SECTION F – Page 3
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
and such other items not mentioned that are required by the Plans and Specifications, are part of the work in this section.
All existing turf in the area designated for replacement shall be stripped, removed, and disposed of offsite in a legal manner.
The cleared area shall be ripped to a depth of 12 inches, except in areas of existing tree roots which generally extend to the drip line of the tree canopy. SPECIAL CARE
SHALL BE TAKEN TO PROTECT EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN FROM DAMAGE.
300-1.2 Root Pruning and Tree Trimming.
Subsection 300-1.2 Root Pruning and Tree Trimming is amended by adding thereto the following paragraphs:
Tree branches which hang within 13.5 feet above finished roadway grade or within 9 feet above finished sidewalk or parkway grade shall be removed to the branch collar in accordance with the current pruning standards of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). The Contractor shall remove additional tree branches, under the direction of the Engineer, in such a manner that the tree will present a balanced appearance. No paint or tree sealant shall be applied to the resulting scars. All pruning shall be done under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist in the Contractor’s employ.
All the root pruning required to place or replace walks, or other permanent facilities shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary to set forms.
All roots 2 inches and larger shall be cut with sharp tool such as axe or chainsaw. No roots shall be broken off by trenching or other heavy equipment.
No root shall be removed within five (5) diameters of the tree trunk measured at 4 feet, 9 inches above grade without the express written permission of the City. Any such root removed without the City’s written permission may create a hazardous condition for which the Contractor shall be liable.
Should the Contractor create a hazardous condition in the sole judgment of the Engineer the Contractor shall remove the tree and replace it with a specimen of the same species and value at the Contractor’s expense.
All significant root pruning (3-inch diameter and larger) shall be performed under the direct supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist in the Contractor’s employ.
All trees noted on the drawings for tree pruning shall have crown reduction and crown thinning performed in accordance with standards published by the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). All pruning shall be performed by ISA certified tree workers under direct supervision of an ISA certified arborist. The Contractor shall furnish such credentials to the Engineer prior to commencement of any tree work.
SECTION F – Page 4
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
300-1.2.1 Tree Removal and Salvage.
All trees to be removed are considered to the property of the Contractor. Trees to be destroyed shall be recycled as green waste.
300-1.2.2 Protection of Existing Trees to Remain.
All trees to remain in place within the limits of work shall be protected from damage by workmen, equipment, and operations. Insofar as prosecution of the work allows, following removal of surrounding pavements, etc., the root area beneath the tree drip line shall be protected from damage, including compaction.
Protection shall include temporary fencing, barricades, etc. Warning tape will not be considered sufficient.
300-1.2.3 Repair / Modification of Existing Turf Parkway (a) Lawn. The Contractor shall resod in accordance with 801-4.8.3 areas where turf is removed for construction. Thickness and type of sod shall match removed lawn.
(b) Private Sprinklers and Improvements. The Contractor shall coordinate work with adjacent property owners. The Contractor shall test and document the condition of existing improvements before beginning required removals or excavation. The Contractor shall restore private improvements to documented conditions after completing adjacent work.
300-1.4 Payment.
Add the following:
Payment for clearing and grubbing shall be paid at the contract unit price Lump Sum (LS) and shall include full compensation and include, but not limited to, furnishing all labor, materials, tools, transportation, tree trimming, root pruning, vegetation, debris disposal and other equipment and incidentals to perform the work.
SECTION 301 - SUBGRADE PREPARATION, TREATED MATERIALS AND PLACEMENT
OF BASE MATERIALS
301-1 SUBGRADE PREPARATION
301-1.7 Payment
Replace the second paragraph with the following:
Payment for Grading (Flatten to 4" below reference point, 90% compaction) shall be paid at the contract price per Lump Sum (LS) and shall include full compensation and include but not limited to furnishing all labor, materials, tools,
SECTION F – Page 5
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
equipment, hauling, disposing, unclassified fill, compaction, unclassified excavation, and incidentals for the site grading no additional compensation will be made therefor.
SECTION 303 - CONCRETE AND MASONRY CONSTRUCTION
303-4MASONRY CONSTRUCTION
303-4.1.5 Measurement and Payment.
Payment for 6' - 2"x2"x .25" Steel Square Tube / Anchored to Block Wall / Field Welded to Existing Steel Bars shall be at the contract bid unit price per Linear Foot (LF) and shall include full compensation and shall include, but not limited to furnishing all labor, materials, tools, equipment, hauling, disposal, welding and all incidental for construction of the steel tubes, and no additional compensation shall be made therefor.
SECTION 304 – METAL FABRICATION AND CONSTRUCTION
304-3 CHAIN LINK FENCE
304 – 3.2 Fence Construction
ADD THE FOLLOWING
For a chain link fence with slats, install slats vertically in the mesh openings such that the slats fit snugly. Fasten them in a way that prevents easy removal or displacement.
304 – 3.4 Measurement and Payment
Remove Section 304-3.4 and replace with the following:
Payment for Temporary 6’ Chain Link Fence with Privacy Screen & Straw Rolls shall be paid at the contract price per Linear Foot (LF) and shall include full compensation and include but not limited to furnishing all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals for the construction of chain link fence with privacy screen and straw rolls complete in place and no additional compensation will be made therefor.
Payment for 8’ High Chain Link Fence with Black Plastic Slats shall be paid at the contract price per Linear Foot (LF) and shall include full compensation and include but not limited to furnishing all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals for the construction of chain link fence with black plastic slats complete in place and no additional compensation will be made therefor.
SECTION F – Page 6
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
PART 4 – EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS
SECTION 401-1 GENERAL
ADD THE FOLLOWING SECTION
401-1.1 DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURES
PART 1 GENERAL
1.01 SCOPE OF WORK
A. Demolition, removal, and site preparation shall include, but is not limited to the demolition of the structures, including walls and footing, floor slabs, and foundations, and grading as identified on the Plans.
B. Utilities – Before starting demolition of any building where utility connections exist, the Contractor shall verify with the Utility Company that all such utility connections have been disconnected.
However, this shall not relieve the Contractor from the responsibility of complying with all code regulations or general practices as required by the City or Utility Company or District having jurisdiction over such utility.
C. The contractor shall prevent any foreign material from entering sewer laterals to be abandoned and shall employ suitable devices to prevent any material entering the sewer.
D. It is the responsibility of the contractor to have full knowledge of the existing sites before commencing demolition. The contractor shall raze all structures and completely clear the sites of debris as described in the specifications.
E. Contractor shall grade the entire site.
1.02 SUBMITTALS
A. Submit, in accordance with Section 3-8 “Submittals,” of these Special Provisions, the following information:
a) Provide a Removal Plan outlining details of the removal operations, showing equipment, sequence, and methods to be used, and schedule of operations, at least ten (10) days before beginning removals.
b) Bill of lading for every load of materials taken off-site. c) Proposed haul routes, permits for transportation and disposal of debris. d) Documentation for type, quantity, and method of disposal for all items. e) If material removed from the worksite will be disposed of on private property, submit copies of written releases not less than five (5) days prior to the start of work. Releases shall absolve the City from responsibility in connection with the depositing of material on private property and shall be signed by the owners of the property on which the material will be deposited.
C. Copies of required permits and certifications shall be submitted to the Engineer prior to performing work requiring permits and certifications.
SECTION F – Page 7
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
a) Submit all documents required for removal, handling and transportation of hazardous materials, as applicable.
1.03 SAFETY AND PROTECTION
A. Health and Safety Plan. The Contractor bears the ultimate responsibility for the health and safety of its employees. These specifications shall not be construed to limit the Contractor’s liability nor to assume that the City, its employees or designate, will assume any of the Contractor’s liability associated with Site safety considerations. The Contractor shall have a health and safety plan in effect prior to commencement of Work. The plan shall meet all OSHA and other applicable requirements. The plan shall specifically address procedures and protocols that will be followed to monitor for the presence of hazardous atmosphere, possibility for engulfment, gasses due to organic soils or proximity to landfills, exposure to hazardous products such as may be released when grinding, cutting, or torching galvanized or painted surfaces, contaminated soil, and groundwater, and identify response actions that will be taken when these conditions are encountered. This plan shall be provided to the Engineer at least one week before any construction activities begin. The City will not assume any role in determining the adequacy of the plan on behalf of the Contractor.
B. No Asbestos Containing Materials, lead-based paint or lead containing materials, or other hazardous building materials, shall be used for any purpose.
C. Contractor shall verify that the electrical system involved in the removal work is de-energized.
Coordinate with Southern California Edison to have electrical service meters, electrical power lines, and electrical power meter devices removed.
D. Contractor shall verify that the gas system involved in the removal work is de-energized.
Coordinate this work with Southern California Gas.
E. Exercise care in removing and handling existing structures, equipment, and substructures that may be required to be relocated or reinstalled. Provide and place bracing and shoring to prevent movement or damage to structures and improvements that are to remain. Restore damaged improvements to their original condition at the Contractor’s Expense and to the Engineer’s satisfaction.
F. Protect buildings and structures on adjacent properties, and other items which are to remain.
Contractor shall repair damages at the Contractor’s expense.
G. Provide, erect, and maintain barriers, fences, barricades, lighting, and guard rails as required to protect general public, workers, and adjoining properties. Fences shall be linked but removable with screens and conform to Section 206-6 Chain Link Fence of the Reference Specification.
H. Protect pipelines, wires, cables, electrical panels, and conduits located above or below ground if such items are to remain. Damage to said items if caused by actions or omissions of Contractor shall be repaired at the Contractor’s expense.
I. Cease operation and notify Engineer immediately if the work appears to endanger life, facilities, or property. Do not resume operations until safe conditions have been restored.
PART 2 MATERIALS
A. The use of explosives for any work to be performed under this contract is prohibited.
B. The use of a “Headache Ball” or other battering device on any building or structure shall not be permitted when such device will swing or will be swung over public or adjacent private property
SECTION F – Page 8
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
or that through its use will cause building material particles to fall or to be driven onto public or adjacent private property.
C. Backfill must be free of organic or other unsatisfactory material such as residue from grooving or grinding operations, metal, rubber, mixed debris, or rubble.
PART 3 EXECUTION
3.01 GENERAL
A. Perform all demolition work in accordance with applicable Federal, State, County, and City Building Codes and Regulations. The work shall meet safety standards and requirements including those of CAL/OSHA. The Contractor shall have at the work site copies of applicable extracts of CAL/OSHA Construction Safety Orders and General Industrial Safety Orders.
B. Control dust to meet the South Coast Air Quality Management District regulations.
C. Subsurface items not shown on the Drawings or mentioned in the Specifications, which are encountered during the Contractor’s operations shall be brought to the attention of the Engineer.
The Engineer will determine the disposition of the items.
D. Obtain permission from the Engineer if outriggers, swinging cranes, or other equipment might pass over adjacent properties.
E. Should the Contractor decide to move any large items intact off the site, arrangements for permits, clearances, and utilities are the Contractor’s responsibility.
F. Remove from site vermin infested and harmful materials. Dispose of in accordance with applicable regulations so as not to endanger the health of workers, tenants, or the public.
G. Burning of material on site shall not be permitted.
H. All debris shall be removed and handled in a way as to prevent entering the drainage and sewage systems.
I. Remove existing improvements as indicated on the Drawings.
J. Removals adjacent to existing structures shall be performed carefully to prevent damage to the facilities. Removals by “Stomping” will not be permitted.
K. Survey Monuments and Benchmarks disturbed during demolition and removal activities shall be reestablished per the requirements of the City of Los Alamitos.
L. Contractor shall construct and maintain erosion control BMPs per the Reference Specification Section 3-12.6 Water Pollution Control.
3.02 UTILITY COORDINATION
A. Exercise extreme caution while working around power poles, overhead lines and light poles that are required to remain.
B. Conduits and structures associated with demolition of the existing buildings shall be removed and conduits capped at grade and the locations recorded on the as-built plans and locations staked in the field.
C. Disconnection and removal of all above ground utility services and meters to the point of service is included in the work to be done, unless otherwise specifically identified for removal by the utility owner.
SECTION F – Page 9
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
D. Demolish and remove abandoned utilities as indicated on the Contract Drawings and as directed by the Engineer. Coordinate with utility owner prior to work.
E. Abandoned utilities shall be removed, capped, or plugged as applicable or as identified on the drawings. Record these locations on the Record Drawings.
F. Contractor shall stake location of abandoned utilities. Stakes shall clearly note the material and depth of pipe.
H. Cap any adjacent irrigation system that is impacted by these removals and ensure remaining irrigation is fully operational. Work may include the placement of temporary irrigation piping to maintain connectivity.
3.03 DEMOLITION AND REMOVALS
A. The Contractor shall completely remove all furnishings and fixtures, and accessory structures attached or adjacent to the buildings to be demolished. The City reserves the right to require the Contractor to salvage certain fixtures prior to removal, including, but not limited to, air conditioning units and other items determined of value by the City.
B. The Contractor shall completely remove all building walls, concrete pedestals, and perimeter walls, and footing. All debris and refuse shall be removed.
C. Floor slabs and foundations shall be removed.
D. Any cavities within the Project Area shall be backfilled in accordance with materials stated in this section.
E. Disposal of all material shall conform to all applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
3.04 OWNERSHIP AND DISPOSAL
A. Materials removed shall become the property of the Contractor and legally disposed off site.
B. Materials shall be free from residual petroleum, tars, waste, debris, soils, loose scrap metal, and any toxic, hazardous, or other foreign substances.
3.05 BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT AND CONCRETE REMOVALS
A. Surface improvements removed or damaged as a result of Contractor’s operations and not designated to be removed shall be reconstructed by the Contractor with the same type of materials and to the same dimensions. Pavement thickness shall be 1 inch greater in thickness than the removed existing pavement.
3.06 CLEAN-UP
A. Debris and Rubbish Control: Debris and rubbish shall be removed and transported in a manner that will prevent spillage onto existing streets or adjacent areas. All debris shall be removed off the project site property at Contractor’s expense.
B. Regulations: Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations regarding handling and disposal of demolished buildings and all resulting materials.
SECTION F – Page 10
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
PART 4 MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT
4.01 MEASUREMENT
A. Demolition and removal of the structure, placement and compaction of fill, and all associated work, including utility coordination, wall removals and footing, shall be measured as a single lump sum item.
4.02 PAYMENT
A. The contract lump sum price paid for Demolition of the TV Production Building shall include full compensation for furnishing all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals and for doing all the work involved in the Demolition of the TV Production Building, complete in place. The contract lump sum price paid per Lump Sum bid item shall include, but not be limited to:
a) Utility coordination and removals
b) Safely demolishing the existing structure(s), and removal and disposal of all fixtures including walls and footings, furnishings, and attachments therein or thereon c) Capping sanitary sewer lateral at edge of work area
d) Capping gas and water line
e) Disposal and transport of all debris and refuse from within the work area g) Securing fees to a legal dump site
h) Grading the site
j) Staking abandoned utilities
C. Health & Safety Plan: Full compensation to prepare and implement the Health and Safety Plan shall be included in the price paid for the Demolition of TV Production Building and no additional compensation will be allowed therefor.
D. Weight tags from the dump site shall be presented to the Engineer. No payment shall be made until the weight tags have been presented to the Engineer.
SECTION F – Page 11
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
PART 8 – LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION
SECTION 801 – INSTALLATION
801-1 GENERAL.
All existing lawn and landscape areas disturbed by the Contractor as part of or as a result of the work shall be prepared and re-sodded and/or replanted in kind, except as otherwise designated in the Plans. Existing irrigation systems shall be repaired and restored to operating condition to the satisfaction of the Engineer.
Contractor shall field verify with Engineer exact location of all irrigation components such as, but not limited to, valves, sprinkler heads, piping, etc., prior to start of construction. All irrigation components shall be protected in place. However, where there are conflicts with new sidewalks, the water supply lines, valves, and sprinkler heads shall be modified and adjusted to grade or relocated, as necessary. The reinstallation of irrigation components shall be performed in the same manner in which they were originally installed.
Contractor shall not have the existing irrigation system inoperable for more than 48 hours continuously.
801-8 Payment
Payment for Irrigation System Modifications shall be paid at the contract unit price Lump Sum (LS) and shall include full compensation and shall include, but not be limited to, furnishing all labor, materials, tools, equipment, hauling, disposing, pipes, sprinklers, connections, wyes, bends, tees, removal of interfering portions of existing system and incidentals for the irrigation system modifications complete in place and no additional compensation will be made therefor.
Payment for Vegetation Control Fabric shall be paid at the contract unit price per Square Feet (SF) and shall include full compensation and shall include, but not be limited to, furnishing all labor, materials, tools, equipment, hauling, disposing, compaction, and incidentals for the vegetation control fabric complete in place and no additional compensation will be made therefor.
Payment for 3/4" Size Landscape Grade Rocks, 4" Thick (Locally Available) shall be paid at the contract unit price per Ton and shall include full compensation and shall include, but not be limited to, furnishing all labor, materials, tools, equipment, hauling, disposing, compaction, and incidentals for the Landscape Gravel Rocks complete in place and no additional compensation will be made therefor.
Payment for Restore Lawn shall be paid at the contract unit price per Square Feet (SF) and shall include full compensation and shall include, but not be limited to, furnishing all labor, materials, tools, equipment, hauling, disposing, compaction, and incidentals for the Restoring lawn complete in place and no additional compensation will be made therefor.
SECTION G
RECYCLING OF MATERIALS
Waste Management
Form Page 1 of 7 City of Los Alamitos
Updated /2022
0 WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FORM
1. PROJECT & APPLICANT INFORMATION
OWNER'S NAME DATE
PROJECT ADDRESS
OWNER TELEPHONE
CONTRACTOR NAME
CONTRACTOR CONTACT NAME
CONTRACTOR TELEPHONE
APPROXIMATE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROJECT
DEMOLITION DATES:
CONSTRUCTION
DATES:
START
START
END
END
2. DESCRIPTION OF DIVERSION PLAN
Briefly state how waste materials will be handled at your job site to ensure salvage/reuse or recycling. Also, explain how you will inform your workers/sub-contractors of your Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan requirements and ensure their participation. If you choose Consolidated Disposal, no additional information is required.
Consolidated Disposal Bins and Roll-off boxes will be used for this project.
3. EXEMPTION
Please fill out the section below if you believe that your project is entitled to an exemption and not required to divert or recycle C&D debris.
Waste Management
Form Page 2 of 7
City of Los Alamitos
Updated /2022
Exemption Status:
Reviewed
Date
4. MATERIAL HANDLING ESTLMATE
Please complete the Material Handling Estimate Worksheet (page 3). This form is used to identify the estimated types and quantities of materials and how the waste material will be reduced, recycled or disposed at your project site. Estimates should be calculated in tons.
Please use the attached Materials Conversion Worksheet for conversion factors. 4a. Diversion Percentage Estimate from Section F. (page 3): _______% 4b. ls the percentage listed in 4a above greater than or equal to 65%? YES NO 4c. If NO, explain why:
5. "To the best of my knowledge, the tonnage and diversion percentage estimates reported on this form are my best estimate of the disposition of the construction and demolition materials generated at this project site."
SIGNATURE
PRINT NAME DATE
MATERIAL HANDLING ESTIMATE
WORKSHEET
Waste Management Form
City of Los Alamitos
Updated /2022
Column A: List estimated quantities of waste for each material type (in tons). To convert yards to tons, use the attached Materials Conversion Worksheet.
Columns B, C, D: List estimated quantities reused, recycled, or disposed based on Column A quantities. Column E: State the name of all vendors or facilities used to reuse, recycle or dispose of materials listed. Column Totals: Add up all material quantities for each column.
Section F. Calculate the estimated diversion percentage in the section at the bottom of this worksheet and enter the percentage on page 2, line 4a, of this form. Attach another Material Handling Estimate Worksheet if more room is needed.
Materials A
Quantity
Discarded
B
Salvage or
Reuse
C
Recycling
D
Disposal
(Landfill)
E
Proposed
Destination(s)
Example: Cardboard 2 tons
'
1.5 ,-
.5 (Recycle) XYZ Recycling
Facility (Disposal) Prima
Landfill
Asphalt & Concrete
Brick/Masonry/fitle
Building Materials
(doors windows,
cabinets, ect.)
Cardboard
Carpet
Carpet Padding/Foam
Ceiling Tiles
Drywall (new or used)
Landscape Debris
(brush, trees, ect.)
MATERIAL HANDLING ESTIMATE
WORKSHEET
Materials A
Quantity
Discarde
d
B
Salvage
or Reuse
C
Recyclin
g
D
Disposal
(Landfill)
E
Proposed
Destination(s)
Scrap Metal
Unpainted Wood &
Pallets
Garbage/Trash
Dirt X
Demolition X X
Green Waste (trees,
shrubs, turf,ect.)
Mixed Debris
Roofing
Wood Shingle/Shake
Concrete/Clay Tile
Roof Decking
Appliance/Equipment
F. Diversion Percentage Estimate: (Transfer % amount lo 4a on page 2) Column Totals B + C = / A = X 100% = %
:DVWH0DQDJHPHQW
)RUP3DJHRI
&LW\RI/RV$ODPLWRV
8SGDWHG
MATERIAL HANDLING ESTIMATE
WORKSHEET
:DVWH0DQDJHPHQW
)RUP3DJHRI
&LW\RI/RV$ODPLWRV
8SGDWHG
Material Category Volume Unit Tons/Unit Tons
Asphalt/Concrete
Asphalt (broken) cy X .7 =
Concrete (broken) cy X .9
Concrete (solid slab) cy X 1.2975
Brick/Masonry/Tile
Brick (broken) cy X .7 =
Brick (whole, palletized) cy X 1.5212 =
Masonry block (broken) cy X .6 =
Tile sq ft X .00175 =
Building Materials (doors, windows, cabinets, etc.) cy X .15 Cardboard (flat) cy X .05
Carpet
By square foot sq ft X .0005
=
By cubic yard cy X .3 =
Carpet Padding/Foam sq ft X .000125 =
Ceiling Tiles
Whole (palletized) sq ft X .0003 =
Loose cy X .0875 =
Drywall (new or used)
½" (by square foot) sq ft X .0008
5/8" (by square foot) sq ft X .00105
=
Demo/used (by cubic yard) cy X .25 =
Landscape Debris (brush, trees, ect.) cy X .15 =
Scrap Metal cy X .453 =
=
=
=
=
=
MATERIALS CONVERSION WORKSHEET
&LW\RI/RV$ODPLWRV
8SGDWHG
:DVWH0DQDJHPHQW
)RUP3DJHRI
Material Category Volume Unit Tons/Unit Tons
Unpainted Wood & Pallets
By board foot bd ft X .001375 =
By cubic yard cy X .15 =
Garbage/Trash cy X .175
Dirt
By cubic yard cy X 1.03 =
Demolition
Complete demolition sq ft of X 40/2000
structure
Complete demolition with tile roof sq ft of X 47/2000 = structure
Green Waste (trees, shrubs, turf, ect.) cy X .25 =
Mixed Debris (interior remodel) cy X .2
Roofing
Asphalt composition shingle roof X 3/2000 =
sq ft
Wood Shingle/Shake roof X 2/2000 =
sq ft
Concrete/Cla)'.Tile roof X I 0/2000
sq ft
Roof Decking roof X 1.5/2000 =
sq ft
Appliance/Equipment
Cook Top X .015 =
Dishwasher X .050
Refrigerator X .075 =
Oven (single) X .038 =
MATERIALS CONVERSION WORKSHEET
:DVWH0DQDJHPHQW
)RUP3DJHRI
&LW\RI/RV$ODPLWRV
8SGDWHG
Material Category
Trash Compactor
Volume Unit Tons/Uni
t
.020
Tons
X
Water Heater 30 gallons X .025 =
Water Heater 40-50 gallons X .038 =
Bathtub (cast Iron) X .150 =
Bathtub (steel) X .038 =
Sink, cast iron X .025
Sink, porcelain X .010
Sink, steel X .005 =
Toilet X .020
cy =
cubic yards Sample
Calculation:
sq ft= square foot bd ft= board foot
Materials including I 00 square feet of roof decking, 50 cubic yards of brick (broken), and a cast iron bathtub would compute as follows: (I 00 x 1.5 lbs.)/2000 + (50 x 7) + .15= (.075) + 35 + 0.15 = 35.225 Tons
APPENDIX A
DEMOLITION AND SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS
City of Los Alamitos
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2023 ITEM NUMBER: 11E
To: Mayor Tanya Doby & Members of the City Council
Presented By: Ron Noda, Development Services Director
Subject: Response to the 2022-2023 OC Grand Jury Report Titled: "Welcome to the Neighborhood"
SUMMARY
This item contains the City's response to the 2022-2023 Orange County (OC) Grand Jury Report titled "Welcome to the Neighborhood."
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve the attached response to the 2022-2023 Orange County Grand Jury Report titled "Welcome to the Neighborhood"; and,
2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the response letter on behalf of the City Council.
BACKGROUND
In 2022, the Orange County (OC) Grand Jury released a report titled "Welcome to the Neighborhood" focused on group homes as an important component in the healthcare and/or recovery of many people. When group homes are operated for the well-being of their residents and with the respect for their neighbors, they can be an asset to their host community.
The OC Grand Jury reviewed the challenges of successfully integrating group homes into neighborhoods, including pressure exerted on the County of Orange and cities by residents, operators, and the State of California. The OC 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.
In compliance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the City is required to provide a response to each of the Grand Jury findings and recommendations. The Grand Jury has directed the City to respond by September 18, 2023. A copy of the Grand Jury report is included as an attachment to this report.
DISCUSSION
City Staff has reviewed the OC Grand Jury's Report and has prepared a response to those findings and recommendations that were directed to cities in Orange County, including Los Alamitos.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
Attachment: 1. City's Response to OC Grand Jury - Welcome to the Neighborhood
2. Welcome to the Neighborhood - Are Cities Responsibly Managing the Integration of Group Homes?
August 21, 2023
Honorable Maria Hernandez, Presiding Judge
Superior Court of California, County of Orange
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
RE: Response to 2022-2023 Orange County Grand Jury Report "Welcome to the Neighborhood"
Dear Judge Hernandez,
The City of Los Alamitos has reviewed the Orange County Grand Jury Report titled "Welcome to the Neighborhood". In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the City of Los Alamitos submits the following response to the findings and recommendations included within the report. Each of the applicable findings and recommendations is listed below in Italics, followed by the City's response.
Findings:
F1: Group homes too close to one another contribute to the problems associated with overconcentration.
Response: The City of Los Alamitos partially agrees with this finding. Historically, negative effects caused by the operation or overconcentration of group homes have not been a significant cause of concern for Los Alamitos residents. It is unclear whether this is due to there not being an overconcentration of group homes in the City, that the ones that do exist are well operated, or a combination thereof.
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 of Los Alamitos partially agrees with this finding. Historically, negative effects caused by the operation or overconcentration of group homes have not been a significantly reported cause of concern for Los Alamitos residents.
It is unclear whether this is due to there not being an overconcentration of group homes in the City, that the ones that do exist are well operated, or a combination thereof.
2 F3: Some cities have successfully addressed and informed community members about the challenges faced in regulating group homes.
Response: The City of Los Alamitos partially agrees with this finding. Historically, negative effects caused by the operation or overconcentration of group homes have not been a significantly reported cause of concern for Los Alamitos residents.
The City is not specifically aware of community outreach efforts and related citizen participation in other cities throughout Orange County.
F4: Community satisfaction was minimal when cities took the traditional public comment approach towards addressing community complaints.
Response: The City of Los Alamitos partially agrees with this finding. Historically, negative effects caused by the operation or overconcentration of group homes have not been a significantly reported cause of concern for Los Alamitos residents.
The City is not specifically aware of community outreach efforts and related citizen participation and/or community satisfaction in other cities throughout Orange County.
F5: Cities are not utilizing police, fire, and code enforcement complaints as a means of locating and tracking Group Homes.
Response: The City of Los Alamitos agrees with this finding. It is difficult to track the location of group homes as many are not required to obtain an approval or other form of registration and/or license from the City, County or State, pursuant to State law.
F6: Cities are inhibited from enacting and enforcing ordinances due to fears over the potential cost of litigation.
Response: The City of Los Alamitos partially agrees with this finding. The City does not have an adopted ordinance regulating group homes because, historically, negative effects caused by the operation or overconcentration of group homes have not been a significantly reported cause of concern for Los Alamitos residents.
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 of Los Alamitos partially agrees with this finding. While the City has not adopted an Ordinance requiring a ministerial permit or registration of
3 a group home, the City is aware of neighboring jurisdictions that have adopted an ordinance regulating group homes; however, we are not particularly aware of their enforcement policy decisions.
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 of Los Alamitos partially agrees with this finding. While the City has not adopted an ordinance regulating group homes at this time, we acknowledge the severity of having a noncompliant housing element which would deter cities from exploring the same.
F9: Cities have historically strategized and acted independently in addressing group home challenges and solutions.
Response: The City of Los Alamitos agrees with this finding.
F10: Well-operated group homes can integrate smoothly into neighborhoods.
Response: The City of Los Alamitos agrees with this finding.
F11: There is a lack of regulatory oversight for the health and safety of residents of unlicensed group homes.
Response: The City of Los Alamitos agrees with this finding. Without licensing and/or registration, there is no regulatory oversight of these facilities.
Recommendations:
R1: Orange County cities and the County of Orange should address citizen concerns regarding group homes by providing an opportunity for an open dialogue where an interdisciplinary panel of subject matter experts can share with attendees the challenges cities are facing in the management of group homes. To be implemented by July 1, 2024.
Response: The City of Los Alamitos will not implement this recommendation because it is unwarranted at this time. Historically, negative effects caused by the operation or overconcentration of group homes have not been a significantly reported cause of concern for Los Alamitos residents.
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.
4 Response: The City of Los Alamitos will not implement this recommendation because it is unwarranted. Historically, negative effects caused by the operation or overconcentration of group homes have not been a significantly reported cause of concern for Los Alamitos residents.
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.
Response: The City of Los Alamitos will not implement this recommendation because it is unwarranted. Historically, negative effects caused by the operation or overconcentration of group homes have not been a significantly reported cause of concern for Los Alamitos residents.
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.
Response: The City of Los Alamitos will not implement this recommendation because it is unwarranted. Historically, negative effects caused by the operation or overconcentration of group homes have not been a significantly reported cause of concern for Los Alamitos residents. A change in State law could be accomplished through advocacy by the League of California cities.
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.
Response: The City of Los Alamitos will not implement this recommendation; however, the City's code enforcement electronic database logs all code enforcement activity, and such records can be searched to identify properties alleged to be operating as a group home, if needed.
5 Should you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Ron Noda, Deputy City Manager/Development Services Director at [email protected] or (562) 431-3538, x500.
Respectfully,
____________________________
Tanya Doby
Mayor
cc: Orange County Grand Jury
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Welcome to the Neighborhood
Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes?
County of Orange
Grand Jury 2022-2023
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
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 3 of 42
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.
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 4 of 42
BACKGROUND
Orange County has 42 miles of beautiful coastline, three harbors, and 25 urban and wilderness parks - including 230 miles of riding and hiking trails. Orange County also has the dubious honor of having more than its share of our State’s total number of group recovery and sober living residences. Frequently referred to as “The Rehab Riviera”, several cities in Orange County have been dealing with pockets of 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
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 5 of 42
Since deinstitutionalization, the State of California has resisted appeals from local cities to pass permitting laws, distancing requirements, or any type of regulation at all. There is a misconception that these regulatory ordinances are intended to discriminate against people who are disabled due to alcohol and drug addiction, and the State of California has cited this misconception as the guiding principle for its dogged challenge of most attempts by cities to manage the responsible integration of group homes into residential neighborhoods. Rather, such city ordinances are intended to protect those people who suffer from alcohol and drug addiction, as well as the neighborhoods where group homes are located.
Licensed residential rehab programs are subject to the same local laws as single-family homes, and no more. State law imposes fewer restrictions on licensed rehab programs than other licensed group homes. The Community Care Facilities Act, from which alcohol and drug rehab facilities are exempt, imposes restrictions that protect the character of residential neighborhoods. Under this act, cities receive written notice of a proposed facility, and any city or county may request denial of the license based on overconcentration of residential care facilities. While alcohol and drug programs that provide 24-hour residential non-medical services to adults recovering from drug or alcohol abuse must obtain a State license, they cannot be regulated any differently from a single-family home if they serve six or fewer people.
California Health & Safety Code Sections 1520.5 and 1267.9 state it is a policy of the State to prevent overconcentration of residential facilities that impair the integrity of residential neighborhoods. Section 1520.5 states that the department shall deny an application for a new residential facility license if the department determines the facilities location is proximate to an existing residential facility therefore resulting in overconcentration. The statute recognized the need for a balanced policy to prevent overconcentration of residential care facilities which indicates an awareness and understanding of the impact of overconcentration on the integrity of residential neighborhoods. The statute defines overconcentration as less than 300 feet for some types of group homes and up to 1000 feet for others. At the time the statute was enacted it was specific only to certain types of group homes. However, the recent emphasis on providing more housing in California has eroded the intent of this act.
Federal and State fair housing laws protect people with disabilities from housing discrimination. Recovering alcoholics and drug addicts are disabled for purposes of 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
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 6 of 42
homes to six residents is part of the State statute; however, confusion arises because the statute does not apply to sober living homes.
There is only so much a city can do to respond to the complaints of its residents when dealing with an overconcentration of group homes in a neighborhood. It is important for city residents to be educated on the barriers faced by cities, and to work with their city to overcome these barriers.
Current laws do not adequately address the need to manage the integration of group homes into neighborhoods. Courts should not be where the solutions are found.
REASON FOR STUDY
Many cities within Orange County have neighborhoods with a dense concentration of group recovery and sober living residences. In most circumstances, cities do not know where these group homes are located unless the homes generate a backlash from neighbors due to various types of disturbances. The Grand Jury examined how Orange County cities are managing the distancing of all types of group homes, and the impact group homes have on neighborhoods and group home residents when the homes are in close proximity to one another.
Group homes, most often Recovery and Sober Living homes, and the nuisances that are commonly associated with them, are not new to Orange County. Neighborhood complaints, concerns from individuals living in or related to residents of group homes, the litigious nature of the relationship between cities and group home operators, and abuse of the healthcare system have been in play in Orange County for well over a decade.
The Grand Jury began this study by looking at how cities are managing the influx and locations of group homes and identifying best practices where they are found. The working premise was that each city is responsible for the integration of group homes, which would serve to protect the residents of group homes while maintaining the existing neighborhood atmosphere.
Has there been success addressing the issues associated with group homes and what does that look like? Are cities going it alone or are there county-wide efforts? Has there been progress made in this area? The Grand Jury approached the topic of group home integration seeking answers to these questions with the expectation that there were some systems in place resulting in the successful integration of group homes. The investigation took a winding road which revealed that, despite countless attempts at change, many of the problems that surfaced over a decade ago are still present. The Grand Jury found that successfully implemented solutions have become even more impactful in light of the State of California’s heavy-handed entry into the debate.
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 7 of 42
METHOD OF STUDY
The Grand Jury has evaluated official documents, examined news articles, visited multiple recovery/sober living websites, and assessed secondary sources.
The Grand Jury reviewed
numerous documents, including
the 2022 State of California’s
Group Home Technical Advisory2
and the 1990 State of California
Health and Safety Code.3
To better understand the impact
of density, jurors attended
townhall and city council meetings
virtually, through recordings, and
visited neighborhoods in several
cities where there is a heavy
concentration of group homes.
The Grand Jury interviewed numerous subject matter experts, city managers, County and city officials, legislators, city attorneys, group home operators, and legal and real estate professionals. It also examined local, state, and national media reports and opinion pieces regarding group recovery and sober living residences. The Findings and Recommendations herein are based on this work.
INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS
Orange County has some of the heaviest concentrations of group homes and sober living residences in the nation.
4 The densities are more than the local population can
bear and residents believe the influx of the group home residents seriously impacts their neighborhoods. Similarly, group home and sober living industry experts cite negative impacts on the group home residents themselves.
Operators can open a group home where they desire, without having a license or 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.
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 8 of 42
“Residents of these homes are moving in and
out at an alarming, transitory rate”
OC Group Home Density
Reportedly, Orange County has more than its share of group homes in California, and the country for that matter, specific to housing individuals in need of Recovery/Sober Living Homes.6 There are no existing requirements for sober living homes with six or fewer residents to identify or register themselves as such.
It is estimated that up to 36% of houses required to be licensed (those providing services) by the State of California as group homes for six or fewer residents are located in Orange County. In addition, there are hundreds of group homes not requiring licensing that exist in Orange County neighborhoods. This lack of identification makes it extremely difficult to estimate the total number of sober living homes in our communities.7
As documented in numerous city council and townhall meetings, residents and activists have raised concerns about over-saturation and common nuisances to local community governing bodies (see Common Nuisances section). In many cases, these are neighborhoods in which multiple group homes are in close proximity (for example three in one cul-de-sac) or individual homes are run with little to no on-site supervision.
Neighborhoods are losing their original character and familial aspect, with some becoming increasingly institutional and others experiencing more of a “frat house” feel.
Residents of these homes are moving in and out at an alarming, transitory rate.
Neighbors describe some of these group homes as taking no responsibility for the actions of their inhabitants. Rules and responsibilities are either not imposed or not enforced by the group home operators. The complaints are predominantly related to non-regulated group homes.
Over the last several years, multiple cities in Orange County have sought to find a solution to alleviate these concerns. Several have performed due diligence to ensure that any action taken will provide for neighborhoods to remain neighborhoods, and that both the disabled and the recovering addicts needing to live in these types of group homes are in fact living in a normalized residential environment that provides the best opportunity to be successful in their recovery.
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 9 of 42
This is not simply a “Not In My Backyard” (NIMBY) issue or reaction as evidenced by the large number of homes that receive few or no complaints. The need for well-run Recovery/Sober Living Homes is not in dispute. Concerns arise when these homes are poorly run and/or when multiple homes are in close proximity, contributing to the problem of over-concentration. These two circumstances cause changes in the local neighborhood, and it is questionable whether they are aiding the very residents that they are meant to be assisting and whether residents of these homes are integrating into a normalized environment.
To that end, various cities have introduced ordinances toward resolving the problem.
Some of these include distancing requirements between group homes ranging from 300 to 1000 feet. Some ordinances require group homes to register or self-identify as such.
California Health & Safety Code Section 1267.9 provides specific requirements for distancing of most types of group homes settings.8 These requirements are similar to the local city ordinances in that they provide certain spacing restrictions of between 300 and1000 feet. Sober Living Homes, however, are excluded from any distancing requirement by the State.
The State imposes licensing requirements on most types of group homes and provides for oversight by one or more State or County agency. Sober Living Homes with six or fewer residents are not required to be licensed by the State and have no regulatory
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 10 of 42
oversight. These two factors alone allow anyone to set up, open, and advertise this type of group home anywhere in California. Orange County seems to be the favored location, yet has no say in the siting or quantity of group homes in our residential neighborhoods.
Tracking Challenges
Just where are these sober living homes? All over. How do we know? We actually don’t.
There are few local ordinances requiring the registration, licensing, or declaration of any type of unlicensed sober living or recovery residence that has been established in a neighborhood. There are no widely adopted methods to track or monitor any aspect of such dwellings – their location, number of people residing in them, on-site management, or their ownership.
The Grand Jury’s research found that most sober living homes are not required by law to have any kind of State license. Some cities have enacted ordinances that require a permit or registration. When a sober living establishment is registered and a complaint is received, the complaint may be recorded and could be tracked, at least for the location of that specific home.
Except for the few cities with ordinances regulating sober living homes and the few homes that applied for registration or received ministerial permits, accurate tracking and monitoring remains challenging. Tracking is attainable if cities’ code and law enforcement establish and actively utilize a searchable database that includes
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 11 of 42
information about police and fire calls, nuisance complaints or code infractions, and identification of type of establishment. The use of this information can help identify the location and density of group homes.
Common Nuisances
Residents living in cities with neighborhoods having a significant number of recovery and sober living homes complain that the proliferation of these group homes in recent years has become unmanageable, and that overconcentration is impacting the quality of life for everyone.
For years, many citizens living in neighborhoods with an unrestrained growth of sober living homes have been voicing their concerns and frustrations over the lack of protection their communities are given. While many of these group homes adopt rules and regulations and attempt to be good neighbors, a citizen’s primary method for reporting concerns about a disruptive home is initiating a nuisance complaint to their local law enforcement.
The outcry is that unregulated sober living residences make for bad neighbors. Sober living homes are not always bad neighbors, but when they are concentrated in a small geographic area or neighborhood, the common nuisances can become more visible and disruptive. Ultimately, this raises concerns about the potential or actual diminished character of the neighborhood.
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 12 of 42
“The well-funded operators are supported by
industry organizations and associations
in their lawsuits…”
Lead Cities
Although the City of Costa Mesa has been front and center in the legal fights related to group homes, it was Newport Beach that first stepped into the arena in 2008. Three companies sued the City over an ordinance that was approved by the City Council in 2008 that regulated group homes for recovering addicts.9 Pacific Shores Properties, Newport Coast Recovery, and Yellowstone Women’s First Step House sued Newport Beach for a total of $5.24 million. Still in place today, this ordinance was the first of its kind in Orange County and it established quiet hours, parking and smoking areas, and van routes. It also required the City’s approval for new unlicensed homes for recovering addicts in certain neighborhoods. In 2015, the City reached the end of its seven-year legal battle over sober-living homes with a settlement agreement.10 11 According to the Orange County Register, which cites its own archives, Newport Beach spent at least four million dollars in legal costs on the cases. In 2008, there were 81 facilities and 614 total beds identified in Newport Beach. In 2021, there were a known 30 facilities with 210 total beds. Where did all those facilities and beds go?12 Perhaps to the City of Costa Mesa. In 2015, the City of Costa Mesa enacted their own ordinance (amended in 2017) after seeing a sharp increase in the number of sober living homes followed by a steep increase in the number of community complaints. On the heels of the ordinance came the legal challenges, and Costa Mesa prevailed in all challenges until January 2023 when two sober living homes, embroiled in litigation against the city, were handed a legal victory in federal court. The earlier dismissal was reversed and remanded by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled that asking operators of sober living facilities for proof of disability violates federal law barring discrimination against those with disabilities and bars discrimination in housing.
As the legal battle waged on, other local governments explored, advanced, or enacted regulation of sober living homes, including the County of Orange (2015), and Cities of Laguna Hills (2015), San Clemente (2016), Laguna Niguel (2016), San Juan Capistrano (2016), Anaheim (2020), and Huntington Beach (2020). Most of these entities, perhaps all, have chosen not to enforce their ordinances out of concern of potential litigation, and are waiting for Costa Mesa’s litigation to conclude.
Cities Are Standing Alone
Multiple cities in the County have executed ordinances to regulate unlicensed group homes. With the exception of the newly formed South Orange County Sober Living and
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 13 of 42
Recovery Task Force, cities have not collaborated on solutions to shared and common problems. This has been done on an individual basis, with little collaboration among cities. Prior to drafting an ordinance, some cities study the details and effectiveness of other cities’ actions, particularly the City of Costa Mesa’s ordinance, and use that as a template to draft their own.13
Once enacted, few of the ordinances are being enforced. This lack of enforcement is due to a small number of very specific impediments and concerns. These include:
• Fear of litigation costs due to lawsuits filed by group home operators against cities that have enforced ordinances. (The City of Costa Mesa has reportedly incurred over ten million dollars in legal fees in relation to group home litigation.) • Fear of the State of California withholding approval of the Housing Element for cities that have ordinances related to the management of group homes, resulting in the potential loss of state funds and local zoning control. • Lack of enforcement resources. Most cities do not have the staff resources to enforce these ordinances.
While individual cities take a wait-and-see approach to follow the progress of other cities that are standing up to the State, little progress is being made. The cities and County of Orange would benefit by working in partnership with one another to garner resources and create a coalition to promote change. While the newly constituted South Orange County Sober Living and Recovery Task Force is a good start, and the first tangible recognition of the need to work together, the Grand Jury recommends a countywide cooperative taskforce.
Orange County’s cities and unincorporated areas are demographically diverse.The active sharing of ideas, experiences, and information will be valuable to the overall process of developing a worthwhile model ordinance and plan for moving forward in the efforts to protect both the individual characteristics of Orange County neighborhoods, and all individuals living in those neighborhoods.
Fear of Litigation Costs
Cities are concerned about the high cost of litigation and the time required to defend ordinances regulating group homes. Private entities have challenged ordinances and in some cases won, and in other cases continued to pursue lawsuits in spite of opposition.
In one case, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) requested that the California Department of Justice file a “friend of the court” application to intervene on behalf the litigant in its case against the City. 14
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 14 of 42
Two examples of cities being involved in lengthy and costly lawsuits include Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. In 2007, Newport Beach had numerous sober living homes and was facing increasing pressure by residents to regulate them. In January 2008, Newport Beach passed an ordinance regulating sober living homes. The ordinance was carefully crafted to comply with State and federal law.15
By November 2008, several legal actions occurred. These included:
1. A lawsuit from a residents’ group (the “Concerned Citizens of Newport Beach” or CCNB) arguing that the City did not go far enough in enacting Ordinance 2008-
05. CCNB also sued multiple operators and asked for $250 million in damages from the City;
2. Two group home operators (Pacific Shores Recovery and Sober Living by the Sea) filed complaints with the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) alleging that the City’s ordinance and its practices have discriminated against disabled persons entitled to fair housing;
3. Multiple lawsuits were filed by Sober Living By the Sea (SLBTS) alleging that the City’s group residential uses ordinance was facially discriminatory against persons in recovery. The City reached an agreement with SLBTS;
4. 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
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 15 of 42
residential uses ordinance was facially discriminatory against persons in recovery;
5. A cross-complaint by the City against Sober Living By The Sea and other operators that consolidated certain lawsuits in U.S. District Court.
Chairs are packed during a discussion on sober-living homes in San Clemente in 2016. (Photo by Matt Masin, Orange County Register, SCNG)
Subsequently, in 2009, three companies sued the City of Newport Beach over the ordinance, claiming it violated anti-discrimination and fair housing laws because individuals recovering from an addiction are a protected group. A federal judge ruled in favor of the City in 2011. The companies appealed the case and it went to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the Court’s majority sided with the group homes, saying there was enough evidence to argue discrimination. The Court pointed to comments made during the 2008 hearing, which implied that the City Council was targeting recovery group homes.
The City of Newport Beach asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case in 2014, but the Court declined. The City settled with the group homes for $5.25 million in 2015.
The City’s estimated legal costs exceeded four million dollars, 16 for a total cost close to
ten million dollars.
The City of Costa Mesa waged a fierce and costly legal battle to regulate sober living homes for over five years. As noted in the section regarding the State’s actions and attitude, Costa Mesa fashioned an ordinance within the limits of State and federal laws
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 16 of 42
in 2014.17 The City ultimately spent over seven million dollars in litigation, and prevailed in State and federal courts; however, in January 2023, a federal appellate court reversed and remanded the district court’s 2020 ruling.
Costa Mesa Ordinance 15-11 sets limited standards for three items that address important societal issues, none of which are discriminatory in nature:
1. Spacing (650 feet apart)
2. Background screening of the house manager
3. Process for evicting residents
Spacing between group homes maintains the purpose of the facility and residential character of the neighborhood. Screening protects the residents of the facility. Through interviewees, the Grand Jury learned of group home managers with criminal backgrounds and who are themselves currently substance abusers. Standards for evictions are needed. Through interviews and newspaper articles, the Grand Jury learned of the practice of “curbing,” putting residents out on the curb when their source of payment runs out or when they are in violation of house rules. This practice is believed to contribute to homelessness in Orange County.
Costa Mesa’s ordinance serves an important purpose, but the ordinance is still in litigation after several years and at an estimated cost of more than ten million dollars.18 Other Cities in California and Orange County are similarly facing lawsuits and costs associated with group home and sober living ordinances. Cities could pool resources to mitigate litigation cost concerns. A coalition of cities to spread costs is highly recommended.
The Grand Jury learned that the lawsuits brought against cities are supported and enabled by an extremely profitable industry. According to John LaRosa at MarketResearch.com on February 5, 2020,
19 the group home market is 42 billion dollars
per year. Mr. LaRosa also noted that the industry needed to be cleaned up as many of the operators engaged in overbilling, patient brokering, and deceptive marketing.
The well-funded operators are supported by industry organizations and associations in their lawsuits. Industry organizations include large groups such as the California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals, Behavioral Health Associates, and National Sober Living Associates. The websites of any of these organizations and several others can be viewed to see the type of support often provided. The organizations not only provide support for lawsuits, but also assist in lobbying State and federal legislators.
Many group home operators do not want any type of regulation, as evidenced by the Costa Mesa and Newport lawsuits, though the Grand Jury found some operators who welcome additional regulation to protect the industry from bad operators. In summary, the industry represents a formidable foe in lawsuits due to funding and industry associations.
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 17 of 42
State Actions
Zoning ordinances are the primary control local governments have over city land use.
The State of California has challenged the validity of group home ordinances, thereby inhibiting local governments in addressing group homes through zoning ordinances. If challenged, defense of the ordinances is costly and the alternative is to repeal them, a process that can be politically charged.
When Costa Mesa originally prevailed in the lawsuits filed against their 2014 sober living ordinance, the Cities of Encinitas, Huntington Beach, Anaheim and the County of Orange adopted similar ordinances for sober living facilities. In May 2021, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) sent a letter to the City of Encinitas stating its ordinance was in violation of statutory prohibitions on discrimination in land use. HCD said the city must take immediate steps to repeal the ordinance.
HCD’s letter to the City of Encinitas noted “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
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 18 of 42
zoning laws to promote more inclusive communities and affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH). These amendments have also generated disputes and confusion over whether local governments are violating fair housing laws by discriminating against persons with disabilities or other protected characteristics.” The document assumes the ordinances are not legally compliant and creates difficulties faced by cities trying to reasonably regulate group homes. The document is labeled a “technical advisory” but reads as a policy statement. There were apparently no public hearings regarding the document.
These actions by HCD and DOJ, as well as litigation, are challenges municipalities face in adopting ordinances regarding group homes when the courts have found these ordinances compliant with State and federal laws. This was made evident through interviews with representatives of cities. Interviewees also expressed concern that HCD interpreted the laws as being overly restrictive on zoning ordinances and failing to protect the inhabitants of group homes.
Housing Element
In the State of California, all cities are required to develop a General Plan. The General Plan serves as a blueprint for the future, prescribing policy goals and objectives to shape and guide the physical development of the city. The General Plan is a comprehensive policy document that informs future land use decisions, and it is comprised of multiple elements.
21 The Housing Element is one important part of a city or county’s General Plan. Every eight years, every city, town, and county must update their Housing Element and have it certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
The most recent cycle of the new Housing Element has been heavily impacted by the State’s laser focus on housing availability and affordability.
On September 28, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a suite of bills to boost housing production across California which accompanies the Governor’s $22 billion housing affordability and homelessness package and ongoing work by the State to spur more housing production, tackle barriers to construction, and hold local governments accountable. Taken together, the actions reflect the State’s focus on creating more “The document is labeled a “technical
advisory” but reads as a
policy statement…”
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 19 of 42
affordable housing, faster and cheaper. “The acute affordability crisis we are experiencing in California was decades in the making, and now we’re taking the necessary steps to fix it,” said Governor Newsom.22
Although this is a response to a real need in California, the real-world consequences to the “build-build-build” solution are many. One of those can be seen in the State’s myopic push for housing as it has mistakenly equated group homes with additional housing options. But housing is not increased by allowing the unbridled proliferation of recovery and sober living homes. The industry advertises heavily outside of California and brings many of their residents from out-of-state. It is not uncommon for some of these residents to be “kicked to the curb” (referred to as curbing) for various reasons, and because they are not local to Orange County, they have nowhere to go and ultimately face homelessness.
HCD wields its power to review and approve State housing elements as a threat to deter city and county efforts to regulate group homes. Approval of the Housing Element has a big impact on a city’s ability to enforce its general plan and to control what gets built and where it is built. Without the HCD’s approval of the housing element, a door is opened to developers to bypass local zoning ordinances by utilizing a seldom used loophole known as Builders Remedy. Under that law, a developer may sidestep city approvals to construct a housing development if 20% of the project’s homes are affordable housing.23
State funding programs for transportation, infrastructure, and housing often require or consider a local jurisdiction’s compliance with Housing Element Law. These competitive funds can be used for fixing roads, adding bike lanes, improving transit, or providing much needed affordable housing to communities. In some cases, funding from state/federal housing programs can only be accessed if the jurisdiction has a compliant housing element.24 25
Educating the Public
By the time the public has organized to bring their concerns to city leadership through a letter writing campaign, a joint written complaint, or a petition, their level of frustration has likely been building for quite a while. How city leadership deals with the concerns and frustrations of their constituency is likely to determine whether it will be a collaborative or an adversarial process to find a resolution. Educating the public on the reasons that cities have seemingly been unwilling to address the integration of group homes into Orange County neighborhoods is key to the success of collaborative problem solving.
Cities have been squeezed from above by a combination of intense pressure from group home operators citing federal protections for the disabled, and the State of California’s efforts to eliminate group home ordinances by withholding approval on cities’ mandated Housing Element submission. They are also squeezed from below by
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 20 of 42
“Some cities have used the multi-discipline,
educational, townhall type response to the public
outcry while others have not.
The outcome can be quite different.”
the people in neighborhoods which have been impacted by the over-concentration of group homes, and/or the level of nuisances generated by the group homes.
A lack of understanding of the challenges faced by cities leads to the perception that they are unwilling to step up and regulate the various group home types that are springing up in neighborhoods. Public education will reveal that there is not an unwillingness of cities, or the public, to find resolutions, but rather there are many hurdles promulgated by State and federal agencies that often prevent opportunities for reaching a solution. Cities should work together, and with State legislators and other stakeholders, to look for ways to affect change at the State level as well as provide more focused public education that addresses these issues.
In an effort to inform their citizens, some cities have used the multi-discipline, educational, townhall type response to the public outcry while others have not. The outcome can be quite different.
To illustrate, we need look no further than a tale of three cities: Anaheim, Newport Beach, and Laguna Hills. Anaheim’s group home issue heated up in October 2021 when Grandma’s House of Hope requested a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to use a large house as a transitional living home for 19 intractably mentally ill women. 26 It was not Grandma’s House of Hope’s first group home in Anaheim; it was the latest in many previously successful CUP requests. Local residents coalesced against this CUP request in a vocal and organized manner. Whether it was the number of residents impacted, the descriptor of the group home residents as intractably mentally ill, or just one group home too many in this neighborhood, this organized effort to prevent the approval of the large group home attracted hundreds of local citizens and activists from both sides of the issue. It seemed that the majority of these people attended the planning commission meeting to voice their opinions during the public comment portion of the agenda and to let the City’s Planning Commission see the strength of their numbers.
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 21 of 42
The Planning Commission was seemingly prepared to accept the staff recommendation for approval. Public comment took over five hours, most of which was overwhelmingly against the approval of the group home. The applicant and the Planning Commission both expressed surprise at the public backlash. Ultimately, the approval recommendation was scrapped, and the Planning Commission voted to deny the CUP.
Grandma’s House filed an appeal and the application for the CUP was heard by the City Council. The public attended that meeting in larger numbers than at the Planning Commission meeting and they were every bit as angry and frustrated as they were at the earlier meeting. In spite of robust response on the issue at the meeting of the Planning Commission just two months earlier, the Anaheim City Council was unprepared for the charged nature of the adversarial clash. Most speakers were passionate but respectful, while some were rude and offensive. It was essentially an angrier repeat of the first meeting and led to the same conclusion, a denial of the CUP.27
The affected public walked away with no better understanding of the reasons why these group homes are hard to regulate due to the pressures put on cities by the State of California. The applicant ultimately filed suit against the city alleging violations of the Housing Element Law, Housing Accountability Act, and statutes governing 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
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 22 of 42
In direct contrast to Anaheim’s response, we can look at the steps taken by the Cities of Newport Beach and Laguna Hills. Newport Beach was faced with a petition from its residents in 2007 after a rapid increase in the number of drug rehabilitation homes. The residents reported 103 treatment houses, nearly all on the Balboa Peninsula. There was a town hall hosted by (then) Assemblywoman Mimi Walters, R-Laguna Niguel, and (then) State Senator Tom Harman, R-Huntington Beach, and an estimated 200 people attended. It was an opportunity for dialogue as well as to learn about the constraints placed on cities by the State of California. Newport Beach responded to resident concerns again in late 2021 by organizing a community meeting with speakers from several city departments, a State Assemblywoman, the District Attorney, and a County Supervisor.29 30
Hundreds attend the Sober Living Homes Town Hall meeting at the at the Laguna Hills Community Center on Thursday (Christopher Yee, San Gabriel Valley Tribune, May 13, 2016) We can also look at the steps taken by the 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
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 23 of 42
inform their constituents, and allow for a robust but respectful dialogue, they create an opportunity for collaborative problem solving.31
How Has This Issue Evolved?
The timing of this investigation aligned with the required submission of the Housing Element portion of each city’s General Plan. The State’s disapproval of a city’s Housing Element carries heavy consequences, and the State of California has used the withholding of this needed approval to coerce cities to abandon their group home ordinances.
The Grand Jury was previously unaware of the power behind group home lobbyists and the number of proposed legislative bills that never made it to a vote. The State’s 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.
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 24 of 42
FINDINGS
In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2022-2023 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the findings presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.
Based on its investigation titled “Welcome to the Neighborhood - Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes?” the 2022-2023 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at eleven principal findings, as follows:
F1 Group homes too close to one another contribute to the problems associated with overconcentration.
F2 Common nuisances are more likely and disruptive when sober living homes are concentrated in a small geographic area of a neighborhood.
F3 Some cities have successfully addressed and informed community members about the challenges faced in regulating group homes.
F4 Community satisfaction was minimal when cities took the traditional public comment approach towards addressing community complaints.
F5 Cities are not utilizing police, fire, and code enforcement complaints as a means of locating and tracking Group Homes.
F6 Cities are inhibited from enacting and enforcing ordinances due to fears over the potential cost of litigation.
F7 Several cities have created an ordinance that requires a ministerial permit or registration to operate a group home, however many of these cities do not enforce their ordinances.
F8 City and County officials are deterred from regulating group homes by California Housing and Community Development’s housing element approval process.
F9 Cities have historically strategized and acted independently in addressing group home challenges and solutions.
F10 Well-operated group homes can integrate smoothly into neighborhoods.
F11 There is a lack of regulatory oversight for the health and safety of residents of unlicensed group homes.
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 25 of 42
RECOMMENDATIONS
In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2022-2023 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.
Based on its investigation titled, “Welcome to the Neighborhood - Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes?” the 2022-2023 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following five recommendations:
R1 Orange County cities and the County of Orange should address citizen concerns regarding group homes by providing an opportunity for an open dialog where an interdisciplinary panel of subject matter experts can share with attendees the challenges cities are facing in the management of group homes. To be implemented by July 1, 2024. (F3, F4)
R2 By December 31, 2024, Orange County cities and the County of Orange should collaborate in their efforts to create ordinances for the regulation of group homes, including the development of model ordinances. (F6, F7, F9) R3 Orange County cities and the County of Orange should pool resources for defense of lawsuits challenging group home ordinances. To be implemented by July 1, 2024. (F6, F8, F9)
R4 The County of Orange and Orange County cities should create a Task Force that includes representatives from OC cities, unincorporated areas, and other entities as appropriate and charge it with the responsibility of developing a plan to generate awareness among State legislators and regulators of the need for improved regulations and management standards to ensure health and safety for Group Home residents. To be implemented by July 1, 2024. (F2, F10, F11) R5 Orange County cities and the County of Orange should modify code enforcement report data collection forms to include a searchable field that enables the identification of a residence operating as a group home. To be implemented by July 1, 2024. (F5, F7, F11)
RESPONSES
California Penal Code Section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 26 of 42
and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g., District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected County official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors.
Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05 specifies the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made as follows:
(a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2)The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 27 of 42
The Orange County Grand Jury requires and requests the following responses:
90 Day Response Required
County of Orange Board of Supervisors F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 County of Orange Board of Supervisors R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 City Councils of:
Aliso Viejo F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Aliso Viejo R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Anaheim F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Anaheim R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Brea F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Brea R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Buena Park F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Buena Park R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Costa Mesa F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Costa Mesa R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Cypress F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Cypress R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Dana Point F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Dana Point R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Fountain Valley F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Fountain Valley R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Fullerton F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Fullerton R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Garden Grove F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Garden Grove R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Huntington Beach F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Huntington Beach R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Irvine F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Irvine R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
La Habra F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
La Habra R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
La Palma F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
La Palma R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Laguna Beach F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Laguna Beach R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Laguna Hills F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Laguna Hills R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Laguna Niguel F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Laguna Niguel R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Laguna Woods F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 28 of 42
Laguna Woods R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Lake Forest F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Lake Forest R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Los Alamitos F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, Los Alamitos R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Mission Viejo F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Mission Viejo R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Newport Beach F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Newport Beach R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Orange F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Orange R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Placentia F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Placentia R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Rancho Santa Margarita F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Rancho Santa Margarita R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
San Clemente F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 San Clemente R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
San Juan Capistrano F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 San Juan Capistrano R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Santa Ana F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Santa Ana R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Seal Beach F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Seal Beach R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Stanton F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Stanton R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Tustin F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Tustin R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Villa Park F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Villa Park R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Westminster F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Westminster R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Yorba Linda F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Yorba Linda R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
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.
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 30 of 42
EBT
Acronym for Electronic Benefit Transfer, previously known as Food Stamps, these are debit cards issued to eligible participants for the purpose of buying food and other necessities.
Emotional Wellness Homes
A facility where a person develops the ability to handle their emotions and varied experiences they encounter in life. Emotional wellness is an awareness, understanding, and acceptance of our feelings and the ability to manage and change challenges effectively.
Good Neighbor Policy
A set of principles and activities designed to provide a consistent means of communication between facilities that provide resident services and their respective neighbors. The Good Neighbor Policy is applicable for Residential Programs when residents and the services have a potential impact including but not limited to community safety, cleanliness, and security in the surrounding neighborhood(s).
Group Home (GH)*
A residential unit utilized as a supportive living environment for people meeting the legal definition of disabled. Provides housing only for a classified group of people. No medical care, services, or treatment can take place in a Group Home. Only State-licensed facilities can provide care, services, or treatment under State law (see Residential Care Facilities)
Hospice
A type of health care that focuses on the palliation of a terminally ill patient's pain and symptoms and attending to their emotional and spiritual needs at the end of life.
Hospice care prioritizes comfort and quality of life by reducing pain and suffering.
Housing Element
Since 1969, California has required that all local governments (cities and counties) adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. California’s local governments meet this requirement by adopting housing plans as part of their “general plan” (also required by the state). General plans serve as a local government’s "blueprint" for how the city and/or county will grow and develop and include eight elements: land use, transportation, conservation, noise, open space, safety, environmental justice, and housing.
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 31 of 42
Integral Facilities
Integral facilities means any combination of two or more facilities located on the same or different parcels, collectively serving seven or more persons, not including the licensee or members of the licensee’s family or persons employed as facility staff, that are under the control or management of the same owner, operator, management company or licensee or any affiliate of any of them, and which together comprise one operation.
Integral facilities shall include, but not be limited to, the provision of housing in one facility and recovery programming, treatment, meals, or any other service or services at another facility, or facilities, or by assigning staff, or a consultant or consultants, to provide services to or in more than one facility.
Licensing
A permit from an authority to own or use something or to do a particular thing or carry on a trade. In reference to this report’s subject matter, licensing from a State or county agency or department.
Like-for-Like
Identifying the spacing of group homes by type, e.g., sober living within a given distance of sober living, assisted living within a given distance of assisted living, etc. Sober living near assisted living does not meet the like-for-like criteria.
Model Ordinance
A common set of policies and procedures developed by a government agency to oversee the licensing and operation of group homes.
NIMBY
Acronym for “Not in My Backyard”. A term used, among other things, to identify citizens who object to having group homes in their neighborhood.
Referral Facility
Either a Residential Care Facility, Group Home, or Sober Living Home where one or more person’s residency is per a court order or similar directive. Referral facilities must follow the permit procedure according to the base use classification, and are not permitted in the RL (Residential Low Density) zone.
Rehab Riviera
The nickname given to some sober living facilities in Southern California, referring to the climate. Often used as a selling point in advertising to emphasize the outdoor appeal of homes in the region.
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 32 of 42
Rehabilitation
The action of restoring someone to health or normal life. Care that can help one get back, maintain or improve abilities.
Residential Care Facilities (RCF)*
A State Licensed residential facility where care, services, or treatment are provided to persons living in a community residential setting. Provide housing and care/treatment for the elderly, developmentally disabled, chronically ill, and chemical addiction treatment facilities, among others. RCFs that specifically provide drug and or alcohol abuse treatment are licensed by the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) and are known as alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities.
Homes are required to be licensed by the DHCS when at least one of the following services is provided: detoxification, group counseling sessions, individual counseling sessions, educational sessions, or alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment planning.
Residential Treatment Centers
Sometimes known as rehab which is a live-in health care facility providing services for substance use disorders, mental illness, or other behavioral problems.
Saturation
Having several group homes within a neighborhood.
Single Housekeeping Units
Individuals occupying a dwelling unit that have established ties and familiarity with each other; share a lease agreement, have consent of the owner to reside on the property, or own the property; jointly use common areas and interact with each other; and share the household expenses such as rent or ownership costs, utilities, and other household and maintenance costs activities.
Six or Under
Homes with six or fewer residents. Under State law these may not be required to be licensed or registered.
Sober Living Home (SLH)*
Sober Living Homes are also group homes, but specifically for people recovering from a chemical addiction that meets the legal definition of disabled. Provides “housing only” that is primarily meant for people who have just come out of rehab and need a
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 33 of 42
place to live that is structured and supportive for those in recovery. For the purposes of the Ordinance, a Sober Living Home is not state licensed. No medical care, services, or treatment can occur in a Living Home. Only State licensed facilities can provide care, services, or treatment under State law (see Residential Care Facilities).
Tracking
A method to obtain data, monitor movements and a system to identify and map the location of group homes.
Treatment Center
A facility where a client or clients go under one roof for services to improve their physical or mental health. A residential treatment center (RTC), sometimes called rehab, is a live-in health care facility providing therapy for substances abuse use disorders, mental illness, or other behavioral problems. Residential treatment may be considered the “last-ditch” approach to treating abnormal psychology or psychopathology.
*For the purposes of this report, the City of Huntington Beach’s definitions of group living homes is being used as published on the city’s website.
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 34 of 42
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Teri Sforza, Will U.S. Supreme Court engage on Costa Mesa’s sober living rules?, Orange County Register, Wednesday, March 15, 2023
Teri Sforza, Addiction centers flee Costa Mesa, move to less regulated OC cities, Orange County Register, Sunday, February 19, 2023
David Zisser, Letter from CA Department of Housing and Development to City of Huntington Beach Planning Department - RE “Ordinance to Ban “Builder’s Remedy” Projects under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) – Notice of Potential Violation”, California Department of Housing and Community Development web site, Monday, February 13, 2023 Ring Bender Law, SoCal Recovery and Raw Recovery v City of Costa Mesa: Amici Curiae Brief Of The League Of California Cities, The Association Of California Cities Of Newport Beach, Fountain Valley, Mission Viejo, And Orange In Support Of Appellee’s Petition For Rehearing En Banc, Court Filings, Thursday, February 9, 2023
Teri Sforza, Sober homes gain some ground in fight with Costa Mesa, Orange County Register, Sunday, January 15, 2023
Covenant Hills, Day Patient and Outpatient Addiction Treatment in Orange County, YouTube Posting, Friday, November 4, 2022
General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Orange County Sober Living l Sober Living Near You in SoCal (kaizenhouserecovery.com), Wednesday, October 19, 2022
General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Sober Living Homes for Men & W General Information omen - Orange County Recovery, Wednesday, October 19, 2022
General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Orange County Sober Living Homes | Sober Living Homes near me (ocsoberlivingbestsolution.com), Wednesday, October 19, 2022 General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Drug Rehab Orange County - Lighthouse Treatment Center, Wednesday, October 19, 2022 General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Huntington Beach Rehab | Drug & Alcohol Substance Abuse Recovery (orangecountyrecovery.com), Wednesday, October 19, 2022 General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Sober Living Homes in Southern California - Elysium Health Care, Wednesday, October 19, 2022
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 35 of 42
General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Zinnia Healing - Drug & Alcohol Rehab (serenitylodgelakearrowhead.com), Wednesday, October 19, 2022
General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, California addiction rehab centers (sunshinebehavioralhealth.com), Wednesday, October 19, 2022
General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Halfway Houses | ¾ way Houses | Sober Homes in California (addictionblog.org), Wednesday, October 19, 2022
General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Requirements For California Rehabilitation and Sober Living Houses (hypogalblog.com), Wednesday, October 19, 2022
General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, A Place for Mom, Wednesday, October 19, 2022
Jeff Collins, These Southern California governments have approved housing plans, Orange County Register, Tuesday, October 18, 2022
Jeff Collins, Most Southern California cities miss complete new deadline to complete housing plans, Orange County Register, Tuesday, October 18, 2022 Alicia Robinson, Anaheim should allow home for homeless women with mental health issues, California Attorney General says, Orange County Register, Wednesday, October 5, 2022 Alicia Robinson, Anaheim should allow home for homeless women with mental health issues, California Attorney General says, Orange County Register, Tuesday, October 4, 2022 Public Notice – City of Mission Viejo, Council passes Sober Living and Group Home Ordinance to ensure such facilities operate with the confines of the law, City of Mission Viejo web site Home | City of Mission Viejo, Wednesday, August 24, 2022
Public Notice, Council passes Sober Living and Group Home Ordinance to ensure such facilities operate within the confines of the law, City of Mission Viejo website https://cityofmissionviejo.org/, Wednesday, August 24, 2022 Teri Sforza, Rehab Riviera: New law hopes to keep misleading rehabs from misleading patients, families patients, families, Orange County Register, Wednesday, August 24, 2022 Teri Sforza, California rehab doctor pleads guilty to insurance fraud, Orange County Register, Tuesday, August 16, 2022
Vanessa Serna, Real-life Frankenstein' Beverly Hills surgeon and his girlfriend plead guilty to $600 Million fraud scheme: Used 'body brokers' to find drug addicts to get unnecessary shots so
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 36 of 42
they could bill insurance companies to fund their life of luxury, DailyMail.com, Tuesday, August 16, 2022
California Codes, Various Codes, California Code Search “Text” of the following– using “sober” and “living”., Monday, August 8, 2022
City of Laguna Beach Department of Community Development, City of Laguna Beach General Plan Housing Element, City of Laguna Beach Web Site 638115638915170000 (lagunabeachcity.net), Thursday, July 21, 2022
Matt Meyer, What is ‘California sober’ — and does it actually work?, Nexstar Media Inc Fox News San Diego, Saturday, June 25, 2022
Website Information Idea Flight, 9 Different Types of Group Home in California, Idea Flight Web Site Page 9 Different Types of Group Home in California - ideaflight, Friday, April 1, 2022 City of Westminster, Adopted Housing Element 2021-202-, City of Westminster website https://www.westminster-ca.gov/ , Wednesday, January 26, 2022 Scott D. Tenley and Kelly M. Hagemann of Michelman & Robinson LLP, Federal Authorities Have Their Eyes On Sober Living Home Operators And Marketers, Especially In Orange County, Mondaq web site, Friday, November 19, 2021
City of Newport Beach, Community Meeting on Group Residential Uses Meeting Summary, City of Newport Beach web site City of Newport Beach | Home newportbeachca.gov), Monday, October 11, 2021
City of Newport.Beach, Power Point from Community Meeting Sober Living Homes, Group Homes, and State Licensed Residential Care Facilities, City of Newport Beach web site City of Newport Beach | Home newportbeachca.gov), Monday, October 11, 2021 City Newport Beach, Document comparing City of Newport Beach Group Home Ordinance to City of Costa Mesa Group Home Ordinance, City of Newport Beach web site City of Newport Beach | Home newportbeachca.gov), Friday, September 24, 2021 Staff, How to Open a Sober Living Home in California, Blog Post at Sober Living App, Tuesday, May 11, 2021
Web Site Posting, How Much Profit Can Be Made From a Halfway House?, HALFWAY GROUP LLC website How Much Profit Can Be Made From A Halfway
House?.openupahalfwayhouse.com), Tuesday, February 2, 2021 County of Orange Press Release, Ending Rehab Riviera: Orange County First, County of Orange website, Thursday, October 1, 2020
County of Orange, County of Orange Group Home Ordinance, County of Orange website, Tuesday, July 28, 2020
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 37 of 42
David Gorn, Doing the ‘sober-living dance’ on the Orange County coast, CalMatters, Tuesday, June 23, 2020
Elysia Richardson, Do Drug Treatment Centers Increase Local Crime Rates?, California Highlands Vista Drug Treatment Centers Web Site https://californiahighlandsvistas.com/blog/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
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 38 of 42
US Department of Health and Human Services, Ensuring Beneficiary Health and Safety in Group Homes Through State implementation, DHSS Web Site
https://www.hhs.gov/guidance/document/joint-report-ensuring-beneficiary-health-and-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
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 39 of 42
Todd Harmonson, Sean Emery, O.C. District Attorney charges family, doctors with insurance fraud related to sober living homes, urine tests, Orange County Register, Tuesday, May 23, 2017 Teri Sforza, Tony Saavedra, Scott Schwebke, Lori Basheda, Mindy Schauer, Jeff Gritchen, Ian Wheeler, How some Southern California drug rehab addiction centers exploit addiction, Orange County Register, Sunday, May 21, 2017
Teri Sforza, Is there a link between neighborhood rehab programs and petty crime in California?, Orange County Register, Sunday, May 21, 2017 Staff Report, The Southern California rehab industry spans the nation, Orange County Register, Sunday, May 21, 2017
Jan Wheeler, Registered Rehabs Map, Orange County Register, Thursday, May 4, 2017 Mindy Schauer, Heroin’s hold: One man’s journey through the Southern California rehab industry, Orange County Register, Monday, May 1, 2017
CBS News, OC Neighbors Not Comfortable Next to Sober Living Homes, YouTube Posting, Tuesday, November 29, 2016
California Research Bureau, Sober Living Homes in California: Options for State and Local Regulation, California Research Bureau Publication in State Library https://www.library.ca.gov/crb/, Friday, October 7, 2016 Amy A. Mericle, Katherine J. Karriker-Jaffe,.Shalika Gupta, David M. Sheridan, Doug L. Polcin, Distribution and Neighborhood Correlates of Sober Living House Locations in Los Angeles, American Journal of Community Psychology, Thursday, September 1, 2016 Teri Sforza, California argues sober home ordinances are illegal, forcing cities to make expensive decisions, Orange County Register, Saturday, December 19, 2015 J Murphy - City of La Mesa Fact Sheet, Residential Care Facilities (or “Group Homes”) in the City of La Mesa, City of La Mesa website http://www.cityoflamesa.com , Thursday, October 29, 2015 County of Orange published guideline, Orange County Adult Alcohol And Drug Sober Living Facilities Certification Guidelines, County of Orange Sheriff Departments website, Monday, January 27, 2014
Sober Living by the Sea, Drug Rehab and Alcoholism Treatment OC CA by Sober Living by the Sea, YouTube Posting, Wednesday, May 23, 2012
You Get Me3, Santa Ana Sober Living Homes, YouTube Posting, Saturday, July 3, 2010 Paul J. Weinberg, Alcohol And Drug Rehab Homes classic Nimbyism Or Everyone's Fair Share, Thomson Reuters/West
Zoning and Planning Law Report, Wednesday, October 1, 2008
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 40 of 42
City of Newport Beach, City of Newport Beach Residential Group Home Permit, City of Newport Beach web site City of Newport Beach | Home newportbeachca.gov), Friday, February 1, 2008 David DeBerry, Group Homes in the Neighborhood, Western City, Friday, September 1, 2006 NOTICE
Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.
END NOTES
1 Group Homes in the Neighborhood David Debarry, Jeff Bellinger, Western City 09-01-2006 https://www.westerncity.com/article/group-homes-neighborhood 2 Ibid. Division of Housing Policy Development. “Group Home Technical Advisory.” California Department of Housing and Community Development, December 2022.
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/group-home-technical-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
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 41 of 42
9Orange County Register Megan Nicolai, July 15, 2015, Newport Beach Settles legal battle over 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
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 42 of 42
26 Walker, Theresa OC Register 10-25-2021 Housing for mentally ill homeless women draws heated Anaheim response
https://www.ocregister.com/2021/10/25/housing-for-mentally-ill-homeless-women-draws-heated-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
City of Los Alamitos
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2023 ITEM NUMBER: 11F
To: Mayor Tanya Doby & Members of the City Council
Presented By: Michael Claborn, Chief
Subject: Response to the 2022-2023 OC Grand Jury Report Titled: "School Shootings: How Prepared are Orange County Public Schools?"
SUMMARY
This report contains the City's response to the 2022-2023 Orange County Grand Jury Report titled "School Shootings: How Prepared are Orange County Public Schools?"
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve the attached response to the Orange County Grand Jury Report titled "School Shootings: How Prepared are Orange County Public Schools?"; and,
2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the response letter on behalf of the City Council.
BACKGROUND
On June 14, 2023, the Orange County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) released a report titled "School Shootings: How Prepared are Orange County Public Schools?" focused on the schools and police departments' ability to protect against, and respond to, school shootings. This report is a follow up to the Grand Jury's 2017-2018 report titled "Safer Schools - What Can We Do?".
The Grand Jury, based on its investigation, believes that Orange County public school districts are doing a good job in attempting to maintain a safe and secure campus for their students and school personnel/staff. However, there is always room for improvement.
In compliance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the City is required to provide a response to each of the Grand Jury findings and recommendations. The Grand Jury has directed the City to respond by September 18, 2023. A copy of the Grand Jury report is included as an attachment to this report.
DISCUSSION
The Police Department Staff has reviewed the Grand Jury's Report and has prepared the attached responses to those findings and recommendations that were directed to the City of Los Alamitos. Topics discussed in the report include doing an annual inspection of each school, creating a safety checklist, developing tabletop exercises, planning and conducting district-wide active shooter drills, and assessing the need for additional SRO(s).
In total, the Grand Jury Report contained two (2) findings and four (4) recommendations requiring a response by the City. The proposed City responses are attached to this report.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
Attachment: 1. City's Response Letter
2. OC Grand Jury Report - School Shootings, How Prepared are Orange County Public Schools
August 21, 2023
Honorable Maria Hernandez, Presiding Judge
Superior Court of California, County of Orange
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
RE: Response to 2022-2023 Orange County Grand Jury Report “School Shooting: How Prepared are Orange County Schools?”
Dear Judge Hernandez:
The City of Los Alamitos (“City”) has reviewed the Orange County Grand Jury Report titled “School Shooting: How Prepared are Orange County Schools?” As required by California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the City is responding to the findings and recommendations included within the report. The required responses are contained below:
Findings and Responses:
F1. Law enforcement, first responders, and other stakeholders have demonstrated a strong interest in working cooperatively with Orange County public schools to mitigate the risk of an active shooter incident; establishment of MOUs between law enforcement and school districts would strengthen this cooperation.
Response: Agree
Currently, there is no MOU between the Los Alamitos Police Department and the Los Alamitos Unified School District in reference to mitigating the risk of an active shooter. The Police Department is in collaboration with the School District to establish an MOU to enhance communication and to facilitate an efficient and streamlined response.
F8. School Resource Officers (SROs) are a valuable asset for school safety, yet many cities/districts do not allocate sufficient funds to hire needed officers.
Response: Agree
The Los Alamitos Police Department currently has a School Resource Officer (SRO) assigned to the Los Alamitos Unified School District. The position is partially funded by the City and partially funded through a grant from the California Department of Justice.
Recommendations and Responses:
R1. Each Orange County school district should arrange for local law enforcement to do an annual safety inspection of each school. The written safety checklist should include as audit of the integrity of site boundaries and a review of safety plans and policies. This annual safety audit should commence with the 2023-24 school year by October 1, 2023, and annually thereafter.
Response: Recommendation is being implemented
The Los Alamitos Police Department is currently working in conjunction with the Los Alamitos Unified School District to standardize a safety audit and written safety checklist for each school campus, which will be completed prior to October 1, 2023. Thereafter, the safety audit will be done prior to the beginning of every school year.
R3. Each Orange County school district, in conjunction with law enforcement, should develop and implement tabletop exercises to be conducted in district schools by December 31, 2023.
Response: Recommendation is being implemented
The school district has existing tabletop exercises that are currently being conducted at each school during the school year. The Los Alamitos Police Department is working in conjunction with the Los Alamitos Unified School District to develop and implement new tabletop exercises.
It is the goal of the Los Alamitos Police Department to continue to collaborate with the school district on these exercises.
R4. Each Orange County school district should work with local law enforcement to plan and conduct a district-wide active shooter drill by July 1, 2024, and at least every other year thereafter.
Response: Recommendation has been implemented
The Los Alamitos Police Department, in collaboration with the Los Alamitos Unified School District, conducted an active shooter drill on December 17th, 2022, incorporating other surrounding police departments and the Orange County Sherriff’s Department. The next active shooter drill has been scheduled for December 16th, 2023. Moving forward, a district-wide active shooter drill will be implemented annually.
R12. Each Orange County School District should assess the need for SRO’s or additional SRO’s, reaching out to appropriate community partners to facilitate funding by July 1, 2024.
Response: Recommendation has been implemented
In 2022, the Los Alamitos Police Department assessed the need for a School Resource Officer (SRO). The Department concluded that an SRO was necessary, and the SRO position was reinstated on January 1st, 2023. The Department pursued and was granted funding through the California Department of Justice Tobacco Grant Program, which pays 50% of the SRO salary and 100% of the SRO training and equipment. The remaining 50% of the SRO’s salary is currently being funded by the City.
In the event that you need additional information regarding the City’s responses, please contact City Manager, Chet Simmons, via email at [email protected].
Respectfully,
Tanya Doby, Mayor
City of Los Alamitos
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2023 ITEM NUMBER: 11G
To: Mayor Tanya Doby & Members of the City Council
Presented By: Ron Noda, Development Services Director
Subject: Notice of Completion for the New Dutch Haven Neighborhood Street Rehabilitation Project (CIP 22/23-02)
SUMMARY
The City of Los Alamitos hired a roadway contractor for street improvements related to grind and overlay and slurry seal in the New Dutch Haven Neighborhood as part of the City’s ongoing pavement management program.
Staff is recommending that City Council accept the work as completed, direct filing of the Notice of Completion, and authorize retention release as prescribed by the Public Contract Code.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Accept as complete the construction by Hardy and Harper, Inc. for the New Dutch Haven Neighborhood Street Rehabilitation Project (CIP No. 22/23-02); and,
2. Direct the City Clerk to record the Notice of Completion/Final Report with the County Recorder’s Office; and,
3. Authorize Staff to release the 5% retention to the contractor, in the amount of $13,636.60, thirty-five (35) days after recordation of the Notice of Completion.
BACKGROUND
In order to maintain Los Alamitos streets and increase the longevity of pavement, a grind and overlay and slurry seal of various existing streets was done in accordance with the project plans and specifications. The project also replaced damaged curbs and gutters and lifted sidewalks to correct drainage. ADA curb ramps were also modified to current codes as necessary for accessibility.
The street improvement project included the following streets in the New Dutch Haven Neighborhood:
• Bennington Street
• Tripoli Avenue
• Howard Avenue (from Bennington Street to Mindora Street) and • Mindora Street
The plans and specifications for the installation of the New Dutch Haven Neighborhood Street Rehabilitation Project (CIP No. 22/23-02) were approved by Council on 06/13/2022. Council approved the award of the bid to Hardy and Harper, Inc. on 07/18/2022. Construction began on 11/04/2022 and was substantially complete by 12/09/22. However, slurry seal was postponed to June, 2023 until warmer weather arrived as it is not recommended to apply slurry seal due to extreme cool temperatures which occurred this past winter.
DISCUSSION
Work on this project is now complete and found acceptable by the City Engineer. Staff recommends acceptance of the work in conjunction with the processing of the Notice of Completion/Final Report and release of the retention as prescribed by the Public Contract Code.
FISCAL IMPACT
The project had a total funding budget of $462,500 with the following breakdown of funding sources:
SB-1: $263,005
Gas Tax: $199,495
Total: $462,500
The project was within the overall funding budget and came in at a total of $308,767.24 for design, construction, inspection, and change orders. During construction there were two (2) change orders to the project, which included repair of a failed subgrade section and repair of an existing adjacent bus pad that had an extensive crack. The bus pad is located just west of Katella Avenue and Kaylor Street. The breakdown of costs is below:
Construction Bid Price $262,000.00
Change Orders/Increase or Decrease in Quantities $10,731.99 Advertisement, Design and Inspection $36,035.25
Total Project Price $308,767.24
Attachment: 1. Notice of Completion - New Dutch Haven Improvement (CIP 22/23-02)
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND MAIL TO:
City Clerk
City of Los Alamitos
3191 Katella Avenue
Los Alamitos, CA 90720
No Consideration SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER
NOTICE OF COMPLETION NO RECORDING FEE PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6103
for
Los Alamitos New Dutch Haven Neighborhood Street Rehabilitation Project (CIP No. 22/23-02) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:
1. The undersigned are owners or corporate officers of the interest or estates stated below in property hereinafter described.
2. The full name of the owner is: City of Los Alamitos, 3191 Katella Avenue, Los Alamitos, CA 90720
3. The work consisted of :
The City of Los Alamitos hired a contractor for a street project related to grind and overlay and slurry seal of various residential streets in the New Dutch Haven Neighborhood as part of the City’s ongoing pavement management program. The project also replaced damaged curb & gutter and lifted sidewalk to correct drainage. ADA curb ramps were modified to current codes as necessary for accessibility. The project included the following streets:
• Bennington Street
• Tripoli Avenue
• Howard Street (Bennington
Street to Mindora Street)
• Mindora Street
4. The work was completed on___06/14/2023______
5. The contractor was: Hardy and Harper, Inc.
Dated _________________________________ __________________________________________ Chris Kelley, City Engineer, City of Los Alamitos
VERIFICATION BY CORPORATION OWNER
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I, Chris Kelley, City Engineer of Los Alamitos, a Municipal Corporation, and that he executed the foregoing Notice of the aforesaid interest or estates in the property therein described; and verify on behalf of the City of Los Alamitos; that the contents thereof, and the the facts therein stated are true.
____________________________________________________
Chris Kelley, City Engineer
Dated: _________________________________
City of Los Alamitos
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2023 ITEM NUMBER: 11H
To: Mayor Tanya Doby & Members of the City Council
Presented By: Ron Noda, Development Services Director
Subject: Notice of Completion for the Briggeman Drive Street Improvements Project (CIP 22/23-03)
SUMMARY
The City of Los Alamitos hired a roadway contractor, United Paving Co., for the Briggeman Drive Street Improvements Project (CIP 22/23-03) as part of the City’s ongoing pavement management program. The project provided 5 feet of widening along the southern portion of Briggeman Drive, from the Briggeman Drive/Reagan Street intersection to 200 feet west of the intersection. This project was necessary to continue the widening that previously occurred adjacent to the newly developed hotel (Fairfield Inn & Suites by Marriott Anaheim/Los Alamitos) at 10650 Los Alamitos Boulevard.
Staff is recommending that City Council accept the work as completed, direct filing of the Notice of Completion, and authorize retention release as prescribed by the Public Contract Code.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Accept as complete the construction by United Paving Co. for the Briggeman Drive Street Improvements Project (CIP 22/23-03); and,
2. Direct the City Clerk to record the Notice of Completion/Final Report with the County Recorder’s Office; and,
3. Authorize Staff to release the 5% retention to the contractor, in the amount of $7,517.87, thirty-five (35) days after recordation of the Notice of Completion.
BACKGROUND
The widening limits along Briggeman Drive included the roadway portion from the hotel site (Fairfield Inn & Suites by Marriott Anaheim/Los Alamitos) to the intersection of Briggeman Drive and Reagan Street. The project also replaced damaged curbs and gutters and lifted sidewalks to correct drainage. ADA curb ramps were also modified to current codes as necessary for accessibility. A new driveway was installed along Briggeman Drive at the commercial park near the intersection of Reagan Street.
The plans and specifications for the installation of the Briggeman Drive Street Improvements Project (CIP 22/23-03) were approved by Council on 07/18/2022. Council approved the award of the bid to United Paving Co. on 09/19/2022. Construction began on 04/04/2023 due to
heavy rain during the winter months and was substantially complete by 05/05/23.
DISCUSSION
Work on this project is now complete and found acceptable by the City Engineer. Staff recommends acceptance of the work in conjunction with the processing of the Notice of Completion/Final Report and release of the retention as prescribed by the Public Contract Code.
FISCAL IMPACT
The project had a total funding budget of $275,000.00 from the City’s Street Improvement Fund.
The project was within the overall funding budget and came in at a total of $182,297.10 for design, construction and inspection. During construction, there was a change-order that requested the contractor to install additional no parking signage, street/curb markings for clarity, and concrete sidewalk repairs. The breakdown of costs is below:
Construction Bid Price $133,930.00
Change Orders/Increased or Decrease
Quantities
$16,427.49
Advertisement, Design and Inspection $31,939.61
Total Project Price $182,297.10
Attachment: 1. Notice of Completion - Briggeman Dr Improvement (CIP 22/23-03)
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND MAIL TO:
City Clerk
City of Los Alamitos
3191 Katella Avenue
Los Alamitos, CA 90720
No Consideration SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER
NOTICE OF COMPLETION NO RECORDING FEE PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6103
for
Los Alamitos Briggeman Drive Street Improvements Project (CIP 22/23-03) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:
1. The undersigned are owners or corporate officers of the interest or estates stated below in property hereinafter described.
2. The full name of the owner is: City of Los Alamitos, 3191 Katella Avenue, Los Alamitos, CA 90720
3. The work consisted of :
The City of Los Alamitos hired a contractor for a street project related to widen portion of Briggeman Drive as part of the City’s ongoing pavement management program. The project also replaced damaged curb & gutter and lifted sidewalk to correct drainage.
ADA curb ramps and a commercial driveway were modified to current codes as necessary for accessibility. The project included the following streets:
4. The work was completed on___06/07/2023______
5. The contractor was: United Paving Co.
Dated _____________________________________ __________________________________________ Chris Kelley, City Engineer, City of Los Alamitos
VERIFICATION BY CORPORATION OWNER
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I, Chris Kelley, City Engineer of Los Alamitos, a Municipal Corporation, and that he executed the foregoing Notice of the aforesaid interest or estates in the property therein described; and verify on behalf of the City of Los Alamitos; that the contents thereof, and the the facts therein stated are true.
____________________________________________________
Chris Kelley, City Engineer
Dated: _____________________________________
City of Los Alamitos
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2023 ITEM NUMBER: 12A
To: Mayor Tanya Doby & Members of the City Council
Presented By: Ron Noda, Development Services Director
Subject: Study Session and Resolution No. 2023-20 - Overruling the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission’s Inconsistency Determination for the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element
SUMMARY
On January 19, 2023, the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) found the City's 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element Update to be inconsistent with the 2017 Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos Airport Environs Land Use Plan. On February 21, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution 2023-04, providing notice of the City's intent to overrule the ALUC's determination. On July 17, 2023, the City Council conducted a Study Session and reviewed information related to ALUC's finding of inconsistency. Following a staff presentation and receipt of public testimony, the City Council continued the public hearing to tonight's regular meeting. The City Council will now consider adoption of a resolution overruling the ALUC's determination, which requires a four-fifths affirmative vote.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Conduct a Study Session; and,
2. Conduct the Public Hearing; and,
3.By a four-fifths affirmative vote, adopt Resolution No. 2023-20, entitled, "A RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALAMITOS, CALIFORNIA, MAKING FINDINGS THAT THE GENERAL PLAN 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE STATE AERONAUTICS ACT AND
OVERRULING THE ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION THAT THE HOUSING ELEMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE 2017
JOINT FORCES TRAINING BASE LOS ALAMITOS AIRPORT ENVIRONS LAND USE PLAN" and,
4. Authorize the City Manager to submit Resolution No. 2023-20 to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission and the State Division of Aeronautics.
BACKGROUND
The Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is an advisory committee established by State Law in 1969. (Public Utilities Code §§ 21670 et seq.) The ALUC is intended to assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of civilian and military airports. For Los Alamitos, ALUC adopted a land use compatibility plan, known
as the 2017 Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for the Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos (JFTB), against which land use and planning proposals are compared and evaluated for consistency.
Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21676(b) requires the City to submit General Plans and General Plan amendments to the ALUC for an advisory consistency determination. In December, 2022, the City submitted the Housing Element to ALUC for review. On January 19, 2023, the ALUC determined that the Housing Element was “inconsistent” with the AELUP due to the following two reasons:
1. The ALUC asserted that noise levels in the 60 to 65 dBA range at Sites 6 (4655 Lampson Avenue) and 10 (5030-5084 Katella) were too high for residential development.
2. The ALUC asserted that Site 7 (Laurel Park) was adjacent to the Accident Potential Zone or Clear Zone for the airport.
The ALUC’s January 19, 2023 agenda report is included as Attachment 1.
On February 21, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution 2023-04, a Notice of Intent to Overrule the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County Finding of Housing Element Inconsistency (Attachment 2). As described in that staff report and Resolution, the City made draft findings, based on additional facts and research, that the ALUC’s determination was not appropriate, because the noise levels at Sites 6 and 10 are consistent with acceptable noise levels throughout the City for residential land uses; and because Site 7 is one mile from the nearest safety zone boundary for JFTB.
City staff sent the Notice of Intent to Overrule Resolution to both the ALUC and the California Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division (Caltrans), as required by PUC Section 21676(b), and provided them an opportunity to comment. Both ALUC and Caltrans provided comments, which are advisory only and are included in this report as Attachments 3 and 4.
On May 1, 2023, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) certified the City’s Housing Element, finding the adopted housing element to be in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law and capable of accommodating the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) (Attachment 5).
On July 17, 2023, the City Council conducted a Study Session (Attachment 10) during an open Public Hearing to consider a possible overrule of the ALUC determination. The item had been noticed to the public through a 1/8th page Public Hearing Notice in the Event News Enterprise newspaper. Following a staff presentation and receipt of public testimony, the City Council continued the public hearing to tonight's regular meeting.
On August 14, 2023, the City Council received a letter from Johnson Aviation Consulting regarding ALUC Inconsistent Determination on 2021-2029 Housing Element (Attachment 11). On August 15, 2023, an anonymous flyer began circulating throughout the City with the title "The Stakes are high, and the time to act is now!" (Attachment 12). Since the flyer began circulation, City Hall has been receiving 15-20 phone calls a day requesting
additional information. At the time of agenda publication, Council had received over a dozen emails. All written correspondence will be available for review at the Council meeting and through the City Clerk's Office.
DISCUSSION
The following discussion, first presented at the July 17, 2023 Council Study Session, provides additional information stemming from Staff’s research, which has been ongoing since February. This has been undertaken in consultation with the City's Housing Element consultant, a certified noise engineer with Rincon Consultants, Inc., (who provided a technical report attached as Attachment 6), staff with the State's Department of Housing and Community Development, and the Executive Officer of the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission.
As described above and in the background materials attached to this staff report, the ALUC determined the City’s Housing Element inconsistent based on two issues: noise compatibility and safety. Each of these issues is discussed individually below.
Noise
In order to regulate the impacts of noise throughout the City, as indicated in the staff report of February 21, the City relies on its General Plan policies and the Building Code, which are all consistent with ALUC’s Land Use Plan. Specifically, the City allows residential development in areas where the noise levels are 65 dBA or less, based on Growth Management Element Policy 3.5; and requires that interior noise levels be 45 dBA consistent with the California Building Code, Title 24. In order to assure that the City’s policies were not resulting in a negative impact to residents, the City consulted with a noise engineer (Attachment 6), and considered other scientific sources of information that describe noise levels and their impacts on people.
Basics of Noise
Some basic information about noise levels frames the determination of significance relating to noise:
• Noise can be made by stationary sources (air conditioning units) or moving sources (street traffic).
• Noise levels are reduced by distance, and obstructions, such as buildings, berms or walls.
• Noise can be measured in several ways, but the most common measurement for noise levels in cities’ General Plans is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is the average noise level over a 24 hour period, which is weighted to account for the quieter noise environment which occurs in the evening and night time.
• The City’s acceptable noise standard for residential uses is 65 dBA CNEL, or an average of 65 dBA over a 24 hour period.
• For comparison, typical conversation is about 60 dBA; a blender is 80-90 dBA; a leaf blower is 110 dBA; and a jet engine taking off is 150 dBA. • Continued exposure to high noise levels can damage people’s hearing and health.
ALUC Noise Standard
Although ALUC’s own land use compatibility plan considers residential uses to be “Conditionally Consistent” in Zone 2, in which Sites 6 and 10 are located, it nevertheless finds the Housing Element inconsistent with its own policies. Based on ALUC’s analysis, the potential hazard is associated with interior noise levels, which must be 45 dBA CNEL in order to be acceptable. As described below, a reduction to 45 dBA CNEL is also required by the City's Building Code.
The ALUC standard is consistent with the City’s, which allows residential uses to occur in areas up to 65 dBA exterior, and 45 dBA interior. There is no evidence that the occasional overflights from JFTB result in excessive and incompatible noise levels, since the sites occur in a Conditionally Consistent zone and do not exceed 65 dBA.
In addition, as pointed out in the Rincon letter (Attachment 6),other ALUCs have not included restrictions at all for the 60 to 65 dBA zone for smaller airports, such as the Torrance and Hawthorne Municipal Airports in Los Angeles County, and the Oxnard Airport in Ventura County.
Current Noise Environment in the City
Because of its urban environment, the City has higher noise levels. Based on noise studies conducted for the General Plan, noise levels next to City streets where residential units already occur are higher than either the City’s recommended standard of 65 dBA CNEL, or ALUC’s preference for 60 dBA CNEL, as shown in the Table below.
City of Los Alamitos Ambient Noise Levels
Roadway Segment Noise Level (CNEL)
Los Alamitos Boulevard Farquhar Avenue to Orangewood
Avenue
76.1 Katella Avenue I-605 to Los Alamitos Boulevard 78.3 Cerritos Avenue Los Alamitos Boulevard to
Bloomfield Street
71.1 Source: Los Alamitos 2015.
These are not the only areas where noise levels are higher than 60 to 65 dBA. For example, the area around Site 10 is fully developed with residential units, homes along Bloomfield, north of Cerritos have noise levels of 68.6 dBA CNEL, and homes along Los Alamitos south of Katella have noise levels of 76.0 dBA CNEL.
As previously noted, these noise levels are reduced by distance and obstructions, such as walls, landscaping and homes, so that the living environment in back yards, and within the homes themselves, are lower. These and other locations in the City experience higher noise levels than either Site 6 or 10 will experience, which ALUC predicts will be between 60 and 65 DBA, prior to mitigation such as walls, landscaping or building construction.
Noise Reduction
As described above, the City’s noise standard is that residential uses should not be located in areas where the noise levels are over 65 dBA, unless a higher noise level can be reduced. These reductions can be made by using setbacks; walls, which can reduce noise by 5 dBA. Standard home construction will reduce noise levels by 10 dBA with windows open, and 20 dBA with windows closed. So a home which is adjacent to a street that generates a noise level of 70 dBA would reduce its outdoor noise to 65 dBA by building a 6 foot solid wall, and its interior noise level to 45 dBA by building with standard construction which includes air conditioning, allowing windows to stay closed.
Attachment 6 also provides a list, on its page 8, of a number of mitigation measures which are available to assure that noise levels are reduced.
The City requires the preparation of noise impact analyses for all residential projects which are located in noisy environments, to demonstrate that noise levels can be reduced to 65 dBA CNEL exterior, and 45 dBA CNEL interior. As described above, these studies can reduce higher noise levels through mitigation to meet these requirements, and would need to be prepared for Sites 6 and 10 as part of any entitlement application. Therefore, the City has mechanisms in place to assure that any development, including development at Sites 6 and 10, will have an acceptable noise environment for residents who move into potential projects at these sites.
Noise Summary
The City’s already adopted noise standards and requirements for mitigation assure that the impacts of noise associated with airport operations can remain consistent with both the ALUC’s and the City’s noise standards. As such, the ALUC’s finding of inconsistency with the Airport Land Use Plan is not supported and the findings for overrule can be made.
Safety
With regard to safety, the only Housing Element Site identified by ALUC as having a safety hazard was Site 7 (Laurel Park). The ALUC identified it as being adjacent to the north departure path of JFTB. In its response of March 28, the ALUC further stated that Site 7 is under the flight path (“pink line”) for the airport.
These assertions or findings, however, are incorrect. Site 7 is located north of the accident safety zone for JFTB, which occurs entirely within the airport boundary. Furthermore, it is not located under the flight path, denoted by the pink line, as shown in the graphic (also see Attachment 7 for a larger version of this graphic), where the park is identified by the red dot.
The ALUC determined that Site 7 was inconsistent because it represented a safety hazard – because it was adjacent to a Clear Zone in its January staff report (Attachment 1), and because it was below a flight path in its March response to the City’s Notice (Attachment 3). In both instances, as shown above, the findings are incorrect; Site 7, the only Site identified by ALUC as having a safety hazard, is neither in the accident safety zone nor under the flight path for the JFTB.
Therefore, the ALUC’s determination of incompatibility based on protecting the public from safety hazards is not supported and findings overruling ALUC’s determination can be made.
Conclusion
As described above, the Orange County ALUC based its determination that the City’s Housing Element was inconsistent with the AELUP on faulty assumptions. The City has provided extensive background and facts to support a determination of consistency with the ALUC Land Use Plan as it relates to both noise and safety.
It is also important to note that several issues arise if the City does not overrule the ALUC:
1. The Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) could de-certify the City’s approved Housing Element, because without the ability to effectively process and consider development proposals for Sites 6, 7 and 10, it can be demonstrated that the City has not identified sufficient sites to meet its RHNA. This could result in a number of undesirable consequences, such as:
A. If de-certified, the City would not be able to prevent the development of high-density affordable housing projects even if the proposed developments are inconsistent with the City’s Zoning Code under the so called “Builder’s Remedy” provisions of the Housing Accountability Act. This would not be limited to the sites identified in the Housing Element, but to any site in the City.
B. The City would need to find alternative locations for the 396 units assigned to Sites 6, 7 and 10. This would effectively upzoning other areas of the City for higher residential density that have already absorbed the remaining units that have been assigned to the City through the RHNA process.
2. Pursuant to PUC Section 21676.5, the City would be required to submit to all land use actions, regulations, and permits to ALUC for review and approval. This authorization extends beyond the Sites identified in the Housing Element and would substantially delay City processing of any land use entitlements or building permits. In effect, the City would be delegating its authority to make land use determinations to an outside body (see July 12, 2023 correspondence from ALUC, Attachment 8).
The Cities of Newport Beach, Irvine, Costa Mesa, and Seal Beach recently overruled the ALUC related to John Wayne Airport and JFTB respectively after the ALUC issued similar findings of inconsistency. An action overruling the ALUC inconsistency determination would allow the City to oversee local land use development to the maximum extent possible while retaining its Housing Element certification from the HCD. Failure to do so is likely to result in de-certification of the Housing Element, and in the loss of state grant funding, exposure to increased legal challenges, and loss of local control over land use decisions and building permits.
Findings for the overrule of the ALUC inconsistency determination are set forth in the proposed resolution included as Attachment 9.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
Attachment: 1. ALUC Staff Report, January 19, 2023
2. City Council Staff Report, February 21, 2023
3. ALUC Response, March 28, 2023
4. Caltrans Response, March 29, 2023
5. Housing and Community Development Housing Element Compliance Letter, May 1, 2023
6. Rincon Consultants, June 26, 2023
7. Site 7 Location Map
8. ALUC Correspondance, July 12, 2023
9. Resolution No. 2023-20 - Overrule ALUC
10. City Council Staff Report (less attachments), July 17, 2023
11. Johnson Aviation Inc. Letter, August 14, 2023
12. Unanimous Flyer, August 15, 2023
Regular City Council Agenda - August 21, 2023
Item 12A
ATTACHMENT 1
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
FOR ORANGE COUNTY
3160 Airway Avenue• Costa Mesa, California 92626 • 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.6012 AGENDA ITEM 1
January 19, 2023
TO: Commissioners/ Alternates
FROM: Lea U. Choum, Executive Officer
SUBJECT: City of Los Alamitos Request for Consideration of Draft Housing Element Update (2021-2029)
Background
The City of Los Alamitos has submitted its 2021-2029 Housing Element Update (''Update") for a consistency review. The Update identifies and analyzes the City's existing and projected housing needs and contains goals, policies, objectives, and programs to address those needs. The City 's Housing Element. was last updated in February 2014, which covered the years 2014 to 2021. It was not submitted to ALUC for a consistency determination.
The Housing Element is one of the seven mandatory elements of the General Plan. Section 65583 ofthe Government Code sets forth the specific requirements ofajurisdiction·s housing element. Included in these requirements are obligations of local jurisdictions to provide for their "fair share" of the regional housing needs. This fair share is determined through the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process which in Orange County is facilitated by the Southern California Association ofGovernments (SCAG). For the 2021 to 2029 planning period, the City of Los Alamitos was allocated a total of 769 housing units, including 194 for very lowincome, 119 for low-income, 145 for moderate-income, and 311 for above-moderate income households.
The City of Los Alamitos surrounds and includes Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) - Los Alamitos and the entire city is within the Notification/Planning Area (Attachment l ). The Draft Housing Element includes fourteen sites which could accommodate up to 1,295 units. The site locations and detailed information regarding each site is shown in Attachment 2. Sites one through four are existing Mixed Use sites and are currently zoned for Mixed Use. Sites 6 through 10 are currently in non-residential use and would require a change in General Plan Land Use designation as well as Zoning Code changes. Site 11 is currently designated as Multi-Family, but the Zoning would have to change to accommodate additional units. The two sites of most concern are Site 6 at 4655 Lampson A venue, and Site lOat 5030-5084 Katella. Both of these site are in close proximately to the Base and within the 60 CNEL contour.
Agenda Item I - City of Los Alamitos Housing Element Update January 19, 2023
Page2
The City has submitted the Draft Housing Element Update to California Housing and Community Development (HCD) and has held/scheduled the following public hearings:
Planning Commission December 14, 2022
City Council January 24, 2023
AELUP for JFTB Los Alamitos Issues
Regarding Aircraft Noise Impacts
As stated above, the Draft Housing Element Update includes two new housing sites within the 60 dB CNEL as defined in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for JFTB Los Alamitos (See Attachment 3). Site 6 is located at 4655 Lampson Avenue and could accommodate up to 310 housing units, and Site l 0 located at 5030-5084 Katella could accommodate up to 108 units.
The AELUPfor JFTB Los Alamitos states that residential uses within the 60 dB CNEL/Noise Impact Zone 2 is "Normally Consistent," but that the "noise impact in this area is sufficient to require sound attenuation as set forth in the California Noise Insulation Standards, Title 25, California Code ofRegulations." The Commission strongly recommends that residential units be limited or excluded from this area unless sufficiently sound attenuated. The AELUP states, "the residential use interior sound attenuation requirement shall be a CNEL value not exceeding an interior level of45 dB. In addition, it is recommended that all designated outdoor common or recreational areas within Noise Impact Zone 2 provide outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft."
The City>s Public Facilities and Safety Element includes the following discussion regarding nmse:
"The Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) is a land-use compatibility plan that describes the effects ofaircraft noise on surrounding areas. Land uses within !he airport planning area boundaries are required to conform to noise restrictions established in the AELUP. Figure 6 shows the 60 and 65 dBA CNEL noise contours from the AELUP. "
In addition, the City's Growth Management Element includes the following polices:
Policy 3.5 New residential units. Do not approve the construction ofnew residential units within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for the JFTB.
Policy 3. 6 JFTB noise contours. Require the use ofJFTB noise contours to ensure new development is compatible with the noise environment.
Policy 3. 7 Deed disclosure notice. Provide notice ofaitport in the vicinity where residential development is being proposed within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours
Agenda Item I - City of Los Alamitos Housing Element Update January 19, 2023
for the Growth Management Element March 2015 Los Alamitos General Plan 6 JFTB. Require that the following language be included as part of the Deed Disclosure Notice.
Please note that as part ofthe submittal to ALUC, the City included exhibits from the 2021 JFTB Los Alamitos noise assessment. Attachment 4 is the finalized JFTB Los Alamitos Aircraft Noise Zone exhibit which was incorporated into the California Installation Compatible Use Zone Study (ICUZ) in March of2022. The report assessed noise levels associated with both current and projected aircraft operations (including the California Army National Guard projected increase in aircraft operations over the next lOyears) and resulted in expanded noise contours. Please refer Attachment 5 which shows the JFTB Los Alamitos noise zones from the 2015 ICUZ study for comparison purposes.
Regarding Height Restrictions
All ofthe City's proposed housing sites are within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces for JFTB Los Alamitos (Attachment 6). The horizontal obstruction imaginary surface for JFTB Los Alamitos is at an elevation of 182.4 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). Transitional, approach and conical surfaces vary in elevation and are addressed below for the proposed Housing Element sites.
Proposed housing Sites 1 through 4B are designated as Town Center Mixed Use (TCMU) and will remain TCMU. According to the City's Zoning Code, the TCMU zone has a maximum height of 60 feet. Sites 6 through 10 are sites that would change from non-residential (Commercial & Institutional and Retail Business) to residential uses (R4), and Site 11 would remain in multi-family residential use but change from R3 to R4. The City's Draft Housing Element states that this would "require the creation ofa new zoning designation, R-4" ... and "the height limits would be increased to allow higher rise buildings." Current maximum building heights allowed by the City's Zoning Code for residential districts vary from 30 to 35 feet above ground level (AGL). The City has identified in its Update submittal that development heights are, and will continue to be, consistent with the JFTB imaginary surfaces restrictions to ensure public safety.
The City's Public Facilities and Safety Element includes height restrictions as follows:
"To ensure the safe operation ofaircraft activity al the JFTB, structures anywhere in Los Alamitos or Rossmoor should not exceed the applicable elevations defined in the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), Part 77 (Objects Affecting Navigable Air Space). This height restriction is 88 to 200 feet above ground level based on proximity to the runway.
Current zoning standards do not permit development higher than 70 feet in Los Alamitos or Rossmoor. Nevertheless, all developments are subject to FAR Part 77 noticing requirements andmust file the necessary form(s) with the City's Community
Agenda Item I - City ofLos Alamitos Housing Element Update January I 9, 2023
Page4
Development department, the Counly 's Planning division, and the Orange County Ailport Land Use Commission."
Additionally, the City's Growth Management Element includes the following policies:
Policy 3.1 Land use compatibility. Approve development and require mitigation measures to ensure existing and.future land use compatibility as shown in the City's Noise Ordinance, the Land Use and Noise Compatibility Matrix, the State Interior and Exterior Noise Standards, and the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for the JFTB.
Policy 3.2 Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77. Do not approve buildings and structures that would penetrate Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Imaginary Obstruction Surfaces for JFTB, Los Alamitos unless found consistent by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). Additionally, in accordance with FAR Part 77, required applicants proposing buildings or structures that penetrate the 100: 1 Notification Surface to file a Form 7460-1 Notice ofProposed Construction or Alteration with FAA andprovide a copy ofthe FAA determination to the City and the ALUCfor Orange County.
Policy 3.3 Structures above 200 feet. For development projects that include structures higher lhan 200 feet above existing grade, the City shall inform the ALUC and submit materials to the AL UC for review. Proposed projects !hat would exceed a height of200feet above existing grade shall be required to.fUe Form 7460-1 with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Provided below is the height review for the proposed sites. At their current maximum allowable heights, none ofthe proposed housing sites penetrate the imaginary surfaces for JFTB, Los Alamitos.
Sites 1-4B - Maximum Combined 467 Units
With approximate ground elevations of 21 feet, and horizontal and conical surfaces ranging from 182.4 feet to 225 feet AMSL, Sites 1 through 48 would not penetrate the imaginary surfaces with the zoning code maximum height of 60 feet for the TCMU zone.
Site 6 - Maxim um 310 Units
The approximate ground elevation for Site 6 is approximately 20 feet AMSL and the horizontal imaginary obstruction surface would be penetrated at 182.4 feet AMSL. The City's maximum building height of35 feet for residential zones would not penetrate the imaginary surface in this location. The property on Lampson A venue has been sold to a developer and is actively being planned for redevelopment for housing. The City has received a proposal from the developer for 248 residential units including 77 affordable units on the 12.4-acre property.
Site 7 - Maximum 72 Units
Laurel Park has an approximate ground elevation of approximately 23 feet AMSL and the horizontal imaginary obstruction surface would be penetrated at 182.4 feet AMSL. The City's
Agenda Item I - City of Los Alamitos Housing Element Update January 19, 2023
maximum building height of 35 feet for residential zones would not penetrate the imaginary surface in this location.
Site 8 - Maximum 115 Units
The 3191 Katella/City Hall property has an approximate ground elevation of 19 feet AMSL. The conical surface at this location would be penetrated at approximately 250 feet AMSL. The City's maximum building height of35 feet would not penetrate the imaginary surface in this location.
Site 9 - Maximum 180 Units
The 4142 Cerritos Avenue site has an approximate ground elevation of 19 feet AMSL. The conical surface at this location would be penetrated at approximately 191 feet AMSL. The City's maximum building height of35 feet would not penetrate the imaginary surface in this location.
Site 10 - Maximum 108 Units
Tue 5030-5084 Katella Laurel Park site has an approximate ground elevation of approximately 27 feet AMSL and the horizontal imaginary obstruction surface would be penetrated at 182.4 feet AMSL. The City's maximum building height of 35 feet for residential zones would not penetrate the imaginary surface in this location.
Regarding Safety
JFTB Los Alamitos has established Clear Zones (also referred to as a Runway Protection Zones).
These Clear Zones are trapezoidal areas located at each end of the runway (as shown on Attachment 3). Clear Zones are limited primarily to airport and open space uses. No buildings intended for human habitation are permitted in Clear Zones. The Clear Zones for JFTB Los Alamitos are completely within the JFTB boundaries.
Aircraft operations at JFTB include use of both fixed wing aircraft and helicopters. General flight route information for JFTB Los Alamitos is provided in Attachment 7. These exhibits were prepared for JFTB in conjunction with an Environmental Assessment in June 2021 and for ICUZ in 2022, and are included for informational purposes only. The Site 7 (Laurel Park) would be adjacent to the north departure path.
Regarding Heliports
The development ofheliports is not proposed within the Housing Element Update, therefore consistency with the AELUP for Heliports was not reviewed.
Environmental
On November 1, 2021, ALUC staff sent a comment letter to the City regarding the NOi to Adopt a Negative Declaration for the Housing Element Update. It is included as Attachment 8.
Conclusion
Agenda Item I - City of Los Alamitos Housing Element Update January 19, 2023
Attachment 9 to this report contains the submittal letter and Housing Element Submittal Form and Checklist received from the City of Los Alamitos. The Housing Element Update and supporting documents are also available on the City's website at:
http://cityoflosalamitos.org/375/Housing-Element
ALUC staff has reviewed this project with respect to compliance with the AELUP for JFTB Los Alamitos, including review of noise, height and safety. The locations ofSite 6 and Site 10 are in close proximately to JFTB-Los Alamitos, and the proposed land use designation ofthe two sites would allow for 418 new residential units, where there are currently none. These sites would be changing from the non-residential to residential uses and are both located within the 60 CNEL noise contour for JFTB-Los Alamitos. Site 7 would add up to 72 units adjacent to the north departure path subjecting future residents to noise and safety issues.
Recommendation
That the Commission find the proposed City of Los Alamitos 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Inconsistent with the AELUPfor JFTB Los Alamitos per:
1. Section 2.1.1 Aircraft Noise, that the "aircraft noise emanating from airports may be incompatible with general welfare ofthe inhabitants within the vicinity ofan airport.·•
2. PUC Section 21674, (as referenced in Section 1.2 of the AELUPfor JFTB Los Alamitos) which states that the Commission is charged by PUC Section 2 l 674(a) "to assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of ...existing airports to the extent that the land in the vicinity of those airports is not already devoted to incompatible uses," and PUC Section 21674(b) "to coordinate planning at the state, regional and local levels so as to provide for the orderly development of air transportation, while at the same time protecting the public health, safety and welfare."
3. General Land Use Policies in Section 3 .2. l which states that "within the boundaries of the AELUP, and land use may be found to be Inconsistent with the AELUP which (1) Places people so that they are affected adversely by aircraft noise and (2) Concentrates people in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents."
Respectfully submitted,
Lea U. Choum
Executive Officer
Attachments:
Agenda Item I - City of Los Alamitos Housing Element Update January 19, 2023
1. Notification Area for JFTB Los Alamitos
2. Site Inventory Map and Table
3. Impact Zones/Noise Contours for JFTB Los Alamitos
4. 2022 JFTB Los Alamitos Noise Zones
5. 2015 JFTB Los Alamitos Noise Zones
6. Housing Sites in relation to JFTB Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces
7. JFTB Los Alamitos Flight Patterns
8. ALUC November 1, 2001 Letter to Los Alamitos Regarding Negative Declaration
9. City ofLos Alamitos Letter and Submittal Form
i Los Alamitos Housing
Element 2021-2029
Approximate Site Locations
Note: County Unincorporated areas are shown in white.
FAR PART 77
Notification Area for JFTB Los Alamitos: 20,000' Radius at 100:1 Slope ,----- - ,_..,_
LEGEND
• • u 20,000 Radius
-•• CITY BOUNDARIES
Adopted t ATTACHMENT 1
Lea Choum, Executive Officer Dale
Housing Element
Residential Land Resources
Figure B+l. Location of Sites Inventory
ii. Realistic Capacity
The City has seen a significant interest in redevelopment for multi-family housing in various locations, including the Old Town West and Apartment Row neighborhoods as discussed below in subsection c. Additional Underutilized Landt-. The pressure for residential development in the region,. combined with older, under-utilized commercial projects, has resulted in considerable developer interest aAd-at multiple developed locations. including sites listed in Table 8-2 and elsewhere in the City:
• As described above. the City currently has an application in process for site 6, which includes 77 lower income units. In addition. the developer of this project is actively negotiating with the land owner of site 9, a church organization, for the purchase of the land for residential development.
• The City has met with an experienced housing developer who would like to develop a mixed use (housing and commercial) project on site 7. Negotiations ~re just City of Los Alamitos ATTACHMENT 2
Administrative Draft 2021-2029
Table 8-2
Sites Inventory and Projected Units
Sites Description
0 Site
ID APN Address Acres Existing GP Existing
zoning
Proposed
Zoning
Projected
Density
Max#
Units
1 242-203-27
242-203-28
10909 Los Alamitos Blvd
10877 Los Alamitos Blvd
o.as Mixed Use
Mixed Use
TCMU TCMU 60
86 0.58 TCMU TCMU 60
2a 242-171-02 109S6 Los Alamitos Blvd 0.68 Mixed Use TCMU TCMU 60 41 2b 242-171-07 10900 Los Alamitos Blvd 3.1 Mixed Use TCMU TCMU 60 186 2c 242-172-01 10900 Pine Street 0.48 Mixed Use TCMU TCMU 60 29 2d• 242-172-02 10902 Pine Street 0.17 Mixed Use TCMU TCMU 60 10 3 222-091-01
222-091·21
11021 Reagan Street 0.3S MfxedUse TCMU TCMU 60
63 3636 Katella Avenue 0.7 Mixed Use TCMU TCMU 60
4a 222·093•12 11182 Los Alamitos Blvd 0.74 Mixed Use TCMU TCMU 60 44 4b 222-093-13 11232 Los Alamitos Blvd 0.13 Mixed Use TCMU TCMU 60 8 * 6 130-012-3S 46S5 Lampson Ave 12.4
Community
&
Institutional
C•f Rl 20 310
7 241•241-35 Laucel Park 2 of 4
Community
&
Institutional
C-f R4 30 72
8 242-212 -11
242-212-08
242-212-10
3191 Katella/Clty Hall 3.2 Retail
Busmess ( .(j R4 .30 115
9 241-251,14 4142 Cerritos Ave 5
Community
&
Institutional
C-F R4 30 180
* 10 222-181-01.
222-181-02 5030-5084 Katella 3 Retail
Business C·G R4 30 108
11 242 222 06 3370 Cerritos Ave L2 Multl-Famlty R3 R4 30 43 Sites located within the 60 dB CNEL *
1,295
Total
Sites with proposed new land use designations (Zoning Code Change required) Table adapted from: City of Los Alamitos website January 2023 Administrative Draft Housing Element 2021-2029 Appendix B Residential Land Resources https:l/c1tyoflosalamitos.orgl375/Housing-EtqmBnf
... ...
1 ~Ai~;os Ho~~ing
O 1
Element 2021-2029
Approximate Site Locations
Note: County Unincorporated areas are shown in white.
Los Alamitos Impact Zones
Joint Forces Training Base
LEGEND
,unty -60- CNEL CONTOUR Adopted ATTACHMENT 3 -•-• RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE '----- - II - I I Cl1Y BOUNDARIES Kani Rigoni Executive Officer Date
California ARNG Installation Compatible Use Zone Study I 2022 )>
~ (')
~
m
z
...,
~
l.&fil!it!
D C11llfoml11
c:J Los Alamitos JFTB
Los AlamJtos AAF
Noise Sensitive Area
Ocean
- lnletslllte Highway
LUPZ ( 60-65 A-welghled CNEL)
c:J ZoneU (65·75 A•welghled CNEL)
c:J Zone mt> 75 dB A-weighted CNEL)
~+·
'
' Scu..-c» CAARNGOPrM. ESRI
o... "-9,,112021
.~
APHC U.& MIMT......,.; "5M.ntCi.NTiR
Mt • • .,.,................ _..,.
t......... .,............ tl..... ....
-~................... .........l'lla~--....... ............ ,__,.,.., ·e 4-3 Los Alamuos JFTB A1rcrati No1s.: Zones {A-weighted CNEL) I
CAARNG Installation Compatible Use Zone Study 2015
(
LJ Los Alamitos JFTB 500 1,000 Meters
[:J Zone II - 65-75 dB ADNL :,;
LUPZ - 60-65 dB ADNL _A . Source; ESRI, U'iAl'llC'. "
, r f CAARNG GIS
s Date: April 2.0t5
!&uSAPHc
~ ...,...,,oa:dl •n.Sl"IICO(..:J 1-tllllliitr .. ceajlNIOllcM~Mwchl•l'"' ...tt'i.-.1-• .,.,._.w:-'tia&Mt'-a.. Tl,i,iaf---i• - 1i1r.-r fqr l'fP"-d.wT M..,i;c.
Figure 7-5. LAAAF Aircraft ADNL Noise Zones ( ATTACHMENT 5 7-9
AELUP Height Restriction Zone for JFTB, Los Alamitos
Los Alamitos Housing
Element 2021-2029
Approximate Site Locations
Note: County Unincorporated areas are shown
FAR PART 77
JFTB, Los Alamitos Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces
'===== I 1c.-aa,_. -
LEGEND
• 11 • 20,000 Radius
-•• CITY BOUNDARIES
ATTACHMENT 6
Adopted :0Ur'l1y
Lea Choum Executive Officer Date
Final EA for the Relocation of Detachment 1,
Company B, 6th Battalion, 52nd Aviation Unit June 2021
D Los Alamitos JFTB 0 1,850 3,700 Meters
FIW Outside Traffic Pattern
Katella ArrivaVDeparture .A_ Source: ESRI, USAPHC, W--VE CAARNG GIS North ArrivaI s Date: April 2015 North Departure
RNV Outside Traffic Pattern ~USAPHC
~ .....,.u_......,._., tdat::ailr,, 111 ..__,....._,r,1_,..,~,- South Arriva~Departure .,....., _ _.,.___"'·... .....-............. , ..____________,, :r• k,.t..__,.,. __ Figure 3-1. JFTB Los Alamitos Flight Routes
ATTACHMENT 7 ---------------------------':I
9 '----------------~
California ARNG Installation Compatible Use Zone Study I 2022 LEGEND
D Los Alamttos JFTB
::_~ Los Alamttos Army A11118ld
- Alght Tracks
·+•- So...,CII CAAAHG OPl"M. ESAI
O.• Al.ltu.. 2021
US.ARMY .......X ICM.l'NGWTl,111
......................_..., .
,~_........... ..,...._. ...,.._.......... __ ......l'frle ....................... ..,_....._,____, F•Jllf<: 4-2 Los /\lami10s Jom1 Forc.:s Flight Tracks
~-2
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
FOR ORANGE COUNTY
3160 Airway Avenue• Costa Mesa, California 92626 • 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.6012 November 1, 2021
Tom Oliver, Associate Planner
City of Los Alamitos
3191 Katella Avenue
Los Alamitos, CA 90720-5600
Subject: NOi to Adopt Negative Declaration (ND) for Los Alamitos Housfng Element Update (2021-2029)
Dear Mr. Oliver:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the City of Los Alamitos Initial Study to adopt a Negative Declaration for the proposed Housing Element Update in relation to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan {AELUP) for Joint Forces Training Bose, Los Alamitos. The City of Los Alamitos Is located within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Notification Area (also known as the airport planning area) and within the Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces. Also, a part of the City is located within the noise contours for JFTB, Los Alamitos.
The Draft Housing Element includes a site inventory assessment, which identifies sites that can achieve the City's assigned 2021 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for the 2021-2029 planning period. The Draft Element identifies three focus areas for residential development:
•
• Lampson Site
• Arrowhead Site
Town Center Mixed Use Strategic Plan Area
The proposed site inventory includes new sites within the Notification Area, which requires submittal to the Airport Land Use Commission for a consistency review.
The Draft Housing Element also proposes new residential sites within the conical and horizontal obstruction imaginary surfaces for JFTB, Los Alamitos. The ND should discuss the maximum building heights allowed for the three focus areas. With respect to building height restrictions, development proposals, which include the construction or alteration of structures more than 200 feet above ground level, require filing with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and ALUC notification. Projects meeting this threshold must comply with procedures provided by Federal and State law, with the ATTACHMENT 8
ALUC ND & Housing Element Update Comments
Page2
11/1 /21
referral requirements ofALUC, and with all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by FAA and ALUC including filing a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (FAA Form 7460-1). Depending on the maximum building heights that will be allowed per the proposed Housing Element Update, the City may wish to incorporate a mitigation and condition of approval specifying the 200 feet height threshold within the ND and proposed Housing Element.
As discussed in the ND, the Lampson site is partially within the 60 CNEL noise contour.
Per the AELUPfor JFTB, Los Alamitos it is strongly recommended that residential units be limited or excluded from this area unless the sound attenuation provided is sufficient to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dBA.
In addition, the ND should identify if the project allows for the development of heliports as defined in the Airport Environs Land Use Pion (AELUP} for Heliports. Should the development of heliports occur within your jurisdiction, proposals to develop new heliports must be submitted through the City to the ALUC for review and action pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21661.5. Proposed heliport projects must comply fully with the state permit procedure provided by law and with all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by FAA, by the ALUC for Orange County and by Caltrans/Division ofAeronautics. The ND should address whether the development of heliports will be allowed within the City's jurisdiction.
A referral by the City to the ALUC is required for this project due to the location of the proposal within an AELUP Planning Area and due to the nature ofthe required City approvals (i.e. Housing Element Update) under PUC Section 21676(b). With respect to project submittals, please note that the Commission requests that referrals be submitted to the ALUC for a determination between the Local Agency's Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Since the ALUC meets on the third Thursday afternoon of each month, complete submittals must be received in the ALUC office by the first of the month to ensure sufficient time for review, analysis, and agendizi ng. The Housing Element Submittal form can be found at:
https://www.ocair.com/about/admtnistration/airportgovernance/commisslons/airport-land-use-commission/ Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Initial study. Please contact Julie Fitch at (949) 252-5284 or [email protected] if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
~
Lea Choum
~
Executive Officer
7 3191 Kate!la ,\,enue
Los A.lamitos. CA 90720·5600
Telephone: (562) 431-3538 / : ~ .~ LOS Ala~i_t~s
FAX: (562) 493-1255
wv.wc1tyoflosalamitos.org ~ :•J Ca&{ritnULJ
RECEIVED
December 8, 2022
DEC 1 3 2022
Lea Choum - Executive Officer AIRPOflTLANDUSEOOMMlSSiON Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County
3160 Airway Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
SUBJECT: Housing Element Update
Hi Lea,
It was great talking with you a few weeks back. Attached, is a copy of the City's draft Housing Element for your review. You saw a draft of this document that you responded to last year. I have attached the submittal form and ancillary documents as well. Thank you so much for having the Commlssion look over the document.
I thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this proposed project. If you have any questions, please contact me at (562) 431-3538, ext. 303 or via e-mail at:
[email protected].
Sincerely,
To liver
__..,_,.._ociate Planner
ATTACHMENT 9
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
FOR ORANGE COUNTY
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE - SUBMITTAL FORM
1. City/County: Los Alamitos/County
2. Contact information - Name/Title C rck or tap here to enter text Agency: City of LosAlamitos
Address: 3191 Katella Avenue
Phone/email: 562-431-3538
3. Airport Planning Area(s):
o John Wayne Airport D Fullerton Municipal Airport 181 Joint Forces Air Base Los Alamitos
4. Are there additional General Plan Element(s) being submitted for review: 181 No □ Yes - Name of Elements: Click or tap here to enter text
5. Scheduled date of Planning Commission Public Hearing: 1211412022
6. Tentative date of City Council Public Hearing: 1/24/2023
7. Requested month ofALUC Review: 1/19/2023
(Comp/et~ submittal must be receivedby the first day ofthe monthfor the next meeting on the third Thursday ofthe month}.
8. Does the Housing Element Update identify new housing sites within the airport Notification/Planning Area•? D No (skip items# 9-12). l8l Yes (continue below).
9. Does the Housing Element Update identify new housing sites within the: 18160 CNEL or D 65 CNEL Noise Contours of the airport(s)"'? Please attach an exhibit showing location(s) of proposed housing sites and number of units in relation to noise contours.
10. Are noise policies or mitigation measures identified in the Housing Element or elsewhere in the General Plan? D No ® Yes - Please attach pages with noise policies/mitigation measures highlighted.
11. Are any new housing sites identified within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ), Clear Zone (CZ), or Airport Safety Zones of the airport•? 181 No □ Yes - Please attach exhibit showing location(s) of proposed housing site(s) and number of units in relation to the applicable zones.
12. Are any new housing sites identified within the Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces*? 1:81 No □ Yes - Please attach an exhibit showing location(s) of proposed housing sites and number of units in relation to the Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces.
13. Maximum height allowed for proposed housing. 35
{Please provide lmk and identify section(s) ofGeneral Plan and/or Zoning Code where housing maximum height is specifird.J Continued on reverse side.
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE - SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST
~ Cover letter on City/County letterhead.
181 Completed Submittal Form.
181 Copy of existing Housing Element (and any other applicable Elements). 181 Copy of proposed Housing Element Update attached (and any other proposed elements) with requested information highlighted.
~ Exhibit showing location(s) of proposed housing sites and number of units within the Notification Area/Planning Area for airport.
181 Exhibit showing location(s) of proposed housing sites, and how many units for each, in relation to noise contours for airport(s).
181 Noise policies/mitigation measures in Housing Element Update highlighted and/or pages from other elements attached.
181 Exhibit showing location(s) of proposed housing sites, and how many units for each, in relation to Airport Safety Zones,
181 Exhibit showing location(s) of proposed housing sites, and how many units for each, in relation to the Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces.
181. Pages ofGeneral Plan and/or Zoning Code which indicate height restrictions for each new housing site within Airport Notification/Planning Area. 181 Explanation of how the Housing Element Update (or other General Plan Elements) addresses the AELUP standards for noise impact, safety compatibility, and height restriction zones: It acknowledges the noise zones and explains the mitigation for that is in using appropriate building materials and construction practices.
*For airport planning/notification areas, noise contours, safety zones and obstruction imaginary surfaces see Appendix D of the applicable Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) at:
https://www.ocair.com/about/administration/a1rport-governance/commissions/a1rport-land-usecommission/ Mail or Email Submittal Form, Checklist and attachments to: Airport land Use Commission for Orange County, Attn: Executive Officer, 3160 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 I Phone: (949) 252-517D [email protected]
Puhl1C Foo Illies ond Safety Element
Figure 6JFTB Impart Zones
amLOS ALAMITOS
~B G E N E R A L P L A N
Huntington Beach ~
i W UI i i
u
[ J CNEL Contour C::J City Boundary
== JHB Clear Zone Rossmoor
@ ~""' ~Pl.ACEWORKS
t tJ rT, ~ ~ TI~D y 1-D(L
f-tD V1 ~ IN4- E[_€ r-,(Nl 3.13 NOISE
Background
The noise environment in the City is typical of an urban community, with primary noise sources including traffic on lnterstate-605, major arterials, mechanical equipment such as heating/ventilation/air conditioning (HVAC) units, commercial loading and unloading operations, and parking lot activity. In Los Alamitos, both fixed -wing aircraft and helicopters operate from The Joint Forces Training Base OFrB), which generate aircraft noise on areas immediately next to the base and flight paths.
Would the project result in:
a) Generation ofa substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards ofother agencies? b) Generation ofexcessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles ofa public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The adoption ofthe Housing Element Update will have no impact on noise. The future development of housing will be required to analyze noise impacts as part ofthe CEQA and building permit processes. All sites identified for future housing in the inventory are located in urban areas and adjacent to existing development. Typical noise sources include roadways and railroad, and stationary sources such as typical commercial and residential activities and landscaping equipment.
The City will require the preparation ofsite-specific noise studies to assess impacts from roadway noise, as appropriate. Should noise levels at future housing sites require mitigation, there are a variety of means such as noise attenuation walls, setback from roadways, and landscape buffers which the City imposes through the development review process.
Housing redevelopment projects in the future may create temporary noise sources. The City's Municipal Code imposes noise standards and limits construction hours to the less sensitive day time hours (Municipal Code Chapter 17.20). Individual projects will be reviewed under CEQA to determine whether their construction will have adverse noise impacts on neighboring land uses.
The nearest public-use airport to the City is Long Beach Airport, approximately 3.4 miles to the west. The City is outside ofthe noise contours ofLong Beach Airport (lACALUC 2017). The nearest private~use airport is the Joint Forces Training Base OFTB) on the southeast side ofthe City. Most sites in the Site Inventory are outside of the 60/65-CNEL noise contours established for JFTB (OCALUC 2017), except the Lampson site which is partially within the 60-CNEL noise contour but completely outside the 65-CNEL noise contour. The State of California provides noise standards through the California Building Code, which establishes standards for residential construction practices and building materials to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dBA. Future housing projects will be subject to CBC requirements and thus meet the City noise standards of45 dBA at night and 55 dBA during the day for residential uses (General Plan Public Facilities and Safety Element Table 3). Therefore. the Housing Element Update would not subject people onsite to excessive noise levels from aircraft approaching or departing Long Beach Airport or JFfB.
Mitigation Measures and Monitoring: None required.
CMRNG Installation Compatible Use Zone Study 2015
LJ Los Alamitos JFTB
D Zone II •6~75dBADNL
LUPZ - 60-65 dB AONL
o 500 1,000 Meters
"+s C Source: l:.SRI. USAPIIC.
" ~ CAAll.~G GIS
~ Date. Apn l 2015
~USAPHC
lo:., • .,._,JU•·•lrll•._~• ul,..ilt.17 ,,. ,, • ..,..,,_, ((lli,ft.1,ft ...., ..-;,.-....•••IU.,,,....'""......._,f\,r ta, nn ri_.,i_,,_.,,.'1"•" ,...,~~...... ..,- Figure 7-5. LAAAF Aircraft ADNL Noise Zones
7-9
Environmental Health Sciences, Environmental Noise Consultation Update No. S.0064236b-20, 1 June 2020
Baseline Conditions
Los Alamitos Army Airfield Noise Zones
LUPZ(60-65dBA,1111!,ighradCNEL) Na.. SensillVeAroa
/OM II (65-1S dSA.1/'J&,gM•d (;NELJ D Loo Alarrito. Army Mfreld Joint Forces Tr1inmg 811eZone 11 (> 75 dB A,....,,.grrltd CNELI -
:-.,Uw~r.'} l, ~••l,\ lk1.;<cn..:y. ,cl,a'bttit\· ('(.;ur.,~!Cf!KU1,1flb.;\C4iltlo !N ,ad~~a.,huJ ..-,::\'t fUA'J.al~lllo< ,..,,hri\liu4.wa. Th1\l"'Mf"h• "h,n1 J.~:, · 11P.J a. Ma.h.i• m~tt•c'll.ll"ltC" ~ """ Ja,.at-c-cnm, 4\:ul.,.trilr '1t..:.:,r1, .,,111 1.,,Ak.'-'~ l,Sltl rt"'-
..~rf i·r.- - 7:::. J--.. ~
...
EnVironmental Noisfl Branch
Almy Publi: Heallh Cenlel
OetoDer 2020
Figure 1. Baseline Los Alamitos Army Airfield Noise Zones 4
-=lFT B t) u1 ~E
- A<; s~s <;: fv\(N \
Environmental Health Sciences, Environmental Noise Consultation Update No. S.0064236b-20, 1 June 2020
Projected Conditions
Los Alamitos Army Airfield Noise Zones
l UPZ (!!0~5 dB A-.,.-,ighted CNEl> Nase S.n,;,trve Alea lON> Ir (6>75 dBA-W.ogtrtod CNH) CJI.<>$ Alam tot Army A,rfield Joint F01c.e1 Trainmo Base Zor,e Ill (> 7!, dil A-Wetghled CNELJ SQ \\rn3n:') a, lt&N.: 111 fCt ti,.; ...:wa.). ,..-h.1hlitr. ,'f1'00~(DC1\ u!tboe daia i.... Uldt~iJ:u:al \H q,f &l~JAClro u.u Env110M?et1tal Noilt Branch ,111' Plll,r .Lita. Timm ,r 1. 4 ·1hU'I!( ..,c-,.au1u· .do!,.a. ,u,:h. i• .,,~-k,J -~~h111r,,:, nne-. ob••~'''"'" :;i;..a,l4'\W IYmyPubl:: Health Cenler October 2020
Figure 2. Projected Los Alamitos Army Airfield Noise Zones 5
---· ·- ---
HOU8l"1 Element jiil
Raldentlal Land RNourcea ~
Site 9Js currently ocCtiQlt!d b~hurch and _is for sale. The Cltv will apuly_.B_4 zoning_t.Q the 5 acre nr.oP-.~rty which would generate a mil( of affordable a_'!fi_C!lil!1<_~1..~te_i,!!lft$~ ln1.,;ly_Q!nf 20 units for lower Income hou.1eholds and 40 units for l'!\Oc.!_eg1e l_rico1g household~.: The_balan~f the protect would allow up to ~0_J_ml~Ql.b.9!!~l0f. ~V<tllE.~!t to above moderate Income househo ds.
Site 10 Is currenth· occupied by a~Qrnmerdal development. and consists of 3 f!U~s. The s!te wlll tie rezoned to R4 and ls_~~cted t.9_51.!l_velon_ ~$ a mJ?t~.ci.Jnccrr,~ oro1cct, JQ include 10 lowerJ.Qsom~ vn !Y. 15 _modera!e incom~ 1~n_tts an.fl_~~ above_ modenr!.e. nC01llf# units.
'.11te 11 is currently occupied llv ma,ket hovsin.~~uJ ls ulanne<lJcr r_g_~_Yrl9r~r.:D.t.!!l• , ti\? site wilt be rezoned from R3 to.R4. and :tti!LpJovfde unto 30 moderate inrnme units.
As se! torth In Poll.. y Action 4.4. t!lg__Qty wJJI enforce the units deste,nat~.d.J.ri..<-e& S~ Ettci ty .J!ffffit S~N~ pef Table 8-2 and Figure B-1 as fut.ire .ru:Qlects arc pro12osed on these sites. Pror;osals that include fewer untts than deslgnated will not be aeero~est .b.:i ~he_O.!r_ unless alternative~s are identifleg.__The C1tif A.as S~FI a sie,,iflEant-i~ ;--.;Hft ttw redE'\·elepR'!eAt ef ~l:iese site6 for the-aeY~~SfR-gr Table B-2
Sites Inventory and Projected Un ts
Sites Descrlotlon
Site APN Addraa Aaet Elds11ns GP Ellllll"I Proposed Projtcted m Zonlnl Zonlnl Dens1ty ·-
242-203-27 10909 LOI Alamltm 8ttd o.as Mbled Use TCMU TCMU 60 1 242-203-28 10177 Los Alamftm Blvd 0.58 Mixed Use TCMU TCMU 60 21 242·171-02 10!JS6 Los Ahlmltos Blvd 0.68 Mixed Use TCMU TCMU 60 2b 242·171-07 10900Los Allmitm 811/d 3.1 Mixed Use TCMU TCMU 60 :zc 242-172-01 10900 PIM5tl'Nl OA ~Use TIM.I TCMU 60
2d• 242-172-02 10902 PineStrNt 0.17 Mixed Use TCMU TCMU 60 222-G91-01 11021 RnpnStrNt 0.35 MlxedU. TCMU TCMU 60
3 222-G91-21 3636 IC.ltalla A-Ntue 0.7 Ml)cedUN TCMU TCMU 60 ··- .. 222-093-12 11182 t,asAlamltos Blvd 0.74 MbeedU• TCMU TCMU 60 --- .., 222-Cm-13 112321.asAlamltos Blvd 0.13 Muc!Uu TCMU TCMU 60 Community
I & 130-012-35 4655Llmpson Ava 12.4 & C-F R3 20
lnstitutlOnal
·-.. --------------------------------
HouelngEI!~
Realdentlal Land Resources
SIie
ID APN Address Aaes Exlstlr11GP Emtlns
Zonlna
Propoeed
Zonfna
Projec:tad
Density
7 241-241-35 Laurel Park 2of4
Corrmunlty
a
rnstltutlonat
C-f R4 30
8 242-212-11
242-212-'>8
242-212-10
3191 KataU1/C1ty Hall 3.2 Retall
Business CG R4 30
9 241-251-14 4142 Cerrllm Ave s
Community
a
InstltutlonaI
C-F R4 30
10 222-181-01.
222+181-02 5030-5084 Katel1 3 Rltlll
Bl.Uinta CG RA 30
11 242-222•06 3370Cerritos Ave 1.2 Multl-Famlly R3 R4 30 Projected Units
I
I
I
I
I
I
MHlrnwn Ver,Low
Site ID Unlls Income
l 86 7
2a 41 2
2b 186 32
2c 29 11
2d 10 4
3 63 3
4a 44 2
4b 8 1
6 248 38
7 60 30
8 96 so
9 150 10
10 90 10
11 36
Total 1147 200
RHNA 769 l.94
SUrplus capacity . 6
Low Moel•~ Abova Unltafor
Income Income Moderate RHNA Income
4 5 16
2 2 6
9 22 63
8 9 28
3 3 10
4 4 11
3 2 7
1 2
39 171 248
20 10 60
30 16 96
10 40 90 1S0
15 65 -
90 30 30
132 1S9 326 817
119 145 311 769
13 14 15 48
~ Cllr of Loa Almnl...
Adlllllutratlve Draft 1011-4QH
Housing Element
Housing Resources and Constraints
iv. Fire Hazards
The City of Los Alamitos contracts with the Orange County Fire Authority for fire protection and emergency medical services. The local fire station in Los Alamitos is located at 3642 Green Avenue. The fire station houses house three Fire Captains, three Engineers, and three Firefighters. Additional resources are also available from 77 Orange County Fire Stations, the City of Long Beach, and Los Angeles County. Due to the low density character of the community and sparse wildland areas in the City, the wildland fire hazard is considered to be insignificant or low. The inventory sites are not located in or near state responsibility areas or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones as classified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. v. Noise
The existing noise environment surrounding the City of Los Alamitos is Influenced primarily by transportation related noise sources. These transportation related noise sources include traffic noise from nearby roadways (i.e., 1·605, Katella Avenue and Los Alamitos Boulevard) and aircraft noise from the Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB).
Stationary noise sources include air conditioning units, power generators, air i:
compressors, school bells, and power equipment. The City of Los Alamitos General Plan has traffic noise contours for assessing the compatibility of residential uses with transportation related noise sources. The City has also adopted a Noise Ordinance that sets criteria for residential areas impacted by stationary noise sources, including "not to exceed" noise levels for various periods of time and regulations for special activities.
Most sites listed in the Sites Inventory are outside of the 60/65-CNEL noise contours established for JFTB, except the Site 6 which is partially within the 60-CNEL noise contour but completely outside the 65-CNEL noise contour. The City enforces California Building Code's standards for residential construction practices and building materials to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dBA. Future housing projects will be subject to CBC requirements and thus meet the City noise standards of 45 dBA at night and 55 dBA during the day for residential uses as set forth in the General Plan. b. Infrastructure Constraints
i. Water
The Golden State Water Company owns and operates the extensive network of water lines that serves Los Alamitos. The water system supply sources include a mixture of groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin and imported water from the City of Lo. Alamltos
Administrative Draft 2014-2021
Growth Management Element March LO 15
Goal 3: Development that is consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plans for the Joint Forces Training Base and Orange County Heliports.
Policy 3.1 can also be found in the Public Facilities and Safety Element as Policy 4.1.
Policy 3.1 Land use compatibility. Approve development and require mitigation measures to ensure existing and future land use compatibility as shown in the City's Noise l Ordinance, the Land Use and Noise Compatibility Matrix, the State Interior and \ Exterior Noise Standards, and the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for the \ JFTB.
I
Policy 3.2 Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77. Do not approve buildings and structures that would penetrate Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Imaginary Obstruction Surfaces for JFTB, Los Alamitos unless found consistent by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). Additionally, in accordance with FAR Part 77, required applicants proposing buildings or structures that penetrate the 100:1 Notification Surface to file a Form 7460-1 Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with FAA and provide a copy of the FAA determination to the City and the ALUC for f Orange County . •
Policy 3.3 Structures above 200 feet. For development projects that include structures higher than 200 feet above existing grade, the City shall inform the ALUC and submit materials to the ALUC for review. Proposed projects that would exceed a height of 200 feet above existing grade shall be required to file Form 7460-1 with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
'Policy 3.4 Heliport/helistop approval and requirements. Approve the development of a heliport or helistop only if it complies with the AELUP for Heliports. Ensure that each applicant seeking a conditional use permit or similar approval for the construction or operation of a heliport or helistop complies fully with the state permit procedure provided by law and with all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by the FAA, by Orange County ALUC, and by Caltrans/Division of Aeronautics. This requirement shall be in addition to all other City development requirements.
Policy 3.5 New residential units. Do not approve the construction of new residential units within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for the JFTB.
Policy 3.6 JFTB noise contours. Require the use of JFTB noise contours to ensure new 1 development is compatible with the noise environment.
Policy 3.7 Deed disclosure notice. Provide notice of airport in the vicinity where residential development is being proposed within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours for the I os ,\l,11111\"os Gener,ll PIJ.n
Grnwth Manc1gcmcnt Elcml'lll M.trch 2015
JFTB. Require that the following language be included as part of the Deed Disclosure Notice:
NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY
This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example: noise, vibration, or odors).
Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person.
You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you.
Los Alamitos General Pl.in 6
Regular City Council Agenda - August 21, 2023
Item 12A
ATTACHMENT 2
City of Los Alamitos
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: February 21, 2023 ITEM NUMBER: 10M
To: Mayor Tanya Doby & Members of the City Council
Presented By: Michael Daudt, City Attorney
Subject: Resolution No. 2023-04 - Notice of Intent to Overrule the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County Finding of Housing Element Inconsistency
SUMMARY
On January 19, 2022, the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (“ALUC”) reviewed the City’s General Plan Housing Element Update 2021-2029 6th Cycle and found the Housing Element Update to be inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for the Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos. The City Council will consider initiating the two-step process to overrule the ALUC determination in accordance with State Law.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-04 entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF LOS ALAMITOS, CALIFORNIA, MAKING DRAFT FINDINGS AND NOTIFYING THE
ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION AND THE STATE DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS OF THE CITY'S INTENTION TO FIND THAT THE GENERAL PLAN 2021- 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE
STATE AERONAUTICS ACT AND OVERRULE THE ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND
USE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION THAT THE HOUSING ELEMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE 2017 JOINT FORCES TRAINING BASE LOS ALAMITOS AIRPORT ENVIRONS LAND USE PLAN” and,
2.Authorize the City Manager to submit Resolution No. 2023-04 to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission and the State Division of Aeronautics and schedule a public hearing pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676.
BACKGROUND
The Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (“ALUC”) is an advisory committee established by State Law. (Public Utilities Code §§ 21670 et seq.). The ALUC is intended to assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of civilian and military airports. This is done primarily through their adoption of a land use compatibility plan, known as the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (“AELUP”) for the Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos (“JFTB”), against which land use and planning proposals are compared and evaluated for consistency. The AELUP includes a variety of information designed to help development surrounding the JFTB be compatible with the airport use, including heights, noise, and general safety.
Public Utilities Code (“PUC”) Section 21676(b) requires the City to submit General Plans and General Plan amendments to the ALUC for a consistency determination. On December 14, 2023, following a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to recommend City Council approval of the General Plan Housing Element Update 2021-2029 6th Cycle (“Housing Element Update”). Thereafter, City staff submitted the Housing Element Update to ALUC for a consistency determination.
DISCUSSION
ALUC Determination
The ALUC reviewed the proposed Housing Element Update on January 19, 2022. A copy of the ALUC agenda report is included as Attachment 1. City staff attended the meeting, and answered questions from the ALUC commissioners, primarily related to the potential housing sites identified at 4655 Lampson Avenue (Site 6) and 5030-5084 Katella (Site 10). After review and discussion, the ALUC voted 5-1 to find the Housing Element Update inconsistent with the AELUP based on noise, safety, and general concerns of land use incompatibility with the ALUC’s purposes and responsibilities, which are more broadly described below. The ALUC’s determination letter is included as Attachment 2.
Aircraft Noise Impacts
The AELUP uses the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) system for measuring noise impacts, which is a weighted average of noise over time. The potential housing sites identified at 4655 Lampson Avenue (Site 6) and 5030-5084 Katella (Site 10) are within the 60-65 dBA CNEL noise contour. The AELUP defines the noise exposure in the 60-65 dBA CNEL noise contour (Noise Impact Zone 2) as “Moderate Noise Impact” and in the 65-70 dBA CNEL noise contour (Noise Impact Zone 1) as “High Impact.” (AELUP Sections 3.2.3, 3.2.4.) Residential uses are identified as “conditionally consistent” for the 60-65 dBA CNEL noise contour and “normally inconsistent” for the 65-70 dBA CNEL noise contour (AELUP Section 3, Table 1 “Limitations on Land Use Due to Noise”). The City’s established policy is that residential units are not to be approved within the 65-70 dBA CNEL noise contour of the airport (Growth Management Element, Policy 3.5). Therefore, the City’s policy and the AELUP are consistent, and allow development of residential units in the 60-65 dBA CNEL noise contour. In addition, the AELUP states residential uses in the 60-65 dBA CNEL noise contour must use sound attenuation to ensure that the interior CNEL value does not exceed 45 dBA. This requirement is consistent with the California Building Code requirements enforced by the City to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dBA. Furthermore, the General Plan Growth Management Element Policy 3.7 requires a notice of airport be included as part of the Deed Disclosure Notice for any residential development proposed within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour for the JFTB, which is consistent with the AELUP.
Safety
AELUP Section 2.1.2 (Safety) describes accident potential zones and clear zones at the JFTB.
Accident potential and clear zones were set in 1994 and based on Department of Defense criteria. Prior to 1995, the ALUC utilized a 10-year accident history which found that the accident potential zone was located completely within the boundaries of JFTB, and no
additional accident potential zones are identified beyond the clear zones. No development is proposed by the Housing Element Update within the clear zones. The potential housing site identified as Laurel Park is not adjacent to the north departure path; it is located 1 mile northwest of the north end of the north departure runway and will not be impacted by noise or by aircraft operations.
Overrule Process
As a final review authority on legislative acts, the City Council may choose to overrule the ALUC's determination by following a two-step process, which is set forth in PUC Sections 21676 and 21676.5. The first step in the process is to adopt a resolution of intention to overrule, a copy of which would be sent to the ALUC and the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of Transportation to provide formal notification of the City's intent. A decision on overruling the ALUC cannot take place less than forty-five (45) days after notice of the City Council’s proposed action. The ALUC and Division of Aeronautics may provide comments to the City Council within 30 days of receiving the resolution of intention.
If comments from the ALUC and/or the Division of Aeronautics are not made available within this time frame, the City Council may act without them. Any comments by the ALUC and Division of Aeronautics are advisory to the Council and must be included in the public record of any final decision by the City Council to overrule the ALUC’s determination.
The second step in the process is that, not less than 45-days after notification has been sent to the ALUC and Division of Aeronautics, the City Council must conduct a public hearing, after which the City Council may decide whether to adopt a resolution to overrule the ALUC and make specific findings that the Housing Element Update is consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act, as set forth in PUC Section 21670.
If the City Council fails to overrule the ALUC’s inconsistency determination based on specific findings or fails to revise the Housing Element in accordance with the ALUC comments, then the ALUC may, pursuant to PUC Section 21676.5(a), require the City to submit all subsequent actions, regulations, and permits to the ALUC for review until the City overrules the determination or revises the Housing Element. If the ALUC then finds that an action, regulation, or permit is inconsistent with the AELUP, the City must then hold a hearing to reconsider. The City may then go through a similar overrule process.
However, under PUC Section 21676.5(b), if the City Council has overruled the ALUC or revised its Housing Element, the proposed action of the City shall not be subject to further ALUC review, unless the ALUC and the City agree that individual projects shall be reviewed by the ALUC.
The attached resolution notifies the ALUC and the Division of Aeronautics of the City's intent to conduct a public hearing and consider whether to adopt a resolution overruling the ALUC inconsistency determination. If the resolution of intention is adopted, the City Council would conduct the public hearing at a later date, at which time the City Council would consider all comments received, including from the ALUC and the Division of Aeronautics, and then make a decision. The resolution to overrule the ALUC at the future hearing must be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
Attachment: 1. Resolution No. 2023-06 - Notice of Intent to Overrule ALUC
2. ALUC Agenda Item 1_Jan 19, 2022
3. Housing Element ALUC Determination Letter (002)
CC RESO 2023-04
1752784.1
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-04
A RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LOS ALAMITOS, CALIFORNIA, MAKING DRAFT
FINDINGS AND NOTIFYING THE ORANGE COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION AND THE STATE
DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS OF THE CITY’S
INTENTION TO FIND THAT THE GENERAL PLAN 2021-
2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE STATE AERONAUTICS
ACT AND OVERRULE THE ORANGE COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION’S
DETERMINATION THAT THE HOUSING ELEMENT IS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE 2017 JOINT FORCES
TRAINING BASE LOS ALAMITOS AIRPORT ENVIRONS
LAND USE PLAN
WHEREAS, the State Housing Element Law, Article 10.6 of the California Government Code (Sections 65580 et seq.) requires each local jurisdiction to update its General Plan Housing Element every eight (8) years to reflect new statutory requirements and accommodate its share of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment Allocation (RHNA); and,
WHEREAS, the City of Los Alamitos prepared General Plan Amendment 21-01, an update to the Housing Element for the 2021-2029 period in accordance with the guidelines and requirements of State Housing Element Law (the “Housing Element Update”); and,
WHEREAS, on December 14, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing and recommended to the City Council the adoption of the Housing Element Update; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b), the City referred the Housing Element Update to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (“ALUC”) to review for consistency with the 2017 Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos Airport Environs Land Use Plan (“AELUP”); and, WHEREAS, on January 19, 2022, the ALUC, acting pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21670, determined that the Housing Element Update is inconsistent with the AELUP; and,
WHEREAS, as the final review authority under Public Utilities Code Sections 21670 and 21676, the City Council may, after a public hearing, overrule the ALUC by a two-thirds vote, if it makes specific findings that the Housing Element Update is consistent with the purposes of Public Utilities Code Section
CC RESO 2023-04
1752784.1
21670 regarding the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses; and by providing the ALUC and the Division of Aeronautics of the California Department of Transportation (“Division”) with notice of the City’s intent to consider overruling the ALUC determination along with specific findings at least 45 days prior to the City’s action to overrule the ALUC; and, WHEREAS, the Public Utilities Code provides that the ALUC and the Division shall respond to the notification of the findings of proposed overrule within 30 days of receiving the proposed resolution and findings; and, WHEREAS, in the event the ALUC or Division’s comments are not available within this timeframe, the City may act without them; and, WHEREAS, the comments by the ALUC and Division are advisory to the City under state law; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council shall include any comments from the ALUC and the Division in the final record of any final decision by the City Council to overrule the ALUC, which may only be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, the draft findings set forth in Section 2 of this resolution do not constitute the final findings of the City with regard to the Housing Element Update’s consistency with the purposes of Public Utilities Code Section 21670 and such draft findings may be revised, amended, and/or supplemented as part of any final decision to overrule the ALUC’s determination; and,
WHEREAS, should the City Council adopt this resolution making the draft findings and declaring its intent to consider overruling the ALUC determination that the Housing Element Update is inconsistent with the AELUP and directing staff to transmit the required notice to the ALUC and the Division, a public hearing will be required in order for the City Council to make a final decision whether to overrule the ALUC inconsistency determination.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS
ALAMITOS DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the above recitals are true and correct.
SECTION 2. The City Council declares its intent to conduct a public hearing and its intent to consider overruling the ALUC’s determination that the Housing Element Update is inconsistent with the AELUP based on the following draft findings:
CC RESO 2023-04
1752784.1
a. The 2017 Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos Airport Environs Land Use Plan (“AELUP”) of the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (“ALUC”) guides the orderly development of the Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos (“JFTB”) and the surrounding area through implementation of the standards in AELUP Section 2 (Planning Guidelines) and Section 3 (Land Use Policies). Implementation of these standards is intended to protect the public from the adverse effects of aircraft noise, ensure that people and facilities are not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, and ensure no structures or activities adversely affect navigable airspace.
b. AELUP Section 2.1.1 sets forth the Community Noise Equivalent Level (“CNEL”) standards. The Housing Element Update includes the identification of two (2) opportunity sites within the 60 dB CNEL contour for JFTB. No Housing Element Update opportunity sites are within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour.
c. Sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4, respectively, of the AELUP define the noise exposure in the 60-65 dBA CNEL noise contour (Noise lmpact Zone 2) as “Moderate Noise lmpact” and in the 65-70 dBA CNEL noise contour (Noise lmpact Zone 1) as “High lmpact.” Section 3, Table 1 (Limitations on Land Use Due to Noise) of the AELUP identifies residential as “conditionally consistent” with the 60-65 dBA CNEL noise contour and “normally inconsistent” with the 65-70 dBA CNEL noise contour. The City’s established policy is that residential units are not to be approved within the 65-70 dBA CNEL noise contour of the airport (Growth Management Element, Policy 3.5). Therefore, the City’s policy and the AELUP are consistent, and allow development of residential units in the 60-65 dBA CNEL noise contour. In addition, the AELUP states residential uses in the 60-65 dBA CNEL noise contour must use sound attenuation to ensure that the interior CNEL value does not exceed 45 dBA. This requirement is consistent with the California Building Code requirements enforced by the City to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dBA. Furthermore, the General Plan Growth Management Element Policy 3.7 requires a notice of airport be included as part of the Deed Disclosure Notice for any residential development proposed within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour for the JFTB, which is consistent with the AELUP.
d. The AELUP Section 2.1.2 (Safety) sets forth zones identified as accident potential zones and clear zones. No Housing Element Update opportunity sites are located within these identified areas. The opportunity site identified as Laurel Park is not adjacent to the north departure path; it is located 1 mile northwest of the north end of the north departure runway and will not be impacted by noise or by aircraft operations.
CC RESO 2023-04
1752784.1
e. The Housing Element Update is consistent with the purpose and intent of the AELUP and will not result in incompatible land uses adjacent to the JFTB. The standards and policies set forth in Sections 2 (Planning Guidelines) and 3 (Land Use Policies) of the AELUP were adopted to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems. As set forth above, any development on the proposed Housing Element Update opportunity sites will comply with the noise criteria and safety standards established in Sections 2 and 3 of the AELUP.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby directs City staff to provide notice, in accordance with Sections 21676(b) and 21676.5(a) of the Public Utilities Code, to the ALUC and Caltrans Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, of the City’s intent to overrule the ALUC’s determination of inconsistency for the Housing Element Update based on the above findings, at least 45 days prior to the scheduled public hearing date for consideration of the proposed overruling action by the City Council.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby further directs City staff to take all other actions necessary to effectuate the purpose and intent of this resolution.
SECTION 5. The City Council finds the adoption of this resolution is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Specifically, the resolution does not have the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment because it is limited to the City's proposal to overrule the ALUC's determination. The Housing Element Update has been independently reviewed and evaluated pursuant to CEQA.
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21st day of February 2023. ________________________________
Tanya Doby, Mayor
ATTEST:
CC RESO 2023-04
1752784.1
______________________________
Windmera Quintanar, MMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
Michael S. Daudt, City Attorney
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
CITY OF LOS ALAMITOS )
I, Windmera Quintanar, MMC, City Clerk, of the City of Los Alamitos, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 21st day of February, 2023, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
________________________________________
Windmera Quintanar, MMC, City Clerk
Regular City Council Agenda - August 21, 2023
Item 12A
ATTACHMENT 3
Regular City Council Agenda - August 21, 2023
Item 12A
ATTACHMENT 4
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”
DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS
P.O. BOX 942874, MS–40 | SACRAMENTO, CA 94274
(916) 654-4959 | FAX (916) 653-9531 TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
March 29, 2023
Mr. Ron Noda Electronically Sent
City of Los Alamitos
[email protected]
3191 Katella Ave,
Los Alamitos, CA 90720
Dear Mr. Noda,
Thank you for notifying the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (Division), of the proposed overrule by the City of Los Alamitos (City).
The Division has reviewed the proposed findings provided by the City and has determined the findings are insufficient to warrant this proposed overrule.
Specifically, the findings are inconsistent with the purposes of the statutes set forth in the California Public Utilities Code (PUC) section 21670. These findings do not provide substantial evidence that the proposed Project will meet the requirements of PUC statutes set forth in PUC section 21670. These findings do not provide substantial evidence that the proposed Project will meet the requirements of PUC, section 21670(a) (1) and (2).
The Division received an email notification that included City Resolution 2023-04 and draft findings, declaring an intent to consider overruling the Airport Land Use Commission’s (ALUC) inconsistency determination of the City’s Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update. The City presented a number of findings to demonstrate substantive compliance with the Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos Airport Environs Land Use Plan. The Division concurs with the ALUC’s determination that the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update is inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan.
The Division recognizes that the city is facing affordable housing supply shortages and is looking for new areas to accommodate residential developments. However, environmental justice and equity concerns should also be reviewed for consistency with goals identified in the California Transportation Plan of 2050 and the California Aviation System Plan of 2020. The Division notes that new laws regarding the provision of housing do not supersede existing laws, including Section 21670 of the California Public Utilities Code, which requires counties to establish ALUCs and compatibility plans to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
In addition, Section 21675.1(f) provides: If a city or county overrules the commission pursuant to subdivision(d) with respect to a publicly owned airport that the city or county does not operate, the operator of the airport is not liable for damages to
Mr. Ron Noda
March 29, 2023
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” property or personal injury resulting from the city’s or county’s decision to proceed with the action, regulation, or permit.
Please note: The Division comments are to be included in the public record of any decision to overrule the ALUC. If you have questions or if we may be of further assistance, please contact me by email at [email protected] or call (916) 879-6528
Sincerely,
Originally signed by
Jonathan Huff
Associate Transportation Planner
Division of Aeronautics
c: Julie Fitch, Land Use Manager, John Wayne Airport, Orange County, [email protected]
Matt Friedman, Chief, Office of Aviation Planning, Division of Aeronautics [email protected]
Attachment: ALUC Comments on Los Alamitos NOI Overrule.pdf
Regular City Council Agenda - August 21, 2023
Item 12A
ATTACHMENT 5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
May 1, 2023
Chet Simmons, City Manager
City of Los Alamitos
3191 Katella Ave.
Los Alamitos, CA, 90720
Dear Chet Simmons:
RE: City of Los Alamitos’ 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Adopted Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Los Alamitos’ housing element that was adopted February 21, 2023 and received for review on March 6, 2023. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (h), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. In addition, HCD considered comments from Carol A. Churchill pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).
HCD is pleased to find the adopted housing element in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code). The adopted element was found to be substantially the same as the revised draft element that HCD’s November 23, 2022 review determined met statutory requirements. HCD’s finding was based on, among other reasons, a completed rezone (Ordinance 2023-01) to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
Additionally, the City must continue timely and effective implementation of all programs including but not limited to the following:
• Policy Action 1.3 (Rehabilitation of Multifamily Dwellings): This program commits, by December 2022, to establish an incentive package to encourage the acquisition and rehabilitation of multifamily units.
• Policy Action 3.1 (Housing for Persons with Special Needs): This program commits, by June 30, 2023, to develop and publish a menu of incentives to support the development of housing for persons with special housing needs. • Policy Action 3.5 (Residential Care Facilities for Seven or More Persons): This program commits, by December 2022, to remove the conditional use permit requirement for residential care facilities in the R-3 zone and include another zone for by-right approval.
• Policy Action 4.1 (Incentives for Development of Housing): This program commits, by June 30, 2023, to provide incentive information to developers,
Chet Simmons, City Manager
annually meet with property owners to discuss available incentives, and identify development opportunities.
• Policy Action 4.4 (Create R-4 Zoning and Rezoning to Allow Higher Density):
This program committed, by October 15, 2022, to create the R-4 zone and rezone all properties designated in Table B-2.
• Policy Action 4.5 (Modify TCMU Zoning to Allow Higher Density): This program committed, by October 15, 2022, to modify the TCMU zone to allow up to 60 dwelling units per acre.
• Policy Action 4.9 (City-owned Parcels): This program commits to issue a request for proposals and secure contracts for City-Owned parcels. • Policy Action 4.11 (Multifamily Parking Requirements): The program commits to reduce parking requirements by 2024.
The City must monitor and report on the results of this and other programs through the annual progress report, required pursuant to Government Code section 65400. Please be aware, Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i) grants HCD authority to review any action or failure to act by a local government that it determines is inconsistent with an adopted housing element or housing element law. This includes failure to implement program actions included in the housing element. HCD may revoke housing element compliance if the local government’s actions do not comply with state law.
Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City now meets housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.
HCD appreciates the hard work and responsiveness the City’s housing element team provided throughout the housing element update and review. HCD wishes the City success in implementing its housing element and looks forward to following its progress through the General Plan annual progress reports pursuant to Government Code section 65400. If HCD can provide assistance in implementing the housing element, please contact Jose Ayala, of our staff, at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
Regular City Council Agenda - August 21, 2023
Item 12A
ATTACHMENT 6
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
2 5 0 E a s t 1 s t S t r e e t , S u i t e 1 4 0 0
Los Angeles, California 90012
213 7 8 8 4 8 4 2
i n f o @ r i n c o n c o n s u l t a n t s . c o m
w w w . r i n c o n c o n s u l t a n t s . c o m
June 26, 2023
Project No: 23-14681
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Principal
Terra Nova Planning & Research
42635 Melanie Place, Ste. 101
Palm Desert, CA 92211
760-341-4800
Via email: [email protected]
Subject: Los Alamitos Housing Element Aircraft Noise Study, Los Alamitos, California Dear Nicole:
Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) has prepared this technical memorandum to provide noise background and evaluation of potential aircraft noise exposure from the Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB) to future residents with implementation of the Los Alamitos 2021 – 2029 Housing Element (herein referred to as “proposed project” or “project”) in the City of Los Alamitos (City).
Description of Project
The 2021 – 2029 Housing Element Update identifies and analyzes the City’s existing and projected housing needs and contains goals, policies, objectives, and programs to address those needs. The Housing Element is one of seven mandatory elements of the General Plan. Section 65583 of the Government Code sets forth the specific requirements of a jurisdiction’s housing element. Included in these requirements are obligations of local jurisdictions to provide for their “fair share” of the regional housing needs. This fair share is determined though the Reginal Housing Needs Assessments (RHNA) process which, in Orange County, is facilitates by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). For the 2021 to 2029 planning period, the City was allocated a total of 769 housing units, including 194 for very-low income, 119 for low-income, 145 for moderate-income, and 311 for abovemoderate income households. The Draft Housing Element includes fourteen sites which are assigned 817 units to meet the City’s RHNA.
Fundamentals of Noise
Sound is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source, which is capable of being detected by the hearing organs. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. The effects of noise on people can include general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep disturbance, and, in the extreme, hearing impairment (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2013).
Human Perception of Sound
Noise levels are commonly measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA).
The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels so that they are consistent with the human hearing response. Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquake magnitudes. A doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dB; dividing the energy in half would result in a 3 dB decrease (Caltrans 2013).
Human perception of noise has no simple correlation with sound energy: the perception of sound is not linear in terms of dBA or in terms of sound energy. Two sources do not “sound twice as loud” as one source. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dBA, whether an increase or decrease (i.e., twice the sound energy); that a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible; and that an increase (or decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (half) as loud (Caltrans 2013).
Sound Propagation and Shielding
Sound changes in both level and frequency spectrum as it travels from the source to the receiver. The most obvious change is the decrease in the noise level as the distance from the source increases. The manner by which noise reduces with distance depends on factors such as the type of sources (e.g., point or line), the path the sound will travel, site conditions, and obstructions.
Sound levels are described as either a “sound power level” or a “sound pressure level,” which are two distinct characteristics of sound. Both share the same unit of measurement, the dB. However, sound power (expressed as Lpw) is the energy converted into sound by the source. As sound energy travels through the air, it creates a sound wave that exerts pressure on receivers, such as an eardrum or microphone, which is the sound pressure level. Sound measurement instruments only measure sound pressure, and noise level limits are typically expressed as sound pressure levels.
Noise levels from a point source (e.g., construction, industrial machinery, air conditioning units) typically attenuate, or drop off, at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise from a line source (e.g., roadway, pipeline, railroad) typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance (Caltrans 2013).
Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; the amount of attenuation provided by this “shielding” depends on the size of the object and the frequencies of the noise levels. Natural terrain features, such as hills and dense woods, and man-made features, such as buildings and walls, can significantly alter noise levels. Generally, any large structure blocking the line of sight will provide at least a 5-dBA reduction in source noise levels at the receiver (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] 2011). Structures can substantially reduce exposure to noise as well. The FHWA’s guidance indicates that modern building construction generally provides an exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of 10 dBA with open windows and an exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of 20 to 35 dBA with closed windows (FHWA 2011).
Descriptors
The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs and the duration of the noise are also important factors of project noise impact. Most noise that lasts for more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors have been developed. The noise descriptors used for this study are the equivalent noise level (Leq), Day-Night Average Level (DNL; may also be symbolized as Ldn), and the community noise equivalent level (CNEL; may also be symbolized as Lden).
Leq is one of the most frequently used noise metrics; it considers both duration and sound power level.
The Leq is defined as the single steady-state A-weighted sound level equal to the average sound energy over a time period. When no time period is specified, a 1-hour period is assumed. The Lmax is the highest noise level within the sampling period, and the Lmin is the lowest noise level within the measuring period.
Normal conversational levels are in the 60 to 65-dBA Leq range; ambient noise levels greater than 65 dBA Leq can interrupt conversations (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2018).
Noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that occurring during the day. Community noise is usually measured using Day-Night Average Level (Ldn), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). Community noise can also be measured using Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL or LDEN), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a +5 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Caltrans 2013).1 The relationship between the peak-hour Leq value and the Ldn/CNEL depends on the distribution of noise during the day, evening, and night; however noise levels described by Ldn and CNEL usually differ by 1 dBA or less. Quiet suburban areas typically have CNEL noise levels in the range of 40 to 50 CNEL, while areas near arterial streets are in the 50 to 60+ CNEL range (FTA 2018).
Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive land uses are uses that have associated human activities that may be subject to stress or significant interference from noise, such as residences, schools, childcare facilities, religious institutions, hospitals, libraries, parks and recreational facilities, health care facilities, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. Various standards have been developed to address the compatibility of land uses with noise levels. The standards place special emphasis on land uses that are considered sensitive to high noise levels. Sensitive land uses in the City of Los Alamitos includes residential, churches, hospitals, institutional and recreational uses, and open space areas. Two housing sites of the Housing Element, Site 6 at 4655 Lampson Avenue and Site 10 at 5030 – 5084 Katella Avenue, are within the JFTB 60 CNEL contour according to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Airport Environs Land Use Plan (i.e., the ambient noise environment is 60 to 64 CNEL), as shown in Figure 1. 1 Because Ldn and CNEL are typically used to assess human exposure to noise, the use of A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA) is implicit. Therefore, when expressing noise levels in terms of Ldn or CNEL, the dBA unit is not needed.
Figure 1 Joint Forces Training Base Noise Contours and Housing Sites 6 and 10
Regulatory Setting
City of Los Alamitos
The City’s General Plan Public Facilities and Safety Element contains the following goals and policies which are relevant to the project:
▪ Policy 4.1 Land use compatibility - Approve development and require mitigation measures to ensure existing and future land use compatibility as shown in the City’s Noise Ordinance, the Land Use and Noise Compatibility Matrix, the State Interior and Exterior Noise Standards, and the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for the JFTB.
▪ Policy 4.6 Aircraft noise - Work with the JFTB and the Long Beach Airport (LGB) to minimize the noise impact of small aircraft and helicopters on residential neighborhoods.
For the purposes of assessing the compatibility of noise-sensitive land uses and their surrounding noise environment, the City uses the Land Use and Noise Compatibility Matrix from the General Plan, which shows that residential uses are Normally Compatible up to 65 CNEL (Los Alamitos 2015). In this area, new construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined.
Orange County Airport Land Use Commission
The Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos contains noise standards pursuant to the suitability of noise-sensitive land uses exposed to aircraft noise. Table 1 shows the ALUC noise standards.
Table 1 ALUC Noise Standards
LAND USE CATEGORY
COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL dB
55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential (all types):
Single and Multi-Family Residences
Community Facilities:
Churches, Libraries, Schools,
Preschools, Day-Care Centers,
Hospitals, Nursing/Convalescent
Homes, & Other noise sensitive uses
Commercial:
Retail, Office
Industrial:
NORMALLY CONSISTENT
Conventional construction methods used. No special noise reduction requirements.
CONDITIONALLY CONSISTENT
Must use sound attenuation as required by the California Noise Insulation Standards, Title 25, California Code of Regulations.
Residential use sound attenuation required to ensure that the interior CNEL does not exceed 45 dB. Commercial and industrial structures shall be sound attenuated to meet Noise Impact Zone “1” criteria (refer to Section 3.2.3).
NORMALLY INCONSISTENT
All residential units are inconsistent unless sound attenuated to ensure that the interior CNEL does not exceed 45 dB, and that all units are indoor oriented so as to preclude noise impingement on outdoor living areas.
As show in Table 1, residential uses are considered Conditionally Consistent up to 65 CNEL and must use sound attenuation to meet the State interior noise requirement of 45 CNEL.
California Building Code
California Code of Regulations Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, Chapter 12, and the California Building Code codify the State noise insulation standards. These noise standards apply to new construction in California to control interior noise levels as they are affected by exterior noise sources and interior noise sources from separate areas. The regulations specify that interior noise levels shall not exceed 45 CNEL in any habitable room.
Existing Noise Setting
The Los Alamitos JFTB is an active military installation and airfield that provides support and training facilities for military units and other national, state, and local organizations, including emergency operations. The Los Alamitos JFTB is home to an Army Aviation Support Facility and the California Army National Guard, as well as other units not related to aviation. The Los Alamitos JFTB may cause occasional noise intrusion from military aircraft at proposed Housing Sites 6 and 10. As discussed above, Housing Sites 6 and 10 are within the JFTB 60 CNEL contour. For comparison, existing noise levels along major roadways in the city are shown in Table 2. In all three cases, residential units are located on these roadways, and are experiencing noise levels substantially higher than the 60 – 64 CNEL identified by ALUC.
Table 2 City of Los Alamitos Ambient Noise Levels
Roadway Segment Noise Level (CNEL)
Los Alamitos Boulevard Farquhar Avenue to
Orangewood Avenue
76.1 Katella Avenue I-605 to Los Alamitos
Boulevard
78.3 Cerritos Avenue Los Alamitos Boulevard to
Bloomfield Street
71.1 Source: Los Alamitos 2015.
In addition, based on a noise survey conducted for the General Plan where aircraft overflights were present, short-term noise measurements indicate that at approximately 1,300 feet from the JFTB runway, noise levels were 52 dBA Leq and up to 70.3 dBA Lmax (Los Alamitos 2014). At another site approximately 1,400 feet from the JFTB runway, noise levels were 48.3 dBA Leq and up to 61.2 dBA Lmax.
For perspective, Housing Sites 6 and 10 are approximately 1,825 feet and 1,650 feet from the nearest runway, respectively.
As discussed, Housing Sites 6 and 10 are within the JFTB 60 CNEL contour, according to the ALUC Airport Environs Land Use Plan. Therefore, future residential development in these areas would be considered Normally Compatible by the City and Conditionally Consistent by the ALUC. It is worth noting that existing noise levels along major roadways in the City, as shown in Table 2, are substantially greater than noise levels expected at future residences of Housing Sites 6 and 10 of up to 64 CNEL due to aircraft noise. It should also be noted that there are already existing residences located closer to the JFTB south of proposed Housing Site 10, which are exposed to higher aircraft noise levels than would be experienced at Housing Site 10. It is also worth noting that some smaller airports do not include 60 CNEL in their noise contour maps; they begin with 65 CNEL (e.g., Torrance Municipal Airport, Hawthorne Municipal Airport, and Oxnard Airport). The City is not aware of extensive aircraft noise complaints and, “the current activities of the base generally do not disturb the surrounding civilian areas” (Los Alamitos 2015). While JFTB activity and related noise may increase on the weekends, individual overflight events are intermittent and, according to the ALUC Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos, current and projected airfield operations at the JFTB are less than 10 jets or 25 propeller-driven aircraft on an average busy day (ALUC 2017). Therefore, aircraft noise exposure at Housing Sites 6 and 10 would be periodic and intermittent in nature, and future residents would not be exposed to constant aircraft overflight noise. Finally, it is worth noting that both the 2022 and 2015 JFTB noise contour figures (Attachments 4 and 5 to the City of Los Alamitos Request for Consideration of Draft Housing Element Update (2021 – 2029) from January 19, 2023, by the ALUC), appear to show that neither Housing Site 6 nor Housing Site 10 are located within the 60 CNEL contour, with the contours from 2022 being more recent than those contained in the ALUC Airport Environs Land Use Plan from 2017.
Aircraft Noise Mitigation
Since Housing Sites 6 and 10 would be considered Normally Compatible by the City and Conditionally Consistent by the ALUC, a design-level acoustical study should be prepared for any future residential development at these sites to demonstrate that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 CNEL in habitable rooms. However, based on the noise attenuation described above, a reduction of 20 to 35 dBA with
windows closed would mean that interior noise levels on Sites 6 and 10 would be expected to reduce interior noise levels below 45 CNEL if the following design considerations are implemented:
1. Provide mechanical ventilation so that windows may be left closed by occupants. This can be achieved passively with z-ducts, fresh air ducts, or an approved equal.
2. Exterior walls shall meet a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of at least 46. One method to achieve this would be standard exterior walls with 6-inch studs, R-13 insulation or thicker, a minimum 7/8-inch exterior surface stucco plaster, and interior finish with 5/8-inch drywall.
3. All windows shall be rated STC 26 (assumed to be standard dual-pane windows required per Title 24 energy standards) or higher.
4. All exterior balcony doors shall be rated STC 26 or higher.
5. All entry doors shall be insulated against weather and sound with nonporous seals. Caulk entry door thresholds as they are placed.
6. Use permanently nonhardening sealant around perimeters of window frames.
7. Window assemblies shall be constructed with effective nonporous gaskets or weatherstripping to minimize air infiltration and sound leakage.
8. Provide airtight construction at all exterior walls with acoustical or other nonhardening sealant at floor plates.
9. Use door jamb and head gasketing and door bottom gasketing at entry doors to seal the solid core doors against weather and sound.
The acoustical study shall also specify any additional roof construction material specifications beyond standard roofing, truss or joists, insultation and gypsum board that may be necessary to ensure an interior noise environment of 45 CNEL or less.
Finally, it is recommended that future tenants and prospective buyers at Housing Sites 6 and 10 be notified in the rental, lease, or purchase agreement and disclosures that the area may be subject to elevated aircraft noise levels at times and that it is within the 60 CNEL contour of the JFTB. * * *
This concludes our findings of aircraft-related noise from the JFTB affecting proposed Housing Sites 6 and 10 and our recommendations for aircraft noise mitigation at future housing developments in these areas. Please do not hesitate to let us know if you have any questions about the findings of this letter report.
Sincerely,
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
Josh Carman, INCE-USA
Director
References
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. (CT-HWANP-RT-13-069.25.2).
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2011. Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance (FHWA-HEP-10-025).
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
Los Alamitos, City of. 2014. Los Alamitos General Plan Update Draft EIR.
Los Alamitos, City of. 2015. Los Alamitos General Plan.
Orange County Airport Land Use Commission. 2017. Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Information on levels of environmental noise requisite to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. Report No. 550/9-74-004 March 1974.
Regular City Council Agenda - August 21, 2023
Item 12A
ATTACHMENT 7
Site 7 Location
Relationship to Flight Paths
Regular City Council Agenda - August 21, 2023
Item 12A
ATTACHMENT 8
Regular City Council Agenda - August 21, 2023
Item 12A
ATTACHMENT 9
CC RESO 2023-__
1784347.1
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-__
A RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LOS ALAMITOS, CALIFORNIA, MAKING FINDINGS
THAT THE GENERAL PLAN 2021-2029 HOUSING
ELEMENT UPDATE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
PURPOSES OF THE STATE AERONAUTICS ACT AND
OVERRULING THE ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND
USE COMMISSION’S DETERMINATION THAT THE
HOUSING ELEMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE 2017
JOINT FORCES TRAINING BASE LOS ALAMITOS
AIRPORT ENVIRONS LAND USE PLAN
WHEREAS, the State Housing Element Law, Article 10.6 of the California Government Code (Sections 65580 et seq.) requires each local jurisdiction to update its General Plan Housing Element every eight (8) years to reflect new statutory requirements and accommodate its share of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment Allocation (RHNA); and,
WHEREAS, the City of Los Alamitos prepared General Plan Amendment 21-01, an update to the Housing Element for the 2021-2029 period in accordance with the guidelines and requirements of State Housing Element Law (the “Housing Element Update”); and,
WHEREAS, on December 14, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing and recommended to the City Council the adoption of the Housing Element Update; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b), the City referred the Housing Element Update to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (“ALUC”) to review for consistency with the 2017 Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos Airport Environs Land Use Plan (“AELUP”); and, WHEREAS, on January 19, 2023, the ALUC, acting pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21670, determined that the Housing Element Update is inconsistent with the AELUP; and,
WHEREAS, as the final review authority under Public Utilities Code Sections 21670 and 21676, the City Council may, after a public hearing, overrule the ALUC by a two-thirds vote, after providing the ALUC and the Division of Aeronautics of the California Department of Transportation (“Division”) with notice of the City’s intent to consider overruling the ALUC determination along with specific findings at least 45 days prior to the City’s action to overrule the ALUC; and,
CC RESO 2023-04
1784347.1
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, and following public testimony, and based on the whole of the record, adopted Resolution 2023-04, making draft findings in support of overruling the ALUC’s determination and directing staff to send a Notice of Intent to Overrule the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission to the Airport Land Use Commission and to the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (Caltrans); and,
WHEREAS, the ALUC and Caltrans provided written comments on March 28 and 29, 2023, respectively; and,
WHEREAS, the comments by the ALUC and Division are advisory to the City under state law; and,
WHEREAS, the City has included comments from the ALUC and the Division in the final record of any final decision by the City Council to overrule the ALUC; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has supplemented the record with additional analysis provided in the staff report dated July 17, 2023 and all of its attachments, including expert analysis by a registered noise engineer; and, WHEREAS, as the final review authority under Public Utilities Code Sections 21670 and 21676, the City Council may, after a public hearing, overrule the ALUC by a two-thirds vote, if it makes specific findings that the Housing Element Update is consistent with the purposes of Public Utilities Code Section 21670 regarding the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses; and,
WHEREAS, the findings set forth in Section 2 of this resolution have been analyzed and supported by substantial evidence in the record; and, WHEREAS, on July 17, 2023, the City Council conducted a study session and held a duly noticed public hearing, and upon hearing all public testimony, continued the public hearing to the August 21, 2023 regular meeting of the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, and upon hearing all public testimony, closed the public hearing and considered the entirety of the record in its deliberations.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS
ALAMITOS DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
CC RESO 2023-04
1784347.1
SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the above recitals are true and correct.
SECTION 2. The City Council finds that the General Plan 2021-2029 Housing Element (6th Cycle) Update is consistent with the purposes of California Public Utilities Code Section 21670 and the AELUP of protecting the public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses, based on the following findings:
a. The 2017 Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos Airport Environs Land Use Plan (“AELUP”) of the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (“ALUC”) guides the orderly development of the Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos (“JFTB”) and the surrounding area through implementation of the standards in AELUP Section 2 (Planning Guidelines) and Section 3 (Land Use Policies). Implementation of these standards is intended to protect the public from the adverse effects of aircraft noise, ensure that people and facilities are not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, and ensure no structures or activities adversely affect navigable airspace.
Neither Site 6 nor Site 10 is located in an area where excessive noise will occur, and both sites are predicted to have noise levels under 65 dBA CNEL, which can be reduced to 45 dBA CNEL or less for interior spaces with the application of standard construction methods. These noise levels are considered acceptable for residential land uses in both the City’s General Plan and ALUC’s Land Use Plan. Site 7 does not occur in either an airport Clear Zone or under a flight path. No structure built on any of the Housing Element’s Inventory Sites can interfere with navigable airspace because the City’s Zoning standards allow buildings well below the FAA’s building height limits. Therefore, the Housing Element will not result in adverse effects to the public from airport or aircraft operations. b. AELUP Section 2.1.1 sets forth the Community Noise Equivalent Level (“CNEL”) standards. The Housing Element Update includes the identification of two (2) opportunity sites within the 60 dB CNEL contour for JFTB. No Housing Element Update opportunity sites are within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour.
c. Sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4, respectively, of the AELUP define the noise exposure in the 60-65 dBA CNEL noise contour (Noise lmpact Zone 2) as “Moderate Noise lmpact” and in the 65-70 dBA CNEL noise contour (Noise lmpact Zone 1) as “High lmpact.” Section 3, Table 1 (Limitations on Land Use Due to Noise) of the AELUP identifies residential as “conditionally consistent” with the 60-65 dBA CNEL noise contour and “normally inconsistent” with the 65-70 dBA CNEL noise contour. The City’s established policy is that residential units are not to be approved within the
CC RESO 2023-04
1784347.1
65-70 dBA CNEL noise contour of the airport (Growth Management Element, Policy 3.5). Therefore, the City’s policy and the AELUP are consistent, and allow development of residential units in the 60-65 dBA CNEL noise contour. In addition, the AELUP states residential uses in the 60-65 dBA CNEL noise contour must use sound attenuation to ensure that the interior CNEL value does not exceed 45 dBA. This requirement is consistent with the California Building Code requirements enforced by the City to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dBA. Furthermore, the General Plan Growth Management Element Policy 3.7 requires a notice of airport be included as part of the Deed Disclosure Notice for any residential development proposed within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour for the JFTB, which is consistent with the AELUP.
The City’s and ALUC’s standards are consistent, and the City has demonstrated that residential development can be mitigated to assure that noise levels at new residential developments on Sites 6 and 10, as everywhere in the City, can be reduced to 65 dBA CNEL exterior, and 45 dBA interior with the application of standard mitigation measures, including setbacks, walls, landscaping and standard construction methods. The Housing Element will not result in the exposure of residents to unacceptable noise levels, and will not negatively impact the public health, safety or welfare of residents of Los Alamitos.
d. The AELUP Section 2.1.2 (Safety) sets forth zones identified as accident potential zones and clear zones. No Housing Element Update opportunity sites are located within these identified areas. The opportunity site identified as Laurel Park is not adjacent to the north departure path; it is located 1 mile northwest of the north end of the north departure runway and will not be impacted by noise or by aircraft operations.
Site 7 is not located within an airport Clear Zone, and does not occur under any of the flight paths identified in the ALUC Land Use Plan. There will be no greater hazard to safety of residents on Site 7 than there would be on any other property over which aircraft operate in Orange County. Therefore, the Housing Element will not result in a hazard to public safety, nor will future development on the site impact airport operations. e. The Housing Element Update is consistent with the purpose and intent of the AELUP and will not result in incompatible land uses adjacent to the JFTB. The standards and policies set forth in Sections 2 (Planning Guidelines) and 3 (Land Use Policies) of the AELUP were adopted to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems. As set forth above, any development on the proposed Housing Element Update opportunity sites will comply with the noise criteria and safety standards established in Sections 2 and 3 of the AELUP.
SECTION 3. The City Council finds the adoption of this resolution is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Sections