not be able to submit the application until all questions with a red asterisk have been completed. Applicants may reference the ORT Prevention Grant Program Proposal Instruction Packet for background information, key dates, rating factors, and other important information to aid in the completion of the ORT Prevention Grant Program Application. The ORT Prevention Grant Proposal Instruction Packet is available on the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) website. NOTE: Applicants may start and stop their application but must select "Save Draft" at the bottom of the application before existing.

SECTION I -

BACKGROUND

INFORMATION
This section requests information about the applicant’s name, location, mailing address, and tax identification number.

Name of Applicant
(i.e., Police
Department, Sheriff’s
Department, or
Probation
Department)
Costa Mesa Police Department
Multi-Agency
Partnerships
Information (if
applicable)
Applicants may apply for funding as part of a multi-agency partnership (two [2] or more agencies). The agencies and jurisdictions comprising the collaborative application are not required to be contiguous. One (1) Lead Public Agency must be identified on behalf of the partnership.

Multi-Agency
Partnerships
No: This is not a Multi-Agency Partnership Application
147
Lead Public Agency
Information
All applicants are required to designate a Lead Public Agency (LPA) to serve as the coordinator for all grant activities. The LPA is a governmental agency with local authority within the applicant's city or county. The applicant may choose to fill the role of LPA itself or it may designate a department, agency, or office under its jurisdiction to serve as the LPA. The role of the LPA is to coordinate with other local government agency partners and non-governmental
organizations to ensure successful implementation of the grant program. The LPA is responsible for data collection and management, invoices, meeting coordination (virtual and/or in- person), and will serve as the primary point of contact with the BSCC.

Lead Public Agency
Costa Mesa Police Department
Applicant's Physical
Address
99 Fair Dr.

Costa Mesa
CA
92626
US
Applicant's Mailing
Address (if different
than the physical
address)
99 Fair Dr.

Costa Mesa
CA
92626
US
Mailing Address for
Payment
PO Box 1200
Costa Mesa
CA
92628-1200
US
Tax Identification
Number
95-6005030

SECTION II -

CONTACT

INFORMATION
This section requests contact information for the individuals identified as the Project Director, Financial Officer, Day-to-Day Project Contact, Day-to-Day Fiscal Contact, and the Authorized Signature.

Project Director
Bryan
Wadkins
Project Director's
Title with
Agency/Department/Organization
Police Captain
Project Director's
Physical Address
99 Fair Dr.

Costa Mesa
CA
92626
US
148
Project Director's
Email Address
[email protected]
Project Director's
Phone Number
+17147545672
Financial Officer
Carol
Molina
Financial Officer's
Title with
Agency/Department/Organization
Finance Director
Financial Officer's
Physical Address
77 Fair Dr.

Costa Mesa
CA
92626
US
Financial Officer's
Email Address
[email protected]
Financial Officer's
Phone Number
+17147545036
Day-To-Day Program
Contact
Jason
Chamness
Day-To-Day Program
Contact's Title
Police Captain
Day-To-Day Program
Contact's Physical
Address
99 Fair Dr.

Costa Mesa
CA
92626
US
Day-To-Day Program
Contact's Email
Address
[email protected]
Day-To-Day Program
Contact's Phone
Number
+17147545272
Day-To-Day Fiscal
Contact
Jan
Wang
Day-To-Day Fiscal
Contact's Title
Sr. Management Analyst
149
Day-To-Day Fiscal
Contact's Physical
Address
99 Fair Dr.

Costa Mesa
CA
92626
US
Day-To-Day Fiscal
Contact's Email
Address
[email protected]
Day-To-Day Fiscal
Contact's Phone
Number
+17147545074
Name of Authorized
Officer
Ronald
Lawrence
Authorized Officer's
Title
Chief of Police
Authorized Officer's
Physical Address
99 Fair Dr.

Costa Mesa
CA
92626
US
Authorized Officer's
Email Address
[email protected]
Authorized Officer's
Phone Number
+17147545117
Authorized Officer
Assurances
checked

SECTION III -

PROGRAM

INFORAMTION
This section requests a Project Title, Proposal Summary description, Program Purpose Area(s) selection, and Scope Funding Category selection.

Project Title
Costa Mesa Police Department Organized Retail Theft, Vehicle Theft and Vehicle Accessory Theft Program
Proposal Summary
In an effort to reduce organized retail theft, vehicle theft and vehicle accessory theft, the Costa Mesa Police Department is seeking grants funds from BSCC to implement theft reduction strategies.

The
proposed program will focus on prevention, apprehension, collaboration, and enhanced law enforcement efforts.

These
strategies
will include increasing directed enforcement, educating the public and retail partners, and acquiring technologies and additional trainings to increase investigative capabilities.
150

PROGRAM

PURPOSE AREAS
Applicants must propose activities, strategies, or programs that address the Program Purpose Areas (PPAs) as defined on pages 5 - 8 in the ORT Prevention Grant Proposal Instruction Packet. A minimum of one (1) PPA must be selected; applicants are not required to address all three (3) PPAs. All proposed activities, strategies, or programs must have a link to the ORT Prevention Grant Program as described in the authorizing legislation and the ORT Prevention Grant Proposal Instruction Packet.

Program Purpose
Areas (PPAs):

PPA 1: Organized Retail Theft
PPA 2: Motor Vehicle or Motor Vehicle Accessory Theft
Funding Category
Information
Applicants may apply for funding in a Medium Scope OR Large Scope Category. The maximum an applicant may apply for is up to $6,125,000 in the Medium Scope category OR up to $15,650,000 in the Large Scope category. Applicants may apply for any dollar amount up to and including the maximum grant amount identified in each category. Multi-agency partnerships (determined as Medium Scope OR Large Scope) may apply for up to the maximum grant award in that category, multiplied by the number of partnering eligible applicants. For Example: Four (4) eligible applicants in the Medium Scope category may submit one (1) application for up to $24,500,000 o
$6,125,000 (Medium Scope Max) x 4 (# of Agencies) = $24,500,000 Two (2) eligible applicants in the Large Scope category may submit one (1) application for up to $31,300,000
o
$15,650,000 (Large Scope
Max x 2 (# of Agencies) = $31,300,000 Please reference pages 10-12 in the ORT Prevention Grant Proposal Instruction Packet for additional information.

Funding Category
Medium Scope (Up to $6,125,000)

SECTION IV -

PROPOSAL

NARRATIVE AND
BUDGET
This section requests responses to the Rating Factors identified in the the ORT Prevention Grant Program Application Instruction Packet.
151
Proposal Narrative
Instructions
The Proposal Narrative must address the Project Need, Project Description, Project Organizational Capacity and Coordination, and Project Evaluation and Monitoring Rating Factors as described in the ORT Prevention Grant Instruction Packet (refer to pages 20-24). A separate narrative response is required for each Rating Factor as described below: The Project Need narrative may not may not exceed 6,711 total characters (includes punctuation, numbers, spacing and any text). In Microsoft Word, this is approximately three (3) pages in Arial 12-point font with one-inch margins on all four (4) sides and at

1.5-line spacing. The Project Description narrative may not may not exceed 11,185 total characters (includes punctuation, numbers, spacing and any text). In Microsoft Word, this is approximately five (5) pages in Arial 12-point font with one-inch margins on all four (4) sides and at 1.5-line spacing. The Project Organizational Capacity and Coordination narrative may not may not exceed 4,474 total characters (includes punctuation, numbers, spacing and any text). In Microsoft Word, this is approximately two (2) pages in Arial 12-point font with one-inch margins on all four (4) sides and at 1.5-line spacing. The Project Evaluation and Monitoring narrative may not may not exceed 4,474 total characters (includes punctuation, numbers, spacing and any text). In Microsoft Word, this is approximately two (2) pages in Arial 12-point font with one-inch margins on all four (4) sides and at 1.5-line spacing. A character counter is automatically enabled that shows the number of characters used and the remaining number of characters before the limit for each response is met. If the character limit is exceeded, a red prompt will appear with the message "You have exceeded the character limit". Applicants will be prohibited from submitting the ORT Prevention Grant Program Application until they comply with the character limit requirements. NOTE: It is up to the applicant to determine how to use the total word limit in addressing each section, however as a guide, the percent of total point value for each section is provided in the ORT Prevention Grant Proposal Instruction Packet (refer to page 15).

Project Need

1.1 Describe the need(s) to be addressed, the process used to determine the need(s), and how the need is related to the intent of the grant program.

South Coast Plaza
Costa Mesa is home to South Coast Plaza (SCP), the largest retail mall in California and forth largest in the United States.

Over the past
six months, SCP had approximately 10 cases with links to Organized Retail Theft (ORT) with a total loss of approximately $85,000.

More
than a decade ago, the SCP had one of the largest ORT cases in Orange County’s history involving the Romanian Mafia and millions of dollars in fraud and theft. Overall theft crimes from SCP indicate a significant increase over the past five years.

From 2018 to 2022, theft
crimes rose by 41% (500 to 705).

The most glaring increase was for
grand theft which rose 158% (97 to 251).

Additionally, between 2020
and 2022, South Coast Plaza saw a 111% increase in police calls for service for a variety of issues.
152
Vehicle Thefts
Vehicle theft data indicates a 26% increase in thefts in Costa Mesa over the past 5 years. These trends highlight the need for heightened enforcement strategies and proactive measures, such as technology to combat auto theft in Costa Mesa. 2021 saw the highest amount of vehicle thefts with 454.

Catalytic Converter Thefts
Catalytic converter theft has become a significant concern in Costa Mesa, reflecting a broader trend seen across the country. Data specific to the city reveals a surge in catalytic converter theft incidents in recent years. Between 2018 and 2021, Costa Mesa saw an increase of 800%, from 37 (2018) to 345 (2021).

Costa Mesa has
actively sought to deter these thefts through bait programs, directed patrols, and community engagement campaigns.

These crimes pose serious threats to the local economy, public safety, and overall community well-being.

Grant funds are urgently
needed for the listed strategies so law enforcement can disrupt criminal networks more effectively and prevent further criminal activities:

Supplement Staffing; Enforcement Efforts; Collaboration and Information Sharing; Technology; and Training.

The analysis of crime data provided crucial insights into the scope, severity, and specific areas affected by these crimes. We consulted with personnel and subject matter experts in all levels of the organization that respond to and investigate these crimes to determine current training needs and resource requirements.

The identified needs focus on developing and implementing prevention strategies, strengthening enforcement strategies, providing specialized training programs, investing in advanced technologies programs, education initiatives and raising public awareness.

1.2 Conditions and Elements that Contribute to the Project Needs are:
• SOUTH COAST PLAZA: SCP is the largest shopping mall in California with several factors contributing to retail theft:
o High-Value Retailers: SCP houses a variety of high-end and luxury retailers.
o Large Foot Traffic: SCP has an estimated 20 million visitors per year, creating an environment where theft incidents can occur more frequently.
o Geographical Location: SCP is situated near major transportation routes and adjacent to densely populated areas.
o Historical Organized Retail Theft: SCP has experienced crimes committed by ORT Groups.

Some of the individuals of these
groups have been involved with transnational criminal organizations, organized criminal street gangs, gypsy groups and groups of teenage and young adults organizing via social media networks. 153
• DEPARTMENTAL LIMITATIONS: The existing personnel, technology, resources and strategies to combat organized retail theft, vehicle theft and vehicle accessory theft have proven insufficient in keeping pace with the evolving tactics employed by organized criminal networks.

City budget limitations and constraints has made it more difficult for Costa Mesa to properly fund and staff law enforcement efforts to combat ORT.
• COSTA MESA'S GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION AND ACCESSIBILITY: Our community's geographic location is situated within three major freeways (55, 405 and 73).

This accessibility creates challenges in
deterring and responding to these theft crimes. Criminal networks can easily access our area, commit thefts, and escape quickly out of our jurisdiction.
• PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EDUCATION:

As crime trends continue to
evolve, the public lacks knowledge on how to protect themselves from being victimized.

Retail personnel lack training on these
evolving crime trends and coordination with law enforcement. • AUTO THEFT AND AUTO ACCESSORY THEFT CRIME TRENDS:

Despite current efforts, auto theft and auto accessory theft continues to victimize our community at a high rate.

We recently employed a
License Plate Reader (LPR) program and have seen some
successes.

More funding in this area would enhance our ability to
suppress crime in Costa Mesa.

1.3 Relevant Qualitative and/or Quantitative Data:

ORGANIZED RETAIL THEFT: Over the decades, SCP has experienced the most organized retail theft in the City.

In 2007, Costa Mesa
detectives uncovered a large-scale Romanian Mafia crime ring committing fraud and theft utilizing a variety of phishing techniques, resulting in the loss of millions of dollars.

The investigation involved
numerous State and Federal law enforcement organizations and led to a 65-count indictment of 33 defendants. The investigation involved multiple countries and continued for another six years (2014) (USDOJ, 2008).

A recent audit of crimes at SCP reveal that from January 1 to June 30 2023, SCP had approximately 10 cases with links to ORT. The 10 separate cases had a total loss of approximately $85,000 and approximately 20 suspects.

From 2018 to 2022 compiled theft crimes
rose by 41% from 500 to 705.

The most glaring increase was in for
grand theft which rose 158% (97 to 251).

VEHICLE THEFT:

From 2018 to 2022, reported vehicle thefts rose by
approximately 26%, from 303 in 2018 and 410 in 2022. Over the past five years, 2021 had the highest rate of reported vehicle thefts with 454.

In February of 2022, Costa Mesa invested in an LPR program.

LPR have led to the arrest of 33 felons and the recovery of 28 stolen cars since its inception in February.

The estimated value of the
154
recovered stolen vehicles is well in excess of $500,000.

CATALYTIC CONVERTERS: Between 2018 and 2021, Costa Mesa saw an increase of 800%, from 37 (2018) to 345 (2021).

The 2022 theft
data shows a minor decrease to 197 catalytic converter thefts.

References
USDOJ. (2008). "33 Individuals in U.S. and Romania Indicted..." Central District, CA : United States Department of Justice, Release No. 08-066, Attorney Mark R. Aveis.

Project Description

2.1 Proposed project that will address the needs identified:

LICENSE PLATE READER PROGRAM:

As part of this grant, the Costa
Mesa Police Department (CMPD) plans to acquire license plate readers (LPR) to expand the department’s existing LPR program.

The
acquisition of additional LPR cameras will be strategically located along major interior city arteries and near retail centers to assist in the apprehension, prevention and investigation of stolen vehicles, vehicle accessory theft and organized retail theft.

GPS BAIT TAG OPERATIONS: GPS bait tags are attached to high- value items and enable remote tracking and monitoring. By strategically placing bait tags in targeted areas, law enforcement can gather intelligence on theft patterns, identify criminal networks, and pinpoint high-crime locations. CMPD will use the grant to purchase bait tag technology, high value bait that is commonly stolen and fund special enforcement operations targeting organized retail theft, vehicle theft and vehicle accessory theft.

ORT operations would utilize crime analysis information to determine the most effective days, times and locations, most probable for a theft linked to organized retail theft in order to deploy bait operations.

These operations would occur twice per month. Each operation would be approximately six-hours in duration.

Vehicle theft and vehicle accessory theft bait operations would also be planned based on current crime analysis to ensure the most effective deployment location, day and time.

In addition, high value
bait items that would qualify for grand theft, would also be used in vehicles and parked in retail parking lots or other locations.

These
operations would occur twice per month and would require three undercover officers, one uniformed officer and one supervisor.

This
strategy would be deployed once per month, and requires eight hours for each officer and supervisor involved in the operation.

SOUTH COAST PLAZA DIRECTED ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS:

SCP
has over 20 million visitors a year and has gross revenue of approximately 2 billion dollars.

The CMPD has established a SCP
Substation on sight and also designated specific personnel to the SCP Detail. Grant funding will be utilized to supplement staffing on an overtime basis:
• Ensure SCP Detail is staffed with a minimum of two officers working 155
seven days a week.

Based on current staffing, there are two
days a week that only have one officer providing police services for the SCP.

This would require up to 80 hours of overtime per
month.
• Conduct high visibility patrol of parking lots as a deterrent, to respond ORT and vehicle related crimes occurring on the exterior and provide immediate response to LPR notifications in the area of the
property to prevent crime.

This would require up to 80
hours of overtime per month for officers.
• Provide supplemental staffing during peak holidays or anytime an additional increase in patrons to the SCP is anticipated.

This
would require up to 800 hours of officer overtime per year.

RETAILER TRAINING PROGRAM:

CMPD will educate employees on
the current trends of ORT groups, ways to deter theft through customer service, observation skills in the event of theft and how to properly report thefts to assist with suspect identification and apprehension.

The training sessions would require overtime for two
officers totaling sixteen (16) hours per quarter; sixty-four (64) hours per year.

SUPPLEMENTAL TRAINING FOR CMPD PERSONNEL:

Utilizing grant
funds to supplement our ability to send personnel to more specialized training will assist us in our overall goal of reducing and apprehending ORT, vehicle theft and vehicle accessory theft criminals.

The classes we would utilize with grant funding would
include, but not be limited to:

ICI Fundamentals of Cyber Crime,
Vehicle Theft, ICI Real Estate Fraud Investigations, ICI Financial Crimes Course, ICI Identity Theft Investigations, ICI Burglary, Theft and Receiving Stolen Property, Rico and Money Laundering Investigations, Patrol Search Warrant, Advanced Search Warrants, Social Media Investigations, and Technology in Investigations.

The
total cost of the training classes, travel expenses and overtime to back fill attendance would not exceed $700,000 over the three-year grant period.

INVESTIGATIVE AND DATA ANALYTIC SOFTWARE:

Currently, CMPD
compiles data in numerous siloed programs that are unable to connect, including Computer Assisted Dispatch (CAD), Records Management Systems (RMS), Body Worn Cameras (BWC), LPR and many other programs.

All these programs are from different vendors
and unable to share data to be analyzed and viewed efficiently in criminal investigations.

The ability to easily share information and collaborate in real-time with neighboring law enforcement agencies is crucial as individuals and groups engaged in ORT often operate regionally. Modern
technologies are needed for crime analysts to proactively identify trends and patterns in ORT activity to better inform early intervention and prevention strategies.

The grant funding will be used to procure and field a modern data integration, analysis, and collaboration platform - a unified software 156
platform from which the department can run its coordinated strategic response to ORT. This software will also provide the tools to measure the impact of this grant. The data sources and measurement criteria put forth in this application can be monitored and allow CMPD to measure in real-time the impact of actions taken by the department.

With a unified platform, CMPD will have a flexible foundation that can be used to understand and combat other significant criminal activity beyond ORT, vehicle thefts and thefts of vehicle parts.

FACIAL RECOGNITION SOFTWARE:

Facial Recognition software will
assist CMPD’s efforts to identify known/unknown subjects committing ORT, auto theft and auto accessory theft. This software will be an important tool in furthering CMPD’s investigative efforts and sharing that data with our retail and law enforcement partners.

CELLULAR PHONE DIGITAL FORENSICS SYSTEM:

Cellular Phone
Digital Forensic Systems assist law enforcement with accessing information on a suspect’s cellular phone(s) and analyzing the large amounts of data that can be retained in these devices.

ORT criminals
utilize their phones to plan and coordinate criminal activity.

This tool
will assist us in identifying coconspirators and obtaining strong evidence for criminal prosecution.

2.2 Proposed Project’s Goals, Objectives and Impact:
• Decrease the number of reported organized retail theft incidents at South Coast Plaza. The goal is to achieve a 7% reduction in reported retail theft incidents within the grant period by implementing directed enforcement strategies based on best practices. • Increase awareness and education of organized retail theft among retail employees, and auto theft and auto accessory theft among the general public. The goal is to conduct up to ten (10) quarterly training sessions with local retailers, distribute educational materials to 1,000 individuals within the grant period and conduct a targeted public education campaign using social media with monthly posts (36).
• Utilize technology and expand officer training to improve investigative capabilities and apprehension rates related to organized
retail theft, auto theft and auto accessory theft cases.

The goal is to
increase arrest rates for the targeted crimes by 5%.

2.3 Rationale for the Proposed Activities:

Based on historical department experience and data:
• An increased uniformed police presence and the use of high visibility patrols has a direct impact on deterring crime in a given geographical location.

Increasing staffing levels for SCP Detail allows
for quicker response to ORT and other crimes occurring at SCP which gives CMPD a better opportunity to identify and arrest perpetrators.
• Utilizing training and best practices, personnel will be better educated and informed to complete comprehensive investigations 157
with better outcomes and convictions.
• Our retail partners lack organized and regular training on ORT trends and methods.

Also, due to high employee turnover, they
often do not know how to appropriately respond to crimes in progress to better assist law enforcement to make apprehensions and obtain evidence for investigations. By providing regular training, our retail partners become a force multiplier in our goal of preventing ORT and apprehending those involved.
• CMPD has significantly fallen behind in utilizing new technology due to years of budgetary challenges.

Grant funds will allow us
to seek out technology that has been used regularly with other law enforcement agencies with great success.

We will also be
expanding on LPR technology that our department has already utilized to make numerous arrests and recoveries of stolen property.

By expanding these programs, we anticipate that we will see additional success.

2.4 Surveillance Technology Policies:

CMPD does not currently have a surveillance technology policy, however we do have the following:

AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READER POLICY: The policy of the Costa Mesa Police Department is to utilize ALPR technology to capture and store digital license plate data and images while recognizing the established privacy rights of the public.

All data and
images gathered by the ALPR are for the official use of this department. Because such data may contain confidential
information, it is not open to public review.

If additional policies are
required by the grant, CMPD will institute the appropriate policy to ensure compliance with the law and this grant.

2.5 Costa Mesa Limit Racial Bias Policy:

The Costa Mesa Police Department is committed to providing law enforcement services to the community with due regard for the racial, cultural or other differences of those served. It is the policy of this department to provide law enforcement services and to enforce the law equally, fairly, objectively and without discrimination toward any individual or group.

Bias-based policing is strictly prohibited.

However, nothing in this
policy is intended to prohibit an officer from considering protected characteristics in combination with credible, timely and distinct information connecting a person or people of a specific characteristic to a specific unlawful incident, or to specific unlawful incidents, specific criminal patterns or specific schemes.

Project
Organizational
Capacity and
Coordination
The Costa Mesa Police Department has the requisite organizational capacity, experience, and commitment to effectively administer the proposed project for the Organized Retail Theft Grant. We are confident in our ability to execute the project within the specified timeline, and we have devised sustainable strategies to ensure the 158
project's continuation after the grant funds expire.

3.1 Ability to Administer the Proposed Project:

The Costa Mesa Police Department has a proven track record of successful project administration and management.

Our department
has successfully administered numerous state and federal grants, including Justice Assistance Grant Program (JAG), Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) and Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG), etc.

To ensure effective administration, we will establish a Project Coordinator with the organizational authority to provide the Organized Retail Theft Grant appropriate oversight.

The Project
Coordinator will oversee an ORT Grant Committee, that will be compiled with law enforcement managers, supervisors and specialists.

This committee will oversee all aspects of the project, including budgeting, procurement, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation.

IT Administrators will manage equipment contracts,
hardware, licenses, software and connectivity.

Crime Analysts will
analyze and track associated data and crime trends.

Detectives and
SCP supervision will track and monitor resource allocation.

Community Policing Unit will manage LPR and the Bait Programs.

The
Public Affairs team will engage with retailers and the community.

The
above-mentioned positions already exist and are not grant dependent.

3.2 Coordination with other Agencies:

Our proposal does not require organized coordination with outside agencies.

3.3 Timeline for Execution and Management Structure:

The proposed project will be executed over a period from October 1, 2023 to June 1, 2027. Our timeline for project implementation is as follows:
• October 1, 2023 to April 1, 2024: Project preparation, procurement, training, and program design.
• January 1, 2024 to December 31, 2026:

Implement all activities
related to grant goals.
• January 1, 2027 to June 1, 2027:

Analyze final data and submit final
report.

3.4 Management Structure and Decision-Making Process:

To ensure efficient management and coordination, we will adopt a hierarchical management structure with clear lines of authority and responsibility. The project will be overseen by a Project Director (Captain) who will provide overall guidance and strategic direction.

The Project Coordinator will oversee the ORT Grant Committee, that will be compiled with the previously mentioned law enforcement managers, supervisors and specialists who will handle specific 159
components of the project. The committee will meet regularly to review progress, provide guidance, and make key decisions regarding project implementation.

3.5 Plans to Sustain the Proposed Project After Grant Funding Expires:

We recognize the importance of ensuring the long-term sustainability of the proposed project beyond the grant period. We will proactively seek alternative funding sources to sustain the projects initiated by the grant.

This will include expanding personnel dedicated to the SCP Detail.

Our current staffing levels are below budgeted levels and during the duration of this grant, we hope to hire to full staffing levels, allowing us to fill needed positions including SCP Detail.

To sustain the on-going cost of the proposed projects, we plan to utilize numerous options including; Asset Forfeiture funding, other grants, reallocate current budget funding from antiquated programs that are no long necessary/needed and solicit additional funding from city leaders based on the grants impacts on crime reduction.

Project Evaluation
and Monitoring

4.1 Qualified External Entity for Project Evaluation:

The ORT Grant Committee will select a qualified internal and/or external partner, possibly California State University Fullerton Social Science Research Center, to evaluate our program and goals.

The
ORT Grant committee will meet monthly to review the various phases of the project, (e.g., start-up, implementation, service delivery period), to ensure proper oversight and project administration.

4.2 Quantifiable Process Measures and Outcome Measures:

To ensure a comprehensive evaluation, we will establish quantifiable process measures and outcome measures aligned with our program objectives. Examples of these measures include:
• Provide surveys to retail partners attending ORT training to rate and assess the benefits of the training.
• Compile spreadsheet data on where, when and the number of educational materials distributed to the public
• Compile spreadsheet tracking targeted public education social media posts
• Increase arrest rates by 5% for retail theft, auto theft and auto accessory theft
• Achieve a 7% reduction in reported retail theft incidents within the grant period by implementing directed enforcement strategies based on best practices

4.3 Preliminary Plan for Monitoring Project Implementation:

The Project Director will oversee an ORT Grant Committee, that will be compiled with law enforcement managers, supervisors and specialists who will handle specific components of the project. The committee will meet regularly to ensure that the project is being 160
implemented as intended.

The ORT Grant Committee will maintain
and manage a timely status report which will be available upon request.

4.4 Preliminary Plan for Data Collection and Evaluation:

The Crime Analysts, within the ORT Grant Committee, will determine the baseline data for metrics associated to the process and outcome measures.

The Crime Analysts will ensure that data is collected and reviewed on a timely basis for the Committee to consider adjustments to strategies and program implementation as needed to meet overall goals.

At the conclusion of the grant, an unaffiliated
unbiased public/private entity will be utilized to evaluate data and outcomes related to our goals.

4.5 Research Design or Methodology for Assessing Project Outcomes:

The long-term viability of all requested technology is sufficient enough to ensure its use will far exceed the grant period.

Technology
such as LPR and bait tags have been used for years by law enforcement agencies and hardware/software is continually upgraded by reliable vendors.

Each goal listed on the project work
plan will be monitored and evaluated throughout the grant period by the ORT Grant Committee.

Currently, the CMPD’s LPR and BAIT
programs are evaluated and reported on weekly.

As with other grants
administered by our agency, real-time performance measures such as crime stats, associated arrests, and resource allocation will be developed to track and compile usable data into a weekly report available to appropriate persons or committees upon request.

Data
collection will be conducted by CMPD’s Crime Analyst and shared with the ORT Grant Committee and internal/external stakeholders with the right to know.

The ORT Grant Committee will analyze qualitative
and quantitative date to ensure resource allocation is achieving the desired results.

A reduction in thefts related to organized crime rings
would be an example of quantitative data that would be tracked by the committee.

The same holds true for vehicle thefts and vehicle
accessory thefts.

Budget Instructions
Applicants are required to submit a Proposal Budget and Budget Narrative (Budget Attachment). Upon submission the Budget Attachment will become Section 5: Budget (Budget Tables & Narrative) making up part of the official proposal. The Budget Attachment must be filled out completely and accurately. Applicants are solely responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the information entered in the Proposal Budget and Budget Narrative.

The Proposal Budget must cover the entire grant period. For additional guidance related to grant budgets, refer to the BSCC Grant Administration Guide. The Budget Attachment is provided as a stand-alone document on the BSCC website.

Budget Attachment
ORT-Grant-Program-Budget-Attachment_Costa_Mesa_Police_Department.xlsx 161

SECTION V -

ATTACHMENTS
This section list the attachments that are required at the time of submission, unless otherwise noted. Project Work Plan (Appendix B) - Mandatory Grantee Assurance for Non-Governmental Organizations (Appendix D) - Mandatory Local Impact Letter(s) (Appendix E) - Mandatory Letter(s) of Commitment (Appendix F) - If Applicable Policies Limiting Racial Bias - Refer to page 9 of the Proposal Instruction Packet - Mandatory Policies on Surveillance Technology - Refer to page 9 of the Proposal Instruction Packet - If Applicable Certification of Compliance with BSCC Policies on Debarment, Fraud, Theft, and Embezzlement (Appendix G) - Mandatory Governing Board Resolution (Appendix H) - Optional
Project Work Plan (Appendix B)
Project-Work-Plan-ORT_Costa_Mesa_Police_Department.docx Grantee Assurance for Non-Governmental Organizations (Appendix D) Non-Governmental_Organization_Assurance_Costa_Mesa_Police_Department.pdf Local Impact Letter(s) (Appendix E)
Local_Impact_Letter_Costa_Mesa_Police_Department.pdf
Letter(s) of
Commitment,
(Appendix F)
n/a
Policies Limiting Racial Bias
Bias-Based_Policing.pdf
Policies on Surveillance Technology
Automated_License_Plate_Readers__ALPRs_.pdf
Certification of Compliance with BSCC Policies on Debarment, Fraud, Theft, and Embezzlement (Appendix G)
Appendix_G_Certification_of_Compliance_Costa_Mesa_Police_Department.pdf OPTIONAL:

Governing Board
Resolution (Appendix
H)
n/a
OPTIONAL:

Bibliography
n/a

CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE:

All documents submitted as a part of the Organized Retail Theft Prevention Grant Program proposal are public documents and may be subject to a request pursuant to the California Public Records Act.

The BSCC cannot ensure the confidentiality of any information submitted in or with this proposal. (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.) 162
Organized Retail Theft Prevention Grant Program

Applicants must complete a Project Work Plan. This Project Work Plan identifies measurable goals and objectives, process and outcome measures, activities and services, responsible parties for those activities and services, data sources and estimated timelines. Completed plans should (1) identify the project’s top goals and objectives; (2) identify how the goal(s) will be achieved in terms of the activities, responsible staff/partners, and start and end dates, process and outcome measures; and (3) provide goals and objectives with a clear relationship to the need and intent of the grant. As this grant term is for three (3) years, the Project Work Plan must attempt to identify activities/services and estimate timelines for the entire grant term. A minimum of one goal and corresponding objectives, process measures, etc. must be identified.

Applicants must use the Project Work Plan provided below. You will be prompted to upload this document to the BSCC-Submittable Application.

(1) Goal: Reduce the number of reported cases of organized retail theft incidents at South Coast Plaza.

Objectives (A., B., etc.) Implement comprehensive measures to significantly reduce the frequency of documented incidents related to organized retail theft at South Coast Plaza.

Process Measures and
Outcome Measures:

Achieve a 7% reduction in reported retail theft incidents within the grant period by implementing directed enforcement strategies based on best practices.

Project activities that support the identified goal and objectives: Responsible staff/partners Timeline Start Date End Date
• Staff South Coast Plaza Detail with a minimum of two officers working seven days a week. Based on current staffing, there are two days a week that only have one officer providing police services for the South Coast Plaza. This would require up to 80 hour s of overtime per month for officers.
• Conduct high visibility patrol of parking lots as a deterrent, respond to vehicle related crimes occurring on the exterior of the plaza and provide immediate response to FLOCK LPR notifications within the Plaza’s property to prevent crime.

Sergeant Joshua Kuo 11/1/2023 12/31/2026
Appendix B: Project Work Plan
163
Organized Retail Theft Prevention Grant Program

• Provide supplemental staffing during peak holidays or anytime an additional increase in patrons to the South Coast Plaza is anticipated. This would require up to 800 hours of officer overtime per year.

List data and sources to be used to measure outcomes:

RMS crime data

(2) Goal: Increase awareness and education of organized retail theft among retail employees, and auto theft and auto accessory theft among the general public
Objectives (A., B., etc.) Implementing comprehensive programs and initiatives aimed at educating retail employees on effective prevention strategies against organized retail theft, as well as providing the general public with valuable information and resources to protect themselves against auto theft and auto accessory theft.

Process Measures and
Outcome Measures:

Conduct up to ten (10) quarterly training sessions with local retailers.

Distribute educational materials to 1,000 individuals within the grant period.

Conduct a targeted public education campaign using social media with monthly posts (36).

Project activities that support the identified goal and objectives: Responsible staff/partners Timeline Start Date End Date
• Conduct quarterly training sessions for our retail partners to educate employees on the current trends of organized retail theft groups, ways to deter theft through customer service, observation skills in the event of theft, and how to properly report thefts to assist with suspect identification and apprehension. The grant will allocate 64 hours of overtime per year toward this goal.
• Design and print related public education materials to increase awareness and vigilance of auto theft and auto accessory theft.

Distribute educational materials in public events and by other Sergeant Joshua Kuo 1/1/2024 12/31/2026
164
Organized Retail Theft Prevention Grant Program

means. Grant costs associated for design, printing and personnel costs for distribution.
• • Conduct a targeted social media campaign to educate the public about ORT, vehicle theft and vehicle accessory theft.

Grant would fund overtime personnel costs to create campaign and monthly posts five hours a month for an officer.

List data and sources to be used to measure outcomes:
• Spreadsheet created to track distribution of educational materials and social media posts. • Conduct post training surveys of retail employees to determine benefits.

(3) Goal: Combine advanced technologies with well-trained personnel to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of investigations and ultimately leading to higher apprehension rates and a safer community.

Objectives (A., B., etc.) Utilize technology and expand officer training to improve investigative capabilities and apprehension rates related to organized retail theft, auto theft and auto accessory theft cases.

Process Measures and
Outcome Measures:

Increase arrest rates by 5% for retail theft, auto theft and auto accessory theft.

Project activities that support the identified goal and objectives: Responsible staff/partners Timeline Start Date End Date
• Expand existing license plate reader program from 31 cameras to 46 and strategically deploy them along major interior city arteries and near retail centers to assist in apprehension, prevention and investigation of both stolen vehicles and organized retail theft.
• BAIT program – Expand existing BAIT program, by o btaining additional GPS tracking tags and high-end bait items. Conduct Lt. David Casarez

1/1/2024 12/31/2026
165
Organized Retail Theft Prevention Grant Program

directed enforcement operations BAIT operations targeting ORT, vehicle theft and vehicle accessory theft.
• Data analytic software - procure a modern data integration, analysis, and coll aboration platform that will enable all roles within CMPD to better utilize data to tackle ORT activity. • Supplemental training program – Send officers to trainings such as vehicle theft, financial crimes courses, identity theft investigations, burglary theft courses, and basic search warrant courses to allow officers and investigators to expand their knowledge of current crime trends and their effectiveness. • Facial recognition software – procure a facial recognition software to assist law enforcement in ide ntifying and arresting suspects connected to organized theft rings and share suspect information with retail partners in an effort to prevent crime. • Cellular phone digital forensics system – procure a cellular phone digital system to assist with analyzing the large amounts of data that can be retained in cellular devi ces to identify and prosecute ORT groups.

List data and sources to be used to measure outcomes:
• RMS crime/arrest data
• Conduct training surveys to measure effectiveness

166
Total
$2,523,958.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$75,000.00
$804,175.00
$0.00
$115,000.00
$0.00
$3,518,133.00
Total
$1,679,518.00
$240,563.00
$48,877.00
$555,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,523,958.00
Total
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
2b. Services and Supplies Narrative:

TOTAL
Description of Services or Supplies Calculation for Expenditure Enter narrative here. You may expand cell height if needed.

TOTAL
Organized Retail Theft Prevention Grant Program - Project Budget and Budget Narrative 44-Month Budget: October 1, 2023 to June 1, 2027
Costa Mesa Police Department
2a. Services and Supplies
Name of Applicant:
(i.e., County Sheriff's Office, County Probation Department, or City Police Department) Budget Line Item
Note: Rows 7-16 will auto-populate based on the information entered in the budget line items (Salaries and Benefits, Services and Supplies, etc.) Estimated at 144 hours/year (432 hours for three years) at $113.14/hour Police Officer Overtime (Training Backfill)

1. Salaries & Benefits

4. Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Subcontracts

6. Equipment/Fixed Assets

7. Financial Audit (Up to $25,000)

8. Other (Travel, Training, etc.)
1a. Salaries & Benefits
Description of Salaries & Benefits (% FTE or Hourly Rate) & Benefits Police Officer Overtime (South Coast Plaza) Estimated at 6032 hours/year (18,096 hours for three years) at $92.81/hour Police Officer Overtime (Bait Operation ) Estimated at 864 hours/year (2,592 hours for three years) at $92.81/hour Police Sergeant Overtime (Bait Operation)

2. Services and Supplies

3. Professional Services or Public Agencies

5. Data Collection and Evaluation

9. Indirect Costs
Estimated at 5970 hours (for three years) at $92.81/hour TOTAL
1b. Salaries & Benefits Narrative:

Police Officers and Sergeants will work overtime to ensure the following: South Coast Plaza Detail is staffed with a minimum of two officers working seven days a week; conduct high visibility patrol of parking lots as a deterrent; respond to vehicle related crimes occurring on the exterior of the plaza; provide immediate response to LPR notifications within the Plaza’s property to prevent crime; provide supplemental staffing during peak holidays or anytime an additional increase in patrons to the South Coast Plaza is anticipated; increase investigative staffing to pursue ORTs suspects and syndicates that frequently victimize the South Coast Plaza; various ORT operations for the bait program; and backfill attendees for specialized trainings. 167
Description of Professional Service(s) Total
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
3b. Professional Services Narrative
Total
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Total
$75,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$75,000.00
Description of Equipment/Fixed Assets
Total
$351,000.00Estimated at $117,000 per year for three years Calculation for Expenditure
TOTAL
Enter narrative here. You may expand cell height if needed. 6a. Equipment/Fixed Assets
Calculation for Expense
3a. Professional Services
Data Analytic Software
5a. Data Collection and Evaluation
Calculation for Expense
TOTALS
4b. Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Subcontracts Narrative Enter narrative here. You may expand cell height if needed.

Description of Non-Governmental Organization
(NGO) Subcontracts
Description of Data Collection and Evaluation
Data Collection and Evaluation by Outside Vendor Minimum amount required by grant 5b. Data Collection and Evaluation Narrative
The Costa Mesa Police Department plans to leverage the expertise of an outside vendor for the local evaluation plan and report. This will ensure an objective and comprehensive assessment of the data collected, providing valuable insights and recommendations. 4a. Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Subcontracts
Calculation for Expense
TOTALS
168
$50,000.00
$250,000.00
$140,000.00
$10,000.00
$3,175.00
$0.00
$0.00
$804,175.00
Total
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Total
$115,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$115,000.00
Grant Funds Total
$0 $0
$0
The Costa Mesa Police Department (CMPD) plans to utilize the grant funds to acquire various equipment and technologies. These resources will enhance the department's capabilities in data analytics, digital forensics, surveillance, and tracking. By investing in these equipment and technologies, CMPD aims to strengthen its investigative capabilities, enhance surveillance efforts, and employ advanced data analytics to combat organized retail thefts, vehicle thefts and vehicle accessories thefts effectively. These resources will assist in identifying criminals, recovering stolen property, and ultimately ensuring the safety and security of the community.

License Plate Reader Cameras
Misc. Bait Items
Estimated at $82,000/year for three years
GPS Trackers
15 cameras Year 1 (includes implementation fee): $49,750; Year 2: $45,000; Year 3: $45,000 10 misc. bait items worth up to $1000 each
5 GPS trackers at $635.00 each
Cellular Phone Digital Forensics System
TOTALS
6b. Equipment/Fixed Assets Narrative
Estimated at $16,500/year for three yearsFacial Recognition Software 8a.Other (Travel, Training, etc.)
Description Calculation for Expense
Misc. Training Courses Officers will attend 128 courses, to be trained on various courses related to ORT - calcuation includes travel and lodging expenses
7a.Financial Audit
Description Calculation for Expense
For this grant program, indirect costs may be charged using only one of the two options below:
1) Indirect costs not to exceed 10 percent (10%) of the total grant award. Applicable if the organization does not have a federally approved indirect cost rate.

If using Option 1) grant funds allocated to Indirect Costs may not exceed:

TOTAL
7b. Financial Audit) Narrative:

Enter narrative here. You may expand cell height if needed. 9a. Indirect Costs
8b. Other (Travel, Training, etc.) Narrative:

The grant funds will be used to send personnel to more specialized training and assist in overall goal of reducing and apprehending ORT, vehicle theft and vehicle accessory theft criminals. The classes would include, but not be limited to: ICI Fundamentals of Cyber Crime, Vehicle Theft, ICI Real Estate Fraud Investigations, ICI Financial Crimes Course, ICI Identity Theft Investigations, ICI Burglary, Theft and Receiving Stolen Property, Rico and Money Laundering Investigations, Patrol Search Warrant, Advanced Search Warrants, Social Media Investigations, and Technology in Investigations. The total calculation includes training classes and travel expenses over the three-year grant period.

BURGLARY COURSE (ICI) $20,512.00
REAL ESTATE FRAUD INVESTIGATIONS (ICI) $7,692.00
IDENTITY THEFT INVESTIGATION (ICI) $12,820.00
VEHICLE THEFT INVESTIGATION (ICI) $18,684.00
FINANCIAL CRIMES INVESTIGATIONS (ICI) $20,512.00
ICI FUNDAMENTALS OF CYBERCRIME COURSE $25,640.00
RICO AND MONEY LAUNDERING INVESTIGATION $1,200.00
PATROL SEARCH WARRANT $3,750.00
ADVANCED SEARCH WARRANT $3,600.00
TOTAL
169
$0
$0
TOTAL $0 $0
9b. Indirect Costs Narrative:

Enter narrative here. You may expand cell height if needed. If using a federally approved indirect cost rate, please include the rate in the narrative.

Please see instructions tab for additional information regarding Indirect Costs. If the amount exceeds the maximum allowed and/or turns red , please adjust it to not exceed the line-item noted.
2) Indirect costs not to exceed 20 percent (20%) of the total grant award. Applicable if the organization has a federally approved indirect cost rate. Amount claimed may not exceed the organization's federally approved indirect cost rate.

If using Option 2) grant funds allocated to Indirect Costs may not exceed:
170
171
Policy
401
Costa Mesa Police Department
Law Enforcement Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/07/05, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Costa Mesa Police Department ***DRAFT*** Bias-Based Policing - 1 Bias-Based Policing
401.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This policy provides guidance to department members that affirms the Costa Mesa Police Department's commitment to policing that is fair and objective.

Nothing in this policy prohibits the use of specified characteristics in law enforcement activities designed to strengthen the department's relationship with its diverse communities (e.g., cultural and ethnicity awareness training, youth programs, community group outreach, partnerships). 401.1.1 DEFINITIONS
Definitions related to this policy include:

Bias-based policing - An inappropriate reliance on actual or perceived characteristics such as race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, economic status, age, cultural group, disability, or affiliation with any non-criminal group (protected characteristics) as the basis for providing differing law enforcement service or enforcement (Penal Code § 13519.4).
401.2 POLICY
The Costa Mesa Police Department is committed to providing law enforcement services to the community with due regard for the racial, cultural or other differences of those served. It is the policy of this department to provide law enforcement services and to enforce the law equally, fairly, objectively and without discrimination toward any individual or group. 401.3 BIAS-BASED POLICING PROHIBITED
Bias-based policing is strictly prohibited.

However, nothing in this policy is intended to prohibit an officer from considering protected characteristics in combination with credible, timely and distinct information connecting a person or people of a specific characteristic to a specific unlawful incident, or to specific unlawful incidents, specific criminal patterns or specific schemes.
401.3.1 CALIFORNIA RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT
Members shall not collect information from a person based on religious belief, practice, affiliation, national origin or ethnicity unless permitted under state or federal law (Government Code § 8310.3).

Members shall not assist federal government authorities (Government Code § 8310.3):
(a) In compiling personal information about a person’s religious belief, practice, affiliation, national origin or ethnicity.
(b) By investigating, enforcing or assisting with the investigation or enforcement of any requirement that a person register with the federal government based on religious belief, practice, or affiliation, or national origin or ethnicity. 172
Costa Mesa Police Department
Law Enforcement Policy Manual
Bias-Based Policing
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/07/05, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Costa Mesa Police Department ***DRAFT*** Bias-Based Policing - 2 401.4 MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES
Every member of this department shall perform his/her duties in a fair and objective manner and is responsible for promptly reporting any suspected or known instances of bias-based policing to a supervisor. Members should, when reasonable to do so, intervene to prevent any biased-based actions by another member.
401.4.1 REPORTING OF STOPS
Officers contacting a person shall be prepared to articulate sufficient reason for the contact, independent of the protected characteristics of the individual.

To the extent that written documentation would otherwise be completed (e.g., arrest report, field interview (FI) card), the involved officer should include those facts giving rise to the contact, as applicabl
Unless an exception applies under 11 CCR 999.227, an officer conducting a stop of a person shall collect the data elements required by 11 CCR 999.227 for every person stopped and prepare a stop data report. When multiple officers conduct a stop, the officer with the highest level of engagement with the person shall collect the dat elements and prepare the report (11 CCR 999.227).

If multiple agencies are involved in a stop and the Costa Mesa Police Department is the primary agency, the Costa Mesa Police Department officer shall collect the data elements and prepare the stop data report (11 CCR 999.227).

The stop data report should be completed by the end of the officer's shift or as soon as practicable (11 CCR 999.227).
401.5 SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITIES
Supervisors should monitor those individuals under their command for compliance with this policy and shall handle any alleged or observed violations in accordance with the Personnel Complaints Policy.
(a) Supervisors should discuss any issues with the involved officer and his/her supervisor in a timely manner.

1. Supervisors should document these discussions, in the prescribed manner. (b) Supervisors should periodically review audio and/or video recordings, Mobile Digital Computer (MDC) data and any other available resource used to document contact between officers and the public to ensure compliance with the policy.

1. Supervisors should document these periodic reviews.

2. Recordings or data that capture a potential instance of bias-based policing should be appropriately retained for administrative investigation purposes. (c) Supervisors shall initiate investigations of any actual or alleged violations of this policy. 173
Costa Mesa Police Department
Law Enforcement Policy Manual
Bias-Based Policing
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/07/05, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Costa Mesa Police Department ***DRAFT*** Bias-Based Policing - 3 (d) Supervisors should take prompt and reasonable steps to address any retaliatory action taken against any member of this department who discloses information concerning bias-based policing.
401.6 TRAINING
Training on fair and objective policing and review of this policy should be conducted as directed by the Training Bureau.
(a) All sworn members of this department will be scheduled to attend Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST)-approved training on the subject of bias-based policing.
(b) Pending participation in such POST-approved training and at all times, all members of this department are encouraged to familiarize themselves with and consider racial and cultural differences among members of this community. (c) Each sworn member of this department who received initial bias-based policing training will thereafter be required to complete an approved refresher course every five years, or sooner if deemed necessary, in order to keep current with changing racial, identity and cultural trends (Penal Code § 13519.4(i)). 401.7 REPORTING TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
The Professional Standards Bureau Lieutenant shall ensure that all data required by the California Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding complaints of racial bias against officers is collected and provided to the Records Administrator for required reporting to the DOJ (Penal Code § 13012; Penal Code § 13020). See the Records Bureau Policy.

Supervisors should ensure that data stop reports are provided to the Records Administrator for required annual reporting to the DOJ (Government Code § 12525.5) (See Records Bureau Policy). 174
Policy
429
Costa Mesa Police Department
Law Enforcement Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/07/05, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Costa Mesa Police Department ***DRAFT*** Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) - 1 Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs)
429.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidance for the capture, storage and use of digital data obtained through the use of Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) technology. 429.2 POLICY
The policy of the Costa Mesa Police Department is to utilize ALPR technology to capture and store digital license plate data and images while recognizing the established privacy rights of the public.

All data and images gathered by the ALPR are for the official use of this department. Because such data may contain confidential information, it is not open to public review. 429.3 ADMINISTRATION
The ALPR technology, also known as License Plate Recognition (LPR), allows for the automated detection of license plates. It is used by the Costa Mesa Police Department to convert data associated with vehicle license plates for official law enforcement purposes, including identifying stolen or wanted vehicles, stolen license plates and missing persons. It may also be used to gather information related to active warrants, homeland security, electronic surveillance, suspect interdiction and stolen property recovery.

All installation and maintenance of ALPR equipment, as well as ALPR data retention and access, shall be managed by the Administrative Lieutenant who will work with Division Commanders to assign members of both Support Services and Operations Divisions to administer the day-to-day operation of the ALPR equipment and data.
429.4 OPERATIONS
Use of an ALPR is restricted to the purposes outlined below. Department members shall not use, or allow others to use the equipment or database records for any unauthorized purpose (Civil Code § 1798.90.51; Civil Code § 1798.90.53).
(a) An ALPR shall only be used for official law enforcement business. (b) An ALPR may be used in conjunction with any routine patrol operation or criminal investigation. Reasonable suspicion or probable cause is not required before using an ALPR.
(c) While an ALPR may be used to canvass license plates around any crime scene, particular consideration should be given to using ALPR-equipped cars to canvass areas around homicides, shootings and other major incidents. Partial license plates reported during major crimes should be entered into the ALPR system in an attempt to identify suspect vehicles.
175
Costa Mesa Police Department
Law Enforcement Policy Manual
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs)
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/07/05, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Costa Mesa Police Department ***DRAFT*** Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) - 2 (d) No member of this department shall operate ALPR equipment or access ALPR data without first completing department-approved training.
(e) No ALPR operator may access department, state or federal data unless otherwise authorized to do so.
(f) If practicable, the officer should verify an ALPR response through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) before taking enforcement action that is based solely on an ALPR alert.
429.5 DATA COLLECTION AND RETENTION
All data and images gathered by an ALPR are for the official use of the Costa Mesa Police Department and because such data may contain confidential CLETS information, it is not open to public review. ALPR information gathered and retained by this department may be used and shared with prosecutors or others only as permitted by law.

All ALPR data downloaded to the server should be stored for a minimum of one year (Government Code § 34090.6) and in accordance with the established records retention schedule. Thereafter, ALPR data should be purged unless it has become, or it is reasonable to believe it will become, evidence in a criminal or civil action or is subject to a discovery request or other lawful action to produce records. In those circumstances the applicable data should be downloaded from the server onto portable media and booked into evidence. 429.6 ACCOUNTABILITY
All data will be closely safeguarded and protected by both procedural and technological means.

The Costa Mesa Police Department will observe the following safeguards regarding access to and use of stored data (Civil Code § 1798.90.51; Civil Code § 1798.90.53):
(a) All ALPR data downloaded to the mobile workstation and in storage shall be accessible only through a login/password-protected system capable of documenting all access of information by name, date and time (Civil Code § 1798.90.52). (b) Members approved to access ALPR data under these guidelines are permitted to access the data for legitimate law enforcement purposes only, such as when the data relate to a specific criminal investigation or department-related civil or administrative action.
(c) ALPR system audits should be conducted on a regular basis.

For security or data breaches, see the Records Release and Maintenance Policy. 429.7 RELEASING ALPR DATA
The ALPR data may be shared only with other law enforcement or prosecutorial agencies for official law enforcement purposes or as otherwise permitted by law. 176
Costa Mesa Police Department
Law Enforcement Policy Manual
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs)
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/07/05, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Costa Mesa Police Department ***DRAFT*** Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) - 3 Requests for ALPR data by non-law enforcement or non-prosecutorial agencies will be processed as provided in the Records Maintenance and Release Policy (Civil Code § 1798.90.55). 429.8 TRAINING
The Training Manager should ensure that members receive department-approved training for those authorized to use or access the ALPR system (Civil Code § 1798.90.51; Civil Code § 1798.90.53).
177
Costa Mesa PD
BSCC 1149-23

APPENDIX A: Organized Retail Theft Grant Program Scoring Panel Roster Name Title Organization / Agency
1 Ryan Allain Director Government Affairs, California Retailers Association
2 Chesa Boudin Executive Director Criminal Law & Justice Center – UC Berkeley School of Law
3 Michelle Brown Retired Chief Probation Officer San Bernardino County 4 Derek Casebeer Chief Deputy Sacramento County Probation Department
5 Tracie Cone Public Information Officer Board of State and Community Corrections
6 Jason Craven Officer CA Highway Patrol Organized Retail Crime Task Force & Sacramento County
Auto Theft Suppression Task Force
7 Jason Daughrity Retired CHP Captain Commander of Field Support Section 8 Sandra Dinong Associate Governmental Program
Analyst
Board of State and Community
Corrections
9 Evonne Garner Retired Deputy Director Board of State and Community Corrections
10 Mary Jolls Retired Deputy Director Board of State and Community Corrections
11 Nicole Kirkaldy Restorative Justice and Diversion
Program Director
Yolo County District Attorney's Office
12 Mercedes Morales Associate Governmental Program
Analyst
Board of State and Community
Corrections
13 Ryan Okimura Staff Services Manager I Board of State and Community Corrections
14 Nancy O’Malley Retired District Attorney Alameda County

15 Chelsea Paez Staff Services Manager I Board of State and Community Corrections
16 Bao Phan Associate Governmental Program
Analyst
Board of State and Community
Corrections
17 Rodney Rego Captain Elk Grove Police Department
18 Michelle Solorzano Sr. Project Manager City of El Monte 19 Ashley Taylor Associate Governmental Program
Analyst
Board of State and Community
Corrections
20 Eric Taylor Sheriff San Benito County

178
Costa Mesa PD
BSCC 1149-23

APPENDIX B: Grantee Assurance for Non-Governmental Organizations The Organized Retail Theft Grant Program Request for Proposals (RFP) includes requirements that apply to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) 1 providing services with grant funds. Grantees are responsible for ensuring that all contracted third parties continually meet these requirements as a condition of receiving funds. The RFP describes these requirements as follows:

Any non-governmental organization that receives Organized Retail Theft Grant Program Grant funds (as either a subgrantee or subcontractor) must:
• Have been duly organized, in existence, and in good standing for at least six (6) months prior to the effective date of its fiscal agreement with the BSCC or with the Organized Retail Theft Grant Program grantee;
o Non-governmental entities that have recently reorganized or have merged with other qualified non-governmental entities that were in existence prior to the six (6) month date are also eligible, provided all necessary agreements have been executed and filed with the California Secretary of State prior to the start date of the grant agreement with the BSCC or the start date of the grantee subcontractor fiscal agreement; • Be registered with the California Secretary of State’s Office, if applicable; • Have a valid Employer Identification Number (EIN) or Taxpayer ID (if sole proprietorship); • Have a valid business license, if applicable;
• Have no outstanding civil judgments or liens;
• Have any other state or local licenses or certifications necessary to provide the services requested (e.g., facility licensing by the Department of Health Care Services), if applicable; and • Have a physical address within California. (An agent for service of process with a California address is insufficient.)

Completing the NGO Assurance (Following Page)

1. Provide the name of the Applicant Agency (the Grantee),

2. List all contracted parties (if known),

3. Check Yes or No to indicate if each contracted part meets the requirements

4. Sign and Submit to the BSCC

NOTE: If the name of the contracted party is unknown or if there will be no contracted parties. Write N/A in the “Name of Contracted Party” field and sign the document.

1 For the purposes of this RFP, NGOs include nonprofit and for-profit community-based organizations, faith-based organizations, evaluators (except government institutions such as universities), grant management companies, and any other non-governmental agency or individual. 179
Costa Mesa PD
BSCC 1149-23

APPENDIX B: Grantee Assurance for Non-Governmental Organizations

Provide your agency name and in the table list information for all contracted parties.

Grantee:

*Grantees are required to update this list and submit it to BSCC any time a new third- party contract is executed after the initial assurance date. Grantees shall retain (on-site) applicable source documentation for each contracted party that verifies compliance with the requirements listed in the RFP. The BSCC will not reimburse for costs incurred by any third party that does not meet the requirements listed above and for which the BSCC does not have a signed grantee assurance on file.

A signature below is an assurance that all requirements listed above have been met.

AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE
(This document must be signed by the person who is authorized to sign the Grant Agreement.)

NAME OF AUTHORIZED OFFICER TITLE TELEPHONE NUMBER

STREET ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE

EMAIL ADDRESS

SIGNATURE DATE
X

Name of Contracted Party Address Email / Phone Meets All Requirements
Yes ☐ No ☐
Yes ☐ No ☐
Yes ☐ No ☐
Yes ☐ No ☐
Yes ☐ No ☐
180
Resolution No. 2023-xx Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-xx

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

CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE ORGANIZED RETAIL THEFT

PREVENTION GRANT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR

HER DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE ALL GRANT DOCUMENTS, AND ACCEPT AND

ADMINISTER THE GRANT
W
HEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa desires to participate in the Organized Retai l Theft Prevention Grant Program funded through the State Budget Act and administered by the Board of State and Community Corrections (hereafter referred to as the BSCC).

N
OW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chief of Police be authorized on behalf of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa to submit the grant proposal for this funding and sign the Grant Agreement with the BSCC, including any amendments thereof.

B
E IT FURTHER RESOLVED that grant funds received hereunder shall not be used to supplant expenditures controlled by this body.

B
E IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of the Grant Agreement as set forth by the BSCC.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of October, 2023.

J
ohn Stephens, Mayor
AT
TEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Brenda Green, City Clerk Kimberly Hall Barlow, City Attorney ATTACHMENT 2
181
Resolution No. 2023-xx Page 2 of 2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss

CITY OF COSTA MESA )

I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2023- xx and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 17th day of October, 2023, by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 17th day of October, 2023.

Brenda Green, City Clerk
182

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 23-1408 Meeting Date: 10/17/2023
TITLE:

RESPONSE TO THE GRAND JURY REPORT TITLED “WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD- ARE CITIES RESPONSIBLY MANAGING THE INTEGRATION OF GROUP HOMES?” DEPARTMENT: ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

DEPARTMENT/COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DIVISION
PRESENTED BY: JENNIFER LE, ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

DIRECTOR
CONTACT INFORMATION: KATIE ANGEL, SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST, 714-754- 5618
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Approve the attached response to the 2022-23 Orange County Grand Jury Report, “Welcome to the Neighborhood- Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes?”

2. Authorize the Mayor to submit the response to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05 (a) and (b).

BACKGROUND:

On June 12, 2023, the Orange County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) published a report titled “Welcometo the Neighborhood: Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes?”(Attachment 1).

The Grand Jury reviewed the challenges associated with successfully integrating group homes into neighborhoods and interviewed numerous subject matter experts, including state and local officials.

To better understand the impacts of group homes, jurors attended town halls and City Council meetings in multiple jurisdictions and visited neighborhoods in several cities where there is a heavy concentration of group homes. Additionally, the Grand Jury evaluated numerous official documents including the 2022 State of California Department of Housing and Community Development’s“Group Home Technical Advisory” and the 1990 State of California Health and Safety Code.

California Penal Code Section 933 requires the governing bodies of the public agencies identified in the Grand Jury report to submit responses to the findings and recommendations in the report to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. The City of Costa Mesa, along with all other cities in Orange County, were required to respond. The Grand Jury report included a total of 11 findings and five recommendations.

183
File #: 23-1408 Meeting Date: 10/17/2023
ANALYSIS:

Staff prepared responses to each of the Grand Jury’sfindings and recommendations as Attachment 2 for the City Council’sconsideration. If approved, staff will obtain the Mayor’ssignature on a cover letter and submit the attached responses to the Honorable Maria Hernandez, Presiding Judge of the Orange County Superior Court.

ALTERNATIVES:

Instruct staff to provide alternative responses to the findings and recommendations in the enclosure to the Presiding Judge.

FISCAL REVIEW:

There is no fiscal impact related to this item.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney’soffice has reviewed this agenda report and draft responses to the Grand Jury report and approves them both as to form.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This item supports the following City Council Goal:
· Strengthen the Public’s Safety and Improve the Quality of Life CONCLUSION:

The transmission of the attached responses to the Presiding Judge from the Mayor will fulfill the City’s obligations under California Penal Code sections 933.05 (a) and (b).

184
Welcome to the Neighborhood
Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes? County of Orange Grand Jury 2022-2023
ATTACHMENT 1
-1-
185

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 3 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 4 REASON FOR STUDY ........................................................................................................................ 6 METHOD OF STUDY......................................................................................................................... 7 INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 7 OC Group Home Density ............................................................................................................. 8 Tracking Challenges .................................................................................................................. 10 Common Nuisances .................................................................................................................. 11 Lead Cities ................................................................................................................................. 12 Cities Are Standing Alone .......................................................................................................... 12 Fear of Litigation Costs ............................................................................................................. 13 State Actions ............................................................................................................................. 17 Housing Element ....................................................................................................................... 18 Educating the Public ................................................................................................................. 19 How Has This Issue Evolved? .................................................................................................... 23 FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................................... 24 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................... 25 RESPONSES .................................................................................................................................... 25 90 Day Response Required ....................................................................................................... 27 GLOSSARY ...................................................................................................................................... 29 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................................. 34 NOTICE .......................................................................................................................................... 40 END NOTES .................................................................................................................................... 40 -2-
186

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 3 of 42

SUMMARY
G
roup homes are an important component in the healthcare and/or recovery of many people. These homes provide, among other things, Substance Recovery, Hospice Care, Residential Care for the Elderly, and Sober Living. When group homes are operated for the well-being of their residents and with respect for their neighbors, they can be an asset to their host community. However, they can occasionally become disruptive and the motivation for nuisance calls to local code enforcement. In extreme cases, the “curbing” of residents can contribute to the homeless population.

Negat
ive interactions with disruptive group homes often lead to neighborhood opposition and anger towards city officials. How cities respond to the anger of their constituents impacts their ability to successfully integrate group homes. Residents are more likely to respond positively when cities offer townhall style meetings with police, fire, code enforcement, legal, and subject matter expert involvement, especially where the subject is discussed objectively, and public input is encouraged and respected.

I
ssues and concerns neighborhood residents have with group homes stem primarily from an over-concentration of homes in residential areas. Multiple cities in Orange County have attempted to manage integration of group homes into neighborhoods by enacting ordinances that include setting a minimum distance between group homes to avoid the problems associated with over-concentration. Most cities with such ordinances have not enforced them due to the fear of incurring litigation costs.

T
he Grand Jury reviewed the challenges of successfully integrating group homes into neighborhoods, including pressures exerted on Orange County cities by residents, group home operators, and the State of California.

The S
tate of California has recently joined the group home debate, has altered the conversation, and raised the stakes. The State wields a large club with its power of approval of the required Housing Element. The California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) is withholding approval for cities that have ordinances attempting to place limits or impose oversight on group homes. Cities are then vulnerable to a loss of control over zoning and permitting, as well as loss of State and regional funding.

S
ome cities have decided to push back on the pressures put on them from HCD and the fight has been carried out on an individual city basis. The Orange County Grand Jury recommends that the County of Orange and cities join forces to create ordinances, pool resources for defense of lawsuits, and work together to generate awareness among legislators to improve regulations and management standards to ensure health and safety for group home residents.
-3-
187

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 4 of 42

BACKGROUND
Orange County has 42 miles of beautiful coastline, three harbors, and 25 urban and wilderness parks - including 230 miles of riding and hiking trails. Orange County also has the dubious honor of having more than its share of our State’s total number of group recovery and sober living residences. Frequently referred to as “The Rehab Riviera”, several cities in Orange County have been dealing with pockets of over- concentration of these types of group homes. This has posed challenges for the residents in whose neighborhoods they are located, as well as the occupants of the recovery and sober living homes.

Many
of the homes in
question are privately
owned, unlicensed,
unsupervised, and a
challenge to monitor and
regulate. When a
neighborhood has multiple
group homes, it becomes
a more institutional
environment; this alters
the character of the
neighborhood and defeats
the purpose of the
“integration” of people who
are recovering.

The Orange County coast is a magnet for sober living homes T
o address these shortcomings, multiple cities, and the County, on behalf of unincorporated areas, have enacted ordinances that manage the permitting and tracking of group homes.

Several significant pieces of legislation have played a part in the expansion of group homes. These include California’s Lanterman Mental Retardation Act (1988), the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, the California Community Care Facilities Act, and California’s Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (Proposition 36). The resulting deinstitutionalization has had a positive effect on the lives of many people but has created a challenge for cities as they work towards the responsible integration of the group living arrangements necessary to accommodate the impacted population.
1 -4-
188

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 5 of 42 Since deinstitutionalization, the State of California has resisted appeals from local cities to pass permitting laws, distancing requirements, or any type of regulation at all. There is a misconception that these regulatory ordinances are intended to discriminate against people who are disabled due to alcohol and drug addiction, and the State of California has cited this misconception as the guiding principle for its dogged challenge of most attempts by cities to manage the responsible integration of group homes into residential neighborhoods. Rather, such city ordinances are intended to protect those people who suffer from alcohol and drug addiction, as well as the neighborhoods where group homes are located.

Licensed residential rehab programs are subject to the same local laws as single-family homes, and no more. State law imposes fewer restrictions on licensed rehab programs than other licensed group homes. The Community Care Facilities Act, from which alcohol and drug rehab facilities are exempt, imposes restrictions that protect the character of residential neighborhoods. Under this act, cities receive written notice of a proposed facility, and any city or county may request denial of the license based on overconcentration of residential care facilities. While alcohol and drug programs that provide 24-hour residential non-medical services to adults recovering from drug or alcohol abuse must obtain a State license, they cannot be regulated any differently from a single-family home if they serve six or fewer people.

California Health & Safety Code Sections 1520.5 and 1267.9 state it is a policy of the State to prevent overconcentration of residential facilities that impair the integrity of residential neighborhoods. Section 1520.5 states that the department shall deny an application for a new residential facility license if the department determines the facilities location is proximate to an existing residential facility therefore resulting in overconcentration. The statute recognized the need for a balanced policy to prevent overconcentration of residential care facilities which indicates an awareness and understanding of the impact of overconcentration on the integrity of residential neighborhoods. The statute defines overconcentration as less than 300 feet for some types of group homes and up to 1000 feet for others. At the time the statute was enacted it was specific only to certain types of group homes. However, the recent emphasis on providing more housing in California has eroded the intent of this act.

Federal and State fair housing laws protect people with disabilities from housing discrimination. Recovering alcoholics and drug addicts are disabled for purposes of anti- discrimination laws. When people in recovery live together in a “sober living” home, cities cannot discriminate based on such disabilities, therefore an ordinance cannot treat sober living homes differently than other similar uses in single-family residential zones.

Sober living homes are not required to be licensed and are not limited to six or fewer residents. Because no treatment is provided in these substance-free, mutually supportive living environments, no license is required. The limitation of most other group -5-
189

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 6 of 42 homes to six residents is part of the State statute; however, confusion arises because the statute does not apply to sober living homes.

There is only so much a city can do to respond to the complaints of its residents when dealing with an overconcentration of group homes in a neighborhood. It is important for city residents to be educated on the barriers faced by cities, and to work with their city to overcome these barriers.

Current laws do not adequately address the need to manage the integration of group homes into neighborhoods. Courts should not be where the solutions are found.

REASON FOR STUDY
Many cities within Orange County have neighborhoods with a dense concentration of group recovery and sober living residences. In most circumstances, cities do not know where these group homes are located unless the homes generate a backlash from neighbors due to various types of disturbances. The Grand Jury examined how Orange County cities are managing the distancing of all types of group homes, and the impact group homes have on neighborhoods and group home residents when the homes are in close proximity to one another.

Group homes, most often Recovery and Sober Living homes, and the nuisances that are commonly associated with them, are not new to Orange County. Neighborhood complaints, concerns from individuals living in or related to residents of group homes, the litigious nature of the relationship between cities and group home operators, and abuse of the healthcare system have been in play in Orange County for well over a decade.

The Grand Jury began this study by looking at how cities are managing the influx and locations of group homes and identifying best practices where they are found. The working premise was that each city is responsible for the integration of group homes, which would serve to protect the residents of group homes while maintaining the existing neighborhood atmosphere.

Has there been success addressing the issues associated with group homes and what does that look like? Are cities going it alone or are there county-wide efforts? Has there been progress made in this area? The Grand Jury approached the topic of group home integration seeking answers to these questions with the expectation that there were some systems in place resulting in the successful integration of group homes. The investigation took a winding road which revealed that, despite countless attempts at change, many of the problems that surfaced over a decade ago are still present. The Grand Jury found that successfully implemented solutions have become even more impactful in light of the State of California’s heavy-handed entry into the debate.

-6-
190

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 7 of 42

METHOD OF STUDY
The Grand Jury has evaluated official documents, examined news articles, visited multiple recovery/sober living websites, and assessed secondary sources.

The Grand Jury reviewed
numerous documents, including
the 2022 State of California’s
Group Home Technical Advisory2
and the 1990 State of California
Health and Safety Code.
3 To better understand the impact
of density, jurors attended
townhall and city council meetings
virtually, through recordings, and
visited neighborhoods in several
cities where there is a heavy
concentration of group homes.

The Grand Jury interviewed numerous subject matter experts, city managers, County and city officials, legislators, city attorneys, group home operators, and legal and real estate professionals. It also examined local, state, and national media reports and opinion pieces regarding group recovery and sober living residences. The Findings and Recommendations herein are based on this work.

INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS
Orange County has some of the heaviest concentrations of group homes and sober living residences in the nation.4 The densities are more than the local population can bear and residents believe the influx of the group home residents seriously impacts their neighborhoods. Similarly, group home and sober living industry experts cite negative impacts on the group home residents themselves.

Operators can open a group home where they desire, without having a license or State- endorsed certification, and they can open as many group homes as they desire regardless of local need. Because regulation is slack, cities are challenged to track and regulate the density without any guidance or support from the State. Adding to these concerns is a recent State of California memorandum titled “Group Home Technical Advisory” that characterizes any attempts to regulate the homes as discriminatory.5 It seems that method of thinking has no positive effect on how the homes are run or on how the vulnerable residents in these homes are treated, and quite possibly has the opposite effect.

-7-
191

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 8 of 42 “Residents of these homes are moving in and
out at an alarming, transitory rate”
OC Group Home Density
Reportedly, Orange County has more than its share of group homes in California, and the country for that matter, specific to housing individuals in need of Recovery/Sober Living Homes.6 There are no existing requirements for sober living homes with six or fewer residents to identify or register themselves as such.

It is estimated that up to 36% of houses required to be licensed (those providing services) by the State of California as group homes for six or fewer residents are located in Orange County. In addition, there are hundreds of group homes not requiring licensing that exist in Orange County neighborhoods. This lack of identification makes it extremely difficult to estimate the total number of sober living homes in our communities.7
As documented in numerous city council and townhall meetings, residents and activists have raised concerns about over-saturation and common nuisances to local community governing bodies (see Common Nuisances section). In many cases, these are neighborhoods in which multiple group homes are in close proximity (for example three in one cul-de-sac) or individual homes are run with little to no on-site supervision.

Neighborhoods are losing their original character and familial aspect, with some becoming increasingly institutional and others experiencing more of a “frat house” feel.

Residents of these homes are moving in and out at an alarming, transitory rate.

Neighbors describe some of these group homes as taking no responsibility for the actions of their inhabitants. Rules and responsibilities are either not imposed or not enforced by the group home operators. The complaints are predominantly related to non-regulated group homes.

Over the last several years, multiple cities in Orange County have sought to find a solution to alleviate these concerns. Several have performed due diligence to ensure that any action taken will provide for neighborhoods to remain neighborhoods, and that both the disabled and the recovering addicts needing to live in these types of group homes are in fact living in a normalized residential environment that provides the best opportunity to be successful in their recovery.
-8-
192

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 9 of 42 This is not simply a “Not In My Backyard” (NIMBY) issue or reaction as evidenced by the large number of homes that receive few or no complaints. The need for well-run Recovery/Sober Living Homes is not in dispute. Concerns arise when these homes are poorly run and/or when multiple homes are in close proximity, contributing to the problem of over-concentration. These two circumstances cause changes in the local neighborhood, and it is questionable whether they are aiding the very residents that they are meant to be assisting and whether residents of these homes are integrating into a normalized environment.

To that end, various cities have introduced ordinances toward resolving the problem.

Some of these include distancing requirements between group homes ranging from 300 to 1000 feet. Some ordinances require group homes to register or self-identify as such.

California Health & Safety Code Section 1267.9 provides specific requirements for distancing of most types of group homes settings.
8 These requirements are similar to
the local city ordinances in that they provide certain spacing restrictions of between 300 and1000 feet. Sober Living Homes, however, are excluded from any distancing requirement by the State.

The State imposes licensing requirements on most types of group homes and provides for oversight by one or more State or County agency. Sober Living Homes with six or fewer residents are not required to be licensed by the State and have no regulatory -9-
193

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 10 of 42 oversight. These two factors alone allow anyone to set up, open, and advertise this type of group home anywhere in California. Orange County seems to be the favored location, yet has no say in the siting or quantity of group homes in our residential neighborhoods.

Tracking Challenges
Just where are these sober living homes? All over. How do we know? We actually don’t.

There are few local ordinances requiring the registration, licensing, or declaration of any type of unlicensed sober living or recovery residence that has been established in a neighborhood. There are no widely adopted methods to track or monitor any aspect of such dwellings – their location, number of people residing in them, on-site management, or their ownership.

The Grand Jury’s research found that most sober living homes are not required by law to have any kind of State license. Some cities have enacted ordinances that require a permit or registration. When a sober living establishment is registered and a complaint is received, the complaint may be recorded and could be tracked, at least for the location of that specific home.

Except for the few cities with ordinances regulating sober living homes and the few homes that applied for registration or received ministerial permits, accurate tracking and monitoring remains challenging. Tracking is attainable if cities’ code and law enforcement establish and actively utilize a searchable database that includes -10-
194

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 11 of 42 information about police and fire calls, nuisance complaints or code infractions, and identification of type of establishment. The use of this information can help identify the location and density of group homes.

Common Nuisances
Residents living in cities with neighborhoods having a significant number of recovery and sober living homes complain that the proliferation of these group homes in recent years has become unmanageable, and that overconcentration is impacting the quality of life for everyone.

For years, many citizens living in neighborhoods with an unrestrained growth of sober living homes have been voicing their concerns and frustrations over the lack of protection their communities are given. While many of these group homes adopt rules and regulations and attempt to be good neighbors, a citizen’s primary method for reporting concerns about a disruptive home is initiating a nuisance complaint to their local law enforcement.

The outcry is that unregulated sober living residences make for bad neighbors. Sober living homes are not always bad neighbors, but when they are concentrated in a small geographic area or neighborhood, the common nuisances can become more visible and disruptive. Ultimately, this raises concerns about the potential or actual diminished character of the neighborhood.
-11-
195

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 12 of 42 “The well-funded operators are supported by
industry organizations and associations
in their lawsuits…”
Lead Cities
Although the City of Costa Mesa has been front and center in the legal fights related to group homes, it was Newport Beach that first stepped into the arena in 2008. Three companies sued the City over an ordinance that was approved by the City Council in 2008 that regulated group homes for recovering addicts. 9 Pacific Shores Properties,
Newport Coast Recovery, and Yellowstone Women’s First Step House sued Newport Beach for a total of $5.24 million. Still in place today, this ordinance was the first of its kind in Orange County and it established quiet hours, parking and smoking areas, and van routes. It also required the City’s approval for new unlicensed homes for recovering addicts in certain neighborhoods. In 2015, the City reached the end of its seven-year legal battle over sober-living homes with a settlement agreement. 10 11
According to the Orange County Register, which cites its own archives, Newport Beach spent at least four million dollars in legal costs on the cases. In 2008, there were 81 facilities and 614 total beds identified in Newport Beach. In 2021, there were a known 30 facilities with 210 total beds. Where did all those facilities and beds go?12 Perhaps to the City of Costa Mesa. In 2015, the City of Costa Mesa enacted their own ordinance (amended in 2017) after seeing a sharp increase in the number of sober living homes followed by a steep increase in the number of community complaints. On the heels of the ordinance came the legal challenges, and Costa Mesa prevailed in all challenges until January 2023 when two sober living homes, embroiled in litigation against the city, were handed a legal victory in federal court. The earlier dismissal was reversed and remanded by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled that asking operators of sober living facilities for proof of disability violates federal law barring discrimination against those with disabilities and bars discrimination in housing.

As the legal battle waged on, other local governments explored, advanced, or enacted regulation of sober living homes, including the County of Orange (2015), and Cities of Laguna Hills (2015), San Clemente (2016), Laguna Niguel (2016), San Juan Capistrano (2016), Anaheim (2020), and Huntington Beach (2020). Most of these entities, perhaps all, have chosen not to enforce their ordinances out of concern of potential litigation, and are waiting for Costa Mesa’s litigation to conclude.

Cities Are Standing Alone
Multiple cities in the County have executed ordinances to regulate unlicensed group homes. With the exception of the newly formed South Orange County Sober Living and -12-
196

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 13 of 42 Recovery Task Force, cities have not collaborated on solutions to shared and common problems. This has been done on an individual basis, with little collaboration among cities. Prior to drafting an ordinance, some cities study the details and effectiveness of other cities’ actions, particularly the City of Costa Mesa’s ordinance, and use that as a template to draft their own.13
Once enacted, few of the ordinances are being enforced. This lack of enforcement is due to a small number of very specific impediments and concerns. These include:
• Fear of litigation costs due to lawsuits filed by group home operators against cities that have enforced ordinances. (The City of Costa Mesa has reportedly incurred over ten million dollars in legal fees in relation to group home litigation.) • Fear of the State of California withholding approval of the Housing Element for cities that have ordinances related to the management of group homes, resulting in the potential loss of state funds and local zoning control.

• Lack of enforcement resources. Most cities do not have the staff resources to enforce these ordinances.

While individual cities take a wait-and-see approach to follow the progress of other cities that are standing up to the State, little progress is being made. The cities and County of Orange would benefit by working in partnership with one another to garner resources and create a coalition to promote change. While the newly constituted South Orange County Sober Living and Recovery Task Force is a good start, and the first tangible recognition of the need to work together, the Grand Jury recommends a countywide cooperative taskforce.

Orange County’s cities and unincorporated areas are demographically diverse.The active sharing of ideas, experiences, and information will be valuable to the overall process of developing a worthwhile model ordinance and plan for moving forward in the efforts to protect both the individual characteristics of Orange County neighborhoods, and all individuals living in those neighborhoods.

Fear of Litigation Costs
Cities are concerned about the high cost of litigation and the time required to defend ordinances regulating group homes. Private entities have challenged ordinances and in some cases won, and in other cases continued to pursue lawsuits in spite of opposition.

In one case, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) requested that the California Department of Justice file a “friend of the court” application to intervene on behalf the litigant in its case against the City.14

-13-
197

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 14 of 42

Two examples of cities being involved in lengthy and costly lawsuits include Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. In 2007, Newport Beach had numerous sober living homes and was facing increasing pressure by residents to regulate them. In January 2008, Newport Beach passed an ordinance regulating sober living homes. The ordinance was carefully crafted to comply with State and federal law.15

By November 2008, several legal actions occurred. These included:

1. A lawsuit from a residents’ group (the “Concerned Citizens of Newport Beach” or CCNB) arguing that the City did not go far enough in enacting Ordinance 2008-

05. CCNB also sued multiple operators and asked for $250 million in damages from the City;

2. Two group home operators (Pacific Shores Recovery and Sober Living by the Sea) filed complaints with the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) alleging that the City’s ordinance and its practices have discriminated against disabled persons entitled to fair housing;

3. Multiple lawsuits were filed by Sober Living By the Sea (SLBTS) alleging that the City’s group residential uses ordinance was facially discriminatory against persons in recovery. The City reached an agreement with SLBTS;

4. T he City filed lawsuits against Morningside Recovery and Pacific Shores Recovery, alleging that some of their operations opened illegally during a short- term temporary moratorium against the establishment of new group residential uses. Pacific Shores Recovery has in turn alleged that the City’s group -14-
198

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 15 of 42 residential uses ordinance was facially discriminatory against persons in recovery;

5. A cross-complaint by the City against Sober Living By The Sea and other operators that consolidated certain lawsuits in U.S. District Court.

Chairs are packed during a discussion on sober-living homes in San Clemente in 2016. (Photo by Matt Masin, Orange County Register, SCNG)

Subsequently, in 2009, three companies sued the City of Newport Beach over the ordinance, claiming it violated anti-discrimination and fair housing laws because individuals recovering from an addiction are a protected group. A federal judge ruled in favor of the City in 2011. The companies appealed the case and it went to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the Court’s majority sided with the group homes, saying there was enough evidence to argue discrimination. The Court pointed to comments made during the 2008 hearing, which implied that the City Council was targeting recovery group homes.

The City of Newport Beach asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case in 2014, but the Court declined. The City settled with the group homes for $5.25 million in 2015.

The City’s estimated legal costs exceeded four million dollars, 16 for a total cost close to
ten million dollars.

The City of Costa Mesa waged a fierce and costly legal battle to regulate sober living homes for over five years. As noted in the section regarding the State’s actions and attitude, Costa Mesa fashioned an ordinance within the limits of State and federal laws -15-
199

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 16 of 42 in 2014.17 The City ultimately spent over seven million dollars in litigation, and prevailed in State and federal courts; however, in January 2023, a federal appellate court reversed and remanded the district court’s 2020 ruling.

Costa Mesa Ordinance 15-11 sets limited standards for three items that address important societal issues, none of which are discriminatory in nature:

1. Spacing (650 feet apart)

2. Background screening of the house manager

3. Process for evicting residents

Spacing between group homes maintains the purpose of the facility and residential character of the neighborhood. Screening protects the residents of the facility. Through interviewees, the Grand Jury learned of group home managers with criminal backgrounds and who are themselves currently substance abusers. Standards for evictions are needed. Through interviews and newspaper articles, the Grand Jury learned of the practice of “curbing,” putting residents out on the curb when their source of payment runs out or when they are in violation of house rules. This practice is believed to contribute to homelessness in Orange County.

Costa Mesa’s ordinance serves an important purpose, but the ordinance is still in litigation after several years and at an estimated cost of more than ten million dollars. 18 Other Cities in California and Orange County are similarly facing lawsuits and costs associated with group home and sober living ordinances. Cities could pool resources to mitigate litigation cost concerns. A coalition of cities to spread costs is highly recommended.

The Grand Jury learned that the lawsuits brought against cities are supported and enabled by an extremely profitable industry. According to John LaRosa at MarketResearch.com on February 5, 2020,19 the group home market is 42 billion dollars per year. Mr. LaRosa also noted that the industry needed to be cleaned up as many of the operators engaged in overbilling, patient brokering, and deceptive marketing.

The well-funded operators are supported by industry organizations and associations in their lawsuits. Industry organizations include large groups such as the California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals, Behavioral Health Associates, and National Sober Living Associates. The websites of any of these organizations and several others can be viewed to see the type of support often provided. The organizations not only provide support for lawsuits, but also assist in lobbying State and federal legislators.

Many group home operators do not want any type of regulation, as evidenced by the Costa Mesa and Newport lawsuits, though the Grand Jury found some operators who welcome additional regulation to protect the industry from bad operators. In summary, the industry represents a formidable foe in lawsuits due to funding and industry associations.
-16-
200

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 17 of 42

State Actions
Zoning ordinances are the primary control local governments have over city land use.

The State of California has challenged the validity of group home ordinances, thereby inhibiting local governments in addressing group homes through zoning ordinances. If challenged, defense of the ordinances is costly and the alternative is to repeal them, a process that can be politically charged.

When Costa Mesa originally prevailed in the lawsuits filed against their 2014 sober living ordinance, the Cities of Encinitas, Huntington Beach, Anaheim and the County of Orange adopted similar ordinances for sober living facilities. In May 2021, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) sent a letter to the City of Encinitas stating its ordinance was in violation of statutory prohibitions on discrimination in land use. HCD said the city must take immediate steps to repeal the ordinance.

HCD’s letter to the City of Encinitas noted “T he City appears to take significant comfort from certain court opinions, several unpublished, appearing to reject specific, largely different and distinguishable challenges to a different group home ordinance in Costa Mesa, which were brought by private parties rather than the State of California. Those decisions are neither on point nor binding here.” This statement is misleading to the general public because it downplays judicial rulings favoring Costa Mesa’s ordinance.

In May of 2021, HCD sent a “Letter of Technical Assistance” to the City of Anaheim in which they discuss Anaheim’s land use regulations. One of the items discussed was a phone call they had with city staff to discuss concerns with the proposed Zoning Code Amendment for group homes. HCD’s concern was that the ordinance “potentially conflict(s) with statutory prohibitions on discrimination in land use ”.

Also in May of 2021, HCD sent a “Notice of Violation: City of Anaheim Notice of Violations of Housing Element Law and Anti-Discrimination in Land Use” regarding the denial of a conditional use permit for transitional housing. The California Department of Justice (DOJ) subsequently joined a civil lawsuit regarding the same action. HCD believes the City has failed to implement goals, policies, and program actions included in the housing element and failed to act consistent with Government Code requirements in applying standards to the approval of the Project.

On December 21, 2022, HCD issued a document titled Group Home Technical Advisory.
20 The executive summary includes the following:

“In recent years, some local governments have amended their zoning ordinances to add new regulations for group homes, particularly for recovery residences- group homes that provide housing for persons recovering from alcoholism or drug addiction. These amendments have raised concerns that local governments are not complying with their affirmative obligations under state planning and -17-
201

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 18 of 42 zoning laws to promote more inclusive communities and affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH). These amendments have also generated disputes and confusion over whether local governments are violating fair housing laws by discriminating against persons with disabilities or other protected characteristics.”

The document assumes the ordinances are not legally compliant and creates difficulties faced by cities trying to reasonably regulate group homes. The document is labeled a “technical advisory” but reads as a policy statement. There were apparently no public hearings regarding the document.

These actions by HCD and DOJ, as well as litigation, are challenges municipalities face in adopting ordinances regarding group homes when the courts have found these ordinances compliant with State and federal laws. This was made evident through interviews with representatives of cities. Interviewees also expressed concern that HCD interpreted the laws as being overly restrictive on zoning ordinances and failing to protect the inhabitants of group homes.

Housing Element
In the State of California, all cities are required to develop a General Plan. The General Plan serves as a blueprint for the future, prescribing policy goals and objectives to shape and guide the physical development of the city. The General Plan is a comprehensive policy document that informs future land use decisions, and it is comprised of multiple elements.21
The Housing Element is one important part of a city or county’s General Plan. Every eight years, every city, town, and county must update their Housing Element and have it certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

The most recent cycle of the new Housing Element has been heavily impacted by the State’s laser focus on housing availability and affordability.

On September 28, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a suite of bills to boost housing production across California which accompanies the Governor’s $22 billion housing affordability and homelessness package and ongoing work by the State to spur more housing production, tackle barriers to construction, and hold local governments accountable. Taken together, the actions reflect the State’s focus on creating more “The document is labeled a “technical
advisory” but reads as a
policy statement…”
-18-
202

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 19 of 42 affordable housing, faster and cheaper. “The acute affordability crisis we are experiencing in California was decades in the making, and now we’re taking the necessary steps to fix it,” said Governor Newsom.22
Although this is a response to a real need in California, the real-world consequences to the “build-build-build” solution are many. One of those can be seen in the State’s myopic push for housing as it has mistakenly equated group homes with additional housing options. But housing is not increased by allowing the unbridled proliferation of recovery and sober living homes. The industry advertises heavily outside of California and brings many of their residents from out-of-state. It is not uncommon for some of these residents to be “kicked to the curb” (referred to as curbing) for various reasons, and because they are not local to Orange County, they have nowhere to go and ultimately face homelessness.

HCD wields its power to review and approve State housing elements as a threat to deter city and county efforts to regulate group homes. Approval of the Housing Element has a big impact on a city’s ability to enforce its general plan and to control what gets built and where it is built. Without the HCD’s approval of the housing element, a door is opened to developers to bypass local zoning ordinances by utilizing a seldom used loophole known as Builders Remedy. Under that law, a developer may sidestep city approvals to construct a housing development if 20% of the project’s homes are affordable housing.23
State funding programs for transportation, infrastructure, and housing often require or consider a local jurisdiction’s compliance with Housing Element Law. These competitive funds can be used for fixing roads, adding bike lanes, improving transit, or providing much needed affordable housing to communities. In some cases, funding from state/federal housing programs can only be accessed if the jurisdiction has a compliant housing element.24 25
Educating the Public
By the time the public has organized to bring their concerns to city leadership through a letter writing campaign, a joint written complaint, or a petition, their level of frustration has likely been building for quite a while. How city leadership deals with the concerns and frustrations of their constituency is likely to determine whether it will be a collaborative or an adversarial process to find a resolution. Educating the public on the reasons that cities have seemingly been unwilling to address the integration of group homes into Orange County neighborhoods is key to the success of collaborative problem solving.

Cities have been squeezed from above by a combination of intense pressure from group home operators citing federal protections for the disabled, and the State of California’s efforts to eliminate group home ordinances by withholding approval on cities’ mandated Housing Element submission. They are also squeezed from below by -19-
203

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 20 of 42 “Some cities have used the multi-discipline,
educational, townhall type response to the public
outcry while others have not.

The outcome can be quite different.”

the people in neighborhoods which have been impacted by the over-concentration of group homes, and/or the level of nuisances generated by the group homes.

A lack of understanding of the challenges faced by cities leads to the perception that they are unwilling to step up and regulate the various group home types that are springing up in neighborhoods. Public education will reveal that there is not an unwillingness of cities, or the public, to find resolutions, but rather there are many hurdles promulgated by State and federal agencies that often prevent opportunities for reaching a solution. Cities should work together, and with State legislators and other stakeholders, to look for ways to affect change at the State level as well as provide more focused public education that addresses these issues.

In an effort to inform their citizens, some cities have used the multi-discipline, educational, townhall type response to the public outcry while others have not. The outcome can be quite different.

To illustrate, we need look no further than a tale of three cities: Anaheim, Newport Beach, and Laguna Hills. Anaheim’s group home issue heated up in October 2021 when Grandma’s House of Hope requested a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to use a large house as a transitional living home for 19 intractably mentally ill women. 26 It was not Grandma’s House of Hope’s first group home in Anaheim; it was the latest in many previously successful CUP requests. Local residents coalesced against this CUP request in a vocal and organized manner. Whether it was the number of residents impacted, the descriptor of the group home residents as intractably mentally ill, or just one group home too many in this neighborhood, this organized effort to prevent the approval of the large group home attracted hundreds of local citizens and activists from both sides of the issue. It seemed that the majority of these people attended the planning commission meeting to voice their opinions during the public comment portion of the agenda and to let the City’s Planning Commission see the strength of their numbers.
-20-
204

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 21 of 42 The Planning Commission was seemingly prepared to accept the staff recommendation for approval. Public comment took over five hours, most of which was overwhelmingly against the approval of the group home. The applicant and the Planning Commission both expressed surprise at the public backlash. Ultimately, the approval recommendation was scrapped, and the Planning Commission voted to deny the CUP.

Grandma’s House filed an appeal and the application for the CUP was heard by the City Council. The public attended that meeting in larger numbers than at the Planning Commission meeting and they were every bit as angry and frustrated as they were at the earlier meeting. In spite of robust response on the issue at the meeting of the Planning Commission just two months earlier, the Anaheim City Council was unprepared for the charged nature of the adversarial clash. Most speakers were passionate but respectful, while some were rude and offensive. It was essentially an angrier repeat of the first meeting and led to the same conclusion, a denial of the CUP.
27 The affected public walked away with no better understanding of the reasons why these group homes are hard to regulate due to the pressures put on cities by the State of California. The applicant ultimately filed suit against the city alleging violations of the Housing Element Law, Housing Accountability Act, and statutes governing anti- discrimination in local land use laws.

Nearly 200 people packed the Mission Viejo City Council chamber on March 29 for a Town Hall meeting regarding sober living homes. (Tomoya Shimura, Orange County Register, April 1, 2016) The City of Anaheim has not responded to the public concerns in an organized manner.

It has not provided an opportunity for the public to come together in a townhall-like meeting where the City could address the issues and the challenges they face, have subject matter experts on hand for short presentations, and allow for comments and questions.28
-21-
205

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 22 of 42 In direct contrast to Anaheim’s response, we can look at the steps taken by the Cities of Newport Beach and Laguna Hills. Newport Beach was faced with a petition from its residents in 2007 after a rapid increase in the number of drug rehabilitation homes. The residents reported 103 treatment houses, nearly all on the Balboa Peninsula. There was a town hall hosted by (then) Assemblywoman Mimi Walters, R-Laguna Niguel, and (then) State Senator Tom Harman, R-Huntington Beach, and an estimated 200 people attended. It was an opportunity for dialogue as well as to learn about the constraints placed on cities by the State of California. Newport Beach responded to resident concerns again in late 2021 by organizing a community meeting with speakers from several city departments, a State Assemblywoman, the District Attorney, and a County Supervisor.
29 30
Hundreds attend the Sober Living Homes Town Hall meeting at the at the Laguna Hills Community Center on Thursday (Christopher Yee, San Gabriel Valley Tribune, May 13, 2016) We can also look at the steps taken by the Cit y of Laguna Hills. In 2016, the City responded to public outcry regarding group home issues by hosting a Town Hall on the subject. The Town Hall was hosted by (then) State Senator Pat Bates and several other State and local legislators. Also in attendance were attorneys with extensive knowledge of the issue as well as other subject matter experts. More than 600 people attended, and it was an opportunity for the residents in attendance to gain a better understanding of the challenges the City faces in regulating unlicensed group homes, as well as for the City to hear the concerns and frustrations of attendees. Proving that, when cities work to -22-
206

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 23 of 42 inform their constituents, and allow for a robust but respectful dialogue, they create an opportunity for collaborative problem solving.31
How Has This Issue Evolved?
The timing of this investigation aligned with the required submission of the Housing Element portion of each city’s General Plan. The State’s disapproval of a city’s Housing Element carries heavy consequences, and the State of California has used the withholding of this needed approval to coerce cities to abandon their group home ordinances.

The Grand Jury was previously unaware of the power behind group home lobbyists and the number of proposed legislative bills that never made it to a vote. The State’s policy- making role limits a city’s ability to responsibly manage the integration of group homes and, as a consequence, the trajectory and focus of the study changed and widened with this knowledge. The Grand Jury looked at broader factors influencing the group home industry, its influence, its effect on communities and often its seeming lack of real concern about its clients. The group home industry is immense, requires improved relations with cities, and needs more effective local governmental oversight.

-23-
207

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 24 of 42

FINDINGS
In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2022-2023 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the findings presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.

Based on its investigation titled “Welcome to the Neighborhood - Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes?” the 2022-2023 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at eleven principal findings, as follows:

F1 Group homes too close to one another contribute to the problems associated with overconcentration.

F2 Common nuisances are more likely and disruptive when sober living homes are concentrated in a small geographic area of a neighborhood.

F3 Some cities have successfully addressed and informed community members about the challenges faced in regulating group homes.

F4 Community satisfaction was minimal when cities took the traditional public comment approach towards addressing community complaints.

F5 Cities are not utilizing police, fire, and code enforcement complaints as a means of locating and tracking Group Homes.

F6 Cities are inhibited from enacting and enforcing ordinances due to fears over the potential cost of litigation.

F7 Several cities have created an ordinance that requires a ministerial permit or registration to operate a group home, however many of these cities do not enforce their ordinances.

F8 City and County officials are deterred from regulating group homes by California Housing and Community Development’s housing element approval process.

F9 Cities have historically strategized and acted independently in addressing group home challenges and solutions.

F10 Well-operated group homes can integrate smoothly into neighborhoods.

F11 There is a lack of regulatory oversight for the health and safety of residents of unlicensed group homes.

-24-
208

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 25 of 42

RECOMMENDATIONS
In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2022-2023 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.

Based on its investigation titled, “Welcome to the Neighborhood - Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes?” the 2022-2023 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following five recommendations:

R1 Orange County cities and the County of Orange should address citizen concerns regarding group homes by providing an opportunity for an open dialog where an interdisciplinary panel of subject matter experts can share with attendees the challenges cities are facing in the management of group homes. To be implemented by July 1, 2024. (F3, F4)
R2 By December 31, 2024, Orange County cities and the County of Orange should collaborate in their efforts to create ordinances for the regulation of group homes, including the development of model ordinances. (F6, F7, F9) R3 Orange County cities and the County of Orange should pool resources for defense of lawsuits challenging group home ordinances. To be implemented by July 1, 2024. (F6, F8, F9)
R4 The County of Orange and Orange County cities should create a Task Force that includes representatives from OC cities, unincorporated areas, and other entities as appropriate and charge it with the responsibility of developing a plan to generate awareness among State legislators and regulators of the need for improved regulations and management standards to ensure health and safety for Group Home residents. To be implemented by July 1, 2024. (F2, F10, F11) R5 Orange County cities and the County of Orange should modify code enforcement report data collection forms to include a searchable field that enables the identification of a residence operating as a group home. To be implemented by July 1, 2024. (F5, F7, F11)

RESPONSES
California Penal Code Section 933 requires the governing body of any public 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 comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings -25-
209

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 26 of 42 and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g., District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected County official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors.

Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05 specifies the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made as follows:

(a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:

(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.

(2)The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.

(b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:

(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.

(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation.

(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 prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being 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 the Grand Jury report.

(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (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 the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those 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 findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.

-26-
210

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 27 of 42 The Orange County Grand Jury requires and requests the following responses:

90 Day Response Required

County of Orange Board of Supervisors F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 County of Orange Board of Supervisors R1, R2, R3, R4, R5

City Councils of:

Aliso Viejo F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Aliso Viejo R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Anaheim F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Anaheim R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Brea F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Brea R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Buena Park F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Buena Park R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Costa Mesa F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Costa Mesa R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Cypress F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Cypress R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Dana Point F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Dana Point R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Fountain Valley F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Fountain Valley R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Fullerton F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Fullerton R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Garden Grove F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Garden Grove R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Huntington Beach F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Huntington Beach R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Irvine F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Irvine R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
La Habra F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
La Habra R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
La Palma F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
La Palma R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Laguna Beach F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Laguna Beach R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Laguna Hills F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Laguna Hills R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Laguna Niguel F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Laguna Niguel R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Laguna Woods F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 -27-
211

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 28 of 42 Laguna Woods R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Lake Forest F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Lake Forest R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Los Alamitos F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, Los Alamitos R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Mission Viejo F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Mission Viejo R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Newport Beach F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Newport Beach R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Orange F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Orange R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Placentia F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Placentia R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Rancho Santa Margarita F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Rancho Santa Margarita R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
San Clemente F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 San Clemente R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
San Juan Capistrano F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 San Juan Capistrano R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Santa Ana F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Santa Ana R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Seal Beach F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Seal Beach R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Stanton F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Stanton R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Tustin F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Tustin R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Villa Park F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Villa Park R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Westminster F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Westminster R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Yorba Linda F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Yorba Linda R1, R2, R3, R4, R5

-28-
212

GLOSSARY
ADU

An accessory dwelling unit, usually just called an ADU, is a secondary housing unit on a single-family residential lot. These may be converted garages, backyard cottages, or granny flats, for example.

Brokering

A referral system where money or other inducements are exchanged by owners of disreputable homes to get new clients. The recipients may be residents, clinics, or even members of self-help groups such as AA12-step programs.

Code Enforcement

Activity by local government agencies to identify and correct problems and abuses by citizens and businesses.

Congregate Care Living

A residential home that offers inpatient services to its residents. Generally, the care that this institution provides is more intense than what a skilled nursing care facility offers but less intense than what a general acute care hospital provides.

Curbing

The act of evicting residents, often done late at night, so-called because they and their belongings are sent to the curb. Eviction may occur when such residents’ insurance runs out or for violating house rules. They frequently have nowhere to go and often have no resources, essentially rendering them homeless.

Deinstitutionalization

The closing (or reduction of services) of residential facilities, often referred to as mental hospitals, and the reliance on smaller, more personal “homes” as a means of rehabilitation.

Detox

Program or facility for assisting a person undergoing treatment from an intoxicating or addictive substance.

-29-
213

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 30 of 42

EBT

Acronym for Electronic Benefit Transfer, previously known as Food Stamps, these are debit cards issued to eligible participants for the purpose of buying food and other necessities.

Emotional Wellness Homes

A facility where a person develops the ability to handle their emotions and varied experiences they encounter in life. Emotional wellness is an awareness, understanding, and acceptance of our feelings and the ability to manage and change challenges effectively.

Good Neighbor Policy

A set of principles and activities designed to provide a consistent means of communication between facilities that provide resident services and their respective neighbors. The Good Neighbor Policy is applicable for Residential Programs when residents and the services have a potential impact including but not limited to community safety, cleanliness, and security in the surrounding neighborhood(s).

Group Home (GH)*

A residential unit utilized as a supportive living environment for people meeting the legal definition of disabled. Provides housing only for a classified group of people. No medical care, services, or treatment can take place in a Group Home. Only State-licensed facilities can provide care, services, or treatment under State law (see Residential Care Facilities)

Hospice

A type of health care that focuses on the palliation of a terminally ill patient's pain and symptoms and attending to their emotional and spiritual needs at the end of life.

Hospice care prioritizes comfort and quality of life by reducing pain and suffering.

Housing Element

Since 1969, California has required that all local governments (cities and counties) adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. California’s local governments meet this requirement by adopting housing plans as part of their “general plan” (also required by the state). General plans serve as a local government’s "blueprint" for how the city and/or county will grow and develop and include eight elements: land use, transportation, conservation, noise, open space, safety, environmental justice, and housing.

-30-
214

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 31 of 42

Integral Facilities

Integral facilities means any combination of two or more facilities located on the same or different parcels, collectively serving seven or more persons, not including the licensee or members of the licensee’s family or persons employed as facility staff, that are under the control or management of the same owner, operator, management company or licensee or any affiliate of any of them, and which together comprise one operation.

Integral facilities shall include, but not be limited to, the provision of housing in one facility and recovery programming, treatment, meals, or any other service or services at another facility, or facilities, or by assigning staff, or a consultant or consultants, to provide services to or in more than one facility.

Licensing

A permit from an authority to own or use something or to do a particular thing or carry on a trade. In reference to this report’s subject matter, licensing from a State or county agency or department.

Like-for-Like

Identifying the spacing of group homes by type, e.g., sober living within a given distance of sober living, assisted living within a given distance of assisted living, etc. Sober living near assisted living does not meet the like-for-like criteria.

Model Ordinance

A common set of policies and procedures developed by a government agency to oversee the licensing and operation of group homes.

NIMBY

Acronym for “Not in My Backyard”. A term used, among other things, to identify citizens who object to having group homes in their neighborhood.

Referral Facility

Either a Residential Care Facility, Group Home, or Sober Living Home where one or more person’s residency is per a court order or similar directive. Referral facilities must follow the permit procedure according to the base use classification, and are not permitted in the RL (Residential Low Density) zone.

Rehab Riviera

The nickname given to some sober living facilities in Southern California, referring to the climate. Often used as a selling point in advertising to emphasize the outdoor appeal of homes in the region.
-31-
215

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 32 of 42

Rehabilitation

The action of restoring someone to health or normal life. Care that can help one get back, maintain or improve abilities.

Residential Care Facilities (RCF)*

A State Licensed residential facility where care, services, or treatment are provided to persons living in a community residential setting. Provide housing and care/treatment for the elderly, developmentally disabled, chronically ill, and chemical addiction treatment facilities, among others. RCFs that specifically provide drug and or alcohol abuse treatment are licensed by the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) and are known as alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities.

Homes are required to be licensed by the DHCS when at least one of the following services is provided: detoxification, group counseling sessions, individual counseling sessions, educational sessions, or alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment planning.

Residential Treatment Centers

Sometimes known as rehab which is a live-in health care facility providing services for substance use disorders, mental illness, or other behavioral problems.

Saturation

Having several group homes within a neighborhood.

Single Housekeeping Units

Individuals occupying a dwelling unit that have established ties and familiarity with each other; share a lease agreement, have consent of the owner to reside on the property, or own the property; jointly use common areas and interact with each other; and share the household expenses such as rent or ownership costs, utilities, and other household and maintenance costs activities.

Six or Under

Homes with six or fewer residents. Under State law these may not be required to be licensed or registered.

Sober Living Home (SLH)*

Sober Living Homes are also group homes, but specifically for people recovering from a chemical addiction that meets the legal definition of disabled. Provides “housing only” that is primarily meant for people who have just come out of rehab and need a -32-
216

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 33 of 42

place to live that is structured and supportive for those in recovery. For the purposes of the Ordinance, a Sober Living Home is not state licensed. No medical care, services, or treatment can occur in a Living Home. Only State licensed facilities can provide care, services, or treatment under State law (see Residential Care Facilities).

Tracking

A method to obtain data, monitor movements and a system to identify and map the location of group homes.

Treatment Center

A facility where a client or clients go under one roof for services to improve their physical or mental health. A residential treatment center (RTC), sometimes called rehab, is a live-in health care facility providing therapy for substances abuse use disorders, mental illness, or other behavioral problems. Residential treatment may be considered the “last-ditch” approach to treating abnormal psychology or psychopathology.

*For the purposes of this report, the City of Huntington Beach’s definitions of group living homes is being used as published on the city’s website.

-33-
217

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 34 of 42

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Teri Sforza, Will U.S. Supreme Court engage on Costa Mesa’s sober living rules?, Orange County Register, Wednesday, March 15, 2023
Teri Sforza, Addiction centers flee Costa Mesa, move to less regulated OC cities, Orange County Register, Sunday, February 19, 2023
David Zisser, Letter from CA Department of Housing and Development to City of Huntington Beach Planning Department - RE “Ordinance to Ban “Builder’s Remedy” Projects under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) – Notice of Potential Violation”, California Department of Housing and Community Development web site, Monday, February 13, 2023 Ring Bender Law, SoCal Recovery and Raw Recovery v City of Costa Mesa: Amici Curiae Brief Of The League Of California Cities, The Association Of California Cities Of Newport Beach, Fountain Valley, Mission Viejo, And Orange In Support Of Appellee’s Petition For Rehearing En Banc, Court Filings, Thursday, February 9, 2023
Teri Sforza, Sober homes gain some ground in fight with Costa Mesa, Orange County Register, Sunday, January 15, 2023
Covenant Hills, Day Patient and Outpatient Addiction Treatment in Orange County, YouTube Posting, Friday, November 4, 2022
General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Orange County Sober Living l Sober Living Near You in SoCal (kaizenhouserecovery.com), Wednesday, October 19, 2022
General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Sober Living Homes for Men & W General Information omen - Orange County Recovery, Wednesday, October 19, 2022
General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Orange County Sober Living Homes | Sober Living Homes near me (ocsoberlivingbestsolution.com), Wednesday, October 19, 2022 General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Drug Rehab Orange County - Lighthouse Treatment Center, Wednesday, October 19, 2022 General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Huntington Beach Rehab | Drug & Alcohol Substance Abuse Recovery (orangecountyrecovery.com), Wednesday, October 19, 2022 General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Sober Living Homes in Southern California - Elysium Health Care, Wednesday, October 19, 2022 -34-
218

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 35 of 42

General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Zinnia Healing - Drug & Alcohol Rehab (serenitylodgelakearrowhead.com), Wednesday, October 19, 2022
General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, California addiction rehab centers (sunshinebehavioralhealth.com), Wednesday, October 19, 2022
General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Halfway Houses | ¾ way Houses | Sober Homes in California (addictionblog.org), Wednesday, October 19, 2022
General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Requirements For California Rehabilitation and Sober Living Houses (hypogalblog.com), Wednesday, October 19, 2022
General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, A Place for Mom, Wednesday, October 19, 2022
Jeff Collins, These Southern California governments have approved housing plans, Orange County Register, Tuesday, October 18, 2022
Jeff Collins, Most Southern California cities miss complete new deadline to complete housing plans, Orange County Register, Tuesday, October 18, 2022 Alicia Robinson, Anaheim should allow home for homeless women with mental health issues, California Attorney General says, Orange County Register, Wednesday, October 5, 2022 Alicia Robinson, Anaheim should allow home for homeless women with mental health issues, California Attorney General says, Orange County Register, Tuesday, October 4, 2022 Public Notice – City of Mission Viejo, Council passes Sober Living and Group Home Ordinance to ensure such facilities operate with the confines of the law, City of Mission Viejo web site Home | City of Mission Viejo, Wednesday, August 24, 2022
Public Notice, Council passes Sober Living and Group Home Ordinance to ensure such facilities operate within the confines of the law, City of Mission Viejo website https://cityofmissionviejo.org/, Wednesday, August 24, 2022 Teri Sforza, Rehab Riviera: New law hopes to keep misleading rehabs from misleading patients, families patients, families, Orange County Register, Wednesday, August 24, 2022 Teri Sforza, California rehab doctor pleads guilty to insurance fraud, Orange County Register, Tuesday, August 16, 2022
Vanessa Serna, Real-life Frankenstein' Beverly Hills surgeon and his girlfriend plead guilty to $600 Million fraud scheme: Used 'body brokers' to find drug addicts to get unnecessary shots so -35-
219

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 36 of 42

they could bill insurance companies to fund their life of luxury, DailyMail.com, Tuesday, August 16, 2022
California Codes, Various Codes, California Code Search “Text” of the following– using “sober” and “living”., Monday, August 8, 2022
City of Laguna Beach Department of Community Development, City of Laguna Beach General Plan Housing Element, City of Laguna Beach Web Site 638115638915170000 (lagunabeachcity.net), Thursday, July 21, 2022
Matt Meyer, What is ‘California sober’ — and does it actually work?, Nexstar Media Inc Fox News San Diego, Saturday, June 25, 2022
Website Information Idea Flight, 9 Different Types of Group Home in California, Idea Flight Web Site Page 9 Different Types of Group Home in California - ideaflight, Friday, April 1, 2022 City of Westminster, Adopted Housing Element 2021-202-, City of Westminster website https://www.westminster-ca.gov/ , Wednesday, January 26, 2022 Scott D. Tenley and Kelly M. Hagemann of Michelman & Robinson LLP, Federal Authorities Have Their Eyes On Sober Living Home Operators And Marketers, Especially In Orange County, Mondaq web site, Friday, November 19, 2021
City of Newport Beach, Community Meeting on Group Residential Uses Meeting Summary, City of Newport Beach web site City of Newport Beach | Home newportbeachca.gov), Monday, October 11, 2021
City of Newport.Beach, Power Point from Community Meeting Sober Living Homes, Group Homes, and State Licensed Residential Care Facilities, City of Newport Beach web site City of Newport Beach | Home newportbeachca.gov), Monday, October 11, 2021 City Newport Beach, Document comparing City of Newport Beach Group Home Ordinance to City of Costa Mesa Group Home Ordinance, City of Newport Beach web site City of Newport Beach | Home newportbeachca.gov), Friday, September 24, 2021 Staff, How to Open a Sober Living Home in California, Blog Post at Sober Living App, Tuesday, May 11, 2021
Web Site Posting, How Much Profit Can Be Made From a Halfway House?, HALFWAY GROUP LLC website How Much Profit Can Be Made From A Halfway
House?.openupahalfwayhouse.com), Tuesday, February 2, 2021 County of Orange Press Release, Ending Rehab Riviera: Orange County First, County of Orange website, Thursday, October 1, 2020
County of Orange, County of Orange Group Home Ordinance, County of Orange website, Tuesday, July 28, 2020
-36-
220

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 37 of 42

David Gorn, Doing the ‘sober-living dance’ on the Orange County coast, CalMatters, Tuesday, June 23, 2020
Elysia Richardson, Do Drug Treatment Centers Increase Local Crime Rates?, California Highlands Vista Drug Treatment Centers Web Site https://californiahighlandsvistas.com/blog/crime- rates/, Monday, February 10, 2020
Orange County Public Works, Fact Sheet on Group Home Requirements, County of Orange website https://myoceservices.ocgov.com , Saturday, February 1, 2020 Michelle Mears, Orange County Tackles Homeless Issue by regulating Group Homes, Glove, Friday, September 27, 2019
Michelle Mears, Orange County Tackles Homeless Issue by Regulating Group Homes, California Globe, Friday, September 27, 2019
City of Newport Beach, Group Home List, City of Newport Beach web site City of Newport Beach | Home newportbeachca.gov), Thursday, September 19, 2019 Frank Kim, OC County Executive Officer, Memo regarding proposed ordinance to regulate Sober Living Homes, County of Orange Web Site, Wednesday, June 19, 2019 California Department of Social Services,.Overview of the Group Home Rate Classification Levels, DSS Website information sheet, Thursday, April 4, 2019 Miami-Dade County Form, Miami-Dade County Group Home Application, Miami-Dade County Website.Group Home Application-no aff disc 2019 (miamidade.gov), Monday, April 1, 2019 Steven P. Dinkin, Utilizing the Safe Streets Now playbook, San Diego Union-Tribune, Sunday, January 13, 2019
Brady P. Horn, Aakrit Joshi, Johanna Catherine Maclean, Substance Use Disorder Treatment Centers And Property Values, National Bureau Of Economic Research, Tuesday, January 1, 2019 Teri Sforza, New rehab laws may revamp addiction treatment in California, Orange County Register, Thursday, September 27, 2018
City of Laguna Niguel, Group Home Permit Application, City of Laguna Niguel website https://cityoflagunaniguel.org/ , Wednesday, July 4, 2018 William Leonard, Sober living homes in Orange County California, Sober Living Local, Saturday, May 5, 2018
Tony Saavedra, Teri Sforza, Death in rehab generates $7 million award, Orange County Register, Sunday, February 18, 2018
Teri Sforza, Tony Saavedra, Quest for sobriety often ends in sexual assault at some rehabs in Southern California, Orange County Register, Friday, January 19, 2018 -37-
221

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 38 of 42

US Department of Health and Human Services, Ensuring Beneficiary Health and Safety in Group Homes Through State implementation, DHSS Web Site
https://www.hhs.gov/guidance/document/joint-report-ensuring-beneficiary-health-and-safety- group-homes-through-state , Wednesday, January 10, 2018 Teri Sforza, Rehab Riviera: California testing Vermont’s model to fight addiction, Orange County Register, Friday, December 29, 2017
Teri Sforza, Tony Saavedra, Scott Schwebke, Rehab Riviera: Industry struggling to get clean, Orange County Register, Friday, December 29, 2017
Teri Sforza, Rehab Riviera: Are drugs for drug addicts a solution or a crutch?, Orange County Register, Thursday, December 28, 2017
Tony Saavedra, Scott Schwebke, How a multimillion-dollar empire built around urine drug tests exposes flaws in California’s rehab laws, Orange County Register, Sunday, December 17, 2017 Jordan Graham, Are drug rehab centers fueling homelessness in Southern California?, Orange County Register, Sunday, December 17, 2017
Teri Sforza, Are implants for opioid addicts a new hope or a new scam?, Orange County Register, Sunday, October 22, 2017
Teri Sforza, San Clemente’s ‘discriminatory’ rules on addiction treatment centers intact after suit settles, Orange County Register, Wednesday, July 5, 2017 Teri Sforza, California the over-regulator? Not for addiction treatment, Orange County Register, Friday, June 23, 2017
Teri Sforza, Addiction treatment: The new gold rush. ‘It’s almost chic’, Orange County Register, Friday, June 16, 2017
US Congress Committee on Energy and Commerce, Letter to Thomas E. Price, M.D. Secretary U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Regarding problems resulting from the dramatic surge of addiction treatment centers and “sober living” homes, Congressional Record, Tuesday, June 13, 2017
Scott Schwebke, Teri Sforza, Federal agents search Sovereign Health rehab in San Clemente, elsewhere, Orange County Register, Tuesday, June 13, 2017 California Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division, Power Point on Orange County Regional Office and what it does Newport Beach Meeting, Web Site of Department of Social Services www.ccld.ca.gov, Thursday, June 1, 2017 Teri Sforza, Detox can end in death at some ‘non-medical’ Southern California rehabs, Orange County Register, Tuesday, May 23, 2017
-38-
222

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 39 of 42

Todd Harmonson, Sean Emery, O.C. District Attorney charges family, doctors with insurance fraud related to sober living homes, urine tests, Orange County Register, Tuesday, May 23, 2017 Teri Sforza, Tony Saavedra, Scott Schwebke, Lori Basheda, Mindy Schauer, Jeff Gritchen, Ian Wheeler, How some Southern California drug rehab addiction centers exploit addiction, Orange County Register, Sunday, May 21, 2017
Teri Sforza, Is there a link between neighborhood rehab programs and petty crime in California?, Orange County Register, Sunday, May 21, 2017 Staff Report, The Southern California rehab industry spans the nation, Orange County Register, Sunday, May 21, 2017
Jan Wheeler, Registered Rehabs Map, Orange County Register, Thursday, May 4, 2017 Mindy Schauer, Heroin’s hold: One man’s journey through the Southern California rehab industry, Orange County Register, Monday, May 1, 2017
CBS News, OC Neighbors Not Comfortable Next to Sober Living Homes, YouTube Posting, Tuesday, November 29, 2016
California Research Bureau, Sober Living Homes in California: Options for State and Local Regulation, California Research Bureau Publication in State Library https://www.library.ca.gov/crb/, Friday, October 7, 2016 Amy A. Mericle, Katherine J. Karriker-Jaffe,.Shalika Gupta, David M. Sheridan, Doug L. Polcin, Distribution and Neighborhood Correlates of Sober Living House Locations in Los Angeles, American Journal of Community Psychology, Thursday, September 1, 2016 Teri Sforza, California argues sober home ordinances are illegal, forcing cities to make expensive decisions, Orange County Register, Saturday, December 19, 2015 J Murphy - City of La Mesa Fact Sheet, Residential Care Facilities (or “Group Homes”) in the City of La Mesa, City of La Mesa website http://www.cityoflamesa.com , Thursday, October 29, 2015 County of Orange published guideline, Orange County Adult Alcohol And Drug Sober Living Facilities Certification Guidelines, County of Orange Sheriff Departments website, Monday, January 27, 2014
Sober Living by the Sea, Drug Rehab and Alcoholism Treatment OC CA by Sober Living by the Sea, YouTube Posting, Wednesday, May 23, 2012
You Get Me3, Santa Ana Sober Living Homes, YouTube Posting, Saturday, July 3, 2010 Paul J. Weinberg, Alcohol And Drug Rehab Homes classic Nimbyism Or Everyone's Fair Share, Thomson Reuters/West
Zoning and Planning Law Report, Wednesday, October 1, 2008 -39-
223

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 40 of 42

City of Newport Beach, City of Newport Beach Residential Group Home Permit, City of Newport Beach web site City of Newport Beach | Home newportbeachca.gov), Friday, February 1, 2008 David DeBerry, Group Homes in the Neighborhood, Western City, Friday, September 1, 2006 NOTICE
Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.

END NOTES
1 Group Homes in the Neighborhood David Debarry, Jeff Bellinger, Western City 09- 01-2006 https://www.westerncity.com/article/group-homes-neighborhood

2 Ibid. Division of Housing Policy Development. “Group Home Technical Advisory.” California Department of Housing and Community Development, December 2022.
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/group-home-technical-advisory- 2022.pdf

3 CA Health & Safety Code Section 1267.9

4 Sforza, Terri. “California the over-regulator? Not for addiction treatment.” Orange County Register, June 23, 2017. https://www.ocregister.c4om/2017/06/23/california-the-over-regulator-not-for-addiction- treatment

5 ibid . Division of Housing Policy Development. “Group Home Technical Advisory.” California Department of Housing and Community Development, December 2022. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/group-home-technical-advisory- 2022.pdf

6 Sforza, Terri. “California the over-regulator? Not for addiction treatment.” Orange County Register, June 23, 2017. https://www.ocregister.c6om/2017/06/23/california-the-over-regulator-not-for-addiction- treatment/

7 California Research Bureau, Sober Living Homes in California: Options for State and Local Regulation, California Research Bureau Publication in State Library Friday, October 7, 2016, https://www.library.ca.gov/crb/,

8 CA Health & Safety Code Section 1267.9

-40-
224

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 41 of 42

9Orange County Register Megan Nicolai, July 15, 2015, Newport Beach Settles legal battle over Sober - Living homes.

10 Orange County Register Megan Nicolai, July 15, 2015, Newport Beach Settles legal battle over Sober- Living homes.

11 Los Angeles Times Susannah Rosenblatt, May 22, 2008, Sober living homes rushing to meet Newport’s deadline.

12 Community Meeting on Group Residential Uses October 11, 2021 Meeting Summary https://nbpd.newportbeachca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/70754/637703409585700000

13 New regional task force will tackle issues with sober living and recovery homes,News Category, City of Mission Viejo Public Notices, September 1, 2022, new regional task force will tackle issues with sober living and recovery homes | City of Mission Viejo

14 Grandma’s House of Hope v. City of Anaheim and City Council of Anaheim Case No. 30- 2022- 0124183-CU-WM-OJC

15 Newport Beach Ordinance 2008-05

16 Orange County Register Megan Nicolai, July 15, 2015, Newport Beach Settles legal battle over Sober - Living homes.

17 City of Costa Mesa Ordinance Chapter 13-3001

18 Orange County Register Article, May 21, 2021 – State argues sober home ordinances are illegal, forcing cities to make expensive decisions

19 $42 Billion U.S. Addiction Rehab Industry Poised for Growth, and Challenges (marketresearch.com)

20 Ca Department Of Housing And Community Development, Group Home Technical Advisory, dated December 2022

21 Housing Element Update, 2021-2029 Planning Period FAQ & Fact Sheet,City of Arcadia https://cms9files.revize.com/arcadia/Shape%20Arcadia/Development%20Services/planning/Housing%20 Element%20Update/FAQ/Housing%20Element%20Fact%20Sheet_FINAL.pdf

22 www.gov.ca.gov/2021/09/28/governor-newsom-signs-legislation

23 Growing List of Penalties for Local Governments Failing to Meet State Housing Law, Association of Bay Area Governments, June 2021, https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021- 06/Consequences%20of%20Non-Compliance%20with%20Housing%20Laws.pdf

24 Housing Element Update, 2021-2029 Planning Period FAQ & Fact Sheet,City of Arcadia https://cms9files.revize.com/arcadia/Shape%20Arcadia/Development%20Services/planning/Housing%20 Element%20Update/FAQ/Housing%20Element%20Fact%20Sheet_FINAL.pdf

25 Housing Element Update, 2021-2029 Planning Period FAQ & Fact Sheet,City of Arcadia https://cms9files.revize.com/arcadia/Shape%20Arcadia/Development%20Services/planning/Housing%20 Element%20Update/FAQ/Housing%20Element%20Fact%20Sheet_FINAL.pdf

-41-
225

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 42 of 42

26 Walker, Theresa OC Register 10-25-2021 Housing for mentally ill homeless women draws heated Anaheim response
https://www.ocregister.com/2021/10/25/housing-for-mentally-ill-homeless-women-draws-heated-anaheim- response/

27 Grandma’s House of Hope v. City of Anaheim and City Council of Anaheim Case No. 30- 2022- 0124183-CU-WM-OJC

28 City of Anaheim Planning Commission,PC Action Packets 8-30-2021 https://records.anaheim.net/CityClerk/DocView.aspx?id=2428318&dbid=0&repo=CITYOFANAHEIM

29 Many attend town hall on rehab houses,OC Register, 2-23-2007 Many attend Newport town hall on rehab houses – Orange County Register (ocregister.com)

30 Ibid. Many attend town hall on rehab houses

31 Sober Living Homes Town Hall

-42-
226
ATTACHMENT 2
Responses to Grand Jury Report Titled “Welcome to the Neighborhood- Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes?”
Findings

1. Group homes too close to one another contribute to the problems associated with overconcentration.

R
esponse: The City agrees with this finding.

2. C
ommon nuisances are more likely and disruptive when sober living homes are concentrated in a small geographic area of a neighborhood.

R
esponse: The City agrees with this finding.

3. S
ome cities have successfully addressed and informed community members about the challenges faced in regulating group homes.

R
esponse: The City partially agrees with this finding. The City does not have sufficient information about the efforts of other cities in addressing and informing community members about the challenges in regulating group homes. When the City of Costa Mesa’s Ordinances 14-11 and 15-13 were first introduced addressing non-boardinghouse group homes, the City conducted several community meetings to inform members of the public about the City’s regulation efforts and to answer any questions. From the inception of these Ordinances, staff took the approach of informing the public regarding the different facets of the City’s policy efforts including the need to affirm Fair Housing practices as codified in State and Federal law, to prevent overconcentration and institutionalization, and to promote responsible operation al
p
ractices of group homes and residential care facilities thereby allowing them to successfully integrate into residential communities. These meetings often allowed the City to also inform residents about the role of the State of California Department of Health Care Services in regulating residential drug and alcohol treatments centers and that State law prohibits cities from applying any additional regulations to state licensed residential care facilities with six or f
ewer occupants than would otherwise not apply to a single-family residence. Additionally, there has consistently been well-informed staff members available to answer questions and provide information to members of the community via telephone, email or at the public counter.

4. C
ommunity satisfaction was minimal when cities took the traditional public comment approach towards addressing community complaints.

R
esponse: This City partially agrees with this finding. The City does not have information about the community satisfaction in other cities following a “traditional public comment approach”. The City recognizes that a public hearing is one part of a multifaceted approach in community engagement efforts in the area of public policy. Public comments that are provided as a part of public hearings serve a purpose and provide a forum for decision makers to receive -1-
227
and deliberate on information from the public that is relevant to a specific proposal, site and business. As mentioned, in the City’s response to Finding #3, the City also acknowledges the important role that community meetings played in both introducing new regulations to the community and in explaining their broader context in supporting Federal and State fair housing laws.

5. Cities are not utilizing police, fire and code enforcement complaints as a means of locating and tracking Group Homes.

The City partially agrees with this finding. The City does not have adequate information regarding the utilization of police, fire and code enforcement complaints in other cities. The City of Costa Mesa’s police, fire and code enforcement staff are well informed and make great efforts to communicate any land use or health and safety issues that cross or overlap disciplines or Departments. These practices are not specific to group homes. For example, a Fire Department’s call for service may identify unpermitted building construction or a Police Department’s call for service may identify a business operating as an unpermitted land use that requires City approvals. In both cases, Code Enforcement would be notified to address the Code violation. City staff do not “track” or “locate” group homes beyond its efforts to resolve violations of the Municipal Code.

6. Cities are inhibited from enacting and enforcing ordinances due to fears over the potential cost of litigation.

The City partially agrees with this finding. The City does not have adequate information regarding the basis of why cities may be inhibited from enacting or enforcing ordinances. The City enacted the aforementioned ordinances as well as later Ordinances 17-05 and 17-06 with the intention of affording the disabled with the opportunity to live in a truly residential setting, rather than in an institutional setting, and to preserve the residential character of existing neighborhoods. Following the adoption of these ordinances, the City has been sued numerous times and those lawsuits have been costly. In spite of this, the City continues in its commitment to enforce local laws and regulate group homes and residential care facilities in accordance with State and Federal fair housing laws, and to provide protection of vulnerable residents who are harmed by unscrupulous operators.

7. Several cities have created an ordinance that requires a ministerial permit or registration to operate a group home, however many of these cities do not enforce their ordinances.

The City does not have adequate information about other cities choosing to not enforce adopted ordinances. The City has enforced the requirements of ministerial and discretionary permits consistently since these regulations were adopted and has abided by applicable court orders.

8. City and County officials are deterred from regulating group homes by California Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) housing element approval process.

-2-
228
The City partially agrees with this finding. The City lacks adequate information as to whether the County or the officials in other cities are deterred from regulating group homes by HCD’s housing element approval process. As it applies to Costa Mesa, the City has continued to regulate group homes through our adopted ordinances and in accordance with Federal and State fair housing laws, with the intention of affording the disabled with the opportunity to live in a residential setting rather than in an institutional setting, to preserve the residential character of existing neighborhoods, and to provide protection of vulnerable group home residents who are harmed by unscrupulous operators. However, the City recognizes that the housing element approval process may present challenges to the effective regulation of group homes based on HCD’s interpretation of local regulation as set forth in its Technical Advisory.

9. Cities have historically strategized and acted independently in addressing group home challenges and solutions.

Response: The City partially agrees with this finding. Prior to 2015, cities acted independently on this issue. Since that time, the City has participated in meetings with other cities for the purpose of sharing information and collaborating on policy efforts. At the same time, the City acknowledges that although some issues and policy objectives may overlap, there may be challenges and solutions that do not apply uniformly to every city.

10. Well-operated group homes can integrate smoothly into neighborhoods.

Response: The City agrees with this finding.

11. There is a lack of regulatory oversight for the health and safety of residents of unlicensed group homes.

Response: The City agrees with this finding as there is a lack of oversight at the state level.

Recommendations

1. Orange County cities and the County of Orange should address citizen concerns regarding group home[s] by providing an opportunity for an open dialog where an interdisciplinary panel of subject matter experts can share with attendees the challenges cities are facing in the management of group homes. To be implemented by July 1, 2024.

Response: This recommendation is already being implemented as the City has participated with the Southern California Sober Living and Recovery Task Force since January 2023. The task force is comprised of a panel of members of law enforcement, state and local elected officials, administrative staff and other subject matter experts. The Sober Living and Recovery Task Force’s mission is to combine expert education and research, public input, and bi-partisan regional ideas and initiatives to determine critical pathways forward for possible short and long- term policy solutions that help those in recovery, as well as community members and neighborhoods that have been impacted.

-3-
229

2. By December 31, 2024, Orange County cities and the County of Orange should collaborate in their efforts to create ordinances for the regulation of group homes, including the development of model ordinances.

Response: This recommendation is already being implemented as the City has been willing to share information about its own ordinances since they were adopted. Additionally, participation in the Southern California Sober Living Recovery Task Force provides opportunities for on-going information sharing about a variety of other policy initiatives underway in other jurisdictions.

3. Orange County cities and the County of Orange should pool resources for defense of lawsuits challenging group home ordinances. To be implemented July 1, 2024.

Response: This recommendation will be implemented to the extent possible. Costa Mesa has sought, and received, amicus support from some other Orange County cities in its ongoing litigation regarding its group home ordinances. However, more county-wide financial support of cities defending ordinances designed to protect the residents of group homes and surrounding residents would be welcome and could help further these policy goals county-wide.

4. The County of Orange and Orange County cities should create a Task Force that includes representative from OC cities, unincorporated areas and other entities as appropriate and charge to with the responsibility of developing a plan to generate awareness among State legislators and regulators of the need for improved regulations and management standards to ensure heath and safety for Group Home residents.

Response: This recommendation is already being implemented through the Southern California Sober Living and Recovery Task Force described in the response to Recommendation #1.

5. Orange County cities and the County of Orange should modify code enforcement report data collection forms to include a searchable field that enables the identification of a residence operating as a group home.

Response: The City is already implementing this recommendation. In August, 2023, the City implemented a new comprehensive land management system that allows code enforcement reports to be generated based on a variety of different parameters affording staff the ability to filter violations by different fields including but not limited to whether the violation involves operation of a group home without appropriate permits.
-4-
230

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 23-1401 Meeting Date: 10/17/2023
TITLE:

APPEAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION 22-05 FOR A RETAIL CANNABIS STOREFRONT BUSINESS LOCATED AT 1505 MESA VERDE DRIVE EAST (“C21+”) DEPARTMENT: ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT/PLANNING

DIVISION
PRESENTED BY: MICHELLE HALLIGAN, CONTRACT PLANNER
CONTACT INFORMATION: MICHELLE HALLIGAN, (714) 754-5608
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission’sdecision and adopt a Resolution to approve Planning Application 22-05. The City Council may also overturn the Planning Commission’sdecision and deny the request, and direct staff to prepare a Resolution reflecting the City Council’s findings for denial.