Program H-3.1.3 in this Housing Element provides for fee waivers or reductions, or other incentives, for housing projects that prepare and implement an affirmative marketing plan designed to attract renters or buyers of diverse demographics including, among other characteristics, familial status (meaning that housing projects seeking to obtain such incentives would not be eligible if they restrict occupant households from including children under the age of 18, or any other combination of family unit recognized by law). The incentives envisioned in Program H-3.1.3 will be prioritized based on factors including racial concentrations from U.S. Census Bureau data products, with an emphasis on avoiding the creation of geographically discernable patterns of segregation or racially REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
H OUSING S ITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
MARCH AUGUST 2023
Exhibit C - 52
concentrated areas of poverty. The incentives are expected to promote housing production (and, thereby, housing choices) for all persons regardless of age.
6.12.2 Property Ownership Implications
As described in Sections 4.0 and 6.12.1 above, approximately 2.7 square miles of Laguna Woods’ overall 3.3 square miles is occupied by Laguna Woods Village, a private gated community for people aged 55 and older. While there are properties within Laguna Woods Village that are perceived as vacant and might otherwise be potentially available for new housing development, all such property is held in trust by the Golden Rain Foundation for the benefit of the residents of Laguna Woods Village. Applicable governing documents restrict the Golden Rain Foundation’s ability to build housing on, or unilaterally sell/lease, its property. Consequently, housing choice and the prospect of new housing construction is limited in most of Laguna Woods.
Property ownership of existing housing units within Laguna Woods Village is unique in that a large portion of the housing stock is comprised of co-ops wherein residents are members of a corporation which owns all real property, including the dwelling units, carports, and laundry facilities within the corporation’s boundaries, and each member is entitled to occupy a specific dwelling unit under the terms of an occupancy agreement. Consequently, co-op residents do not enjoy the same latitude to modify and maintain their dwelling units as residents of more conventional single-family homes or condominiums, which may impede the development of accessory dwelling units and otherwise affect housing choice, as well as centralize many opportunities for the conservation and revitalization of housing stock with housing corporations rather than residents.
The City’s legal obligation to support the development of accessory dwelling units is addressed in this Housing Element’s Programs H-1.4.1, H-1.4.2, and H-1.4.3. To provide both housing corporations and residents with resources related to the conservation of dwelling units, this Housing Element includes Programs H-2.1.1, H-2.2.2, and H-2.2.3. Program H-2.3.1 complements those programs by formalizing a proactive code enforcement program focusing on housing-related rehabilitation needs, resulting in repairs, and seeking to mitigate potential cost, displacement, and relocation impacts on residents.
6.12.3 Environmental and Topography Constraints
The City has evaluated potential safety hazards that constrain future development within its boundaries and incorporated maps depicting the locations of those constraints within the Safety Element of its General Plan.
According to the Safety Element, fire hazards exist in the wildland-urban interface area in the western edge of Laguna Woods where urban development meets the open space areas west of the City. While some undeveloped land exists within the fire hazard severity zones (Laguna Coast Wilderness Park and Woods End Wilderness Preserve), this land is protected by irrevocable open space easements, which eliminates any possibility of their development. Therefore, the presence of fire hazards in these areas does not constrain housing development.
The Safety Element indicates that special flood hazard areas comprise approximately 26 acres of Laguna Woods. Flood hazards exist in the floodplain along Aliso Creek in the southern portion of REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
MARCH AUGUST 2023 H OUSING S ITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
Exhibit C - 53
Laguna Woods and the Golden Rain Foundation’s nine-hole golf course near Paseo del Lago. Both of the areas affected by flooding hazards are within the boundaries of Laguna Woods Village and have been used as recreational amenities for community residents for more than 50 years. As such, the development of new housing on these areas is just as likely to be constrained by the property’s complex land ownership situation (common areas owned and maintained by the Golden Rain Foundation for the use and benefit of Laguna Woods Village residents) as it is by the presence of flood hazards.
According to the Safety Element, there are no mapped fault zones pursuant to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act that transect Laguna Woods; however, there are several major faults and fault zones in the vicinity of Laguna Woods. Although fault rupture and seismic shaking do present a risk to development in Laguna Woods, these hazards can be addressed by incorporating the design recommendations of engineers and geotechnical professionals. Therefore, seismic hazards do not represent a constraint on new housing development in Laguna Woods.
The Safety Element notes that landslide hazard zones exist in several areas of Laguna Woods, mainly in areas where steep slopes occur. In total, the State considers approximately 77 acres as prone to earthquake-induced landslides. According to the Safety Element, approximately 256 acres of land within Laguna Woods are prone to liquefaction. These areas include a strip of land in the northwestern portion of Laguna Woods, land along El Toro Road west of Calle Sonora, the Aliso Creek corridor, and a broad swath of the southeastern portion of Laguna Woods. Similar to seismic hazards, landslide and liquefaction hazards can be addressed in the design process by incorporating the input of engineers and geotechnical professions. Therefore, these hazards do not represent a constraint on new housing development in Laguna Woods.
6.12.4 Relevant Factors Contributing to Fair Housing
Due to the developed nature of Laguna Woods and the fact that the majority of the City’s existing housing stock is age- and income-restricted, the only way to add housing opportunities to younger residents or residents with lower incomes is to build more housing that is accessible to these populations. The sites that are identified for new housing production in the Housing Element present an opportunity for younger residents or residents with lower incomes to move to Laguna Woods since they exist on sites unaffected by existing age or income restrictions. The selection of these sites present opportunities for and contributes to the addition of fair housing in Laguna Woods.
6.13 CONCLUDING ANALYSIS
Each of the 17 potential housing sites were also analyzed against three additional AFFH data layer maps: (1) areas that are defined by either the TCAC or HCD Opportunity Maps as being an area of “High Segregation and Poverty” or by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as a “Racially or Ethically Concentrated Area of Poverty”; (2) areas identified as State Bill (SB) 535-defined “Disadvantaged Communities”; and (3) locations of cases throughout Laguna Woods that were filed with HUD’s Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach (FHEO) branch in 2020.
REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
H OUSING S ITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
MARCH AUGUST 2023
Exhibit C - 54
Analysis of these data sets showed that Laguna Woods does not contain any areas defined by either the TCAC or HCD Opportunity Maps as being an area of High Segregation and Poverty or by HUD as a Racially or Ethically Concentrated Area of Poverty. Although HCD’s guidance for implementing AFFH states that affordable housing should aim to be developed in those areas in order to further fair housing, no such areas exist within Laguna Woods. Furthermore, Laguna Woods does not contain any SB 535-defined Disadvantaged Communities, and, as such, none of Laguna Woods’ potential housing sites are located in a SB 535-defined Disadvantaged Community. Additionally, the entirety of Laguna Woods is located in an area that had less than .01 percent of complaints filed with FHEO in 2020, which means that few to no housing discrimination complaints have been filed in Laguna Woods and that housing discrimination is not currently seen as a major issue within Laguna Woods.
Using the various data available from HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer, each of the 17 sites is situated within a census tract that is desirable from an AFFH standpoint for at least one of the categories described above. Therefore, each of the sites would affirmatively further fair housing opportunities.
Further, all 17 of the potential housing sites are located in census tracts with a higher percentage of disabled residents and a lower median household income than Orange County. In addition, seven of the 17 potential housing sites are located in census tracts with a higher percentage of residents living below the poverty threshold than Orange County, and 11 of the 17 potential housing sites are located in census tracts with a larger number of nonfamily households than married-couple family households. This indicates that the proposed housing sites are not concentrated in an area of elevated poverty, which suggests that the development of new affordable housing units on these sites would facilitate the integration of lower-income households into the community in a way that would affirmatively further fair housing opportunities.
REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
MARCH AUGUST 2023 H OUSING S ITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
Exhibit C - 55
7.0 REALISTIC DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY
Government Code Section 65583.2(c) requires that the City demonstrate that the projected residential development capacity of the sites can realistically be achieved. The number of estimated units should be adjusted, as necessary, based on land use controls and site improvement requirements; the realistic development capacity for the site; typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in the surrounding area; and the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities.
Each potential development site was independently analyzed to determine the extent to which the number of estimated units required adjustment to ensure that development capacity estimates are realistic. The adjustments identified as necessary are summarized below and have been incorporated into the realistic development capacity estimates in Table N. • None of the sites are constrained by the availability or accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities. Therefore, no adjustments were made on account of those factors. • The net developable area on each site was adjusted to 95 percent of the parcel area to reflect the need to construct on-site improvements, including sidewalks and utility easements, and other land use controls.
• The developable area on Site 8 was adjusted to approximately 60 percent of the parcel due to slope hazard constraints on the western third of the site. • The development capacity on three of the five sites that are currently developed with places of worship (Sites 10–12) and Sites 9 and 17 was limited to 15–20 units per acre to reflect the proximity of those sites to existing, adjacent, lower-density residential uses. • The development capacity on one of the five sites that are currently developed with places of worship (Site 13) and Site 16 was limited to 8–10 units per acre to reflect the proximity of those sites to existing, adjacent, lower-density residential uses. • The development capacity at each of the sites was adjusted to 95 percent of the maximum density, and the number of units was rounded down to the nearest whole number, to reflect that not every housing project is built out to maximum density. • Sites identified as providing development capacity for accommodating very low or low income units (Sites 1–8 and 15) were assigned a density range of 30 to 50 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). This range is realistic, in part, due to examples of comparable affordable housing projects elsewhere in Orange County including, but not limited to, the following:
○ Huntington Beach Seniors, Huntington Beach (Jamboree Housing) – 55.1 du/ac (0.78 acre) ○ Manchester-Orangewood, Anaheim (Jamboree Housing) – 35.7 du/ac (2.86 acres) ○ Miraflores, Anaheim (National Core) – 36.4 du/ac (2.36 acres) ○ Legacy Square, Santa Ana (National Core) – 53.5 du/ac (1.74 acres) ○ Mountain View, Lake Forest (National Core) – 36.2 du/ac (1.96 acres) REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
H OUSING S ITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
MARCH AUGUST 2023
Exhibit C - 56
The only recent housing development project in Laguna Woods (San Sebastian Apartments) was also constructed at a comparable density of 42.1 du/ac (3.183 acres).
The City has not received any requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in this housing sites inventory, including below this 30 to 50 du/ac range. • Sites identified as providing development capacity for accommodating moderate income units (Sites 10–12 and 14) were assigned a density range of 15 to 20 du/ac, or 20 to 30 du/ac. These ranges are realistic, in part, due to examples of comparable affordable housing projects elsewhere in Orange County including, but not limited to, the following:
Residential Medium-Low Density (15 to 20 du/ac)
○ Birch Hills, Anaheim (Jamboree Housing) – 19.8 du/ac (5.8 acres) ○ Santa Angelina, Placentia (National Core) – 16.9 du/ac (3.85 acres) Residential Medium Density (20 to 30 du/ac)
○ Compass Rose, Fullerton (Jamboree Housing) – 26.1 du/ac (1.76 acres) ○ Wesley Village, Garden Grove (Jamboree Housing) – 21.4 du/ac (2.2 acres) The City has not received any requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in this housing sites inventory, including below these 15 to 20 du/ac, and 20 to 30 du/ac ranges. • Sites 2 and 10–14 are currently developed with places of worship. It is realistic to assume that housing could be constructed on these sites, in part, due to examples of comparable affordable housing projects co-located with places of worship elsewhere in Orange County including, but not limited to, the following:
○ Legacy Square, Santa Ana (National Core) – 53.5 du/ac (1.74 acres, Santa Ana United Methodist Church)
○ Santa Angelina, Placentia (National Core) – 16.9 du/ac (3.85 acres, Church of the Blessed Sacrament)
○ Wesley Village, Garden Grove (Jamboree Housing) – 21.4 du/ac (2.2 acres, Garden Grove United Methodist Church)
As previously discussed, in 2017, the property owner and a housing developer expressed interest in the Laguna Country United Methodist Church property (Site 14).
Table N estimates the number of new housing units that can realistically be built on each of the 17 potential housing sites based on the adjustments described above. As shown in Table N, the total future housing construction potential on the 17 sites, based on realistic capacities, is 1,196 units.
This includes an excess, or overzoning, of 199 units, or approximately 20 percent more than the 997 units included in the City’s housing needs allocation.
Overzoning helps to (1) ensure that sufficient adequate sites will remain available at all times to meet the remaining unmet housing needs for each income category, per Government Code Section 65863 (“No Net Loss Law”), and (2) compensate for urban land left vacant due to ownership and development constraints, per HCD’s “Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook Government Code Section 65583.2” published June 10, 2020. HCD also notes that “a sufficient supply of land beyond the time frame of the housing element helps prevent land shortages from bidding up land costs.” REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
MARCH AUGUST 2023 H OUSING S ITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
Exhibit C - 57
Table N: Potential Housing Unit Production
Site Name
Vacant/
Nonvacant
Site
Parcel
Size
(ac)
Proposed
Zoning Overlay
District
Densities
(du/ac)
Development Capacity Suitable for
Lower-Income
Households
(Density &
Parcel Size)
Financially
Feasible for
Federal &
State
Funding
Consolidation
Potential due to
Adjacency of
Other Candidate
Site
Income Level
Very Total
Low Low Moderate Above Moderate
1 Town Centre Vacant Lot V 1.8 Residential HD 30 to 50 10 11 0 60 81 Yes Yes Yes 2 Pacific Hills Calvary Chapel
Parking Lot
NV 0.696 Residential HD 30 to 50 2 2 0 27 31 Yes No No
3 Rossmoor Electric NV 1.232 Residential HD 30 to 50 5 6 0 44 55 Yes Yes No 4 Saddleback Golf Cars NV 1.235 Residential HD 30 to 50 5 6 0 44 55 Yes Yes No 5 Laguna Woods Self Storage NV 5.249 Residential HD 30 to 50 76 79 0 81 236 Yes No Yes 6 Animal Hospital NV 0.76 Residential HD 30 to 50 2 3 0 29 34 Yes No Yes 7 PS Business Park (excludes Jack
in the Box)
NV 2.867 Residential HD 30 to 50 24 26 0 79 129 Yes Yes No 8 Smart Parke NV 2.373 Residential HD 30 to 50 6 7 0 50 63 Yes Yes No 9 McCormick & Son Mortuary NV 1.411 Residential MLD 15 to 20 0 0 0 25 25 No No Yes 10 Lutheran Church of the Cross NV 3.028 Residential MLD 15 to 20 0 0 35 19 54 No Yes No 11 Geneva Presbyterian Church NV 3.955 Residential MLD 15 to 20 0 0 49 22 71 No Yes No 12 Saint Nicholas Catholic Church NV 4.596 Residential MLD 15 to 20 0 0 61 22 83 No Yes Yes 13 Temple Judea NV 1.757 Residential LD 8 to 10 0 0 0 15 15 No No Yes 14 Laguna Country United
Methodist Church
NV 3.899 Residential MD 20 to 30 0 0 85 20 105 Yes Yes Yes 15 Medical Building in Town
Centre
NV 2.69 Residential HD 30 to 50 22 23 0 76 121 Yes Yes Yes 16 Willow Tree Center East NV 3.095 Residential LD 8 to 10 0 0 0 27 27 No No Yes 17 Helm Center NV 0.65 Residential MLD 15 to 20 0 0 0 11 11 No No Yes Subtotal (units on nonvacant sites only)/93% of Lower Income Units 142 152 230 591 1,115 - - - Subtotal (including all sites) 152 163 230 651 1,196 935 817 738 City’s 2021–2029 RHNA Allocation 127 136 192 542 997
Surplus/(Deficiency) 25 27 38 109 199
Unmet Need (Only Deficiencies) - - - - -
Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc. (October 2021). ac = acre(s)
City = City of Laguna Woods
du/ac = dwelling units per acre
NV = nonvacant
Residential HD = Residential High Density
Residential LD = Residential Low Density
Residential MD = Residential Medium Density
Residential MLD = Residential Medium-Low Density
RHNA = Regional Housing Needs Assessment
V = vacant
REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
H OUSING S ITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA MARCH AUGUST 2023
Exhibit C - 58
Table N also indicates that the 17 sites have the capacity to accommodate at least 312 lower-income units, which is 49 units, or 18.6 percent more than the 263 lower-income units included in the City’s housing needs allocation. In addition, the sites have the capacity to accommodate at least 211 moderate-income units, which is 19 units, or approximately 9.9 percent more than the 192 moderate income units included in the City’s housing needs allocation. Nine of the sites include maximum densities at or above HCD’s standard threshold for accommodating lower-income units (30 units per acre) on properties 0.5 to 10 acres in size. In total, 11 of the sites could produce a sufficient number of units that would fall within the generally accepted range of financial feasibility for federal- or State-funded projects (50–150 units per project). 10 of the sites are adjacent to at least one other site, which provides opportunities for lot consolidation, thereby improving viability for development/redevelopment.
Of the 315 lower-income units identified in Table N, 22 units on Site 1 are viewed as realistic for development on vacant land, which represents approximately 8 percent of the City’s housing needs allocation for lower-income households. Although the City intends to rely on nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of its housing needs allocation for lower-income households, the City has determined that it would not be feasible to develop housing on any other vacant land that is within its jurisdiction. This is due to the fact that, as described in further detail in Section 4.0 of this Housing Sites Inventory and Analysis, most of the limited amount of vacant land that exists within Laguna Woods consists of publicly owned open space properties that are subject to conservation easements or deed restrictions that prohibit future development.
REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
MARCH AUGUST 2023 H OUSING S ITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
Exhibit C - 59
8.0 QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
Government Code Section 65583(b)(1) and (2) require that the City establish the number of housing units, by income level, that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time frame. Table O summarizes the City’s quantified objectives with regard to construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing over a five-year time period. These objectives have been established based on the City’s available resources and ability to satisfy housing needs within the context of the General Plan requirements set forth in state law.
Table O: Summary of Quantified Objectives
Income Level Number of Units Rehabilitation Conservation/Preservation1 Very Low* (<50% of AMI) 127 5 N/A
Low (50–80% of AMI) 136 5 N/A
Moderate (80–120% of AMI) 192 5 N/A
Above Moderate (>120% of AMI) 542 5 N/A
Total 997 20 N/A 1 As described in the City’s Housing Needs Assessment, none of the 17 affordable units within Laguna Woods is at risk of conversion to market rate units in the next 10 years; therefore, none of the units is in need of conservation or preservation.
REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
March August 2023
EXHIBIT D
HOUSING ELEMENT PERFORMANCE
ASSESSMENT
CITY OF LAGUNA WOODS
REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
This page intentionally left blank
REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
March August 2023
EXHIBIT D
HOUSING ELEMENT PERFORMANCE
ASSESSMENT
CITY OF LAGUNA WOODS
Submitted to:
City of Laguna Woods
24264 El Toro Road
Laguna Woods, California 92637
Prepared by:
LSA
20 Executive Park, Suite 2003210 El Camino Real, Suite 100 Irvine, California 9261402
(949) 553-0666
Project No. LWD2101
REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
This page intentionally left blank
REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
MARCH AUGUST 2023 H OUSING ELEMENT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
Exhibit D - i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... i LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS............................................................................................ iii
1.0 PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTATION......................................................................... 1
2.0 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ELEMENT/SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS ........................ 6
3.0 APPROPRIATENESS OF GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS.............. 7
4.0 ASSEMBLY BILL 1233 – SHORTFALL OF SITES FROM THE 5TH CYCLE PLANNING PERIOD ............................................................................................ 11 TABLE
Table A: Review of the City of Laguna Wood’s General Plan 2014–2021 Housing Element.................. 2 REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
H OUSING ELEMENT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
MARCH AUGUST 2023
Exhibit D - ii
This page intentionally left blank
REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
MARCH AUGUST 2023 H OUSING ELEMENT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
Exhibit D - 1
1.0 PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65588, each local government shall review its housing element as frequently as appropriate to evaluate all of the following: (1) the appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal, (2) the effectiveness of the housing element in attainment of the community's housing goals and objectives, (3) the progress of the city, county, or city and county in implementation of the housing element, and (4) the effectiveness of goals, policies, and related actions to meet the community’s special housing needs.
State law requires that each Housing Element include a review of the progress made toward achieving the affordable housing goals of the previous Housing Element, and of the effectiveness and appropriateness of those previously adopted objectives. These results should be quantified where possible, but may be qualitative where necessary.
The City of Laguna Wood’s (City) last Housing Element was adopted in 2014, and set forth a series of implementation measures with related objectives and policies for the following issue areas:
maintain and improve residential neighborhoods and support quality housing for all residents; promote and encourage the development of housing opportunities to accommodate current and projected housing need; encourage and facilitate the development of affordable housing for all economic segments of the community, especially extremely- and low-income residents; and facilitate housing, transportation, and physical accommodations to aid persons with disabilities. This section reviews the continued appropriateness of these programs, the effectiveness of the current 2014–2021 Housing Element, and the progress in its implementation since 2014.
Table A, below, summarizes the City’s progress for each implementation measure identified in the current Housing Element.
REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
H OUSING ELEMENT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
MARCH AUGUST 2023
Exhibit D - 2
Table A: Review of the City of Laguna Wood’s General Plan 2014–2021 Housing Element
Housing Element Implementation Status Continue/Modify/Delete Objective 1: Maintain and improve residential neighborhoods and support quality housing for all residents Policy 1.A: Work towards full implementation of the 2014–2021 Housing Element objectives, policies, and programs in the Housing element.
Program 1.A.1: Provide a progress report on
the 2014–2021 Housing Element programs
and quantified objectives as part of the
annual General Plan status reports to the
State.
Ongoing: This is the City’s normal
practice. The City submitted annual
progress reports to the Department of
Housing and Community Development
(HCD) each year during the 2014–2021
Housing Element period.
The City will delete the program
and replace it with Program H4.1.2.
Policy 1.B: Promote, encourage, and facilitate efforts to preserve the City’s housing stock.
Program 1.B.1: Continue to promote ongoing building maintenance activities. To promote building maintenance, the City will:
Identify available funds for building
maintenance activities and energy
efficiency upgrades.
Disseminate public information on
available housing programs, such as the
energy efficient equipment retrofit
program (CDBG) at public counters and
the City’s website.
Assist property owners and property
managers in their efforts to identify and
mitigate housing maintenance issues.
Ongoing: In 2010, the City obtained a
California Energy Commission grant
using federal funds to retrofit City Hall
with dual-pane, low-E windows and
energy efficient lighting and heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning
equipment. The project modeled
energy efficiency retrofits to property
owners and property managers.
Through June 2017, the City offered a
CDBG funded Residential Energy
Efficiency Improvement Program. The
City provides resources and assistance
daily regarding housing maintenance at
the building counter and via building
inspections.
The City will delete the program
and replace it with programs H2.1.1, 2.2.1, and 2.2.3.
Objective 2: Promote and encourage the development of housing opportunities to accommodate current and projected housing need.
Policy 2.A: Promote construction of units consistent with the new construction needs identified in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).
Program 2.A.1: Work with property owners
in the development of Specific Plans to guide
the development of Urban Activities Center
parcels to include residential development.
Abandoned: In 2017, after receiving an
application from the property owner,
the City amended the Land Use
Element of the City’s General Plan to
delete the Urban Activities Center land
use designation. All properties formerly
designated as Urban Activities Center
have been re-designated and rezoned.
The City will delete the program
as the City has deleted the Urban
Activities Center land use
designation from the General
Plan.
Program 2.A.2: Work with commercial
property owners to establish residential/
commercial mixed use development
standards for the City’s Commercial land use
district.
Not yet Implemented: Sufficient
housing opportunities to accommodate
the City’s 2014–2021 RHNA allocation
exist without the establishment of
mixed use development standards.
The City will delete the program
and replace it with a new
rezoning program. See Program
H-1.1.1.
REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
MARCH AUGUST 2023 H OUSING ELEMENT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
Exhibit D - 3
Table A: Review of the City of Laguna Wood’s General Plan 2014–2021 Housing Element
Housing Element Implementation Status Continue/Modify/Delete Policy 2.B: Mitigate governmental constraints to the accommodation of special needs residents.
Program 2.B.1: Participate in the County of
Orange Consolidated Plan program and in
the Continuum of Care to provide housing for
special needs populations, particularly
extremely and very low income persons.
Participation will include assigning a
representative to participate in meetings and
events sponsored by these programs. In
addition, the Resource Guide for Orange
County Homeless and other publications that
support the program goals will be distributed
from City Hall.
Ongoing: The City participated in the
development of the County of Orange’s
Consolidated Plan for the years 2010 to
2015, and 2015 to 2019. In 2015, the
City hosted one of the County of
Orange’s Consolidated Plan Community
Workshops at City Hall. Various
homeless resources, including County
of Orange-produced resources, are
available from City Hall.
The City will delete the program
and replace it with other
programs to address the needs
of the specified populations.
Program 2.B.2: Revise the Laguna Woods
Zoning Ordinance to identify zones that will
allow the development of transitional
housing [and] facilitate transitional housing
and supportive housing developments that
serve extremely and very low income
households, consistent with Government
Code Section 65583(c)(1). Because
transitional and supportive housing can be
configured in different ways – either as
regular multi-family housing or as group
quarters - the Zoning Ordinance amendment
will ensure that transitional and supportive
housing that function as a residential use will
be treated as residential uses and only
subject to those restrictions that apply to
other residential uses of the same type in the
same zone.
Implemented: Chapter 13.23 of the
Laguna Woods Municipal Code,
adopted in 2011. Laguna Woods
Municipal Code amended in 2018, see
Ordinance No. 18-05.
The City will delete the program
and replace it with programs H1.3.1, 1.3.2, and 1.3.3.
Program 2.B.3: Review and revise the
Laguna Woods Zoning Ordinance 13.23 in
regards to emergency homeless shelters to
ensure compliance with Government Code
Section 65583(a)(4).
Implemented: Chapter 13.23 of the
Laguna Woods Municipal Code,
adopted in 2011, was amended in
2018.
The City will delete the program
and replace it with Program
1.5.1. Objective 3: Encourage and facilitate the development of affordable housing for all economic segments of the community, especially extremely- and low-income residents.
Policy 3.A: Recognize the City’s leadership role in the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of affordable housing.
Program 3.A.1: Encourage and facilitate the
development of affordable housing by:
Supporting non-profit organizations that
address housing issues.
Serving as an intermediary between nonprofit organizations and interested residential developers.
Assisting in application preparation and
other efforts to secure funding sources for
Ongoing: The City encourages the
development of affordable housing as
required by State law. Resources,
information, and assistance for
developers and other interested parties
are available from City Hall. Seventeen
(17) specifically designated affordable
housing units are located in Laguna
Woods. From 2014 to 2020, the City
The City will delete the program
as the Housing Element includes
various programs to assist in the
development of affordable
housing.
REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
H OUSING ELEMENT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
MARCH AUGUST 2023
Exhibit D - 4
Table A: Review of the City of Laguna Wood’s General Plan 2014–2021 Housing Element
Housing Element Implementation Status Continue/Modify/Delete development of housing for extremely
low-, very low-, low- and moderateincome residents.
Making available regional and local
housing program information to residents,
and assisting residents in contacting
housing assistance organizations.
Inform interested developers about the
range of housing allowed in areas outside
of Laguna Woods Village, including
housing for families.
Inform interested developers about the
State density bonus program incentives
available for development of affordable
housing.
received no applications for any new
housing development projects
(affordable as well as market rate
housing developments).
Program 3.A.2: Continue to encourage and
facilitate the use of the City’s density bonus
provisions to provide affordable housing
opportunities. Revise the density bonus
provisions as necessary in the City’s
Municipal Code to be consistent with State
density bonus law.
Ongoing: Section 13.26.040 of the
Laguna Woods Municipal Code,
adopted in 2013; Laguna Woods
Municipal Code amended in 2018; see
Ordinance No. 18-03 and amended in
2020; see Ordinance No. 20-02.
The City will delete the program
as the City’s residential density
bonus standards are consistent
with state law.
Program 3.A.3: Encourage residents to apply,
when available, for the Section 8 rental
assistance program (through County of
Orange Housing Authority) for extremely and
very low-income rental households. Inform
local rental property owners and eligible
residents of Section 8 assistance and Section
8 waitlist openings through flyers and the
City’s website. Provide technical assistance
during the application process to interested
residents. While the City endeavors to
maintain the current level of assistance
through the Section 8 (72 vouchers)
program, the City has no jurisdiction over the
funding and operation of the Section 8
voucher program.
Ongoing: The City receives information
and application forms for Section 8
housing through the County of Orange
and makes them available to residents
from City Hall.
The City will delete the program
as the City provides referrals to
the OC Housing Authority as a
normal business practice.
Program 3.A.4: Continue to use CDBG funds
to fund projects that improve and maintain
the quality of the City’s housing stock and
residential infrastructure. While the City
endeavors to maintain the current level of
assistance through the CDBG program, the
City has no jurisdiction over the funding and
operation of the CDBG program.
Ongoing: Through June 2017, the City
offered a CDBG-funded Residential
Energy Efficiency Improvement
Program. Uncertainty surrounding the
future availability of CDBG funds, as
well as the impact of increasing
compliance requirements and law
enforcement costs on City resources,
resulted in the end of the program.
Staff continues to evaluate other
potential, future uses of CDBG housing
rehabilitation funds.
The City will delete the program.
See programs H-2.1.1, 2.2.1, and
2.2.3. REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
MARCH AUGUST 2023 H OUSING ELEMENT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
Exhibit D - 5
Table A: Review of the City of Laguna Wood’s General Plan 2014–2021 Housing Element
Housing Element Implementation Status Continue/Modify/Delete Program 3.A.5: The City has received no
complaints regarding any discriminatory
actions and will continue to enforce all fair
housing laws. The City Manager is
responsible for addressing and/or referring
fair housing complaints and questions to the
Fair Housing Council of Orange and/or HUD.
The City will provide information on fair
housing rights and responsibilities, and seek
to remedy known acts of discrimination
within the community. The City will
disseminate fair housing information at City
Hall and throughout Laguna Woods in a
variety of community places.
Ongoing: Fair housing assistance,
resources, and information is available
from City Hall, through the City’s code
enforcement operation, and upon
request.
The City will delete the program
and replace it with Priority Issue
3. Program 3.A.6: Review city processes and
procedures as they pertain to the
establishment of new housing, including
market rate and all forms of affordable
housing to remove undue constraints which
hinder the development of new housing
opportunities.
Ongoing: City staff has identified no
undue constraints which hinder the
development of new housing
opportunities.
The City will delete the program
as the Housing Element includes
various programs related to
updating City processes and
procedures.
Program 3.A.7: Research potential funding
sources (grants, loans, and other funds)
which can be used towards the planning and
development of affordable housing.
Ongoing: City staff continues to explore
sources of funding to assist with
affordable housing development.
The City will delete the program
as the Housing Element includes
various programs to assist in the
development of affordable
housing.
Objective 4: Facilitate housing, transportation and physical accommodations to aid persons with disabilities.
Policy 4.A: Maintain zoning/development standards that guide development of affordable housing near public transportation, and promote project designs that are accessible and accommodating to the disabled.
Program 4.A.1: Partner with property
owners to identify and accomplish the
retrofit of dwelling units and common
facilities for handicapped accessibility. The
City will participate at board meetings of the
housing mutuals and the Golden Rain
Foundation, the principal property owner in
the City, to encourage retrofitting.
Not yet Implemented: While City
officials often meet with the
representatives of major property
owners, a mutual approach to
promoting retrofitting within the
community is yet to be developed.
The City will delete the program
and replace it with programs H2.2.1 and 2.2.3.
CDBG = Community Development Block Grant
City = City of Laguna Woods
HCD = California Department of Housing and Community Development HUD = United States Department of Housing and Urban Development REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
H OUSING ELEMENT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
MARCH AUGUST 2023
Exhibit D - 6
2.0 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ELEMENT/SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS The 2014–2021 Housing Element resulted in changes to the Laguna Woods Zoning Ordinance that resulted in compliance of emergency homeless shelters with State law, as well as identification of zones that allow the development of transitional housing and facilitation of transitional housing and supportive housing developments that serve extremely- and very-low income households in those zones. For the reasons set forth in Table A, the City was unable to complete certain programs included in the 2014–2021 Housing Element, such as the creation of the two new housing units set by the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for the 5th Housing Element Cycle; working with property owners in the development of Specific Plans to guide the development of Urban Activities Center parcels to include residential development; the establishment of residential/commercial mixed use development standards for the City’s Commercial land use district; and the retrofit of dwelling units and common facilities for handicapped accessibility. Overall, the 2014–2021 Housing Element was effective in providing fair housing assistance, resources, and information to residents participating in the County of Orange Consolidated Program to provide housing for special needs populations, particularly extremely and very-low income persons, and continuing to maintain and improve residential neighborhoods.
Refer to Table A in the previous section for a discussion of whether the programs included in the 2014–2021 Housing Element should be continued, modified, or deleted based on their effectiveness. Table A also addresses various programs related to the housing needs of special needs populations (Programs 2.B.1, 2.B.2, 2.B.3, 3.A.1, and 4.A.1).
REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
MARCH AUGUST 2023 H OUSING ELEMENT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
Exhibit D - 7
3.0 APPROPRIATENESS OF GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS The 2014–2021 Housing Element established a comprehensive and firm basis for the City to move forward towards the achievement of the goals, policies, and programs in the document. As a result, Table A shows that many of the programs were achieved or implemented. Some major amendments included in the 2021–2029 Housing Element incorporate what has been learned from the results of the 2014–2021 Housing Element, including:
• Inclusion of a frequently asked questions (FAQs) section for the RHNA process to promote clarity and a common understanding of both the RHNA process and the City’s associated obligations. • Inclusion of “goals” in addition to “policy objectives” to provide declarative statements that set forth the City’s approach to each of the priority issues. • Objective 2 in the 2014–2021 Housing Element evolved into Policy Objective H-1.1 in the 2021– 2029 Housing Element, which includes making sites available to accommodate current and projected housing needs for groups of all income levels in accordance with California Government Code Section 65583(c)(1). For implementation of Policy Objective H-1.1, the following program was added:
○ Rezone the 17 potential housing sites identified in the Housing Sites Inventory and Analysis to accommodate the City’s housing needs allocation.
• Objective 3 in the 2014–2021 Housing Element evolved into Policy Objective H-1.2 in the 2021– 2029 Housing Element, which states that the City should assist in developing adequate housing to meeting the needs of extremely low, very low- low, and moderate-income households. For implementation of Policy Objective H-1.2, the following programs were added:
○ Continue to maintain website information regarding fees, exactions, and affordability requirements imposed by the City that are applicable to housing development projects, in accordance with California Government Code Section 65940.1. ○ Prepare and maintain a webpage with information related to the 17 potential housing sites identified in the Housing Sites Inventory and Analysis, including a Geographic Information System (GIS) map layer with geospatial information.
○ Conduct a market study and then amend the existing inclusionary housing ordinance to modify the minimum percentages of new housing units that must be deed-restricted for extremely low, very low, and low-income households, as feasible and advantageous to promote the development of affordable housing.
○ Adopt an ordinance creating an expedited and fee-reduced lot consolidation process for consolidations involving any one or more of the 17 potential housing sites identified in the Housing Sites Inventory and Analysisadjacent residentially zoned parcels (including, but not limited to, the potential housing sites identified in the Housing Sites Inventory and Analysis) REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
H OUSING ELEMENT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
MARCH AUGUST 2023
Exhibit D - 8
for the purpose of developing housing projects in which at least 5% of housing units are affordable for extremely low income households; at least 10% of housing units are affordable for very low or low-income households; or, at least 50% of housing units are affordable for moderate-income households. To be eligible, the housing units shall be subject to an affordability covenant for at least 55 years. ○ Adopt an ordinance waiving or reducing City building permit fees for housing projects in which at least 5% of housing units are affordable for extremely low income households; at least 10% of housing units are affordable for very low or low-income households; or, at least 50% of housing units are affordable for moderate-income households. To be eligible, the housing units shall be subject to an affordability covenant for at least 55 years. ○ Amend various, existing housing-related provisions of the Laguna Woods Municipal Code to promote regulatory clarity.
○ Formalize written procedures for the application and processing of housing projects eligible for streamlined, ministerial approval.
○ Investigate potential incentives for the development of housing projects with features that exceed the minimum requirements set forth in the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards. If feasible and economical, adopt such incentives. ○ Continue to maintain website information regarding fees, exactions, and affordability requirements imposed by the City that are applicable to housing development projects, in accordance with California Government Code Section 65940.1. • Objective 4 in the 2014–2021 Housing Element evolved into Policy Objective H-1.3 in the 2021– 2029 Housing Element, which effectively changes the wording to provide reasonable accommodations for housing that is not only designed for persons with disabilities, but also intended for occupancy by or with supportive services for persons with disabilities. For implementation of Policy Objective H-1.3, the following programs were added:
○ Continue to consider transitional housing a residential use of property, subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zoning district.
○ Continue to consider supportive housing a residential use of property, subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zoning district.
○ Continue to allow supportive housing, as defined by California Government Code Section 65650, as a use permitted by right in all zoning districts where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, as provided in California Government Code Article 11 (commencing with Section 65650).
REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
MARCH AUGUST 2023 H OUSING ELEMENT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
Exhibit D - 9
○ Amend various, existing housing-related provisions of the Laguna Woods Municipal Code to conform to state law.
• The creation of a new objective, Policy Objective H-1.4, which incentivizes and promotes the creation of accessory dwelling units that can be offered at affordable rent for very low, low-, or moderate-income households.
• The creation of a new objective, Policy Objective H-1.5, which makes sites available to accommodate emergency housing needs for homeless persons and families. • Objective 1 in the 2014–2021 Housing Element evolved into Policy Objective H-2.1, Policy Objective H-2.2, and Policy Objective H-2.3, which add promotion of accessible and accommodating housing options for persons with special needs and promotion of housing conservation and revitalization. For implementation of Policy Objectives H-2.1, H-2.2, and H-2.3, the following programs were added:
○ Prepare and maintain a webpage with information on home improvement-related financial assistance opportunities available to extremely low, very low, and low-income households.
Train City staff to make referrals using the webpage.
○ Investigate potential incentives for property owners to extend and/or expand existing affordability covenants beyond the planned expiration date and/or current number of housing units, with an emphasis on incentivizing (i) affordability covenants for extremely low and very low- income housing units, and (ii) affordability covenants that apply to housing units in a range of sizes. If feasible and economical, adopt such incentives. ○ Prepare and maintain a webpage with information on home improvement-related financial assistance opportunities available to persons with special needs. Train City staff to make referrals using the webpage.
○ Adopt an ordinance waiving or reducing City building permit fees for improvements to the home of a person at least 60 years of age with a qualifying disability that are made to accommodate that disability, as provided for by California Health and Safety Code Section 17951.7. Consider including provisions allowing for similar building permit fee waivers or reductions for improvements to the home of a person with a qualifying disability that are made to accommodate that disability, regardless of age. Prepare and maintain a flyer with related information. Conduct annual outreach to nonprofit organizations known to provide medical or social services to residents with disabilities. Conduct biennial outreach to residents residing in Ccensus Ttracts 626.22 and 626.48. ○ Provide opportunities for reimbursements, grants, or other forms of financial assistance to support home improvements that increase accessibility or functionality for persons with special needs. Conduct annual outreach to nonprofit organizations known to provide medical or social services to residents with special needs. Conduct biennial outreach to residents residing in Ccensus Ttracts 626.22 and 626.48.
REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
H OUSING ELEMENT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
MARCH AUGUST 2023
Exhibit D - 10
○ Formalize a proactive code enforcement program that focuses on housing-related rehabilitation needs, results in repairs, and seeks to mitigate potential cost, displacement, and relocation impacts on residents.
• Program 3.A.5 in the 2014–2021 Housing Element was expanded to Goal H-3 in the 2021–2029 Housing Element, which involves the administration of housing and community development programs and activities in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing. Goal H-3 includes policy objectives and implementation programs relating to the following:
○ Enhancing housing mobility and protecting existing residents from displacement. • The creation of a new goal, Goal H-4, with its own set of policy objectives, which calls for analysis related to Housing Element implementation. This includes annual monitoring of the newly adopted Housing Element and coordination of the implementation of the newly adopted Housing Element with water and sewer agencies.
This update to the Housing Element revises existing programs and includes new programs, where appropriate, to ensure that the document reflects the City’s priorities and that updated requirements of California State law are addressed. Refer to the General Plan for the goals, policies, and programs of this Housing Element.
REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
MARCH AUGUST 2023 H OUSING ELEMENT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
Exhibit D - 11
4.0 ASSEMBLY BILL 1233 – SHORTFALL OF SITES FROM THE 5TH CYCLE
PLANNING PERIOD
According to the annual progress reports (APRs) provided to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the RHNA quantified the need for housing within the City to be two new housing units during the 5th Cycle planning period. However, no new housing units were built in the City, indicating a shortfall of new housing units triggering the provisions of Government Code Section 65584.09.
REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
H OUSING ELEMENT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
MARCH AUGUST 2023
Exhibit D - 12
This page intentionally left blank
REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
March August 2023
EXHIBIT E
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION EFFORTS
CITY OF LAGUNA WOODS
REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
This page intentionally left blank
REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
MARCH AUGUST 2023 P UBLIC P ARTICIPATION E FFORTS
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
Exhibit E-i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1
2.0 SUMMARY OF EFFORTS....................................................................................... 2
2.1 Public Meeting #1 ................................................................................................................ 2
2.2 Public Meeting #2 ................................................................................................................ 2
2.3 Public Meeting #3 ................................................................................................................ 3
2.4 Public Meeting #4 ................................................................................................................ 3
2.5 HCD Review Period............................................................................................................... 4
2.6 California Environmental Quality Act Public Comment Period............................................ 4
2.7 Revised Draft Public Review Period ..................................................................................... 6
2.8 Public Meeting #5 ................................................................................................................ 7
2.9 HCD Review Period............................................................................................................... 8
2.10 Revised Draft Public Posting and Notification ..................................................................... 8
2.11 Public Meeting #6 ................................................................................................................ 9
2.12 HCD Review Period............................................................................................................... 9
2.13 Revised Draft Public Posting and Notification ..................................................................... 9
2.14 Public Meeting #7 .............................................................................................................. 10
2.15 HCD Review Period............................................................................................................. 10
2.16 Revised Draft Public Posting and Notification ................................................................... 11
2.17 Public Meeting #8 .............................................................................................................. 11
2.18 Other Meetings.................................................................................................................. 12 REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
P UBLIC P ARTICIPATION E FFORTS
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
MARCH AUGUST 2023
Exhibit E - ii
This page intentionally left blank
REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
MARCH AUGUST 2023 P UBLIC P ARTICIPATION E FFORTS
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
Exhibit E-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Government Code Section 65583(c)(9) requires housing elements to “include a diligent effort by the local government to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort.” This report has been prepared to document efforts pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(c)(9).
REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
P UBLIC P ARTICIPATION E FFORTS
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
MARCH AUGUST 2023
Exhibit E-2
2.0 SUMMARY OF EFFORTS
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) approved its 6th Cycle Final Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Allocation Plan on March 4, 2021, at which point the City of Laguna Wood’s (City) housing needs allocation was finalized.
2.1 PUBLIC MEETING #1
On May 5, 2021, the City Council held its first meeting to discuss and consider the RHNA and General Plan Housing Element Update. The meeting took place at Laguna Woods City Hall at 2 p.m. City Council meetings are also televised and closed captioned with reasonable accessibility accommodations available on request. Public comments were accepted in person, in writing, by telephone, or by computer (Zoom). All five members of the City Council participated.
The notice for this meeting was posted on the City’s website and at locations pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2 on April 30, 2021. In addition, on April 30, 2021, email notification was provided to parties who had requested such notification or contacted City staff previously. As of April 30, 2021, the distribution list consisted of 10 email addresses, including residents and representatives from the League of Women Voters of Orange Coast and Orange County United Way.
The presentation at this meeting included an introduction to the RHNA process and an overview of the City’s housing needs allocation, required actions, and draft housing needs assessment.
Frequently asked questions were also discussed. A draft housing needs assessment and RHNA Frequently Asked Questions document was included in the agenda packet.
At this meeting, one resident spoke during public comments.
2.2 PUBLIC MEETING #2
On May 19, 2021, the City Council held its second meeting to discuss and consider the RHNA and General Plan Housing Element Update. The meeting took place at Laguna Woods City Hall at 2 p.m.
City Council meetings are also televised and closed captioned with reasonable accessibility accommodations available on request. Public comments were accepted in person, in writing, by telephone, or by computer (Zoom). All five members of the City Council participated.
The notice for this meeting was posted on the City’s website and at locations pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2 on May 14, 2021. In addition, on May 14, 2021, email notification was provided to parties who had requested such notification or contacted City staff previously. As of May 14, 2021, the distribution list consisted of 11 email addresses, including residents and representatives from the League of Women Voters of Orange Coast and Orange County United Way.
The presentation at this meeting included background information on the RHNA process and an overview of the City’s housing needs allocation, and draft housing needs assessment. Staff also discussed a number of sites that community members might consider vacant based on appearance REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
MARCH AUGUST 2023 P UBLIC P ARTICIPATION E FFORTS
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
Exhibit E-3
and associated constraints that could affect housing development. The City’s new project website was also announced (www.cityoflagunawoods.org/projects). A draft housing sites inventory scenario and RHNA Frequently Asked Questions document were included in the agenda packet.
At this meeting, five residents and Cesar Covarrubias, Executive Director of The Kennedy Commission, spoke during public comments. Written public comments were received from seven residents (including one resident on behalf of the Welcoming Neighbors Home Initiative of Tapestry, a Unitarian Universalist Congregation) and The Kennedy Commission.
2.3 PUBLIC MEETING #3
On June 2, 2021, the City Council held its third meeting to discuss and consider the RHNA and General Plan Housing Element Update. The meeting took place at Laguna Woods City Hall at 11:30 a.m. City Council meetings are also televised and closed captioned with reasonable accessibility accommodations available on request. Public comments were accepted in person, in writing, by telephone, or by computer (Zoom). All five members of the City Council participated.
The notice for this meeting was posted on the City’s website and at locations pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2 on May 28, 2021. In addition, on May 28, 2021, email notification was provided to parties who had requested such notification or contacted City staff previously. As of May 28, 2021, the distribution list consisted of 14 email addresses, including residents and representatives from The Kennedy Commission, Laguna Woods Democratic Club, League of Women Voters of Orange Coast, and Orange County United Way.
The presentation at this meeting included background information on the RHNA process and an overview of the City’s housing needs allocation and revised draft housing needs assessment (revised following the May 19, 2021 City Council meeting). A revised draft housing sites inventory scenario, draft California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Housing Element Sites Inventory Form, and RHNA Frequently Asked Questions document were included in the agenda packet. An electronic spreadsheet version of the HCD Housing Element Sites Inventory Form was posted on the City’s website on May 28, 2021.
At this meeting, three residents spoke during public comments.
The City Council reached consensus for City staff to proceed with the General Plan Housing Element Update incorporating the housing sites scenario presented at this meeting.
2.4 PUBLIC MEETING #4
On July 21, 2021, the City Council held its fourth meeting to discuss and consider the RHNA and General Plan Housing Element Update. The meeting took place at Laguna Woods City Hall at 2 p.m.
City Council meetings are also televised and closed captioned with reasonable accessibility accommodations available on request. Public comments were accepted in person, in writing, by telephone, or by computer (Zoom). All five members of the City Council participated.
The notice for this meeting was posted on the City’s website and at locations pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2 on July 16, 2021. In addition, on July 16, 2021, email notification REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
P UBLIC P ARTICIPATION E FFORTS
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
MARCH AUGUST 2023
Exhibit E-4
was provided to parties who had requested such notification or contacted City staff previously. As of July 16, 2021, the distribution list consisted of 15 email addresses, including residents and representatives from The Kennedy Commission, Laguna Woods Democratic Club, League of Women Voters of Orange Coast, and Orange County United Way.
The presentation at this meeting included background information on the RHNA process and an overview of the City’s housing needs allocation, draft General Plan Housing Element, and HCD review process. Drafts of the General Plan Housing Element and HCD Housing Element Sites Inventory Form were included in the agenda packet. An electronic spreadsheet version of the HCD Housing Element Sites Inventory Form was posted on the City’s website on July 16, 2021. No change was made to the HCD Housing Element Sites Inventory Form since it was first made publicly available on May 28, 2021.
The agenda report noted that interested parties would have an opportunity to submit public comments directly to HCD during their review process and provided a link to additional information available on HCD’s website.
At this meeting, one resident spoke during public comments. Written comments were received from one resident.
The City Council voted 4-1, with then-Mayor Pro Tem Moore voting no, to authorize the City Manager to submit drafts of the updated General Plan Housing Element and Housing Element Sites Inventory Form to HCD for review, as required by Government Code Section 65585.
2.5 HCD REVIEW PERIOD
The City Manager submitted the draft General Plan Housing Element and HCD Housing Element Sites Inventory Form to HCD for review on July 21, 2021 (HCD records this submittal as July 22, 2021, presumably due to the submittal occurring after regular business hours).
During HCD’s review period, the following entities and individuals submitted comments directly to HCD, which HCD considered in its review pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(c):
• The Kennedy Commission
• YIMBY Law
• Catherine R Van Camp, resident
• Ramesh C Joshi, resident
HCD’s findings were reported to the City in a letter dated September 20, 2021.
2.6 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD The draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the General Plan Housing Element Update was made available for a 31-day public comment period between August 17, 2021 and September 16, 2021. A Notice of Intent to Adopt (NOIA) announcing the public comment period and providing information on how to access the IS/ND was published in the Laguna Woods Globe newspaper on August 12, 2021 and concurrently posted at City Hall and on the City’s website. The REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
MARCH AUGUST 2023 P UBLIC P ARTICIPATION E FFORTS
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
Exhibit E-5
NOIA was also mailed to all property owners in Laguna Woods and within a 1,000-foot radius of the City’s boundaries, as required by the City’s Local California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Procedures.
The draft IS/ND was directly distributed to the following parties:
• California State Clearinghouse
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife South Coast Region • California Department of Housing and Community Development • California Department of Toxic Substances Control
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District #12 • California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region • California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region • Capistrano Unified School District
• City of Aliso Viejo Planning Services Department
• City of Irvine Community Development Department
• City of Laguna Beach Community & Economic Development Department • City of Laguna Hills Community & Economic Development Department • City of Lake Forest Community Development Department
• El Toro Water District
• Laguna Beach Unified School District
• Native American Heritage Commission
• Orange County Development Services
• Orange County Fire Authority
• Orange County Flood Control District
• Orange County Health Care Agency
• Orange County Transportation Authority
• Orange County Waste & Recycling
• Saddleback Valley Unified School District
• Southern California Air Quality Management District
• Southern California Association of Governments
• Southern California Edison
• Southern California Gas Company
• State Water Resources Control Board
• U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
On August 17, 2021, the public comment period was extended by one day to September 17, 2021, due to the inadvertent distribution of an incorrect draft of the IS/ND to the parties listed above on August 16, 2021. The correct draft of the IS/ND was distributed on August 17, 2021.
Comment letters were received from the following parties:
• California Department of Housing and Community Development • California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 12 REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
P UBLIC P ARTICIPATION E FFORTS
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
MARCH AUGUST 2023
Exhibit E-6
• City of Irvine
• Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
• Gabrielino-Tongva Indian Tribe
• Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation
• Orange County Fire Authority
• Saddleback Valley Unified School District
• Southern California Association of Governments
Individual responses were provided to each commenting party via mail and email on January 26, 2022. The responses included a copy of each party’s comment letter and corresponding responses included as part of the Final IS/ND, as well as notice that the City Council was expected to consider adoption of the Final IS/ND at a public meeting on February 9, 2022.
While the primary purpose of the public comment period was to solicit input on the draft IS/ND as required by CEQA, the draft IS/ND included a project description with site-specific information consistent with the draft General Plan Housing Element and HCD Housing Element Sites Inventory Form acted upon by the City Council at the public meeting on July 21, 2021. A portion of the comments received during the public comment period applied to the project generally, as opposed to the draft IS/ND specifically.
2.7 REVISED DRAFT PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
On January 13, 2022, revised drafts of the General Plan Housing Element and HCD Housing Element Sites Inventory Form were posted on the City’s website and made available from the City Clerk’s Office for a 15-day public review period concluding on January 27, 2022.
A public notice announcing the public review period and providing information on how to access the revised draft documents was published in the Laguna Woods Globe newspaper on January 13, 2022.
The public notice was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website, as well as emailed to parties who had requested such notification or contacted City staff previously, on January 7, 2022. As of January 7, 2022, the distribution list consisted of 15 email addresses, including residents and representatives from The Kennedy Commission, Laguna Woods Democratic Club, League of Women Voters of Orange Coast, and Orange County United Way. The public notice noted the availability of in-person or virtual meetings with City staff to discuss or ask questions regarding the documents, and provided instructions for individuals who require translation services to communicate with the City.
“Clean” and redline versions of the revised draft General Plan Housing Element, and an electronic spreadsheet version of the HCD Housing Element Sites Inventory Form, were posted on the City’s website and made available from City Hall on January 13, 2022.
During the Revised Draft Public Review Period, the following parties submitted comment letters to the City with additional distribution by the authors as noted:
• Catherine “Kate” R. Van Camp [sent to the City, the City Council, and the City Manager, with copies to HCD ([email protected], Paul McDougall, and Marisa Prasse), Rona Henry REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
MARCH AUGUST 2023 P UBLIC P ARTICIPATION E FFORTS
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
Exhibit E-7
with Welcoming Neighbors Home, and Cesar Covarrubias, Executive Director of The Kennedy Commission]
This letter expressed general support for the revised draft General Plan Housing Element. The author wrote that, in her opinion, “the requests of the HCD have been met.” • Welcoming Neighbors Home [sent by Rona Henry on behalf of herself and Rev. Kent Doss, minister of Tapestry Unitarian Universalist Congregation to the City and the City Council, with copies to the City Manager, HCD ([email protected], Paul McDougall, and Marisa Prasse), The Kennedy Commission (Cesar Covarrubias, Mildred Perez, Daisy Cruz, and Cynthia Guerra), Kate Van Camp, and Rev. Doss]
This letter expressed general support for the revised draft General Plan Housing Element. The author requested that the City “include a program to implement a Congregational Overlay Zone” and “host a roundtable event with faith organizations located in Laguna Woods to explore the opportunities that exist for them to build.”
Both requests can be considered as part of the rezoning process described in Program H-1.1.1.
The rezoning process will include the creation of four new overlay zoning districts and the adoption of minimum density and development standards for each. City staff are available to meet with faith organizations or other interested parties, as requested.
2.8 PUBLIC MEETING #5
On February 9, 2022, the City Council held its fifth meeting to discuss and consider the RHNA and General Plan Housing Element Update. The meeting took place at Laguna Woods City Hall at 2 p.m.
City Council meetings are also televised and closed captioned with reasonable accessibility accommodations available on request. Public comments were accepted in person, in writing, by telephone, or by computer (Zoom). All five members of the City Council participated.
The notice for this meeting was posted on the City’s website and at locations pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2 on February 4, 2022. In addition, on January 20, 2022, email notification was provided to parties who had requested such notification or contacted City staff previously. As of January 20, 2022, the distribution list consisted of 15 email addresses, including residents and representatives from The Kennedy Commission, Laguna Woods Democratic Club, League of Women Voters of Orange Coast, and Orange County United Way.
On February 4, 2022, a second email notification was provided to parties who had requested such notification or contacted City staff previously. The distribution list remained unchanged from the distribution list used for the first notification on January 20, 2022. The second notification included links to the agenda materials and notice that proposed revisions to the January 13, 2022 draft of the General Plan Housing Element were included therein.
Consideration of adoption of the General Plan Housing Element Update and Negative Declaration was additionally noticed as a public hearing. A public notice was published in the Orange County Register newspaper on January 27, 2022. The public notice included a project description adapted REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
P UBLIC P ARTICIPATION E FFORTS
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
MARCH AUGUST 2023
Exhibit E-8
from the draft IS/ND and information on how to access the draft General Plan Housing Element and draft ND.
Copies of both public comment letters received during the Revised Draft Public Review Period were including in the agenda packet.
Drafts of the proposed General Plan Housing Element and HCD Housing Element Sites Inventory Form were included in the agenda packet, as well as redline versions of all revisions made since the drafts acted upon by the City Council at the public meeting on July 21, 2021. An electronic spreadsheet version of the HCD Housing Element Sites Inventory Form was posted on the City’s website on February 4, 2022.
The City Council voted 5-0 to adopt a resolution adopting the General Plan Housing Element Update and Negative Declaration.
2.9 HCD REVIEW PERIOD
The City Manager submitted the adopted General Plan Housing Element and HCD Housing Element Sites Inventory Form to HCD for review on February 9, 2022.
During HCD’s review period, the following entities and individuals submitted comments directly to HCD, which HCD considered in its review pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(c):
• Catherine R Van Camp, resident and housing advocate with Welcoming Neighbors Home • Rona Henry, resident and chair of Welcome Neighbors Home HCD’s findings were reported to the City in a letter dated March 8, 2022. HCD reissued the letter to correct a typographical error dated April 8, 2022.
2.10 REVISED DRAFT PUBLIC POSTING AND NOTIFICATION
On August 5, 2022, revised drafts of the General Plan Housing Element and HCD Housing Element Sites Inventory Form were posted on the City’s website and made available from the City Clerk’s Office. The posted materials included both “clean” and redline versions of the General Plan Housing Element, as well as an electronic spreadsheet version of the HCD Housing Element Sites Inventory Form. The latter was unchanged from the version adopted by the City Council on February 9, 2022.
A public notice announcing the public review period and providing information on how to access the revised draft documents was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website, as well as emailed to parties who had requested such notification or contacted City staff previously, on August 5, 2022. As of August 5, 2022, the distribution list consisted of 15 email addresses, including residents and representatives from The Kennedy Commission, Laguna Woods Democratic Club, League of Women Voters of Orange Coast, and Orange County United Way. The public notice noted the availability of in-person or virtual meetings with City staff to discuss or ask questions regarding the documents, and provided instructions for individuals who require translation services to communicate with the City.
REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
MARCH AUGUST 2023 P UBLIC P ARTICIPATION E FFORTS
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
Exhibit E-9
2.11 PUBLIC MEETING #6
On August 12, 2022, the City Council held its sixth meeting to discuss and consider the RHNA and General Plan Housing Element Update. The meeting took place at Laguna Woods City Hall at 3:30 p.m. City Council meetings are also televised and closed captioned with reasonable accessibility accommodations available on request. Public comments were accepted in person, in writing, by telephone, or by computer (Zoom). All five members of the City Council participated.
The notice for this meeting was posted on the City’s website and at locations pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2 on August 11, 2022. In addition, on August 11, 2022, email notification was provided to parties who had requested such notification or contacted City staff previously. As of August 11, 2022, the distribution list consisted of 15 email addresses, including residents and representatives from The Kennedy Commission, Laguna Woods Democratic Club, League of Women Voters of Orange Coast, and Orange County United Way. The notification included links to the agenda materials and notice that proposed revisions to the General Plan Housing Element adopted on February 9, 2022 were included therein.
Drafts of the proposed General Plan Housing Element and HCD Housing Element Sites Inventory Form were included in the agenda packet, as well as redline versions of all revisions made since the versions adopted by the City Council on February 9, 2022. An electronic spreadsheet version of the HCD Housing Element Sites Inventory Form was posted on the City’s website on August 11, 2022.
The City Council voted 5-0 to adopt a resolution adopting the General Plan Housing Element Update.
2.12 HCD REVIEW PERIOD
The City Manager submitted the adopted General Plan Housing Element and HCD Housing Element Sites Inventory Form to HCD for review on August 12, 2022.
During HCD’s review period, no entities or individuals submitted comments directly to HCD.
HCD’s findings were reported to the City in a letter dated October 11, 2022.
2.13 REVISED DRAFT PUBLIC POSTING AND NOTIFICATION
On March 8, 2023, revised drafts of the General Plan Housing Element and HCD Housing Element Sites Inventory Form were posted on the City’s website and made available from the City Clerk’s Office. The posted materials included both “clean” and redline versions of the General Plan Housing Element, as well as an electronic spreadsheet version of the HCD Housing Element Sites Inventory Form. The latter was unchanged from the version adopted by the City Council on February 9, 2022.
A public notice announcing the public review period and providing information on how to access the revised draft documents was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website, as well as emailed to parties who had requested such notification or contacted City staff previously, on March 8, 2023. As of March 8, 2023, the distribution list consisted of 15 email addresses, including residents and representatives from The Kennedy Commission, Laguna Woods Democratic Club, League of Women Voters of Orange Coast, and Orange County United Way. The public notice noted the availability of REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
P UBLIC P ARTICIPATION E FFORTS
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
MARCH AUGUST 2023
Exhibit E-10
in-person or virtual meetings with City staff to discuss or ask questions regarding the documents, and provided instructions for individuals who require translation services to communicate with the City.
2.14 PUBLIC MEETING #7
On March 22, 2023, the City Council held its seventh meeting to discuss and consider the RHNA and General Plan Housing Element Update. The meeting took place at Laguna Woods City Hall at 2 p.m.
City Council meetings are also televised and closed captioned with reasonable accessibility accommodations available on request. Public comments were accepted in person, in writing, by telephone, or by computer (Zoom). All five members of the City Council participated.
The notice for this meeting was posted on the City’s website and at locations pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2 on March 17, 2023. In addition, on March 17, 2023, email notification was provided to parties who had requested such notification or contacted City staff previously. As of March 17, 2023, the distribution list consisted of 15 email addresses, including residents and representatives from The Kennedy Commission, Laguna Woods Democratic Club, League of Women Voters of Orange Coast, and Orange County United Way. The notification included links to the agenda materials and notice that proposed revisions to the General Plan Housing Element adopted on August 12, 2022 were included therein.
Drafts of the proposed General Plan Housing Element and HCD Housing Element Sites Inventory Form were included in the agenda packet, as well as redline versions of all revisions made since the versions adopted by the City Council on August 12, 2022. An electronic spreadsheet version of the HCD Housing Element Sites Inventory Form was posted on the City’s website on March 17, 2023.
At this meeting, staff proposed minor revisions to the March 8, 2023 draft of the General Plan Housing Element, which were limited to correcting dates in Section 2.9 of Exhibit E, adding a new Section 2.12 to Exhibit E to memorialize the HCD review period for the General Plan Housing Element Update adopted by the City Council on August 12, 2022 (including updating Exhibit E’s table of contents, section numbering, and formatting accordingly), and documenting the same.
The City Council voted 5-0 to adopt a resolution adopting the General Plan Housing Element Update, including staff’s proposed minor revisions.
2.15 HCD REVIEW PERIOD
The City Manager submitted the adopted General Plan Housing Element and HCD Housing Element Sites Inventory Form to HCD for review on March 23, 2023.
During HCD’s review period, no entities or individuals submitted comments directly to HCD.
HCD’s findings were reported to the City in a letter dated May 22, 2023.
REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
MARCH AUGUST 2023 P UBLIC P ARTICIPATION E FFORTS
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
Exhibit E-11
2.16 REVISED DRAFT PUBLIC POSTING AND NOTIFICATION
On August 4, 2023, revised drafts of the General Plan Housing Element and HCD Housing Element Sites Inventory Form were posted on the City’s website and made available from the City Clerk’s Office. The posted materials included both “clean” and redline versions of the General Plan Housing Element, as well as an electronic spreadsheet version of the HCD Housing Element Sites Inventory Form. The latter was unchanged from the version adopted by the City Council on February 9, 2022.
A public notice announcing the public review period and providing information on how to access the revised draft documents was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website, as well as emailed to parties who had requested such notification or contacted City staff previously, on August 4, 2023. As of August 4, 2023, the distribution list consisted of 14 email addresses, including residents and representatives from The Kennedy Commission, Laguna Woods Democratic Club, League of Women Voters of Orange Coast, and Orange County United Way. The public notice noted the availability of in-person or virtual meetings with City staff to discuss or ask questions regarding the documents, and provided instructions for individuals who require translation services to communicate with the City.
2.17 PUBLIC MEETING #8
On August XX, 2023, the City Council held its eighth meeting to discuss and consider the RHNA and General Plan Housing Element Update. The meeting took place at Laguna Woods City Hall at XX. City Council meetings are also televised and closed- captioned, with reasonable accessibility accommodations available on request. Public comments were accepted in person, in writing, by telephone, or by computer (Zoom). XX members of the City Council participated.
The notice for this meeting was posted on the City’s website and at locations pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2 on August XX, 2023. In addition, on August XX, 2023, email notification was provided to parties who had requested such notification or contacted City staff previously. As of August XX, 2023, the distribution list consisted of 15 email addresses, including residents and representatives from The Kennedy Commission, Laguna Woods Democratic Club, League of Women Voters of Orange Coast, and Orange County United Way. The notification included links to the agenda materials and notice that proposed revisions to the General Plan Housing Element adopted on March 22, 2023, were included therein.
Drafts of the proposed General Plan Housing Element and HCD Housing Element Sites Inventory Form were included in the agenda packet, as well as redline versions of all revisions made since the versions adopted by the City Council on March 22, 2023. An electronic spreadsheet version of the HCD Housing Element Sites Inventory Form was posted on the City’s website on August XX, 2023.
The City Council voted XX-XX to XX a resolution adopting the General Plan Housing Element Update.
REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
P UBLIC P ARTICIPATION E FFORTS
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
MARCH AUGUST 2023
Exhibit E-12
2.152.18 OTHER MEETINGS
On May 17, 2021, the City Manager met via GoToMeeting with Village Management Services, Inc. (Laguna Woods Village) staff (Jeff Parker, CEO and Siobhan Foster, COO) to discuss the RHNA and General Plan Housing Element Update. Subsequent to the meeting, the City Manager forwarded Mr. Parker and Ms. Foster the agenda report for the May 19, 2021 City Council meeting and a RHNA Frequently Asked Questions document.
On May 25, 2021, the City Manager met by telephone with Cesar Covarrubias, Executive Director of The Kennedy Commission, to discuss inclusionary housing and incentives for affordable housing development on non-vacant sites. Subsequent to the meeting, Mr. Covarrubias forwarded the City Manager information on the City of San Clemente’s Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee Program Study.
On November 19, 2021, the City Manager met with Kate Van Camp, a resident and housing advocate with Welcoming Neighbors Home, to discuss the General Plan Housing Element Update, review letter from HCD, Ms. Van Camp’s email correspondence to the City Manager dated October 3, 2021 (copied to the City Council, Rona Henry with Welcoming Neighbors Home, and Kimberly Adams with Orange County United Way), and various related topics. On November 20, 2021, Ms. Van Camp sent email correspondence as a follow-up to the meeting to the City Council with copies to the City Manager, HCD ([email protected] and Marisa Prasse), Rona Henry with Welcoming Neighbors Home, and Cesar Covarrubias, Executive Director of The Kennedy Commission.
REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
MARCH AUGUST 2023 P UBLIC P ARTICIPATION E FFORTS
L AGUNA WOODS , C ALIFORNIA
Exhibit E-13
This page intentionally left blank
REDLINE ITEM 8.3 - Attachment D
This page is intentionally blank.
ITEM 8.3
Attachment E
Information Required to Complete HCD’s Housing Element Sites Inventory Form for the Proposed Revised General Plan Housing Element
This page is intentionally blank.
ITEM 8.3 – Attachment E
CITY OF LAGUNA WOODS
INFORMATION REQUIRED TO COMPLETE
THE HCD HOUSING ELEMENT SITES INVENTORY FORM
FOR THE PROPOSED REVISED GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT
Please note that the “Very Low-Income,” “Low-Income,” “Moderate-Income,” and “Above Moderate-Income” fields are estimates only. Potential future housing construction could occur at any income level, subject to compliance with applicable development standards, including inclusionary housing requirements.
Site #1
Vacant lot near Town Centre
Table B: Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need Jurisdiction Name Laguna Woods
Site Address/Intersection North of Moulton Parkway, east of signalized intersection at Ayres Hotel
5 Digit ZIP Code 92637
Assessor Parcel Number 616-012-29
Very Low-Income 10
Low-Income 11
Moderate-Income 0
Above Moderate-Income 60
Type of Shortfall Shortfall of Sites
Parcel Size (Acres) 1.8
Current General Plan Designation Commercial
Current Zoning Community Commercial
Proposed General Plan (GP) Designation Commercial
Proposed Zoning Residential High Density Overlay
Minimum Density Allowed 30
Maximum Density Allowed 50
Total Capacity 81
Vacant/Nonvacant Vacant
Description of Existing Uses Vacant
Suitable for Lower Income Households
(Density & Parcel Size) Yes
Financially Feasible for Federal & State
Funding (Lower Income Suitability +
50-150 Unit Project Size)
Yes
Consolidation Potential Due to
Adjacency of Other Candidate Site(s) Yes
ITEM 8.3 – Attachment E
Please note that the “Very Low-Income,” “Low-Income,” “Moderate-Income,” and “Above Moderate-Income” fields are estimates only. Potential future housing construction could occur at any income level, subject to compliance with applicable development standards, including inclusionary housing requirements.
Site #2
Parking lot for Pacific Hills Calvary Chapel
Table B: Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need Jurisdiction Name Laguna Woods
Site Address/Intersection 24481 Moulton Parkway
5 Digit ZIP Code 92637
Assessor Parcel Number 621-131-38
Very Low-Income 2
Low-Income 2
Moderate-Income 0
Above Moderate-Income 27
Type of Shortfall Shortfall of Sites
Parcel Size (Acres) 0.696
Current General Plan Designation Commercial
Current Zoning Professional & Administrative Office
Proposed General Plan (GP) Designation Commercial
Proposed Zoning Residential High Density Overlay
Minimum Density Allowed 30
Maximum Density Allowed 50
Total Capacity 31
Vacant/Nonvacant Non-Vacant
Description of Existing Uses Church parking lot
Suitable for Lower Income Households
(Density & Parcel Size) Yes
Financially Feasible for Federal & State
Funding (Lower Income Suitability +
50-150 Unit Project Size)
No
Consolidation Potential Due to
Adjacency of Other Candidate Site(s) No
ITEM 8.3 – Attachment E
Please note that the “Very Low-Income,” “Low-Income,” “Moderate-Income,” and “Above Moderate-Income” fields are estimates only. Potential future housing construction could occur at any income level, subject to compliance with applicable development standards, including inclusionary housing requirements.
Site #3
Rossmoor Electric
Table B: Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need Jurisdiction Name Laguna Woods
Site Address/Intersection 24351 Moulton Parkway
5 Digit ZIP Code 92637
Assessor Parcel Number 621-131-21
Very Low-Income 5
Low-Income 6
Moderate-Income 0
Above Moderate-Income 44
Type of Shortfall Shortfall of Sites
Parcel Size (Acres) 1.232
Current General Plan Designation Commercial
Current Zoning Community Commercial
Proposed General Plan (GP) Designation Commercial
Proposed Zoning Residential High Density Overlay
Minimum Density Allowed 30
Maximum Density Allowed 50
Total Capacity 55
Vacant/Nonvacant Non-Vacant
Description of Existing Uses Commercial businesses (Rossmoor Electric building; health and wellness)
Suitable for Lower Income Households
(Density & Parcel Size) Yes
Financially Feasible for Federal & State
Funding (Lower Income Suitability +
50-150 Unit Project Size)
Yes
Consolidation Potential Due to
Adjacency of Other Candidate Site(s) No
ITEM 8.3 – Attachment E
Please note that the “Very Low-Income,” “Low-Income,” “Moderate-Income,” and “Above Moderate-Income” fields are estimates only. Potential future housing construction could occur at any income level, subject to compliance with applicable development standards, including inclusionary housing requirements.
Site #4
Saddleback Golf Cars
Table B: Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need Jurisdiction Name Laguna Woods
Site Address/Intersection 23252 Via Campo Verde
5 Digit ZIP Code 92637
Assessor Parcel Number 621-131-26
Very Low-Income 5
Low-Income 6
Moderate-Income 0
Above Moderate-Income 44
Type of Shortfall Shortfall of Sites
Parcel Size (Acres) 1.235
Current General Plan Designation Commercial
Current Zoning Community Commercial
Proposed General Plan (GP) Designation Commercial
Proposed Zoning Residential High Density Overlay
Minimum Density Allowed 30
Maximum Density Allowed 50
Total Capacity 55
Vacant/Nonvacant Non-Vacant
Description of Existing Uses Commercial business (Saddleback Golf Cars) Suitable for Lower Income Households
(Density & Parcel Size) Yes
Financially Feasible for Federal & State
Funding (Lower Income Suitability +
50-150 Unit Project Size)
Yes
Consolidation Potential Due to
Adjacency of Other Candidate Site(s) No
ITEM 8.3 – Attachment E
Please note that the “Very Low-Income,” “Low-Income,” “Moderate-Income,” and “Above Moderate-Income” fields are estimates only. Potential future housing construction could occur at any income level, subject to compliance with applicable development standards, including inclusionary housing requirements.
Site #5
Laguna Woods Self Storage
Table B: Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need Jurisdiction Name Laguna Woods
Site Address/Intersection 24151 Moulton Parkway
5 Digit ZIP Code 92637
Assessor Parcel Number 616-012-19
Very Low-Income 76
Low-Income 79
Moderate-Income 0
Above Moderate-Income 81
Type of Shortfall Shortfall of Sites
Parcel Size (Acres) 5.249
Current General Plan Designation Commercial
Current Zoning Community Commercial
Proposed General Plan (GP) Designation Commercial
Proposed Zoning Residential High Density Overlay
Minimum Density Allowed 30
Maximum Density Allowed 50
Total Capacity 236
Vacant/Nonvacant Non-Vacant
Description of Existing Uses Commercial business (Self-storage) Suitable for Lower Income Households
(Density & Parcel Size) Yes
Financially Feasible for Federal & State
Funding (Lower Income Suitability +
50-150 Unit Project Size)
No
Consolidation Potential Due to
Adjacency of Other Candidate Site(s) Yes
ITEM 8.3 – Attachment E
Please note that the “Very Low-Income,” “Low-Income,” “Moderate-Income,” and “Above Moderate-Income” fields are estimates only. Potential future housing construction could occur at any income level, subject to compliance with applicable development standards, including inclusionary housing requirements.
Site #6
Animal Hospital
Table B: Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need Jurisdiction Name Laguna Woods
Site Address/Intersection 24271 El Toro Road
5 Digit ZIP Code 92637
Assessor Parcel Number 616-012-03
Very Low-Income 2
Low-Income 3
Moderate-Income 0
Above Moderate-Income 29
Type of Shortfall Shortfall of Sites
Parcel Size (Acres) 0.76
Current General Plan Designation Commercial
Current Zoning Community Commercial
Proposed General Plan (GP) Designation Commercial
Proposed Zoning Residential High Density Overlay
Minimum Density Allowed 30
Maximum Density Allowed 50
Total Capacity 34
Vacant/Nonvacant Non-Vacant
Description of Existing Uses Commercial business (Animal hospital) Suitable for Lower Income Households
(Density & Parcel Size) Yes
Financially Feasible for Federal & State
Funding (Lower Income Suitability +
50-150 Unit Project Size)
No
Consolidation Potential Due to
Adjacency of Other Candidate Site(s) Yes
ITEM 8.3 – Attachment E
Please note that the “Very Low-Income,” “Low-Income,” “Moderate-Income,” and “Above Moderate-Income” fields are estimates only. Potential future housing construction could occur at any income level, subject to compliance with applicable development standards, including inclusionary housing requirements.
Site #7
PS Business Park (excludes Jack in the Box)
Table B: Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need Jurisdiction Name Laguna Woods
Site Address/Intersection 23572 Moulton Parkway
5 Digit ZIP Code 92637
Assessor Parcel Number 616-021-30
Very Low-Income 24
Low-Income 26
Moderate-Income 0
Above Moderate-Income 79
Type of Shortfall Shortfall of Sites
Parcel Size (Acres) 2.867
Current General Plan Designation Commercial
Current Zoning Community Commercial
Proposed General Plan (GP) Designation Commercial
Proposed Zoning Residential High Density Overlay
Minimum Density Allowed 30
Maximum Density Allowed 50
Total Capacity 129
Vacant/Nonvacant Non-Vacant
Description of Existing Uses Commercial businesses (Self-storage, retail, and food) Suitable for Lower Income Households
(Density & Parcel Size) Yes
Financially Feasible for Federal & State
Funding (Lower Income Suitability +
50-150 Unit Project Size)
Yes
Consolidation Potential Due to
Adjacency of Other Candidate Site(s) No
ITEM 8.3 – Attachment E
Please note that the “Very Low-Income,” “Low-Income,” “Moderate-Income,” and “Above Moderate-Income” fields are estimates only. Potential future housing construction could occur at any income level, subject to compliance with applicable development standards, including inclusionary housing requirements.
Site #8
Smart Parke
Table B: Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need Jurisdiction Name Laguna Woods
Site Address/Intersection 24334 El Toro Road
5 Digit ZIP Code 92637
Assessor Parcel Number 621-211-09
Very Low-Income 6
Low-Income 7
Moderate-Income 0
Above Moderate-Income 50
Type of Shortfall Shortfall of Sites
Parcel Size (Acres) 2.373
Current General Plan Designation Commercial
Current Zoning Community Commercial
Proposed General Plan (GP) Designation Commercial
Proposed Zoning Residential High Density Overlay
Minimum Density Allowed 30
Maximum Density Allowed 50
Total Capacity 63
Vacant/Nonvacant Non-Vacant
Description of Existing Uses Pet boarding/day care
Suitable for Lower Income Households
(Density & Parcel Size) Yes
Financially Feasible for Federal & State
Funding (Lower Income Suitability +
50-150 Unit Project Size)
Yes
Consolidation Potential Due to
Adjacency of Other Candidate Site(s) No
ITEM 8.3 – Attachment E
Please note that the “Very Low-Income,” “Low-Income,” “Moderate-Income,” and “Above Moderate-Income” fields are estimates only. Potential future housing construction could occur at any income level, subject to compliance with applicable development standards, including inclusionary housing requirements.
Site #9
McCormick & Son Mortuary
Table B: Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need Jurisdiction Name Laguna Woods
Site Address/Intersection 25002 Moulton Parkway
5 Digit ZIP Code 92637
Assessor Parcel Number 621-091-16
Very Low-Income 0
Low-Income 0
Moderate-Income 0
Above Moderate-Income 25
Type of Shortfall Shortfall of Sites
Parcel Size (Acres) 1.411
Current General Plan Designation Commercial
Current Zoning Community Commercial
Proposed General Plan (GP) Designation Commercial
Proposed Zoning Residential Medium Density Overlay
Minimum Density Allowed 15
Maximum Density Allowed 20
Total Capacity 25
Vacant/Nonvacant Non-Vacant
Description of Existing Uses Commercial business (Mortuary) Suitable for Lower Income Households
(Density & Parcel Size) No
Financially Feasible for Federal & State
Funding (Lower Income Suitability +
50-150 Unit Project Size)
No
Consolidation Potential Due to
Adjacency of Other Candidate Site(s) Yes
ITEM 8.3 – Attachment E
Please note that the “Very Low-Income,” “Low-Income,” “Moderate-Income,” and “Above Moderate-Income” fields are estimates only. Potential future housing construction could occur at any income level, subject to compliance with applicable development standards, including inclusionary housing requirements.
Site #10
Lutheran Church of the Cross
Table B: Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need Jurisdiction Name Laguna Woods
Site Address/Intersection 24231 El Toro Road
5 Digit ZIP Code 92637
Assessor Parcel Number 616-041-01
Very Low-Income 0
Low-Income 0
Moderate-Income 35
Above Moderate-Income 19
Type of Shortfall Shortfall of Sites
Parcel Size (Acres) 3.028
Current General Plan Designation Community Facilities
Current Zoning Community Facilities-Private
Proposed General Plan (GP) Designation Community Facilities Proposed Zoning Residential Medium-Low Density Overlay
Minimum Density Allowed 15
Maximum Density Allowed 20
Total Capacity 54
Vacant/Nonvacant Non-Vacant
Description of Existing Uses Lutheran Church of the Cross Suitable for Lower Income Households
(Density & Parcel Size) No
Financially Feasible for Federal & State
Funding (Lower Income Suitability +
50-150 Unit Project Size)
Yes
Consolidation Potential Due to
Adjacency of Other Candidate Site(s) No
ITEM 8.3 – Attachment E
Please note that the “Very Low-Income,” “Low-Income,” “Moderate-Income,” and “Above Moderate-Income” fields are estimates only. Potential future housing construction could occur at any income level, subject to compliance with applicable development standards, including inclusionary housing requirements.
Site #11 (Parcel 1 of 2)
Geneva Presbyterian Church
Table B: Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need Jurisdiction Name Laguna Woods
Site Address/Intersection 24301 El Toro Road
5 Digit ZIP Code 92637
Assessor Parcel Number 616-191-05
Very Low-Income 0
Low-Income 0
Moderate-Income 6
Above Moderate-Income 3
Type of Shortfall Shortfall of Sites
Parcel Size (Acres) 0.5
Current General Plan Designation Community Facilities
Current Zoning Community Facilities-Private
Proposed General Plan (GP) Designation Community Facilities Proposed Zoning Residential Medium-Low Density Overlay
Minimum Density Allowed 15
Maximum Density Allowed 20
Total Capacity 9
Vacant/Nonvacant Non-Vacant
Description of Existing Uses Geneva Presbyterian Church Suitable for Lower Income Households
(Density & Parcel Size) No
Financially Feasible for Federal & State
Funding (Lower Income Suitability +
50-150 Unit Project Size)
Yes
Consolidation Potential Due to
Adjacency of Other Candidate Site(s) No
ITEM 8.3 – Attachment E
Please note that the “Very Low-Income,” “Low-Income,” “Moderate-Income,” and “Above Moderate-Income” fields are estimates only. Potential future housing construction could occur at any income level, subject to compliance with applicable development standards, including inclusionary housing requirements.
Site #11 (Parcel 2 of 2)
Geneva Presbyterian Church
Table B: Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need Jurisdiction Name Laguna Woods
Site Address/Intersection 24301 El Toro Road
5 Digit ZIP Code 92637
Assessor Parcel Number 616-191-06
Very Low-Income 0
Low-Income 0
Moderate-Income 43
Above Moderate-Income 19
Type of Shortfall Shortfall of Sites
Parcel Size (Acres) 3.455
Current General Plan Designation Community Facilities
Current Zoning Community Facilities-Private
Proposed General Plan (GP) Designation Community Facilities Proposed Zoning Residential Medium-Low Density Overlay
Minimum Density Allowed 15
Maximum Density Allowed 20
Total Capacity 62
Vacant/Nonvacant Non-Vacant
Description of Existing Uses Geneva Presbyterian Church Suitable for Lower Income Households
(Density & Parcel Size) No
Financially Feasible for Federal & State
Funding (Lower Income Suitability +
50-150 Unit Project Size)
Yes
Consolidation Potential Due to
Adjacency of Other Candidate Site(s) No
ITEM 8.3 – Attachment E
Please note that the “Very Low-Income,” “Low-Income,” “Moderate-Income,” and “Above Moderate-Income” fields are estimates only. Potential future housing construction could occur at any income level, subject to compliance with applicable development standards, including inclusionary housing requirements.
Site #12
Saint Nicholas Catholic Church
Table B: Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need Jurisdiction Name Laguna Woods
Site Address/Intersection 24252 El Toro Road
5 Digit ZIP Code 92637
Assessor Parcel Number 621-121-11
Very Low-Income 0
Low-Income 0
Moderate-Income 61
Above Moderate-Income 22
Type of Shortfall Shortfall of Sites
Parcel Size (Acres) 4.596
Current General Plan Designation Community Facilities
Current Zoning Community Facilities-Private
Proposed General Plan (GP) Designation Community Facilities Proposed Zoning Residential Medium-Low Density Overlay
Minimum Density Allowed 15
Maximum Density Allowed 20
Total Capacity 83
Vacant/Nonvacant Non-Vacant
Description of Existing Uses Saint Nicholas Catholic Church Suitable for Lower Income Households
(Density & Parcel Size) No
Financially Feasible for Federal & State
Funding (Lower Income Suitability +
50-150 Unit Project Size)
Yes
Consolidation Potential Due to
Adjacency of Other Candidate Site(s) Yes
ITEM 8.3 – Attachment E
Please note that the “Very Low-Income,” “Low-Income,” “Moderate-Income,” and “Above Moderate-Income” fields are estimates only. Potential future housing construction could occur at any income level, subject to compliance with applicable development standards, including inclusionary housing requirements.
Site #13
Temple Judea
Table B: Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need Jurisdiction Name Laguna Woods
Site Address/Intersection 24512 Moulton Parkway
5 Digit ZIP Code 92637
Assessor Parcel Number 621-121-18
Very Low-Income 0
Low-Income 0
Moderate-Income 0
Above Moderate-Income 15
Type of Shortfall Shortfall of Sites
Parcel Size (Acres) 1.757
Current General Plan Designation Community Facilities
Current Zoning Community Facilities-Private
Proposed General Plan (GP) Designation Community Facilities Proposed Zoning Residential Low Density Overlay
Minimum Density Allowed 8
Maximum Density Allowed 10
Total Capacity 15
Vacant/Nonvacant Non-Vacant
Description of Existing Uses Temple Judea
Suitable for Lower Income Households
(Density & Parcel Size) No
Financially Feasible for Federal & State
Funding (Lower Income Suitability +
50-150 Unit Project Size)
No
Consolidation Potential Due to
Adjacency of Other Candidate Site(s) Yes
ITEM 8.3 – Attachment E
Please note that the “Very Low-Income,” “Low-Income,” “Moderate-Income,” and “Above Moderate-Income” fields are estimates only. Potential future housing construction could occur at any income level, subject to compliance with applicable development standards, including inclusionary housing requirements.
Site #14
Laguna Country United Methodist Church
Table B: Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need Jurisdiction Name Laguna Woods
Site Address/Intersection 24442 Moulton Parkway
5 Digit ZIP Code 92637
Assessor Parcel Number 621-121-23
Very Low-Income 0
Low-Income 0
Moderate-Income 85
Above Moderate-Income 20
Type of Shortfall Shortfall of Sites
Parcel Size (Acres) 3.899
Current General Plan Designation Community Facilities
Current Zoning Community Facilities-Private
Proposed General Plan (GP) Designation Community Facilities Proposed Zoning Residential Medium Density Overlay
Minimum Density Allowed 20
Maximum Density Allowed 30
Total Capacity 105
Vacant/Nonvacant Non-Vacant
Description of Existing Uses Laguna Country United Methodist Church Suitable for Lower Income Households
(Density & Parcel Size) Yes
Financially Feasible for Federal & State
Funding (Lower Income Suitability +
50-150 Unit Project Size)
Yes
Consolidation Potential Due to
Adjacency of Other Candidate Site(s) Yes
ITEM 8.3 – Attachment E
Please note that the “Very Low-Income,” “Low-Income,” “Moderate-Income,” and “Above Moderate-Income” fields are estimates only. Potential future housing construction could occur at any income level, subject to compliance with applicable development standards, including inclusionary housing requirements.
Site #15
Medical building in Town Centre
Table B: Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need Jurisdiction Name Laguna Woods
Site Address/Intersection 24331 El Toro Road
5 Digit ZIP Code 92637
Assessor Parcel Number 616-012-24
Very Low-Income 22
Low-Income 23
Moderate-Income 0
Above Moderate-Income 76
Type of Shortfall Shortfall of Sites
Parcel Size (Acres) 2.69
Current General Plan Designation Commercial
Current Zoning Professional & Administrative Office
Proposed General Plan (GP) Designation Commercial
Proposed Zoning Residential High Density Overlay
Minimum Density Allowed 30
Maximum Density Allowed 50
Total Capacity 121
Vacant/Nonvacant Non-Vacant
Description of Existing Uses Offices (SCOS Orthopedics building; health and wellness) Suitable for Lower Income Households
(Density & Parcel Size) Yes
Financially Feasible for Federal & State
Funding (Lower Income Suitability +
50-150 Unit Project Size)
Yes
Consolidation Potential Due to
Adjacency of Other Candidate Site(s) Yes
ITEM 8.3 – Attachment E
Please note that the “Very Low-Income,” “Low-Income,” “Moderate-Income,” and “Above Moderate-Income” fields are estimates only. Potential future housing construction could occur at any income level, subject to compliance with applicable development standards, including inclusionary housing requirements.
Site #16
Willow Tree Center East (Olive Garden, Cart Mart, and South County Adult Day Services) Table B: Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need Jurisdiction Name Laguna Woods
Site Address/Intersection 24260 El Toro Road
5 Digit ZIP Code 92637
Assessor Parcel Number 621-121-30
Very Low-Income 0
Low-Income 0
Moderate-Income 0
Above Moderate-Income 27
Type of Shortfall Shortfall of Sites
Parcel Size (Acres) 3.095
Current General Plan Designation Commercial
Current Zoning Community Commercial
Proposed General Plan (GP) Designation Commercial
Proposed Zoning Residential Low Density Overlay
Minimum Density Allowed 8
Maximum Density Allowed 10
Total Capacity 27
Vacant/Nonvacant Non-Vacant
Description of Existing Uses Commercial businesses (retail and food), adult day services Suitable for Lower Income Households
(Density & Parcel Size) No
Financially Feasible for Federal & State
Funding (Lower Income Suitability +
50-150 Unit Project Size)
No
Consolidation Potential Due to
Adjacency of Other Candidate Site(s) Yes
ITEM 8.3 – Attachment E
Please note that the “Very Low-Income,” “Low-Income,” “Moderate-Income,” and “Above Moderate-Income” fields are estimates only. Potential future housing construction could occur at any income level, subject to compliance with applicable development standards, including inclusionary housing requirements.
Site #17
Helm Center
Table B: Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need Jurisdiction Name Laguna Woods
Site Address/Intersection 24902 Moulton Parkway
5 Digit ZIP Code 92637
Assessor Parcel Number 621-091-15
Very Low-Income 0
Low-Income 0
Moderate-Income 0
Above Moderate-Income 11
Type of Shortfall Shortfall of Sites
Parcel Size (Acres) 0.65
Current General Plan Designation Commercial
Current Zoning Professional & Administrative Office
Proposed General Plan (GP) Designation Commercial
Proposed Zoning Residential Medium-Low Density Overlay
Minimum Density Allowed 15
Maximum Density Allowed 20
Total Capacity 11
Vacant/Nonvacant Non-Vacant
Description of Existing Uses Offices (Helm Medical Center building; health and wellness)
Suitable for Lower Income Households
(Density & Parcel Size) No
Financially Feasible for Federal & State
Funding (Lower Income Suitability +
50-150 Unit Project Size)
No
Consolidation Potential Due to
Adjacency of Other Candidate Site(s) Yes
8.4 2022-2023 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY
REPORT, “WELCOME TO THE
NEIGHBORHOOD – ARE CITIES RESPONSIBLY
MANAGING THE INTEGRATION OF GROUP
HOMES?”
This page is intentionally blank.
ITEM 8.4
CC 08-16-2023 RM ITEM 8.4 – AR Page 1 of 3
City of Laguna Woods
Agenda Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Christopher Macon, City Manager
FOR: August 16, 2023 Regular Meeting
SUBJECT: 2022-2023 Orange County Grand Jury Report, “Welcome to the Neighborhood – Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes?”
Recommendation
Approve a response to the 2022-2023 Orange County Grand Jury Report, “Welcome to the Neighborhood – Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes?,” authorize the Mayor to execute the response, and direct the City Manager to submit the response as required by applicable law.
Background
On June 12, 2023, the Orange County Grand Jury publicly released a report titled “Welcome to the Neighborhood – Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes?” (Attachment A). The report requires all 34 Orange County cities and the Orange County Board of Supervisors to respond to certain findings and recommendations, in accordance with California Penal Code Section 933. The City Council is required to respond to 11 findings and five recommendations no later than September 13, 2023, unless an extension is obtained pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933.05(b)(3).
Discussion
Today’s meeting is an opportunity for City Council action, as well as public input, on a response to the 2022-2023 Orange County Grand Jury Report, “Welcome to the Neighborhood – Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group ITEM 8.4
ITEM 8.4 – AR Page 2 of 3 CC 08-16-2023 RM
homes?” Staff recommends that the City Council approve the proposed response (Attachment B), authorize the Mayor to execute the proposed response, and direct the City Manager to submit the proposed response as required by applicable law.
To satisfy the requirements of California Penal Code Section 933(c), the response approved by the City Council is submitted on behalf of the City Council to the Presiding Judge of the Orange County Superior Court.
The proposed response has been prepared in conformance with California Penal Code Section 933.05, which requires the City to respond as follows:
For Findings (select one of the following)
• The City agrees with the finding; or
• The City disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
State law does not provide an option for the City to decline to respond based on a finding’s inapplicability. The City must either agree, disagree wholly, or disagree partially.
For Recommendations (select one of the following)
• The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action; or
• *The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation; or • *The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the City Council that does not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report; or • The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
* The City is required to define timeframes for responses to recommendations that have not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future or require further analysis. In the case of recommendations requiring further analysis, the City Council would be required to discuss such analysis by December 11, 2023.
The Orange County Grand Jury requests annual reports in March of each year on the status of recommendations accepted but not yet implemented.
ITEM 8.4
CC 08-16-2023 RM ITEM 8.4 – AR Page 3 of 3
Fiscal Impact
Funds to support this project are included in the City’s budget.
Attachments: A – 2022-2023 Orange County Grand Jury Report, “Welcome to the Neighborhood – Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes?” B – Proposed Response to 2022-2023 Orange County Grand Jury Report, “Welcome to the Neighborhood – Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes?”
This page is intentionally blank.
Welcome to the Neighborhood
Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes? County of Orange Grand Jury 2022-2023
ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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 ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
SUMMARY
Group 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.
Negative 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.
Issues 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.
The 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 State 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.
Some 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.
ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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 overconcentration 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 To 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 ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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 antidiscrimination 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 ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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.
ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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 Stateendorsed 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.
ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
“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.
ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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 ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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 ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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.
ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
“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 ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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 ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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. The City filed lawsuits against Morningside Recovery and Pacific Shores Recovery, alleging that some of their operations opened illegally during a shortterm temporary moratorium against the establishment of new group residential uses. Pacific Shores Recovery has in turn alleged that the City’s group ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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 ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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.
ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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 “The 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 residencesgroup 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 ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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…”
ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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 ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
“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.
ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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 antidiscrimination 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 ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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 City 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 ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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 policymaking 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.
ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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.
ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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 ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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.
ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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 ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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
ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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.
ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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.
ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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.
ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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 ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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.
ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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 ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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 ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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
ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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/crimerates/, 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 ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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-safetygroup-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
ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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 ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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-advisory2022.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-addictiontreatment 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-advisory2022.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-addictiontreatment/ 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
ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
9Orange County Register Megan Nicolai, July 15, 2015, Newport Beach Settles legal battle over SoberLiving homes. 10 Orange County Register Megan Nicolai, July 15, 2015, Newport Beach Settles legal battle over SoberLiving 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 SoberLiving 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 ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
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-anaheimresponse/ 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
ITEM 8.4 - Attachment A
ITEM 8.4 – Attachment B
Cynthia S. Conners
Mayor
Noel Hatch
Mayor Pro Tem
Shari L. Horne
Councilmember
Annie McCary
Councilmember
Carol Moore
Councilmember
Christopher Macon
City Manager
August XX, 2023
The Honorable Maria D. Hernandez
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
SUBJECT: City of Laguna Woods’ Response to the 2022-2023 Orange County Grand Jury Report, “Welcome to the Neighborhood – Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes?”
Dear Judge Hernandez:
Thank you for the report and for the time and effort involved in preparing it.
Per the Orange County Grand Jury’s request, and in accordance with California Penal Code Section 933, please find the City of Laguna Woods’ response to the subject report attached.
The response was approved by the Laguna Woods City Council on August XX, 2023.
If you have any questions or would like any additional information, please contact Christopher Macon, City Manager, at (949) 639-0512 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Cynthia S. Conners
Mayor
Attachment: A – City of Laguna Woods’ Response to the 2022-2023 Orange County Grand Jury Report, “Welcome to the Neighborhood – Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes?”
cc: Orange County Grand Jury
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
ITEM 8.4 – Attachment B
ATTACHMENT A
City of Laguna Woods’ Response to the 2022-2023 Orange County Grand Jury Report, “Welcome to the Neighborhood – Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes?”
FINDINGS
F1. Group homes too close to one another contribute to the problems associated with overconcentration.
Response: The City of Laguna Woods agrees with this finding. While the City has no direct experience with group homes, our understanding of the subject and experiences in other cities supports that an overconcentration of group homes may cause problems.
F2. Common nuisances are more likely and disruptive when sober living homes are concentrated in a small geographic area of a neighborhood.
Response: The City agrees with this finding. While the City has no direct experience with group homes, our understanding of the subject and experiences in other cities supports that an overconcentration of group homes may cause nuisances.
F3. Some cities have successfully addressed and informed community members about the challenges faced in regulating group homes.
Response: The City agrees with this finding. While the City has no direct experience with group homes, our understanding of the subject and experiences in other cities supports that 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.
Response: The City disagrees wholly with this finding, but only because the City has no direct experience with group homes or levels of community satisfaction in other cities.
F5. Cities are not utilizing police, fire, and code enforcement complaints as a means of locating and tracking Group Homes.
Response: The City disagrees wholly with this finding, but only because the City has no direct experience with group homes or locating and tracking systems used in other cities.
F6. Cities are inhibited from enacting and enforcing ordinances due to fears over the potential cost of litigation.
Response: The City agrees with this finding. While the City has no direct experience with ITEM 8.4 – Attachment B
group homes, our understanding of the subject and experiences in other cities supports that enforcement can be subject to costly 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.
Response: The City disagrees partially with this finding, but only because the City has no direct experience with group homes or enforcement practices in other cities. It is true that some cities have created ordinances that require ministerial permitting or registration to operate a group home.
F8. City and County officials are deterred from regulating group homes by California Housing and Community Development’s housing element approval process.
Response: The City disagrees wholly with this finding, but only because the City has no direct experience with group homes or how the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s housing element review process relates.
F9. Cities have historically strategized and acted independently in addressing group home challenges and solutions.
Response: The City agrees with this finding. While the City has no direct experience with group homes, our understanding of the subject and experiences in other cities supports that cities often strategize and act independently in addressing group home challenges and solutions.
F10. Well-operated group homes can integrate smoothly into neighborhoods.
Response: The City agrees with this finding. While the City has no direct experience with group homes, it is likely that 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.
Response: The City agrees with this finding. While the City has no direct experience with group homes, our understanding of the subject and experiences in other cities supports that there is an insufficient level of effective regulatory oversight for the health and safety of residents of unlicensed group homes.
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) ITEM 8.4 – Attachment B
Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. No group homes are currently operating in Laguna Woods, the City is unaware of any previous group homes that operated in Laguna Woods, current private property ownership in the City is such that the establishment of group homes is unlikely, and the City has not received concerns from residents regarding group homes. That said, the City is open to participating in a countywide dialog regarding group home challenges as recommended.
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)
Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. No group homes are currently operating in Laguna Woods, the City is unaware of any previous group homes that operated in Laguna Woods, current private property ownership in the City is such that the establishment of group homes is unlikely, and the City does not believe that there is a need for additional regulation within Laguna Woods at this time, although we acknowledges that such a need may exist in other cities. To that end, the City is open to collaborating with other jurisdictions to create ordinances for the regulation of group homes, including the development of model ordinances, as recommended.
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) Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. No group homes are currently operating in Laguna Woods, the City is unaware of any previous group homes that operated in Laguna Woods, current private property ownership in the City is such that the establishment of group homes is unlikely, and the City does not believe there is a need to spend City funds defending lawsuits challenging group home ordinances adopted and enforced by other Orange County cities or the County of Orange.
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) Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable.
While the City is willing to participate in a Task Force as recommended, such an effort would require the participation of the County of Orange and other Orange County cities, which the City cannot guarantee. The City is, therefore, unable to commit to implementing this recommendation.
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) ITEM 8.4 – Attachment B
Response: This recommendation has been implemented prior to the date of this Grand Jury report. The City’s code enforcement data collection forms currently used for other code enforcement purposes are searchable by address, which would enable the identification of a residence operating as a group home. There has not yet been a need for such searchability as no group homes are currently operating in Laguna Woods and the City is unaware of any previous group homes that operated in Laguna Woods.
This page is intentionally blank.
8.5 EL TORO ROAD MEDIANS IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT (WESTBOUND EL TORO ROAD
BETWEEN MOULTON PARKWAY TO CALLE
SONORA)
This page is intentionally blank.
ITEM 8.5
CC 08-16-2023 RM ITEM 8.5 – AR Page 1 of 2
City of Laguna Woods
Agenda Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Christopher Macon, City Manager
FOR: August 16, 2023 Regular Meeting
SUBJECT: El Toro Road Medians Improvement Project (Westbound El Toro Road between Moulton Parkway to Calle Sonora)
Recommendation
Approve a conceptual design, tree palette, and plant palette, for the El Toro Road Medians Improvement Project (Westbound El Toro Road between Moulton Parkway to Calle Sonora), and authorize staff to proceed with preparing final design documents.
Background
The El Toro Road Medians Improvement Project (Westbound El Toro Road between Moulton Parkway to Calle Sonora) is included in the Fiscal Years 2023- 34 Capital Improvement Program. The project involves planting additional trees and refreshing the landscaping on both medians on El Toro Road between Moulton Parkway and Calle Sonora. As a precursor to preparing final design documents, the Capital Improvement Program calls for the City Council to approve a conceptual design, tree palette, and plant palette.
Photographs of the existing medians on El Toro Road between Moulton Parkway and Calle Sonora are included as Attachment A.
Discussion
Today’s meeting is an opportunity for City Council discussion and direction, as well as public input, on the El Toro Road Medians Improvement Project ITEM 8.5
ITEM 8.5 – AR Page 2 of 2 CC 08-16-2023 RM
(Westbound El Toro Road between Moulton Parkway to Calle Sonora). Staff is seeking direction regarding the proposed conceptual design, tree palette, and plant palette (Attachment B) prior to proceeding with the preparation of final design documents.
The proposed conceptual design, tree palette, and plant palette includes:
• Landscaping intended to be visually consistent with the medians on Moulton Parkway between Via Campo Verde and Calle Aragon. The tree and plant palette is the same as those Moulton Parkway medians with the exception of one new added tree species – the Carrotwood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides).
The Carrotwood is proposed as it is fast growing, evergreen, and reaches a height up to 40’ for variation in height amongst the existing Eastern Redbuds (up to 30’), Australian Willows (up to 35’), and Tulip Trees (up to 80’). • A net gain of three trees, including five new Carrotwoods and the removal of two Tulip Trees. The landscape architect has advised that the Tulip Trees recommended for removal are in a state of distress.
Fiscal Impact
The Fiscal Year 2023-25 Budget includes $27,370 to fund the design of the El Toro Road Medians Improvement Project (Westbound El Toro Road between Moulton Parkway to Calle Sonora). The one-time cost of constructing this project is not yet known. A construction budget will be considered after design documents are completed.
Report Prepared With: April Baumgarten, Public Works Administrator Attachments: A – Project Location and Photographs of Existing Medians B – Conceptual Design, Tree Palette, and Plant Palette
ITEM 8.5 – Attachment A
Project Location and Photographs of Existing Medians
Approximate project location is outlined in red
NORTH
CALLE SONORA
TOWN CENTRE
HOME DEPOT
CENTER
ITEM 8.5 – Attachment A
Existing El Toro Road median between Calle Sonora and the Home Depot Center/Town Centre signalized intersection Photograph taken on August 8, 2023
ITEM 8.5 – Attachment A
Existing El Toro Road median between the Home Depot Center/Town Centre signalized intersection and Moulton Parkway Photograph taken on August 8, 2023
This page is intentionally blank.
ITEM 8.5
Attachment B
Conceptual Planting Plan
This page is intentionally blank.
0 10’ 20’ 40’
08/08/2023 CONCEPTUAL PLANTING
EL TORO ROAD MEDIANS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
(WESTBOUND EL TORO ROAD BETWEEN MOULTON PARKWAY TO CALLE SONORA)
CITY OF LAGUNA WOODS, CALIFORNIA
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF RJM DESIGN GROUP, INC., AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE USED, REUSED, OR MODIFIED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RJM DESIGN GROUP, INC. © 2022 RJM Design Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
EL TORO ROAD
EXISTING REDBUDS TO REMAIN
PROPOSED MOUNDS PROPOSED MOUNDS
REMOVE DEAD TULIP TREE & PROPOSED NEW CARROTWOOD
PROPOSED NEW CARROTWOOD
PROPOSED MOUNDS
EXISTING WILLOW TO REMAIN EXISTING TULIP TREE TO REMAIN
EXISTING REDBUDS
TO REMAIN
EDGE OF HARDSCAPE
EL TORO ROAD
Willow Edge of Existing Moulton Parkway Planting Tulip Tree Median of Existing Moulton Parkway Planting Salvia leucantha Agave attenuata
Salvia leucantha
Agave attenuata Muhlenbergia rigens Agave attenuata Muhlenbergia rigens Lantana montevidensis Muhlenbergia rigens Rosmarinus officinalis Agave attenuata
Muhlenbergia rigens Muhlenbergia rigens
Salvia leucantha
Redbud Median of Existing Moulton Parkway Planting CALLE SONORA
TOWN CENTER
TOWN CENTER
0 10’ 20’ 40’
08/08/2023 CONCEPTUAL PLANTING
EL TORO ROAD MEDIANS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
(WESTBOUND EL TORO ROAD BETWEEN MOULTON PARKWAY TO CALLE SONORA)
CITY OF LAGUNA WOODS, CALIFORNIA
THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF RJM DESIGN GROUP, INC., AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE USED, REUSED, OR MODIFIED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RJM DESIGN GROUP, INC. © 2022 RJM Design Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
PROPOSED TREES PROTECT IN PLACE TREES
CARROTWOOD
Cupaniopsis anacardioides
TULIP TREE
Liriodendron tulipifera
EASTERN REDBUD
Cercis canadensis
AUSTRALIAN WILLOW
Geijera Parviflora
30’ - 40’ Height
25’ - 30’ Wide
60” Box Tree - 16’ H x 10’ W
Moderate Water Use
Fast Growth Rate
Evergreen Tree
25’ - 30’ Height
25’ - 30’ Wide
60” Box Tree - 16’ H x 10’ W
Moderate Water Use
Fast Growth Rate
Deciduous Tree
20’ - 35’ Height
20’ - 30’ Wide
60” Box Tree - 16’ H x 10’ W
Low Water Use
Fast Growth Rate
Evergreen Tree
60’ - 80’ Height
25’ - 40’ Wide
60” Box Tree - 16’ H x 10’ W
Moderate Water Use
Fast Growth Rate
Deciduous Tree
8.6 EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS
This page is intentionally blank.
ITEM 8.6
CC 08-16-2023 RM ITEM 8.6 – AR Page 1 of 4
City of Laguna Woods
Agenda Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Christopher Macon, City Manager
FOR: August 16, 2023 Regular Meeting
SUBJECT: Employee Compensation and Benefits
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution titled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA
WOODS, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 23-20, AND
ESTABLISHING A COMPENSATION SCHEDULE AND BENEFITS
FOR CITY EMPLOYEES
Background
Employee compensation and benefit policies are established by the City Council with the City Manager responsible for the implementation thereof.
Discussion
Today’s meeting is an opportunity for City Council action, as well as public input, on proposed modifications to employee compensation and benefits related to (i) the monthly benefit allowance offered to full-time and part-time employees and (ii) the employee assistance program. The proposed resolution is included as Attachment A; a redline version of the proposed resolution is included as Attachment B. • Monthly Benefit Allowance: The City currently offers a monthly benefit allowance of $1,000 per month to full-time employees and $800 per month to part-time employees which can be used for health insurance, dental ITEM 8.6
ITEM 8.6 – AR Page 2 of 4 CC 08-16-2023 RM
insurance, vision insurance, health flexible spending, dependent care flexible spending, and/or up to $500 in taxable compensation (taxable compensation is only available to full-time employees hired prior to January 1, 2019, of which there are five). Any amount of the monthly benefit allowance that remains after each employee makes their annual elections is forfeited. The amounts of the monthly benefit allowances offered to full-time and part-time employees (the latter of which is based proportionally on the amount offered to full-time employees) have not changed since 2006 and 2020, respectively.
Health insurance premiums have been rising for several years. The City was recently notified that, for the 2024 calendar year, four of the 11 health plans available to staff will see individual employee premiums increase by 10% or more, resulting in new premiums ranging from a low of $684.77 to a high of $1,151.50 depending on the plan selected. Based on current employee elections and assuming employees remain with their current health plans in the 2024 calendar year, that means premiums for a majority of staff who obtain health insurance through the City will increase by at least 14.87%.
To offset the increase in health insurance premiums, staff recommends that the monthly benefit allowance be increased to $1,200 per month for fulltime employees and $960 per month for part-time employees, effective January 1, 2024. January 1, 2024 is the beginning of the next calendar year employee benefits cycle.
• Employee Assistance Program (“EAP”). The City currently enrolls full-time and part-time employees in an EAP that provides voluntary, confidential assistance to employees in working through various life challenges that may adversely affect job performance, health, and personal well-being in order to optimize the City’s success. Enrollment costs are currently paid by full-time and part-time employees as a mandatory deduction from each employee’s monthly benefit allowance. The cost of such enrollment is currently $1.74 per month, per employee ($20.88 per year). The City’s existing agreement with Health and Human Resource Center, Inc. (dba Aetna Resources for Living) holds that cost constant through December 31, 2026.
As EAPs provide valuable benefits to the City as an employer (a list of benefits articulated by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management regarding the federal government’s EAPs appears on the next page), staff recommends extending the EAP to limited part-time employees, in addition to full-time ITEM 8.6
CC 08-16-2023 RM ITEM 8.6 – AR Page 3 of 4
and part-time employees, and paying enrollment costs on behalf of all employees, effective January 1, 2024. There are currently four limited parttime employees (receptionists) who are not covered by the EAP.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s Business Case for EAPs1 [The U.S. Office of Personnel Management] recommends [federal] agencies place a special emphasis on the EAP and the valuable role it plays by helping employees addressing issues that affect them at work, home, and in their communities. EAPs can reap benefits for agencies, employees, families, and communities by:
• Improving productivity and employee engagement;
• Improving employees’ and dependents’ abilities to successfully respond to challenges;
• Developing employee and manager competencies in managing workplace stress;
• Reducing workplace absenteeism and unplanned absences; • Supporting employees and managers during workforce restructuring, reduction-in-forces, or other workforce change events;
• Reducing workplace accidents;
• Reducing the likelihood of workplace violence or other safety risks; • Supporting disaster and emergency preparedness;
• Managing the effect of disruptive incidents, such as workplace, injury, or other crises;
• Facilitating safe, timely, and effective return-to-work for employees short-term and extended absences;
• Reducing healthcare costs associated with stress, depression, and other mental health issues; and
• Reducing employee turnover and related replacement costs.
Fiscal Impact
Increasing the monthly benefit allowance to $1,200 per month for full-time employees and $960 per month for part-time employees would result in new costs to the City of up to $2,400 per year per full-time employee and up to $1,920 per 1 “Federal Employee Assistance Programs.” U.S. Office of Personnel Management, www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/worklife/employee-assistance-programs/. Accessed 7 Aug. 2023.
ITEM 8.6
ITEM 8.6 – AR Page 4 of 4 CC 08-16-2023 RM
year, per part-time employee. The City currently has nine authorized full-time employees (one of which is filled as a part-time employee), which would result in a new cost to the City of up to $21,120 per year beginning on January 1, 2024.
Extending the EAP to limited part-time employees and paying enrollment costs on behalf of all employees would result in new costs to the City of $20.88 per year, per employee. The City currently has 13 authorized employee positions (nine fulltime, one of which is filled part-time; and four limited part-time), which would result in a new cost to the City of $271.44 per year beginning on January 1, 2024.
The combined annual estimated cost of all proposed modifications is $21,391.44 beginning on January 1, 2024.
The Fiscal Years 2023-25 Budget & Work Plan includes sufficient funds to support the proposed employee compensation and benefits without amendment.
Attachments: A – Proposed Resolution (clean)
B – Proposed Resolution (redline)
ITEM 8.6 – Attachment A
R 23-XX 1 XX-XX-2023
RESOLUTION NO. 23-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA
WOODS, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 23-20, AND
ESTABLISHING A COMPENSATION SCHEDULE AND BENEFITS FOR
CITY EMPLOYEES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA WOODS, CALIFORNIA,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Effective January 1, 2024, Resolution No. 23-20 is hereby repealed and replaced by this resolution.
SECTION 2. The compensation schedule for City employees is established as follows:
Exempt Full-Time Employees (Annual Equivalent)
City Manager $200,303.98
Administrative Services Director/
City Treasurer $117,919 – $165,087
City Clerk $80,690 – $112,966
Conservation Administrator $80,690 – $112,966
Development Administrator $80,690 – $112,966
Public Works Administrator $80,690 – $112,966
Senior Management Analyst $80,690 – $112,966
Management Analyst $69,263 – $96,969
Deputy City Clerk $59,746 – $83,644
Non-Exempt Full-Time Employees (Hourly Rate)
Senior Accountant $35.50 – $49.70
Accountant $32.78 – $45.89
Accounting Clerk $21.51 – $30.11
ITEM 8.6 – Attachment A
R 23-XX 2 XX-XX-2023
Non-Exempt Part-Time/Limited Part-Time Employees (Hourly Rate) Receptionist $17.00 – $23.80
The City Manager is authorized to hire, promote, and compensate employees within established compensation ranges, to offer benefits, to fill any full-time position as a part-time or limited part-time position, and to hire employees for time-limited periods, consistent with City Council-adopted budgets and this resolution.
SECTION 3. All employees who work 40 or more hours per week on a regularly assigned basis shall be considered “full-time employees” for the purpose of this resolution. Full-time employees shall receive the following benefits:
A. Paid Holidays: The City shall observe the following holidays with full-time employees receiving eight hours of compensation for each weekday on which a holiday is observed: Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Presidents’ Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving, Friday after Thanksgiving, and Winter Holiday (December 24 through January 1; when January 1 falls on a Sunday or Thursday, Winter Holiday shall be observed through January 2). Except for Winter Holiday, which is observed on specified dates, when a holiday falls on a Saturday, it shall be observed the on prior Friday; when a holiday falls on a Sunday, it shall be observed on the following Monday.
B. Floating Holidays: The City shall provide each full-time employee with two floating holidays per calendar year, equivalent to 16 hours of pay credited the first pay period of each calendar year. Floating holidays are not accrued on a pro-rata basis throughout the calendar year. Full-time employees must be in paid status on regularly scheduled workdays before and after using floating holiday time. Floating holiday time shall be used in increments of eight hours.
Full-time employees may maintain a balance of no more than 16 hours of unused floating holiday time (Floating Holiday Accrual Limit) and shall not accrue additional floating holiday time when the Floating Holiday Accrual Limit has been reached. Upon separation from the City, full-time employees shall be compensated for the balance of their accrued floating holiday time.
C. Retirement: All City employees, including full-time employees, are required to participate in the Social Security system. In addition, the City shall contract with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) for ITEM 8.6 – Attachment A
R 23-XX 3 XX-XX-2023
retirement benefits for all eligible full-time employees, unless excluded in the City’s agreement with CalPERS. Full-time employees considered “classic” by CalPERS shall pay the 7% employee contribution pursuant to the terms of Resolution No. 12-18. Full-time employees considered “new members” by CalPERS shall pay the employee contribution rate established by CalPERS, as may change from time to time.
D. Retiree Medical: As required by, and in an amount established by California Government Code Section 22892, the City shall contribute toward CalPERS retiree health insurance for retiring full-time employees who meet the applicable statutory and CalPERS contract requirements to obtain CalPERS retiree medical benefits. Part-time service for employees who transition from part-time to full-time employment with the City may be used to meet applicable statutory and CalPERS contract requirements, with each 174 hours counting as one month.
E. Monthly Benefit Allowance: The City shall provide each full-time employee with a monthly benefit allowance of $1,200 per month. A portion of the allowance shall be allocated to pay for health insurance, as provided in this resolution. The remaining balance of the monthly benefit allowance may be allocated by the employee to elect benefits available through the City’s Internal Revenue Code Section 125 Flexible Benefits Plan, in accordance with applicable plan documents. Any amount of the monthly benefit allowance that remains after the allocations described above shall be forfeited. Full-time employees shall be required to make elections for the annual calendar year use of the entirety of monthly benefit allowances during an enrollment/election period established by the City Manager, as may change from time to time. Modifications of annual calendar year elections following any enrollment/election period shall be limited to qualifying events as set forth in applicable plan documents.
F. Health Insurance: All employees shall be covered by basic health insurance that qualifies as Minimum Essential Coverage under California law. The City shall contract for health insurance through CalPERS; enrollment in a CalPERS health plan shall be mandatory for all full-time employees unless proof of coverage under a qualifying, alternate non-individual market basic health insurance plan is provided. The cost of enrollment in a CalPERS health plan shall be deducted first from each full-time employee’s monthly benefit allowance and then from salary (if necessary).
ITEM 8.6 – Attachment A
R 23-XX 4 XX-XX-2023
G. Flexible Benefits Plan: The City shall contract for the provision of an Internal Revenue Code Section 125 Flexible Benefits Plan; enrollment in the plan shall be voluntary for all full-time employees. Full-time employees may contribute to the plan by electing to allocate a portion of their monthly benefit allowance and/or through a salary reduction at their sole expense.
H. Deferred Compensation Plan: The City shall contract for the provision of an Internal Revenue Code Section 457 Deferred Compensation Plan; enrollment in the plan shall be voluntary for all full-time employees. Full-time employees may contribute to the plan through a salary reduction at their sole expense.
I. Paid Time Off: Full-time employees shall accrue 160 hours per year of annual paid time off (leave), which may be used for doctors’ appointments, personal and family sick time, bereavement leave, jury duty leave, vacation, and personal business. Hours earned are accrued on a pro-rata basis by pay period.
Full-time employees may maintain a balance of no more than 480 hours of paid time off (Leave Accrual Limit) and shall cease to accrue additional paid time off when the Leave Accrual Limit has been reached. When a full-time employee’s balance of paid time off falls below the Leave Accrual Limit, accrual shall resume beginning with the first pay period following the pay period in which the balance of paid time off fell below the Leave Accrual Limit. Upon separation from the City, full-time employees shall be compensated for the balance of their accrued paid time off.
SECTION 4. All employees who are not full-time employees, but who work 20 or more hours per week on a regularly assigned basis, shall be considered “parttime employees” for the purpose of this resolution. Part-time employees shall receive the following benefits:
A. Paid and Unpaid Holidays: The City shall observe the following holidays with part-time employees receiving eight hours of compensation for each weekday on which a holiday is observed: New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Presidents’ Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving, and Friday after Thanksgiving. The City shall also observe the following unpaid holidays: Winter Holiday (December 24 through January 1; when January 1 falls on a Sunday or Thursday, Winter Holiday shall be observed through January 2). Except for Winter Holiday, which is observed on specified dates, when a holiday falls on a Saturday, it shall be observed on the prior Friday; when a holiday falls on a Sunday, it shall be ITEM 8.6 – Attachment A
R 23-XX 5 XX-XX-2023
observed on the following Monday.
B. Floating Holidays: The City shall provide each part-time employee with two floating holidays per calendar year, equivalent to 16 hours of pay credited the first pay period of each calendar year. Floating holidays are not accrued on a pro-rata basis throughout the calendar year. Part-time employees must be in paid status on regularly scheduled workdays before and after using floating holiday time. Floating holiday time shall be used in increments of eight hours and only between December 24 and 31.
Part-time employees may maintain a balance of no more than 16 hours of unused floating holiday time (Floating Holiday Accrual Limit) and shall not accrue additional floating holiday time when the Floating Holiday Accrual Limit has been reached. Upon separation from the City, part-time employees shall be compensated for the balance of their accrued floating holiday time.
C. Retirement: All City employees, including part-time employees, are required to participate in the Social Security system. Part-time employees who work 1,000 hours or more in a fiscal year, shall be eligible for membership in CalPERS for retirement benefits, unless excluded in the City’s agreement with CalPERS. Eligible part-time employees considered “classic” by CalPERS shall pay the 7% employee contribution pursuant to the terms of Resolution No. 12-18. Eligible part-time employees considered “new members” by CalPERS shall pay the employee contribution rate established by CalPERS, as may change from time to time.
D. Retiree Medical: As required by, and in an amount established by California Government Code Section 22892, the City shall contribute toward CalPERS retiree health insurance for retiring full-time employees who meet the applicable statutory and CalPERS contract requirements to obtain CalPERS retiree medical benefits. Part-time service for employees who transition from part-time to full-time employment with the City may be used to meet applicable statutory and CalPERS contract requirements, with each 174 hours counting as one month.
E. Monthly Benefit Allowance: The City shall provide part-time employees with a monthly benefit allowance of $960 per month. A portion of the allowance shall be allocated to pay for health insurance, as provided in this resolution.
The remaining balance of the monthly benefit allowance may be allocated by the employee to elect benefits available through the City’s Internal Revenue ITEM 8.6 – Attachment A
R 23-XX 6 XX-XX-2023
Code Section 125 Flexible Benefits Plan, in accordance with applicable plan documents. Any amount of the monthly benefit allowance that remains after the allocations described above shall be forfeited. Part-time employees shall be required to make elections for the annual calendar year use of the entirety of monthly benefit allowances during an enrollment/election period established by the City Manager, as may change from time to time.
Modifications of annual calendar year elections following any enrollment/election period shall be limited to qualifying events as set forth in applicable plan documents.
F. Health Insurance: All employees shall be covered by basic health insurance that qualifies as Minimum Essential Coverage under California law. The City shall contract for health insurance through CalPERS; enrollment in a CalPERS health plan shall be mandatory for all part-time employees unless proof of coverage under a qualifying, alternate non-individual market basic health insurance plan is provided. The cost of enrollment in a CalPERS health plan shall be deducted first from each part-time employee’s monthly benefit allowance and then from salary (if necessary).
G. Flexible Benefits Plan: The City shall contract for the provision of an Internal Revenue Code Section 125 Flexible Benefits Plan; enrollment in the plan shall be voluntary for all part-time employees. Part-time employees may contribute to the plan through a salary reduction at their sole expense and/or by electing to allocate a portion of their monthly benefit allowance, if provided.
H. Deferred Compensation Plan: The City shall contract for the provision of an Internal Revenue Code Section 457 Deferred Compensation Plan; enrollment in the plan shall be voluntary for all part-time employees. Part-time employees may contribute to the plan through a salary reduction at their sole expense.
J. Paid Time Off: Part-time employees shall accrue 160 hours per year of annual paid time off (leave), which shall be pro-rated based on the number of hours regularly worked less than 40 hours per week. Paid time off may be used for doctors’ appointments, personal and family sick time, bereavement leave, jury duty leave, vacation, and personal business. Paid time off may also be used up to the number of hours regularly worked during unpaid holidays that fall on weekdays (less any floating holiday time used). Hours earned are accrued on a pro-rata basis by pay period.
Part-time employees may maintain a balance of no more than 300 hours of ITEM 8.6 – Attachment A
R 23-XX 7 XX-XX-2023
paid time off (Leave Accrual Limit) and shall cease to accrue additional paid time off when the Leave Accrual Limit has been reached. When a part-time employee’s balance of paid time off falls below the Leave Accrual Limit, accrual shall resume beginning with the first pay period following the pay period in which the balance of paid time off fell below the Leave Accrual Limit. Upon separation from the City, part-time employees shall be compensated for the balance of their accrued paid time off.
SECTION 5. All employees who work less than 20 hours per week on a regularly assigned basis shall be considered “limited part-time employees” for the purpose of this resolution. Limited part-time employees shall receive the following benefits:
A. Retirement: All City employees, including limited part-time employees, are required to participate in the Social Security system.
B. Deferred Compensation Plan: The City shall contract for the provision of an Internal Revenue Code Section 457 Deferred Compensation Plan; enrollment in the plan shall be voluntary for all limited part-time employees. Limited part-time employees may contribute to the plan through a salary reduction at their sole expense.
C. Paid Time Off: After the first 30 calendar days of employment, and every January 1 thereafter, limited part-time employees shall accrue 24 hours of annual paid time off (leave), which may be used for personal illness, to care for a sick family member, for preventive care or diagnosis, care or treatment of an existing health condition, or for specified purposes if the limited parttime employee is a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
Paid time off shall not be used within the first 90 calendar days of employment for new limited part-time employees. There is no accrual or carryover of paid time off between or across calendar years. Upon termination from the City, limited part-time employees shall not be compensated for the balance of their paid time off. If a limited part-time employee separates from and is rehired by the City within one year, previously accrued and unused paid time off shall be reinstated.
SECTION 6. The City shall contract for an employee assistance program to provide voluntary, confidential assistance to employees in working through various life challenges that may adversely affect job performance, health, and personal wellbeing in order to optimize the City’s success. All full-time, part-time, and limited ITEM 8.6 – Attachment A
R 23-XX 8 XX-XX-2023
part-time employees shall be enrolled in the employee assistance program with the cost of enrollment paid by the City.
SECTION 7. The City Manager is authorized to offer technology allowances of up to $79.50 per employee per month to employees who are regularly required to use their personal cellular telephones, personal computers, and/or other personal technology to conduct City business, with the exception of the City Manager. Such technology allowances shall be added to employee compensation and shall be paid in the first pay period of each month, subject to any applicable wage withholding or similar taxes. Employees must be in paid status on regularly scheduled workdays during the first pay period of each month in order to receive payment.
SECTION 8. The City Manager is authorized to offer notary public stipends of $100 per employee per month to employees who regularly provide notary public and foreign pension acknowledgement services in the course of City business, with the exception of the City Manager. Such notary public stipends shall be added to employee compensation and shall be paid in the first pay period of each month, subject to any applicable wage withholding or similar taxes. Employees must be in paid status on regularly scheduled workdays during the first pay period of each month, and in possession of an active and valid notary public commission from the State of California as of the payroll processing date for the first pay period of each month, in order to receive payment. The City Manager is also authorized to incur and pay, on behalf of the City, costs related to the education and commission of employees who regularly provide notary public services in the course of City business, with the exception of the City Manager.
SECTION 9. The City Manager shall receive such other compensation and benefits as set forth in the employment agreement separately approved by the City Council on May 17, 2023.
SECTION 10. The Mayor shall sign this resolution and the City Clerk shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption thereof.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this XX day of XX 2023. _______________________________
CYNTHIA S. CONNERS, Mayor
ITEM 8.6 – Attachment A
R 23-XX 9 XX-XX-2023
ATTEST:
________________________________
YOLIE TRIPPY, CMC, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF LAGUNA WOODS )
I, YOLIE TRIPPY, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Woods, do HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 23-XX was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Laguna Woods at a regular meeting thereof, held on the XX day of XX 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
_________________________________
YOLIE TRIPPY, CMC, City Clerk
This page is intentionally blank.
ITEM 8.6 – Attachment B
R 23-XX 1 XX-XX-2023
RESOLUTION NO. 23-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA
WOODS, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 23-1120, AND
ESTABLISHING A COMPENSATION SCHEDULE AND BENEFITS FOR
CITY EMPLOYEES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA WOODS, CALIFORNIA,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Effective July 1January 1, 20232024, Resolution No. 23-11 20 is hereby repealed and replaced by this resolution.
SECTION 2. The compensation schedule for City employees is established as follows:
Exempt Full-Time Employees (Annual Equivalent)
City Manager $200,303.98
Administrative Services Director/
City Treasurer $117,919 – $165,087
City Clerk $80,690 – $112,966
Conservation Administrator $80,690 – $112,966
Development Administrator $80,690 – $112,966
Public Works Administrator $80,690 – $112,966
Senior Management Analyst $80,690 – $112,966
Management Analyst $69,263 – $96,969
Deputy City Clerk $59,746 – $83,644
Non-Exempt Full-Time Employees (Hourly Rate)
Senior Accountant $35.50 – $49.70
Accountant $32.78 – $45.89
Accounting Clerk $21.51 – $30.11
ITEM 8.6 – Attachment B
R 23-XX 2 XX-XX-2023
Non-Exempt Part-Time/Limited Part-Time Employees (Hourly Rate) Receptionist $17.00 – $23.80
The City Manager is authorized to hire, promote, and compensate employees within established compensation ranges, to offer benefits, to fill any full-time position as a part-time or limited part-time position, and to hire employees for time-limited periods, consistent with City Council-adopted budgets and this resolution.
SECTION 3. All employees who work 40 or more hours per week on a regularly assigned basis shall be considered “full-time employees” for the purpose of this resolution. Full-time employees shall receive the following benefits:
A. Paid Holidays: The City shall observe the following holidays with full-time employees receiving eight hours of compensation for each weekday on which a holiday is observed: Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Presidents’ Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving, Friday after Thanksgiving, and Winter Holiday (December 24 through January 1; when January 1 falls on a Sunday or Thursday, Winter Holiday shall be observed through January 2). Except for Winter Holiday, which is observed on specified dates, when a holiday falls on a Saturday, it shall be observed the on prior Friday; when a holiday falls on a Sunday, it shall be observed on the following Monday.
B. Floating Holidays: The City shall provide each full-time employee with two floating holidays per calendar year, equivalent to 16 hours of pay credited the first pay period of each calendar year. Floating holidays are not accrued on a pro-rata basis throughout the calendar year. Full-time employees must be in paid status on regularly scheduled workdays before and after using floating holiday time. Floating holiday time shall be used in increments of eight hours.
Full-time employees may maintain a balance of no more than 16 hours of unused floating holiday time (Floating Holiday Accrual Limit) and shall not accrue additional floating holiday time when the Floating Holiday Accrual Limit has been reached. Upon separation from the City, full-time employees shall be compensated for the balance of their accrued floating holiday time.
C. Retirement: All City employees, including full-time employees, are required to participate in the Social Security system. In addition, the City shall contract with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) for ITEM 8.6 – Attachment B
R 23-XX 3 XX-XX-2023
retirement benefits for all eligible full-time employees, unless excluded in the City’s agreement with CalPERS. Full-time employees considered “classic” by CalPERS shall pay the 7% employee contribution pursuant to the terms of Resolution No. 12-18. Full-time employees considered “new members” by CalPERS shall pay the employee contribution rate established by CalPERS, as may change from time to time.
D. Retiree Medical: As required by, and in an amount established by California Government Code Section 22892, the City shall contribute toward CalPERS retiree health insurance for retiring full-time employees who meet the applicable statutory and CalPERS contract requirements to obtain CalPERS retiree medical benefits. Part-time service for employees who transition from part-time to full-time employment with the City may be used to meet applicable statutory and CalPERS contract requirements, with each 174 hours counting as one month.
E. Monthly Benefit Allowance: The City shall provide each full-time employee with a monthly benefit allowance of $1,0001,200 per month. A portion of the allowance shall be allocated to pay for the employee assistance program and health insurance, as provided in this resolution. The remaining balance of the monthly benefit allowance may be allocated by the employee to elect benefits available through the City’s Internal Revenue Code Section 125 Flexible Benefits Plan, in accordance with applicable plan documents. Any amount of the monthly benefit allowance that remains after the allocations described above shall be forfeited. Full-time employees shall be required to make elections for the annual calendar year use of the entirety of monthly benefit allowances during an enrollment/election period established by the City Manager, as may change from time to time. Modifications of annual calendar year elections following any enrollment/election period shall be limited to qualifying events as set forth in applicable plan documents.
F. Employee Assistance Program: The City shall contract for an employee assistance program; enrollment in the program shall be mandatory for all fulltime employees. The cost of enrollment in the employee assistance program shall be deducted from each full-time employee’s monthly benefit allowance.
G.F. Health Insurance: All employees shall be covered by basic health insurance that qualifies as Minimum Essential Coverage under California law.
The City shall contract for health insurance through CalPERS; enrollment in a CalPERS health plan shall be mandatory for all full-time employees unless ITEM 8.6 – Attachment B
R 23-XX 4 XX-XX-2023
proof of coverage under a qualifying, alternate non-individual market basic health insurance plan is provided. The cost of enrollment in a CalPERS health plan shall be deducted first from each full-time employee’s monthly benefit allowance and then from salary (if necessary).
H.G. Flexible Benefits Plan: The City shall contract for the provision of an Internal Revenue Code Section 125 Flexible Benefits Plan; enrollment in the plan shall be voluntary for all full-time employees. Full-time employees may contribute to the plan by electing to allocate a portion of their monthly benefit allowance and/or through a salary reduction at their sole expense.
I.H. Deferred Compensation Plan: The City shall contract for the provision of an Internal Revenue Code Section 457 Deferred Compensation Plan; enrollment in the plan shall be voluntary for all full-time employees. Full-time employees may contribute to the plan through a salary reduction at their sole expense.
J.I.Paid Time Off: Full-time employees shall accrue 160 hours per year of annual paid time off (leave), which may be used for doctors’ appointments, personal and family sick time, bereavement leave, jury duty leave, vacation, and personal business. Hours earned are accrued on a pro-rata basis by pay period.
Full-time employees may maintain a balance of no more than 480 hours of paid time off (Leave Accrual Limit) and shall cease to accrue additional paid time off when the Leave Accrual Limit has been reached. When a full-time employee’s balance of paid time off falls below the Leave Accrual Limit, accrual shall resume beginning with the first pay period following the pay period in which the balance of paid time off fell below the Leave Accrual Limit. Upon separation from the City, full-time employees shall be compensated for the balance of their accrued paid time off.
SECTION 4. All employees who are not full-time employees, but who work 20 or more hours per week on a regularly assigned basis, shall be considered “parttime employees” for the purpose of this resolution. Part-time employees shall receive the following benefits:
A. Paid and Unpaid Holidays: The City shall observe the following holidays with part-time employees receiving eight hours of compensation for each weekday on which a holiday is observed: New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Presidents’ Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans ITEM 8.6 – Attachment B
R 23-XX 5 XX-XX-2023
Day, Thanksgiving, and Friday after Thanksgiving. The City shall also observe the following unpaid holidays: Winter Holiday (December 24 through January 1; when January 1 falls on a Sunday or Thursday, Winter Holiday shall be observed through January 2). Except for Winter Holiday, which is observed on specified dates, when a holiday falls on a Saturday, it shall be observed on the prior Friday; when a holiday falls on a Sunday, it shall be observed on the following Monday.
B. Floating Holidays: The City shall provide each part-time employee with two floating holidays per calendar year, equivalent to 16 hours of pay credited the first pay period of each calendar year. Floating holidays are not accrued on a pro-rata basis throughout the calendar year. Part-time employees must be in paid status on regularly scheduled workdays before and after using floating holiday time. Floating holiday time shall be used in increments of eight hours and only between December 24 and 31.
Part-time employees may maintain a balance of no more than 16 hours of unused floating holiday time (Floating Holiday Accrual Limit) and shall not accrue additional floating holiday time when the Floating Holiday Accrual Limit has been reached. Upon separation from the City, part-time employees shall be compensated for the balance of their accrued floating holiday time.
C. Retirement: All City employees, including part-time employees, are required to participate in the Social Security system. Part-time employees who work 1,000 hours or more in a fiscal year, shall be eligible for membership in CalPERS for retirement benefits, unless excluded in the City’s agreement with CalPERS. Eligible part-time employees considered “classic” by CalPERS shall pay the 7% employee contribution pursuant to the terms of Resolution No. 12-18. Eligible part-time employees considered “new members” by CalPERS shall pay the employee contribution rate established by CalPERS, as may change from time to time.
D. Retiree Medical: As required by, and in an amount established by California Government Code Section 22892, the City shall contribute toward CalPERS retiree health insurance for retiring full-time employees who meet the applicable statutory and CalPERS contract requirements to obtain CalPERS retiree medical benefits. Part-time service for employees who transition from part-time to full-time employment with the City may be used to meet applicable statutory and CalPERS contract requirements, with each 174 hours counting as one month.
ITEM 8.6 – Attachment B
R 23-XX 6 XX-XX-2023
E. Monthly Benefit Allowance: The City shall provide part-time employees with a monthly benefit allowance of $800 960 per month. A portion of the allowance shall be allocated to pay for the employee assistance program and health insurance, as provided in this resolution. The remaining balance of the monthly benefit allowance may be allocated by the employee to elect benefits available through the City’s Internal Revenue Code Section 125 Flexible Benefits Plan, in accordance with applicable plan documents. Any amount of the monthly benefit allowance that remains after the allocations described above shall be forfeited. Part-time employees who are provided a monthly benefit allowance shall be required to make elections for the annual calendar year use of the entirety of monthly benefit allowances during an enrollment/election period established by the City Manager, as may change from time to time. Modifications of annual calendar year elections following any enrollment/election period shall be limited to qualifying events as set forth in applicable plan documents.
F. Employee Assistance Program: The City shall contract for an employee assistance program; enrollment in the program shall be mandatory for all parttime employees. The cost of enrollment in the employee assistance program shall be deducted from each part-time employee’s salary or monthly benefit allowance, if provided.
G.F. Health Insurance: All employees shall be covered by basic health insurance that qualifies as Minimum Essential Coverage under California law.
The City shall contract for health insurance through CalPERS; enrollment in a CalPERS health plan shall be mandatory for all part-time employees unless proof of coverage under a qualifying, alternate non-individual market basic health insurance plan is provided. The cost of enrollment in a CalPERS health plan shall be deducted first from each part-time employee’s monthly benefit allowance and then from salary (if necessary).
H.G. Flexible Benefits Plan: The City shall contract for the provision of an Internal Revenue Code Section 125 Flexible Benefits Plan; enrollment in the plan shall be voluntary for all part-time employees. Part-time employees may contribute to the plan through a salary reduction at their sole expense and/or by electing to allocate a portion of their monthly benefit allowance, if provided.
I.H. Deferred Compensation Plan: The City shall contract for the provision ITEM 8.6 – Attachment B
R 23-XX 7 XX-XX-2023
of an Internal Revenue Code Section 457 Deferred Compensation Plan; enrollment in the plan shall be voluntary for all part-time employees. Parttime employees may contribute to the plan through a salary reduction at their sole expense.
J. Paid Time Off: Part-time employees shall accrue 160 hours per year of annual paid time off (leave), which shall be pro-rated based on the number of hours regularly worked less than 40 hours per week. Paid time off may be used for doctors’ appointments, personal and family sick time, bereavement leave, jury duty leave, vacation, and personal business. Paid time off may also be used up to the number of hours regularly worked during unpaid holidays that fall on weekdays (less any floating holiday time used). Hours earned are accrued on a pro-rata basis by pay period.
Part-time employees may maintain a balance of no more than 300 hours of paid time off (Leave Accrual Limit) and shall cease to accrue additional paid time off when the Leave Accrual Limit has been reached. When a part-time employee’s balance of paid time off falls below the Leave Accrual Limit, accrual shall resume beginning with the first pay period following the pay period in which the balance of paid time off fell below the Leave Accrual Limit. Upon separation from the City, part-time employees shall be compensated for the balance of their accrued paid time off.
SECTION 5. All employees who work less than 20 hours per week on a regularly assigned basis shall be considered “limited part-time employees” for the purpose of this resolution. Limited part-time employees shall receive the following benefits:
A. Retirement: All City employees, including limited part-time employees, are required to participate in the Social Security system.
B. Deferred Compensation Plan: The City shall contract for the provision of an Internal Revenue Code Section 457 Deferred Compensation Plan; enrollment in the plan shall be voluntary for all limited part-time employees. Limited part-time employees may contribute to the plan through a salary reduction at their sole expense.
C. Paid Time Off: After the first 30 calendar days of employment, and every January 1 thereafter, limited part-time employees shall accrue 24 hours of annual paid time off (leave), which may be used for personal illness, to care ITEM 8.6 – Attachment B
R 23-XX 8 XX-XX-2023
for a sick family member, for preventive care or diagnosis, care or treatment of an existing health condition, or for specified purposes if the limited parttime employee is a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
Paid time off shall not be used within the first 90 calendar days of employment for new limited part-time employees. There is no accrual or carryover of paid time off between or across calendar years. Upon termination from the City, limited part-time employees shall not be compensated for the balance of their paid time off. If a limited part-time employee separates from and is rehired by the City within one year, previously accrued and unused paid time off shall be reinstated.
SECTION 6. The City shall contract for an employee assistance program to provide voluntary, confidential assistance to employees in working through various life challenges that may adversely affect job performance, health, and personal wellbeing in order to optimize the City’s success. All full-time, part-time, and limited part-time employees shall be enrolled in the employee assistance program with the cost of enrollment paid by the City.
SECTION 67. The City Manager is authorized to offer technology allowances of up to $79.50 per employee per month to employees who are regularly required to use their personal cellular telephones, personal computers, and/or other personal technology to conduct City business, with the exception of the City Manager. Such technology allowances shall be added to employee compensation and shall be paid in the first pay period of each month, subject to any applicable wage withholding or similar taxes. Employees must be in paid status on regularly scheduled workdays during the first pay period of each month in order to receive payment.
SECTION 78. The City Manager is authorized to offer notary public stipends of $100 per employee per month to employees who regularly provide notary public and foreign pension acknowledgement services in the course of City business, with the exception of the City Manager. Such notary public stipends shall be added to employee compensation and shall be paid in the first pay period of each month, subject to any applicable wage withholding or similar taxes. Employees must be in paid status on regularly scheduled workdays during the first pay period of each month, and in possession of an active and valid notary public commission from the State of California as of the payroll processing date for the first pay period of each month, in order to receive payment. The City Manager is also authorized to incur and pay, on behalf of the City, costs related to the education and commission of employees who regularly provide notary public services in the course of City ITEM 8.6 – Attachment B
R 23-XX 9 XX-XX-2023
business, with the exception of the City Manager.
SECTION 89. The City Manager shall receive such other compensation and benefits as set forth in the employment agreement separately approved by the City Council on May 17, 2023.
SECTION 910. The Mayor shall sign this resolution and the City Clerk shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption thereof.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this XX day of XX 2023. _______________________________
CYNTHIA S. CONNERS, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
YOLIE TRIPPY, CMC, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF LAGUNA WOODS )
I, YOLIE TRIPPY, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Woods, do HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 23-XX was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Laguna Woods at a regular meeting thereof, held on the XX day of XX 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
_________________________________
ITEM 8.6 – Attachment B
R 23-XX 10 XX-XX-2023
YOLIE TRIPPY, CMC, City Clerk