Placentia City Council
September 5, 2023

BACKGROUND:

PMC Section 22.80.010(a) requires a Parcel Map for all subdivisions of four (4) or fewer parcels and PMC Section 22.80.060(c) requires that the Planning Commission take action to recommend to the City Council conditional approval or denial of the subdivision map. At the Planning Commission meeting held July 11, 2023, the Planning Commission voted 6-0-1-0, to recommend approval of TPM 2023-113 to the City Council.

DISCUSSION:

The subject site is located in the easterly portion of the city, east of Rose Drive, south of Yorba Linda Boulevard near the intersection of Vina Del Mar Avenue and Lasterbrook Street. The parcel has historically been utilized for oil production and is within the R-1 (Single -Family Residential Zoning District. The parcel directly to the south of the site is a vacant parcel that is within the City of Yorba Linda city limits. Access to the parcel is from Vina Del Mar Avenue and the property has an existing block wall around the perimeter of the site. The Parcel Map will subdivide the existing 17,424 square foot lot into two (2) Tots:

Parcel Lot Size
No. (square feet)
1 10,202 sq. ft.
2 10,271 sq. ft.

Minimum Lot
Size
Required in
R-1
7,000 sq. ft.
7,000 sq. ft.

Lot Width Minimum Lot
Width
Required in
R-1
102 feet 70 feet

91.70 feet 70 feet

City Council Agenda
September 5, 2023

L.

H •'
-
— __16L
A "EL A`iEN,.E
PARCEL 2
r sa
4+� 8
1=)A'R CEL 1,r
'0.142 2r- \ _on x
E.n a-
4,,
MK: -
..r.V3rE 40,V',.•.0,05L, ,0000 ,.010 *0/1 I
,`.,.{ 4 +._IN92. C.r' LIVTS---
4F.

PL.7.1t
Th. I:R 0
Proposed Lot 1 is located on the
westerly side of the parcel. There is
an existing abandoned oil well on the
southern portion of lot 1. The
proposed lot size is well above the
minimum lot size required in the R-1
Zone at 10,202 -square feet and
surpasses the minimum width
requirement with a width of 102 feet.

There are single family homes on the
east and west side of the parcel. To
the south of both Parcel 1 and 2 is a
vacant parcel that is an extension of
the abandoned oil well property, but
this is a separate vacant parcel and
within the City of Yorba Linda city
limits.

Proposed Lot 2 is located on the
easterly side of the parcel and meets
minimum lot and width size
requirements. The lot will be 10,271 -
square feet, with a width of 91.70
feet. The southeastern corner of this lot has a 65'x17' finger that extends easterly, terminating on the southern side of an adjacent existing single-family property.

Subiect Site and Surrounding Land Uses:

The subject site is located within an existing single-family residential district on the south side of Vina Del Mar Avenue. The table below shows surrounding existing land uses, zoning, and General Plan designations. The site contains an abandoned oil well on what is proposed as "Lot 1". When the subject site is developed, the future applicant will submit certification that the well was abandoned pursuant to CALGEM standards and requirements, as well as to Fire Department regulations, as currently conditioned by the attached Resolution.

Surrounding Land Uses:

Location Existing Land
Use
Subject Site Vacant
North, East, & Single -Family
West Residential
South Single -Family
Residential
General Plan Land Use
Element Designation
Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential

CITY OF YORBA LINDA
Zoning Map
Designation
R-1 (Single Family
Residential)
R-1 (Single Family
Residential)
N/A

City Council Agenda
September 5, 2023

ENVIRONMENTAL:

The proposed application was reviewed by staff in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq., the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 C.C.R. §§ 15000 et seq., and the Environmental Guidelines of the City of Placentia. Staff recommends and the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council exercise its independent judgment and find that TPM 2023-113 is exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15315 (Class 15 - Minor Land Divisions), as it applies to the division of property in urbanized areas zoned for residential use into four or fewer parcels, the division is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous 2 years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent.

CONCLUSION:

The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan and meets the minimum development standards of the PMC. The Planning Commission voted 6-0-1-0 to recommend approval of TPM 2023-113, with conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision located within the existing R-1 District will be compatible with adjacent land uses and will not result in any adverse impacts to the surrounding area.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Pursuant to PMC Chapter 5.02 all new development is subject to Citywide Development Impact Fees. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map will result in two (2) additional lots that will be eligible for development. Based on the zoning designation, one single family residence can be developed on the resulting new lots of parcels 1 and 2. The subsequent construction of two (2) new homes will result in approximately $46,798 of total Development Impact Fee revenue. It should be noted that future construction will also require payment of user fees such as building plan check and building permit fees.

Prepared
Liesley
W ittaker
Asia Planner
Reviewed and approved:

Jennifer Lampman
Director of Finance
Reviewed and approved:

Joseph N% Lambert
Director of Development Services
Reviewed and approved:

Damien R. Arrula
City Administrator

City Council Agenda
September 5, 2023

Attachments:

1. Resolution No. R-2023-73 Related to TPM 2023-113
Attachment A: Conditions of Approval for TPM 2023-113

2. TPM 2023-113 Tentative Parcel Map

3. Vicinity/Zoning Map

4. Site Photos

RESOLUTION NO. R-2023-73

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

PLACENTIA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A CATEGORICAL

EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
§§ 21000-21177 AND §15000 ET SEQ. OF TITLE 14 OF THE

CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS) (CEQA) AND
APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (TPM) 2023-113

PERTAINING TO THE SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY LOCATED
ADJACENT TO 1278 VINA DEL MAR (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NUMBER 341-022-10) AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT

THEREOF
A. Recitals.

WHEREAS, On July 11, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Placentia conducted, and concluded, a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, recommending to the City Council of the City of Placentia, approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 2023-113 for the property located adjacent to 1278 Vina Del Mar Avenue (Assessor's Parcel Number 341-022-10).

WHEREAS, The Planning Commission heard testimony, received a report and other relevant information from City staff and members of the public including Thomas King, the Project Engineer, on behalf of the Property Owner/Applicant, David Renton ("Applicant" hereinafter), regarding a Tentative Parcel Map application.

WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

B. Resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLACENTIA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.

Section 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this City Council with regard to the Application, including written staff reports, verbal testimony and development plans, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The proposed project will not be: (1) detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working within the neighborhood of the proposed development or within the city, or (2) injurious to the property or improvements within the neighborhood or within the city. The subject subdivision is not Resolution R-2023-73

ATTACHMENT 1

likely to cause serious public health problems. Subject to compliance with the attached Conditions of Approval set forth in Attachment "1.A." of the staff report (Attachment A to this Resolution) and by this reference incorporated herein and Standard Development Requirements, the project complies with all applicable code requirements and development standards of the (R-1) Low Density Residential Zoning District and Title 22, and with other applicable regulations of the Placentia Municipal Code (PMC). b. The proposed use is consistent with the City's General Plan.

The General Plan Land Use designation for the subject site low-density residential, and the proposed use does not involve any change in the allowable land use of the subject site. The proposed project involves the subdivision of a 0.47 -acre parcel into two single family residential parcels consistent with the (R-1) Low Density Single Family Residential Zoning District and the General Plan. Therefore, the site is physically suitable for the proposed type and density of development.
c. The proposed project as presented in the staff report and accompanying plans complies with all requirements of Chapter 23.12 of the PMC. City Staff carefully examined the proposed subdivision against the applicable development regulations prescribed in Title 23 (Zoning Ordinance) and determined it to be in substantial compliance. The proposed subdivision includes Conditions of Approval and Standard Development Requirements to ensure full compliance with applicable code requirements and to ensure full compliance with the General Plan, and with applicable design improvements required therein.
d. Conditions necessary to secure the purposes of this section, including guarantees and evidence of compliance with conditions are made part of this Tentative Parcel Map approval. Attachment "1.A" of the staff report (Attachment A to this Resolution) contain Conditions of Approval and Standard Development requirements specific to this application in order to provide assurances that the proposed subdivision and related on and off-site improvements are in compliance with applicable requirements of the PMC.
e. That the proposed map is consistent with the General Plan and with all provisions of Title 22 of the PMC. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map application is to subdivide an existing 0.47 acre parcel into two single family residential lots. The proposed map is consistent with all polices, programs, and goals of the General Plan.
f. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. As part of the review of the application, an extensive record research was completed. Additionally, the application submitted a preliminary title report with their application.
g. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially Resolution R-2023-73

ATTACHMENT 1

and avoidably injure wildlife or their habitat. The subject site is an underutilized property that only has limited vegetation. There are no known areas within the City that host wildlife or their habitat.

Section 3. a. The City Council of the City of Placentia finds that TPM 2023-113 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq., the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 C.C.R. §§ 15000 et seq., and the Environmental Guidelines of the City of Placentia pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines § 15315 (Class 15 — Minor Land Divisions) as this subdivision will result in the division of property in an urbanized area zoned for residential use into four or fewer parcels, the division is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous 2 years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent; b. The City Council finds and determines that, based upon the findings set forth above and below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur; and
c. The City Council finds that facts supporting the above-specified findings are contained in the staff report and exhibits, and the information provided during the public hearing conducted with respect to the Application.

Section 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth herein, the City Council hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map 2023-113, as modified herein, and specifically subject to the conditions set forth in Attachment "1.A." of the staff report (Attachment A to this Resolution) attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.

PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED this 5t" day of September 2023.

Ward Smith, Mayor
ATTEST:

Robert S. McKinnell, City Clerk
Resolution R-2023-73

ATTACHMENT 1

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF ORANGE
I, Robert S. McKinnell, City Clerk of the City of Placentia, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Placentia, held on the 5th day of September 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Councilmembers:

Councilmembers:

Councilmembers:

Councilmembers:

Robert S. McKinnell, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Christian Bettenhausen, City Attorney
Resolution R-2023-73

ATTACHMENT 1

Attachment A
Special Conditions of Approval for
Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 2023-113
Vina Del Mar Avenue (APN: 341-022-10)

SPECIAL CONDITIONS
If the above referenced application is approved, applicant and/or property owner shall comply with the Special Conditions listed below and the Standard Development Requirements attached.

ALL OF THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND STANDARD

DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE FULLY COMPLIED WITH FOR THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO CONTINUE IN GOOD STANDING.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT — PLANNING DIVISION:

1. Failure to abide by and faithfully comply with any and all conditions attached to this action shall constitute grounds for revocation or amendment of said actions by the City of Placentia Planning Commission.

2. The applicant shall, as a condition of project approval, at its sole expense, defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents and consultants from any claim, action, proceeding, liability or judgment against the City, its officers, employees, agents and/or consultants, which action seeks to set aside, void, annul or otherwise challenge any approval by the City Council, Planning Commission, or other City decision-making body or City staff action concerning applicant's project.

The applicant shall pay the City's defense costs, including attorney fees and all other litigation -related expenses, and shall reimburse the City for any and all court costs, which the City may be required to pay as a result of such defense. The applicant shall further pay any adverse financial award which may issue against the City including but not limited to any award of attorney fees to a party challenging such project approval. The City shall retain the right to select its counsel of choice in any action referred to herein. The City agrees to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim filed against the City and to fully cooperate in the defense of any such action.

3. Approval of TPM 2023-113 and the resulting Final Map is contingent upon City Council approval.

4. TPM 2023-113 shall expire twenty-four (24) months after City Council approval or conditional approval if a final map is not recorded. Upon written request by the developer the time limit may be extended an additional twelve (12) months by City Council.

5. The developer/owner of each resulting lot shall be required to join any applicable Homeowner's Association (HOA) that the properties fall within the boundaries of.

6. The resulting 2 lots shall require a minimum of 6 foot tall block wall along the sides and rear lot lines of resulting Lot 1 and Lot 2. If feasible, the existing wall or portions of that wall may be utilized, or a new wall(s) shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director.

7. The developer/owner of each resulting lot shall require HOA (if applicable) review of any landscape or wall/fence plans.

8. A final map shall be prepared by or under the direction of a registered Civil Engineer or licensed land surveyor in the State, as provided for in the Business and Professions Code.

9. TPM 2023-113 and the related Final Map shall comply with the applicable requirements of Title 22 Subdivisions of the Placentia Municipal Code.

10. Any modifications to the approved TPM and any modifications which will change, expand or intensify the use shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Development Services. The Director of Development Services or his or her designee may determine if such modifications require approval by the Placentia Planning Commission or may be approved administratively by City staff.

11. Prior to final release of any future buildings for occupancy, all Special Conditions of Approval and Standard Development Requirements shall have been completed and final inspections approved.

12. Prior to the development of the parcels, the Applicant will provide certification of well abandonment from CALGEM (California Geologic Energy Management Division) and any mitigation measures needed for development atop and/or in proximity of any oil wells.

13. The developer/builder shall submit plans to Development Services for a Site Plan Review (SPR) for any proposed homes on Lot 1 and/or Lot 2.

14. Applicant/builder is responsible, at its sole cost and expense, to cause all cable, telephone, electrical, and other utility services serving the property to be placed underground within the subject site. Prior to the issuance of building permits, applicant/builder shall submit a separate utility plan for each such utility service. The utility plan shall indicate the precise location of where all cable, telephone, electrical, and other utility services serving the property will be placed underground within the subject site, as well as the points of connection at the proposed building or buildings on the site and the public right-of-way. Prior to the submittal of the utility plans to the City, the plans shall be reviewed and approved by the utility companies. Evidence of approvals shall be in the form of a signed and dated approval stamp and/or approval letter. If the precise locations of future utility services cannot be reasonably Resolution No. PC -2023-13

ascertained prior to the issuance of building permits, upon prior written approval of the Director of Development Services, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

Applicant/builder shall provide the City with "as built" plans showing the precise locations where all cable, telephone, electrical, and other utility services serving the property were placed underground within the subject site, as well as the points of connection at the building or buildings on the site and the public right-of-way.

15. Developer shall pay in full to the City of Placentia, any and all applicable citywide Development Impact Fees (including, but not limited to fees relating to recreational facilities, sewer facilities, transportation infrastructure, storm drain facilities, and public safety impacts) adopted by and set forth by the City Council, as set forth in Chapter 5 of the Placentia Municipal Code, in effect at the time building permits are issued prior to issuance of the first building permit for each respective property.

16. Developer and/or property owner agrees to approve the incorporation of the project into Community Facilities District No. CFD 2014-01 (Public Services) pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code Section 53311, et seq. Said annexation into CFD No. 2014-01 shall be fully completed in accordance with California law prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the project.

17. Developer and/or property owner agrees to approve the incorporation of the project into the Landscape Maintenance District No. LMD 1992-01 pursuant to the provisions of California Streets and Highways Code Section 22500, et seq. Said annexation into LMD No. 1992-01 shall be fully completed in accordance with California law prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the project.

18. Developer and/or property owner agrees to approve the incorporation of the project into the Street Lighting District No. SLD 1981-01 pursuant to the provisions of California Streets and Highways Code Section 22500, et seq. Said annexation into SLD No. 1981-01 shall be fully completed in accordance with California law prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the project.

19. Developer and/or property owner agrees that the City may, at its sole election, require that, instead of annexing into SLD 1981-01 and/or LMD 1992-1, the project shall be incorporated into a Community Facilities District to be created by the City pursuant to the provision of California Government Code Section 53311, et seq; the purpose of which, and the initial amount of the taxes and assessments thereunder, will be substantially the same, in whole or in part, as SLD 1981-1 and/or LMD 1992-1.

Developer and/or property owner agrees to approve the incorporation of the project into said Community Facilities District, provided that the incorporation of the new CFD does not otherwise delay the development of the project; in which event the project shall instead be annexed into SLD 1981-01 and/or LMD 1992-1. Any automatic fee increases for the Community Services District shall not be inconsistent with the approved rate study.

Resolution No. PC -2023-13

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

20. All improvement and grading plans shall be drawn on twenty-four (24) inches by thirty-six (36) inch Mylar and signed by a registered civil engineer or other registered/licensed professional as required.

21. The following items are required for the entitlement review:
a. Preliminary grading and drainage plan.
b. Preliminary geotechnical report.
c. Preliminary hydrology/drainage study.
d. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) in the form and content per the City's WQMP template.
e. Sewer capacity study.

22. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all existing and new utilities including electric power, telephone, telecommunication fiber and/or cable TV in the street adjacent to and on-site shall be placed underground in accordance with the City of Placentia standards and ordinances.

23. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify all utility companies and the City of Placentia for disconnection and/or relocation of the existing utilities, vaults and meters. It is also the applicant's responsibility to ensure applicant notifies the Building Inspection Division that these utilities have been properly relocated and/or disconnected. Prior to recordation of the final map, the public improvement plans as required shall be prepared and signed by the City Engineer.

24. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the engineer of record shall submit all approved project and site improvements plans on an AutoCAD DWG and DFX formatted Compact Disc (CD) to the Public Works Department. The applicant shall pay for and provide the City with copies of as -built plans.

1. Recent title report to clarify the ownership and all easements on the property.

2. Provide an erosion control, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) for protection of the site during and post excavation activities.

GRADING

25. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall prepare a Low Impact Development (LID) specifically identifying the Best Management Practices (BMP's) that will be used on site to control predictable pollutant runoff. The plan shall identify the types of structural and/or non-structural measures to be used. The plan shall comply with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and LID Implementation Guideline. Website available at
( http://ocwatersheds.com/publiced/residents/glltd) Particular attention should be Resolution No. PC -2023-13

addressed to the appendix section "Best Management Practices for priority redevelopment." The LID shall clearly show the locations of structural or Nonstructural BMP's, and assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities.

The plan shall be prepared to the general form and content and submitted to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer for review and approval.

26. Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying the Best Management Practices (BMP's) that will be used on site to control predictable pollutant runoff. The plan shall identify the types of structural and non-structural measures to be used. The plan shall comply with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). Particular attention should be addressed to the appendix section "Best Management Practices for Development." The WQMP shall clearly show the locations of structural BMP's, and assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities (which shall also be included in the Maintenance Agreement). The plan shall be prepared to the general form and content shown in the City of Placentia's WQMP Template and shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. Website available at ( http://www.placentia.org/index.aspx?nid=262)

27. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the City Engineer that coverage has been obtained under the California's General Permit for Discharge of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number to the City Engineer.

Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for review a Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A copy of the approved SWPPP shall be kept at the project site and available for review upon request.

28. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit a precise grading plan prepared by a licensed civil engineer to the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department showing building footprints, new and revised pads and elevations of finished grades, drainage routes, retaining walls, erosion control, slope easements, structural best management practices (BMPs) conforming to the approved water quality management plan, and other pertinent information. The project development shall accept and make provisions for the existing surface water that are the natural flows from the adjacent properties immediately abutting to the development site.

29. Prior to approval of the final design plans and issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall conduct a site-specific geotechnical investigation for the entire site and prepare a report that fully assesses the geologic and soil conditions of the site.

As part of the report preparation, soil sampling and any geotechnical testing will be Resolution No. PC -2023-13

completed at each location where structures are to be erected. The report shall provide grading and structural design recommendations for avoiding liquefaction, subsidence or collapse for each of the proposed structures. The recommendations shall be implemented by the Applicant.

30. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, erosion control plans and notes shall be submitted and approved by the Engineering Division of Public Works Department.

31.All private slopes of 4 feet or more in vertical height and of 4:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.

32. The development site shall be graded to drain surface water to the existing City storm drain system with no cross -lot drainage permitted. Drainage shall be indicated on the precise grading plans.

33. Surety and agreement guaranteeing completion of all on-site grading improvements including drainage, structural BMPs, erosion control, grading operations shall be posted and executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits.

34. The final grading plan for this parcel shall be substantially the same, specifically regarding pad elevations, size, and configuration as the proposed grading illustrated on the approved site plan. If there is a significant deviation between the two plans the Community Development Director and the City Engineer will review the plans and determine if a finding of substantial conformance can be made prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The Development Services Director and the City Engineer may refer the matter to the Planning Commission for an opinion before deciding.

35.AII parking, common, and storage areas shall be lighted to maintain a minimum of 1 -foot candle power. These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and be on photo censored cell.

36. The site grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with each other and for consistency with the requirements and standards of the City of Placentia.

37. The applicant shall provide a quitclaim or relocation of existing easements as applicable in the plan review process prior to issuance of grading permit.

Resolution No. PC -2023-13

Language
deleted by
Planning
Commission
action on July
11, 2023.

38. Provide and identify all pavement and driveway paving materials used inside and outside of the development areas. Identify all storm drain structures, types, sizes, and specifications on the plans.

39. Preliminary WQMP shall include a feasibility check to ensure the proposed infiltration BMPs are not proposed to be within 100 feet horizontally of a water supply well and/or non -potable well for the protection of groundwater quality per Orange County TGD. Goldon Etat° Water Company currently operates a water woll pump at the northwest corncr of Bradford Avenue and Crowther Avenue.

Public Improvements and Construction

40. Applicant will be responsible for reconstruction of the existing pavement within the limits of the project after all the utility cuts have been completed. The applicant shall provide street resurfacing using grind to a depth of 2 -inch and 2 -inch overlay.

Applicant is also responsible for construction of the driveway approaches, sidewalks, curb and gutters, streetlights, and street trees as determined by the City Engineer. The limit of the paving shall include full width of the street along the entire property frontage. All public improvements shown on the plans and the map shall be constructed to the City of Placentia's standards, ordinances, policies

41. Prior to issuance of 1st occupancy permit, all new public improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk, asphalt concrete pavement, and streetlights within property boundaries shall be constructed satisfactorily to the City Engineer.

42. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending beyond the project boundaries a minimum distance of 150 feet at a grade and alignment approved by the City Engineer.

43.AII ADA improvements constructed within the public right of way must meet the latest ADA and CBC standards and will require CASp inspection during construction and be certified by the CASp inspector. All CASp inspection and related activities shall be provided and paid for by the applicant and the developer.

44. Prior to recordation of final map or issuance of building permit if recordation has already been accomplished, the applicant shall enter into an agreement and post security bond, in a form and amount acceptable to the City Engineer, guaranteeing the construction of public improvements in conformance with applicable City standards and the City Code, including, but not limited to the following:

45. Street improvement including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, driveway approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems and other traffic control devices as appropriate.
a. Storm drain facilities
Resolution No. PC -2023-13

b. Landscaping
c. Sewer systems
d. Street lighting
Storm Drain Improvements and Construction

46. The project street and lot grading shall be designed in a manner that perpetuates the existing natural drainage patterns with respect to tributary drainage area and outlet points.

47. Drainage easements, when required, shall be shown on the grading plans, and noted as follows: "Drainage Easement - no buildings, obstructions, or encroachments by landfills are allowed."

48. The project shall be designed to accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. The storm drain design and improvements shall be subject to review and approval by City Engineer. The hydraulics and hydrology report shall include detailed drainage studies indicating how the grading, in conjunction with the drainage conveyance systems including applicable swales, channels, street flows, catch basins, storm drains, and flood water retarding, BMP treatment and LID, will allow building pads to be safe from inundation from rainfall runoff which may be expected from all storms up to and including the theoretical 100 -year flood per the Orange County Hydrology Manual. The project development shall be designed to accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. If the quantities exceed the existing downstream capacity, the developer shall provide adequate drainage facilities to mitigate the impact as approved by the City Engineer.

49. Prior to the approval of the improvement plans, the hydrology study shall show that the 25 -year storm flow will be contained within the street from curb to curb and the 100 -year storm flow shall be contained within the street right-of-way. When either of these criteria are exceeded, additional drainage facilities shall be installed. All analysis shall comply with the Orange County Hydrology Manual and County Local Drainage Manual.

50. The post development peak flow rate generated from the project site shall be less than or equal to the predevelopment peak flow rate from the site for all frequency storms up to and including 100 -year return.

51. Drainage facilities with sump conditions shall be designed to convey the tributary 100 -year storm flows. Secondary emergency flow bypass shall also be provided as approved by City Engineer.

Resolution No. PC -2023-13

Sewer line Improvements and Construction

52. Sewer flow calculations justifying pipeline design and connection to the main shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and submitted as a part of an improvement plan for approval by the City Engineer. Provide sewer capacity analysis in accordance with the City's Guidelines to evaluate the proposed sewer flow rates into the City sewer system using current flow rate and for pipeline capacity availability.

Please see attached "Sewer Capacity Guidelines."

53. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer's engineer shall analyze and mitigate any sewer system deficiencies for all phases of the proposed development.

Results of the system analysis may require special construction such as booster pumps, upsize the downstream pipes and backwater valves. The engineering analysis and special construction requirements shall be subject to review and approval of City Engineer.

54.Onsite water improvement and fire protection plans shall be approved by the Fire Marshal, the local water district, and City Engineer. The water distribution lines and Language appurtenances shall conform to the applicable laws and adopted regulations changed on enforced by the water purveyor Goldon Ffatc Water Company.

Condition No.
54 and 56 by 55. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall dedicate Planning
Commission ingress and egress of the access route within the project site and improve it fully action on July operational as required by the Orange County Fire Authority and satisfaction to the 11, 2023. City Engineer.

56. The applicant shall submit a Will Serve Letter from Orange County Sanitation District and the water purveyor Goldon F),atc Watcr Company.

57. Installation of new sanitary sewer manholes may be required at the discretion of the City Engineer and OCSC. All sanitary sewer improvements shall be in accordance with the latest OC Public Works Department Standards.

Traffic

58. Submit plans to the City's Transportation Manager for review and approval.

Provide new and modify the existing striping modifications within the limits of the new paving and the project.

Final Map

59. Applicant shall provide a quitclaim or relocation of any existing easements that affect the proposed development.

Resolution No. PC -2023-13

60. The applicant shall prepare and submit a preliminary title report not older than 90 days.

61. Prior to approval of the Final Map, pursuant to the Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Public Improvements, the developer shall provide security in an amount specified in writing by the Registered Civil Engineer or a Licensed Land Surveyor of record. The developer shall enter into an agreement for providing the necessary right-of-way design and construction of missing public improvements, which shall be constructed in coordination with adjacent existing improvements prior to occupancy of the development and subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.

62. Prior to the exoneration of any security, the applicant shall submit one (1) duplicate Mylar of the final map and all as built public improvement plans, in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer.

63. This project falls under the City's Municipal Code: 8.04.390 Special requirements for construction/deconstruction waste. This is to ensure the diversion of at least fifty (50) percent of all construction/deconstruction waste generated within the city the following special requirements apply to all covered projects as listed in Section

8.04.400:
a) All contractors or owner -builders applying for a permit are required to complete a project form and attest that only an authorized city agent will be used to haul debris and other solid waste generated by that project. b) All contractors or owner -builders are required to place a deposit with the city to ensure their compliance with the required use of an authorized city agent.

The specific deposit amount shall be an equivalent to One (1.00) percent of the total project value.
c) Upon completion of the project, and if proof deemed satisfactory by the city confirms that all solid waste hauling for that project was done by an authorized city agent then a full refund of the deposit will be made.

Acceptable forms of proof are weight tickets, collection receipts, billings, or similar statements from an authorized city agent showing that they performed solid waste collection at the location established for that project.

It is the contractor's or owner -builders' responsibility to provide receipts covering all hauling activity for that project. Failure to provide complete records will be deemed as noncompliance.
d) Failure to provide receipts or other acceptable proof of compliance for all solid waste hauling on a project will result in the forfeiture of one hundred (100) percent of deposited funds. (0-2011-08 § 2, 2011) Resolution No. PC -2023-13

PLACENTIA FIRE & LIFE SAFETY DEPARTMENT

64. A standalone residential site plan is required for the proposed residence. Provide a detailed site plan that shows compliance with CFC 503. The site plan shall indicate the square footage of the proposed residence. Indicate on the site plan the location of the nearest fire hydrant to the property line. Prior to the approval of the site plan, the following items shall be addressed:

65. Evidence of sufficient Fire flow if 1,500 GPM for 2 hours shall be provided to the City of Placentia. The City of Placentia Building and Fire Marshal Water Availability/Fire Flow Form shall be utilized.

66. The property is located in an Administrative Boundary as indicated by the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (CALGEM). These are areas that have the potential for methane soil contamination. If the methane report indicates elevated levels of methane, methane mitigation will be required for the proposed structure.

Resolution No. PC -2023-13

R/W
10'
4'
EXIST.)

SIDEWALK

AT INTE
CF
60'
30' 30'
20'
EXIST.

CURB & GUTTER
20'
EXIST.

PAVEMENT
CF
/
EXIST. _}

CURB & GUTTER

TYPICAL SECTION

VINA DEL MAR AVENUE
SITE ADD "ESS: 1278 VINA DEL MA
SECTION VINA DEL MAR AVE. & LASTE
LLJ
(%)
W
z
0 f
W
0 SCALE : 1" = 20'
20 1
1 ENCHMARK:
40 g'D
EgD
0 0
m
c
H
+
317.4 3'7.6 +
317.2
Y+
+317.9
31:.4
10'
4'
°1°ENrl°Ay1VIVE
PARCEL MAP No. 2023=113
R/W
AVENUE
OOK ST

IN THE CITY OF PLACENTIA, TIA, COUN TAY OF
STATE OF CALIFO I NIA.
11)

AIS GIE,
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT B OF TRACT NO. 6013, AS PER MAP RECORDE IN BOOK 220, PAGES 1647 INCLUSIVE, MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDE I;, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

EXIST. SIDEWALK
EET
NAC NO.
317.4
3174
319.6
(YE))
JCI
nn 319,
0 3
@=DC
Q
C 320.1
+
II
LL '
0 Jml
J ,
H
F3' I
j9. 8
111
U
o II o
3118.9
T
EX. SPLIT R
BRUSH
+319.1
.6
0 2 EA' CELS 0.47 AC' ES (NET & G' OSS)

OWNER/SU
DIVIDER:

DAVID M. RENTON
15 LEEWARD LANE
RIVERSIDE, CT 06878
203=274=2749
[email protected]
Fu_ WA 7R MAIN
EX. AMAIN
317.6
102.00'
E 318.9
Q +
318.9
X
318.
60 30
cn
+317.7
0 0 Z
a I-
2 rh LLJ
CO w (Y] LLJ
LL
H < U1

0.4%

PREPARED
MAY 2023

KING CIVIL ENGINEERING CORP
26702 VALPARISO DRIVE
MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691
Contact: Tom King 714=996=7010
[email protected]
-
30'
HV
• 318.:
_VINA
318.2 ❑ : 318.31 +
N89'43 E 193.70'
317.9
318.4
3013
EX. R/W
..

EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS
+318.E 318.7
EX. F H
318.

KIMI. Mil B-17
318.2
"INC DEL MAR AVE

DEL MAR AVENUE
318.4
318.5
318.1
i ❑
318.7
+318.8
318.8
+319.5
'19 1
BRUSH
ARCEL 1
10,202 S.F.
318.7

PROPOSED COWRE BL

4.88'
+318.9
22 DESCRIBED BY OCS 2003 - FOUND 3 3\4" OCS
ALUMINUM BENCHMARK DISK STAMPED "2G-20-70",
SET IN THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF A CONCRETE CATCH BASIN.

MONUMENT IS LOCATED ALONG THE EASTERLY SIDE OF ROSE DRIVE,

0.2 MILES SOUTHERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF YORBA LINDA BOULEVARD AND 43 FT. EASTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF ROSE DRIVE.

MONUMENT IS SET LEVEL WITH THE SIDEWALK.

BENCHMARK: 2G-20-70 307.652 NAVD88 YEAR 2006
fi
EA
Ntor
+319.3
itaT
318.5
EXIST. ABANDON E 2

OIL WELL
WALL
318.5
--
N89'45'37"E
I I
319.7
+
. 319.

PARCEL
+319.2
10,271 S.F.
319.7
YI
320.3 O
MCV
wCC 0
Z
O
U r
320.6
•
1s
320.7
+
PLACENTIA •ITY LI M ITS v
158.12'
'19.8 EX. CONCRETE BLOC 320.3 ALL
260.12' -PROPOSED CONCRETE BLOCK WALL7
319.3
l_

LINDA CITY LIMITS
319.1
+J /,7.J
318.8
\TR. BDRY.
+319.9
+3 fill 0 �O

5. zf
Ov
317.7 X
w
O
O
1385
+31a 8
\318.4 /
1 Li_
0 LLJ
<
_z <
318.4
318.5
0 +320.7
0 O
320.4 Z -
316 7
320.2
+ +
320.4
1 (3
(320.!F
O CJ C) 0 O
317.1 + POOL
317.1
10 N
TES:
l -I
OJ c0
3 O
0 z Q w
J Q
tr
0 0
a
J
ROSE DR.
0 0
J
d

YORBA LINDA BOULEVARD

VALPARAISO DRIVE
SITE
0 W
0 d
(1)
0 0
Ct
CO
Ct
w
V)
VINA

OMAHA AVENUE
DEL MI.R AVE4JUE
BUENA VISTA AVE.

VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.
gindlPgr
-�'■ -

1. Existing Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential).

2. Proposed Use: Single Family Residential.

3. Development of Lots: For sale as lots.

4. All Existing Structures On Site To Be Demolished.

5. Flood Zone "X".

6. Assessor's Parcel No. 341-022-10

7. Subdivider intends to comply with all requirements
in regards to construction and erosion control.

PFLS NOTES:
w
w
H
Z
O m
Q
w 0
LEGEND
PAD=247.0 PROPOSED PAD ELEVATION
1 PROPOSED LOT NUMBER
s EXISTING SEWER MAIN
V

EXISTING WATER MAIN

EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT

S PROPOSED SEWER MAIN

W PROPOSED WATER MAIN
1J PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT

PROPOSED GRATE INLET

PROPOSED PVC DRAIN

LS LANDSCAPE AREA

PROPOSED PARKING STALL
• 0
0 TC
FL
FS
FG
FF
GF
INV.

TG
CF
R/W
P

PROPOSED WATER METER

PROPOSED BLOCK WALL

EXISTING BLOCK WALL

PROPOSED WATER VALVE

TOP OF CURB

FLOW LINE

FINISH SURFACE

FINISH GRADE

FINISH FLOOR

GARAGE FLOOR
INVERT

TOP OF GRATE

CURB FACE

RIGHT OF WAY

PLANTER
UTILITY PURVEYORS:

WATER: GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY
1920 W. CORPORATE WAY
ANAHEIM, CA. 92801
SEWER: CITY OF PLACENTIA

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
401 E. CHAPMAN AVENUE
PLACENTIA, CA. 92870
GAS: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO.
1919 S. STATE COLLEGE BLVD., SUITE G
ANAHEIM, CA. 92830
ELECTRIC: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO.
1851 W. VALENCIA DRIVE
FULLERTON, CA. 92833
TRASH: REPUBLIC DISPOSAL SERVICES
1131 N. BLUE GUM STREET
TELEPHONE: AT&T
3939 E. CORONADO ST., SECOND FLOOR
ANAHEIM, CA. 92807
CABLE TV: TIME -WARNER
in Chapters 20.20,22.16 through 22.64 and other laws of the City

1. All fire lane signs or red curb areas shall be shown on a site plan approved by the PFLS.

2. All structures will be protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.

I, THOMAS A. KING, DEPOSE AND STATE THAT THE OWNERS

OF THIS PROPERTY COMPRISING THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION
NO. 2023-113 SHOWN ON THIS MAP, HAVE CONSENTED TO THE
PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION OF THIS MAP.

THOMAS A. KING R.C.E. NO. 16916
DATED THIS 21 DAY OF MAY 2023
SHEET 1 OF 1

ATTACHMENT 2. VICINITY MAP
TPM 2023-113; VINA DEL MAR AVENUE (APN 341-022-10)
Zoning Code
0 G'1
-ei;o}
-C1f4i)
▪ C2
O 22 i165
O ▪ co
- u
I=1" ' 3}
I=1' 2
Or 7 2{01
?Ja MO
- nf6 4
1=1X1
=al 111110}
=FM [ G
=1'2
��3f,10f8C1 (0}
- 212 (01
=51r..1
.7P-2
.1P

1.. J
l 1
TU]
Vina Dei Mar Ave

PUI HOP, WOO

TPM 2023-113; Vina Del Mar Avenue (341-022-10)
Site Photos
Looking southerly at subject site from Vina Del Mar
Avenue
Looking southeasterly at subject site from Vina Del
Mar Avenue, towards Cumberland Circle (City of
Yorba Linda)

TO:

VIA:

FROM:

DATE:

Placentia City Council

CITY COUNCIL

CITY ADMINISTRATOR

DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
SEPTEMBER 5, 2023

AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE NUMBER FOR THE BLUE-RIBBON COMMITTEE MEMBERS AT ELEVEN (11) AND APPOINTMENTS TO THE

COMMITTEE FOR THE SENIOR/COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT FOR
COUNCIL DISTRICTS TWO (2) AND FIVE (5)
FISCAL
IMPACT: NONE
SUMMARY:

In 2021, the City Council authorized the formation of a Blue -Ribbon Committee (the "Committee") to assist the City in identifying the needs and recommended design components for a proposed Senior/Community Center to be constructed at Tri -City Park.

The Council formally appointed two (2) City Council Members, one (1) representative from the Parks, Arts, and Recreation Commission, one (1) representative from the Senior Advisory Committee, and community members from all five (5) Council Districts to serve on the Blue - Ribbon Committee. Additionally, at the January 10, 2023 meeting, City Council also took action to appoint former Council Member Craig Green to continue serving as Member -At -Large on the Committee following his departure from the City Council.

Due to the re -districting of the Council Districts, the resignation of Mrs. Jo -Anne Martin, and the designation of Mr. Craig Green as a Member -At -Large on the Committee, it is necessary to establish the number for the Blue -Ribbon Committee members at eleven (11). This will allow the formal appointment of a member recommended by Council Member Kirwin, District Two (2), fill the vacancy in Council District Five (5), as recommended by Mayor Ward Smith, and formally adopt the Member -At -Large position.

This action will accept Mrs. Martin's resignation from the Committee, approve Resolution No. R- 2023-74, changing the number for the Blue -Ribbon Committee members from nine (9) to eleven (11), and approve appointments from Council Districts Two (2) and Five (5) to the Committee.

1.e.

Sept. 05, 2023

City Council Agenda
September 5, 2023

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:

1. Formally accept Mrs. Jo -Anne Martin's resignation from the Blue -Ribbon Committee; and

2. Adopt Resolution No. R-2023-74, A resolution of the City Council of the City of Placentia, California establishing the number for the Blue -Ribbon Committee members at eleven (11) members; and

3. Approve the appointment of Mr. Joe Rasic to serve on the Senior/Community Center Blue - Ribbon Committee in representation of Council District two (2) per the recommendation of Council Member Kirwin; and

4. Approve an appointee to serve on the Senior/Community Center Blue -Ribbon Committee in representation of Council District Five (5) per the recommendation of Mayor Ward Smith.

STRATEGIC PLAN STATEMENT:

This item is consistent with the City Council approved 5 -Year Strategic Plan Goal to Implement Public Infrastructure to Meet Community Needs and construct a Placentia Senior/Community Center, under Objective #5.1.

DISCUSSION:

On July 20, 2021, the City Council authorized the formation of a Blue -Ribbon Committee (the "Committee") to assist the City in identifying the needs and to recommend design components for the proposed construction of a Senior/Community Center. The Committee was established to be comprised of nine (9) members: one (1) appointed from within each of the five (5) City Council districts; one (1) from the Parks, Arts, and Recreation Commission; one (1) from the Senior Advisory Committee, and two (2) City Council members. Additionally, at the January 10, 2023 meeting, the City Council took action to appoint former City Council Member, Craig Green as a Member -At -Large to the Blue -Ribbon Committee.

The Committee is of limited duration and functions with the special purpose of identifying the needs and design components of a proposed Senior/Community Center. As such, the Committee is not be subject to the Brown Act. However, in the interest of transparency and very similar to how the Citizens Fiscal Sustainability Task Force meetings occurred, Staff recommended that the Committee meetings be required to follow the Brown Act. Meetings and agendas are posted seventy-two (72) hours in advance and meeting records are maintained. The Committee receives customary support from the City, as well as advice and assistance.

Due to the re -districting of the Council Districts, the resignation by Mrs. Jo -Anne Martin and the designation of Mr. Craig Green as a Member -At -Large on the Committee, it is necessary to revise the previous resolution of the Blue -Ribbon Committee membership to formally establish the

City Council Agenda
September 5, 2023

membership at eleven (11) and appoint representatives recommended by Mayor Ward Smith and Council Member Kirwin.

The recommended action will formally accept Mrs. Martin's resignation from the Committee and approve Resolution No. R-2023-74 establishing the Blue -Ribbon Committee to be comprised of eleven (11) members. Furthermore, this action shall also approve the appointment of Mr. Joe Rasic to fulfill representation from Council District Two (2) and will allow for the approval of an appointee to be named by Mayor Ward Smith to represent Council District Five (5).

Provided the Council approves the recommended action, all City Council Districts will be represented on the Blue -Ribbon Committee and will also include City Council representation, and members from the Parks, Arts, and Recreation Commission and the Senior Advisory Committee as previously established.

FISCAL IMPACT:

At this time, there is no fiscal impact associated with the revision of the membership of the Committee or the appointment of the recommended members from Council District Two (2) and Five (5). The recommended actions will formally accept Mrs. Jo -Anne Martin's resignation, approve Resolution No. R-2023-74 formally establishing the Blue Committee Membership at eleven (11) and will also approve the appointments to fulfill representation recommended by Mayor Ward Smith and Council Member Kirwin for Council Districts Five (5) and Two (2), respectively.

Prepared by:
\\ j IA/VW , ----- rt t 9.yv\ (lAxCIL
Veronica Ortiz\ �_ Karen Crocker
Deputy Director -of Community y Sentices
Reviewed and approved:

Reviewed and approved:

Damien R. Arrula
City Administrator
Director of Community Services
Attachments:

1. Jo -Anne Martin Resignation Letter

2. Resolution No. R-2023-74 establishing membership of the Blue -Ribbon Committee at eleven (11)

26 May 2023
FROM: JO -ANNE W. MARTIN
SUBJ: Resignation
TO: City of Placentia Blue Ribbon Committee
Dear Friends —
It is with regret I resign my Blue Ribbon Committee position effective June 30, 2023. I have decided to sell my home and move to Austin, TX to be near my kids.

I have truly enjoyed participating in endeavor and will dearly miss your friendships. Thank you for all you do for this city.

Sincerely —
Jo -Anne W. Martin

RESOLUTION NO. R-2023-74

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF PLACENTIA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A BLUE-

RIBBON COMMITTEE FOR THE PURPOSES OF

IDENTIFYING THE NEEDS AND DESIGN COMPONENTS

OF A PROPOSED SENIOR/COMMUNITY CENTER
FACILTY.

A. Recitals.
(i). The City Council has determined that the establishment of a temporary Blue -Ribbon Committee will be beneficial to the City. (ii). The provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act shall apply to the Blue - Ribbon Committee as a committee of the City Council.
(iii). All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

B. Resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PLACENTIA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

1. In all respects as set forth in the Recitals, Part A., of this Resolution.

2. The purpose of the Blue -Ribbon Committee is to identify the needs and design components of a proposed Senior/Community Center facility and provide recommendations to the City Council based on their findings.

3. The Blue -Ribbon Committee will be composed of eleven (11) regular members, including five (5) appointed from within each Council District, one (1) from The Parks, Arts, and Recreation Commission, one (1) from the Senior Advisory Committee, two (2) City Councilmembers, and two (2) Members -At -Large.

5. The term of office for the Blue -Ribbon Committee members and treatment of vacancies shall be provided for in the City Council approved bylaws.

6. The Blue -Ribbon Committee meeting dates and times shall be determined upon appointment of the members. Meeting dates and times shall be approved by the City Council at a later date.

7. The provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act shall apply to the Blue -Ribbon Committee as a committee of the City Council.

RESOLUTION NO. R-2023-74
PAGE 1 OF 2

PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 5th day of September, 2023.

Ward L. Smith
Mayor
Attest:

Robert S. McKinnell, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF ORANGE
I, Robert S. McKinnell, City Clerk of the City of Placentia, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Placentia held on the 5th day of September, 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Robert S. McKinnell,
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Christian Bettenhausen,
City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. R-2023-74
PAGE 2 OF 2

TO:

VIA:

FROM:

DATE:

Placentia City Council

AGENDA REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

CITY ADMINISTRATOR

DEPUTY CITY ADMINISTRATOR / PUBLIC SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE SEPTEMBER 5, 2023
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION WORK AND NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2021-22 ARTERIAL ROADWAY REHABILITATION PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 1201
FISCAL
IMPACT: EXPENSE: $ 5,449,254.20 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT $ 297,375.56 APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS
$ 212,362.50 CM/INSPECTION SERVICES
$ 5,958,992.26 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
BUDGETED: $ 6,070,408.06 FY 2022-23 & 2023-24 CIP PROJECT BUDGET SUMMARY:

On July 19, 2022, the City Council awarded a construction contract to All American Asphalt, in the amount of $5,449,254.20 for the rehabilitation of several arterial, collector and residential streets totaling 1.4 million square feet of Placentia roadways. In general, the work consisted of pavement reconstruction; replacement of damaged concrete sidewalk, driveway, curb, and gutter; installation of new concrete bus pads on Orangethorpe Avenue; traffic signal loop detectors; new signing, striping and pavement markings; and protecting the fiber network that was recently installed by SiFi Network. The project was completed with the addition of three (3) change orders in the total amount of $297,375.56, or five -point -five percent (5.5%) of the construction contract amount. The Project has been completed to the satisfaction of the City. This action concludes the Project and authorizes filing a Notice of Completion with the Orange County Clerk -Recorder's Office in the amount of $5,746,629.76.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that City Council take the following actions:

1. Accept the work performed by All American Asphalt for construction of the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Arterial Roadway Rehabilitation Project, City Project No. 1201 for a grand total amount of $5,746,629.76; and

2. Approve Resolution No. R-2023-75, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Placentia, California authorizing a budget amendment in Fiscal Year 2023-24 in compliance with City Charter of the City of Placentia §§1206 and 1209 pertaining to appropriations for actual expenditures; and

1.f.

Sept. 05, 2023

City Council Agenda
September 5, 2023

3. Authorize the City Administrator to file a Notice of Completion with the Orange County Clerk -Recorder's Office for the Project; and

4. Authorize the City Administrator to release retention funds in accordance with the terms of the contract.

STRATEGIC PLAN STATEMENT:

This item is consistent with the City Council approved 5 -Year Strategic Goal to Implement Public Infrastructure to Meet Community Needs, under Goal #5, which is to provide safe access to pedestrian and vehicular travel in the public right of way.

DISCUSSION:

The scope of this project entailed the rehabilitation of several arterial, collector and residential streets totaling 1.4 million square feet of Placentia roadways. In general, the work consisted of pavement reconstruction; replacement of damaged concrete sidewalk, driveway, curb, and gutter; installation of new concrete bus pads on Orangethorpe Avenue; traffic signal loop detectors; new signing, striping and pavement markings; and protecting the fiber network that was recently installed by SiFi Network. The location and limits of the work included Orangethorpe Avenue (West of Jefferson Street to West of Lakeview Avenue) and Yorba Linda Boulevard (Bradford Avenue to Palm Drive) in addition to several collector and residential streets south of Orangethorpe Avenue (between Jefferson Street and Lakeview Avenue).

The City Council authorized contract change orders up to ten percent (10%) of the contract amount, or $544,925.42. Three (3) contract change orders totaling an amount of $297,375.56, or five -point -five percent (5.5%) of the construction contract amount were executed during the contract. In addition, the City was reimbursed for inspection hours outside of normal work hours and for an emergency call -out when a railroad loop was damaged by the Contractor. The City was also credited for liquidated damages by the Contractor for workdays in excess of the contract end date.

Funding for this project utilized several sources which included Measure M, SB 1/RMRA, Measure U, Sewer Enterprise, and Various Agency Reimbursements (City of Anaheim, City of Fullerton, Yorba Linda Water District, Orange County Sanitation District and SiFi Network). Approval of the Notice of Completion is the final step in this project and, if approved by the City Council, will be recorded with the Orange County Clerk -Recorder's Office starting the 35 -day window to file any construction claims against the contractor. At the conclusion of the 35 -day window, if no claims have been filed with the City against the contractor, the City can release the retention funds which amount to five percent (5%) of the total construction cost.

City Council Agenda
September 5, 2023

FISCAL IMPACT:

The final construction cost plus the three change orders amounts to $5,746,629.76. This cost consists of the bid amount submitted by All American Asphalt in the amount of $5,449,254.20 and $297,375.56 for Contract Change Orders No. 1 thru 3. The final contract with HR Green for Construction Management/Inspection amounts to $212,362.50. The City will be receiving a total of $460,724.51 in reimbursements from various agencies for shared costs. As part of the recommended actions, approval of Resolution No. R-2023-75 (Attachment 2) is recommended to appropriate additional funds from the various agency shares to this project to be reimbursed by the proper agency for work performed on their utilities or within their jurisdictions as part of this project. This will reduce the funds utilized from the Sewer Enterprise Fund and Measure U Fund due to the final cost of the project. With the recommended budget amendment resolution and funds budgeted and available in the carryforward Fiscal Year ("FY") 2022-23 Capital Improvement Program Budget, as such sufficient funds exist for the recommended actions.

Prepared by:

Raquel laarcia
Associate Civil Engineer
Reviewed and approved:
[pus ` S{t&tii)
Luis Estevez
Deputy City Administrator
Reviewed and approved:

Jennifer Lampman
Director of Finance
Reviewed and approved:

Damien R. Arrula
City Administrator
Attachments:

1. Notice of Completion — All American Asphalt for Project No. 1201

2. Budget Amendment Resolution No. R-2023-75

v./ bituiiku N‘v A 'N 41.11°'11, - pz wywr /pm ‘.\

AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
r
Name
Street
Address
City &
State
L
City Clerk
City of Placentia
401 E. Chapman Ave.

Placentia, CA 92870
City Council Approval: September 5, 2023
J

SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
Free Recording Per Government Code Section 27383 & 6103.

Deputy City Clerk — Carole Wayman

NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Notice pursuant to Civil Code Section 3093, must be filed within 10 days after completion. (See reverse side for Complete requirements.)
Notice is hereby given that:

1. The undersigned is owner or corporate officer of the owner of the interest or estate stated below in the property hereinafter described:

2. The full name of the owner is City of Placentia

3. The full address of the owner is 401 East Chapman Avenue Placentia, CA 92870

4. The nature of the interest or estate of the owner is: In fee.

N/A
(If other than fee, strike "In fee" and insert, for example, 'purchaser under contract of purchase," or "lessee")

5. The full names and full addresses of all persons, if any, who hold title with the undersigned as joint tenants or as tenants in common are: NAMES ADDRESSES
N/A

6. A work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was completed on July 6, 2023. The work done was:

FY 2021-22 Arterial Roadway Rehabilitation Proiect. City Proiect #1201. This work included pavement rehabilitation of several arterial, collector and residential streets, replacement of damaged concrete sidewalk, curb and putter, installation of concrete bus pads, traffic signal loop detectors, new signing, striping and pavement markers.

The name of the contractor, if any, for such work of improvement was All American Asphalt

7. 400 East Sixth Street, Corona, CA 92878 7/19/2022
(If no contractor for work of improvement as a whole, insert "none".) (Date of Contract)

8. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the city of Placentia County of Orange , State of California, and is described as follows: FY 2021-22 Arterial Roadway Rehabilitation Proiect, City Proiect #1201

9. The street address of said property is none
(If no street address has been officially assigned. insert "none".)

CITY OF PLACENTIA
Dated: September 5, 2023
Verification for Individual Owner
Signature of owner or corporate officer of owner
named in paragraph 2 or his agent — Damien R. Arrula — City Administrator

VERIFICATION
I, the undersigned, say: I am the City Administrator, Damien R. Arrula ("President of", "Manager of", "Owner of", etc.)
Notice of completion; I have read said notice of completion and know the contents thereof; the same is true of my own knowledge.
the declarant of the foregoing
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on September 5,
(Date of Signature.)
NOTICE OF COMPLETION — WOLCOTTS FORM 1114 — REV. 6-74
, 2023 , at Placentia
(City where signed.)
, California.
(Personal signature of the individual who is swearing
that the contents of the notice of completion are
true.)- Damien R Arrula — City Administrator
8 pt. type or larger
ATTACHMENT 1

RESOLUTION NO. R-2023-75

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

PLACENTIA, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING A BUDGET
AMENDMENT IN FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 IN COMPLIANCE
WITH CITY CHARTER OF THE CITY OF PLACENTIA §§ 1206
AND 1209 PERTAINING TO APPROPRIATIONS FOR
ACTUAL EXPENDITURES.

A. Recitals.
(i). The adopted budget for the 2023-24 Fiscal Year sets out estimated appropriations for City expenses throughout the year.
(ii). From time to time the adopted budget must be adjusted when precise expenditures are finally determined or when estimated expenditures exceed projected costs allocated.
(iii). City Charter of the City of Placentia § 1206 authorizes the City Council to amend or supplement the budget by motion adopted by the affirmative votes of at least three members so as to authorize the transfer of unused balances appropriated for one purpose to another purpose, or to appropriate available revenues not included in the budget. All other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

B. Resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLACENTIA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

1. In all respects as set forth in the Recitals, Part A., of this Resolution.

2. The adopted budget for Fiscal Year 2023-24, Resolution No. R-2023-42, is hereby amended to adjust the following accounts as specified below:

Fund Description Department GL JL Amount Type
Account Account
City Capital Reimbursement Public 331201- $192,800 Revenue Projects Fund from Yorba Linda Works 4299
Water District
City Capital FY 2021-22 Public 331201- 331201- $192,800 Expense Projects Fund Roadway Rehab Works 6740 6740
Project
Resolution R-2023-75

ATTACHMENT 2

City Capital
Projects Fund
City Capital
Projects Fund
City Capital
Projects Fund
City Capital
Projects Fund
City Capital
Projects Fund
City Capital
Projects Fund
City Capital
Projects Fund
Reimbursement
from SiFi
Networks
FY 2021-22
Roadway Rehab
Project
Public 331201- $12,356.60 Revenue
Works 4299
Public 331201- 331201- $12,356.60 Expense
Works 6740 6740
Reimbursement Public 331201 -
from Fullerton Works 4299
FY 2021-22
Roadway Rehab
Project
Reimbursement
from Orange
County
Sanitation
District
FY 2021-22
Roadway Rehab
Project
Reimbursement
from City of
Anaheim
$22,638 Revenue
Public 331201- 331201- $22,638 Expense
Works 6740 6740
Public 331201 -
Works 4299
$15,000 Revenue
Public 331201- 331201- $12,356.60 Expense
Works 6740 6740
Public 331201- (114,070.9
Works 4299 9)
Decrease
in
Revenue

3. The Mayor shall sign this resolution, and the City Clerk shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption thereof.

PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS 5th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023.

Ward L. Smith, Mayor
ATTEST:

Robert McKinnell, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF ORANGE
Resolution R-2023-75

ATTACHMENT 2

I, Robert McKinnell, City Clerk of the City of Placentia, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Placentia held on the 5th day of September 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Councilmembers:

Councilmembers:

Councilmembers:

Councilmembers:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Christian Bettenhausen, City Attorney
Resolution R-2023-75

Robert McKinnell, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 2

AGENDA REPORT
TO:

VIA:

FROM:

DATE:

Placentia City Council

CITY COUNCIL

CITY ADMINISTRATOR

DEPUTY CITY ADMINISTRATOR/ PUBLIC SERVICES & INFRASTRUCTURE SEPTEMBER 5, 2023
SUBJECT: FACADE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT FOR PHASE 2 OF THE 101 W. SANTA FE AVENUE FACADE IMPROVEMENT

PROJECT
FISCAL
IMPACT: EXPENSE: $ 168,300 GRANT AWARD
BUDGETED: $ 190,291 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT FUND (302535-6401 JL# 232501)
SUMMARY:

On December 5, 2017, the City Council approved the Old Town Placentia Facade Improvement Program (Program) to create an incentive for property owners in Old Town to improve their buildings by using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for eligible facade improvements, which is within the eligible census tracts for CDBG funds. The Program provides financial assistance in the form of a grant to commercial property and/or business owners to make facade improvements to the exterior of their commercial buildings. The City Council Housing, Community and Economic Development Ad -Hoc Committee (Committee) previously worked with Staff to develop a facade improvement program with the overall goal of promoting historic Old Town Placentia as an ideal location for quality business, incentivize property and business improvements and attraction to enhance local economic growth. In addition, the Committee emphasized consolidating funds to facilitate worthwhile improvements on commercial corners, which have a key visual impact to attracting visitors to Old Town.

The Program to date has funded a total of five (5) facade improvement projects three of which include new murals painted on buildings that serve as bookends to the historic core of Old Town.

On December 6, 2022, the City Council approved the fifth project to renovate the corner facade of the commercial building located at 101 W. Santa Fe Avenue. This recommended action is to approve a Facade Improvement Program Agreement with the property owners of 101 W. Santa Fe Avenue to provide grant funding on reimbursement basis to complete Phase 2 of the project.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:

1. Approve a Facade Improvement Program Agreement for Phase 2 of the Old Town Placentia Facade Improvement Project at 101 W. Santa Fe Avenue; and

1.g.

Sept. 05, 2023

City Council Agenda
September 5, 2023

2. Authorize the City Administrator and/or his designee to execute all necessary documents including the Old Town Placentia Facade Program documents, in a form approved by the City Attorney.

STRATEGIC PLAN STATEMENT:

This item is consistent with the City Council approved 5 -Year Strategic Goal #6 to Improve City Beautification under Objective #6.3, which is to allocate more funding for facade improvement projects within eligible census tracts.

DISCUSSION:

The City Council Housing, Community and Economic Development Ad -Hoc Committee (the "Committee") worked with Staff on developing a new facade improvement program funded with Federal Community Development Block Grant Funds in the Old Town Placentia District (OTPD).

The overall goal of this program is to promote the OTPD as an ideal location for quality business, incentivize property and business improvements and attraction to enhance local economic growth.

On December 5, 2017, the City Council formally approved the Old Town Placentia Facade Improvement Program (the "Program"). The Program provides financial assistance in the form of a grant to commercial property and/or business owners to make facade improvements to the exterior of their commercial buildings located within the OTPD. The Program to date has funded a total of five (5) facade improvement projects within the OTPD, three of which included new murals on buildings which serve as the bookends to the core Historic portion of Old Town. The Program includes the following criteria for prioritizing applications:
1) Properties or areas that historically have been targeted for graffiti and/or are prone to blight.
2) Projects that provide significant value to the Old Town Area or Placentia Metrolink Station.
3) Properties or areas adjacent to new public facilities such as the Parking Structure. 4) Projects that involve a historical restoration/renovation of a building. Specifically, properties facing Santa Fe Avenue and/or Bradford Avenue.

As such, the program has initially focused on corner properties as they are located at busy intersections that will generate the most views by the public and which serve as gateways to the Old Town area.

The most recent project funded under the Program renovated the corner facade of the commercial property located at 101 W Santa Fe Avenue. This scope of work for this project included:
• Replacement of existing windows, frame, and hardware with new storefront windows and awning treatments.
• Replacement of existing lighting with new LED Tight fixtures at exterior. • New architectural and decorative foam and cast concrete. • New painting of exterior walls and decorative facade elements.

City Council Agenda
September 5, 2023

The project application consisted of renovating of the entire facade of the commercial building at 101 W Santa Fe Avenue. Due to increased construction costs and limited CDBG funding for the Program, this project was divided into two phases.

On December 6, 2022, the City Council awarded a construction contract for the improvements of Phase 1 of the project. Phase 1 of the project was completed in July 2023. Staff is recommending the approval of a Facade Improvement Program Agreement with the property owners of 101 W.

Santa Fe Avenue to provide grant funding on reimbursement basis to complete Phase 2 of the project. The total cost for the facade improvements for Phase 2 amount to $187,700. Of this amount, the City will provide the property owner with a matching grant of 90% of the total project cost. The property owners will be responsible for 10% of the total project cost. If approved, the total grant amount will be $168,300. The recommended actions will result in the completion of the improvements to the remaining facade of the property, thus enhancing the Old Town Placentia District. The City will be able to continue achieving the goals of the Program, as well as general new retail interest, thereby generating additional interest from other property owners in the area to participate in the Program.

If approved, grant funds will be released to the applicant throughout the duration of the project until the project is complete under the following conditions:

1. Providing proof of progress work for completed by the contractor for the project by submitting contractor invoices with description and cost of eligible works.

2. Staff conducts progress building/site inspection of completed work (as necessary).

3. Staff checks to ensure that all program and grant agreement requirements have been met.

4. Payment of invoices per approved grant amount is made out to the applicant.

5. Project is monitored to ensure that all program and grant agreement requirements continue to be met.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The FY 2023-24 Operating Budget includes CDBG funds for the Program. As such, there is sufficient funds for the recommended actions. This CDBG funding is required to be expended by June 30, 2024.

Prepared by:

Reviewed and approved:
r
Isa Robinson Jenni er Lampman
Senior Management Analyst Director of Finance

City Council Agenda
September 5, 2023

Reviewed and approved: Reviewed and approved:

Jeannette Ortega
Deputy Director of Administrative Services
Reviewed and approved:

Damien R. Arrula
City Administrator
Attachment:

Facade Improvement Program Agreement
(Ais f sfwwy
Luis Estevez
Deputy City Administrator

CITY OF PLACENTIA

FAQADE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT (herein "Agreement"), entered into this 5th day of September, 2023 between the City of Placentia, Ca (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and the following designated OWNERE, to witness:

Owner Name:

Name of Business:

Business Tax ID#/Social
Security#:

Address of Property to be 101 W Santa Fe Avenue, Placentia, CA 92870 improved:

The parties hereto agree as follows:

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, the City of Placentia has established a Facade Improvement Program for application within the Old Town Placentia District ("District"); and WHEREAS, said Facade Improvement Program is administered by the CITY with the advice of the City Council and is funded by the Community Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG) under the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the purposes of controlling and preventing blight and deterioration within the District; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Facade Improvement Program, the CITY has agreed to participate, subject to its sole discretion in reimbursing owners/lessees/contractor for the cost of eligible exterior improvements to commercial establishments; and WHEREAS, the OWNER's property is located within the District, and the Owner/Lessee desires to participate in the Facade Improvement Program pursuant to the terms and provisions of this Agreement.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements obtained herein, the CITY and the OWNER do hereby agree as follows:

Facade Improvement Grant Agreement Page 1 of 5

SECTION 1
With respect to the facade improvements to the structural elevation fronting a public roadway and related improvements, the actual total reimbursement amounts per this Agreement shall not exceed ($ ) for facade
improvements. The CITY shall reimburse the OWNER for the cost of improvements costs up to a maximum amount of ($ ) for. The improvement costs, which are eligible for CITY reimbursement, include all labor, materials, equipment, and other contract items necessary for the proper execution of the work as shown on the plans, design drawings, specifications, and estimates approved by the CITY. Such plans, design drawings, specifications, and estimates are attached hereto as Exhibit A.

SECTION 2
No improvement work shall be undertaken until its design has been submitted to and approved by the CITY. Following approval, the OWNER shall contract for the work and shall commence and complete all such work within one hundred eighty days (180) from the date of such approval. The OWNER may request a ninety -day (90) extension provided there is a demonstrated hardship.

SECTION 3
The CITY shall periodically review the progress of the contractor's work on the facade improvements pursuant to the Agreement. Such inspections shall not replace any required permit inspection by the Building Inspector. All work which is not in conformance with the approved plans, design drawings, and specifications shall be immediately remedied by the OWNER and deficient or improper work shall be replaced and made to comply with the approved plans, design drawings, and specifications and the terms of this Agreement.

SECTION 4
Upon review of the completed improvements and upon their inspection and approval by the CITY, the OWNER shall submit to the CITY a properly executed and notarized contractor statement showing the full cost of the work as well as each separate component amount due to the contractor and each and every subcontractor involved in furnishing labor, materials, or equipment necessary to complete the facade improvement related work. The CITY shall make periodic reimbursement payments to the OWNER in accordance with the percentage complete of the Improvements up to the awarded grant amount. In The CITY shall, within thirty (30) days of receipt of the contractor's statement issue a check to the OWNER as reimbursement in the total grant amount stated in SECTION 1 of this Agreement.

SECTION 5
If the OWNER or the OWNER CONTRACTOR fails to complete the improvement work provided for herein in conformity with the approved plans, design drawings, and specifications and the terms of this Agreement, then upon written notice being given by the CITY to the OWNERby certified mail to the address listed above, this Agreement Facade Improvement Grant Agreement Page 2 of 5

shall terminate and the financial obligation on the part of the CITY shall cease and become null and void.

SECTION 6
This Agreement shall be binding upon the CITY and upon the OWNER/LESSEE and its successors, to said property for a period of ten (10) years from and after the date of completion and approval of the facade improvements provided herein unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties in writing. It shall be the responsibility of the OWNER/LESSEE to inform subsequent OWNER(S)/LESSEE(S) of the provisions of this Agreement.

SECTION 7
The OWNER/LESSEE agrees to maintain the improvements at his/her sole expense for a period of ten (10) years unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties in writing. The OWNER/LESSEE shall not enter into any agreement or contract or take any other steps to alter, change or remove the approved improvements, nor shall the Owner/Lessee undertake any other changes, by contract or otherwise to the improvements provided for in this Agreement unless any changes are first submitted to t the City Administrator/and or his designee, and any additional review body designated by the City Administrator, for approval. Approval of such changes or modifications shall not be unreasonably withheld.

In the event that the OWNER fails to maintain the improvements, the CITY may issue a thirty -day (30) written notice to the OWNER to correct any maintenance deficiencies. If the OWNER/ fails to correct the stated deficiencies within thirty (30) days of the notice, the City may cause any maintenance or repair work to be performed at the OWNER's expense.

SECTION 8
In the event that the OWNER sells or conveys the property prior to the termination date of the Facade Improvement Grant Agreement, the OWNER/ shall declare the existing encumbrance to buyer and buyer must assume the remaining obligation and terms of the original Facade Improvement Grant Agreement.

After ten (10) years of successful maintenance all facade improvements, the OWNER will be relieved of all financial obligations to the CITY.

SECTION 9
No member, official, agent, legal counsel or employee of the CITY shall be personally liable to the Participant, or any successor in interest in the event of any default or breach by the CITY or for any amount which may become due to OWNER/LESSEE or successor or on any obligation under the terms of this Agreement.

SECTION 10
The OWNER releases the CITY from, and covenants and agrees that the CITY shall not be liable for, and covenants and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Facade Improvement Grant Agreement Page 3 of 5

CITY and its officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all losses, claims, damages, liabilities, or expenses, of every conceivable kind, character and nature whatsoever arising out of, resulting from or in any way connected with directly or indirectly with the facade improvement(s). The OWNER further covenants and agrees to pay for or reimburse the CITY and its officials, officers, employees, and agents for any and all costs, reasonable attorney's fees, liabilities, or expenses incurred in connection with investigating, defending against or otherwise in connection with any such losses, claims, damages, liabilities, or causes of action. The CITY shall have the right to select legal counsel and to approve any settlement in connection with such losses, claims, damages, liabilities, or causes of action. The provisions of this section shall survive the completion of said facade improvement(s).

SECTION 11
Nothing herein is intended to limit, restrict, or prohibit the OWNER/LESSEE from undertaking any other work in or about the subject premises, which is unrelated to the facade improvement provided for in this Agreement.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date first appearing above.

PROPERTY OWNER CITY OF PLACENTIA
Damien R. Arrula, City Administrator
Signature Signature
BUSINESS OWNER CONTRACTOR 1
Name: Name:

Signature Signature
Tax
ID#:

Contractors State License#:

Exhibit A
' Contractor's signature is an acknowledgement by Contractor of its understanding and acceptance of the terms of payment under this agreement between the City and the OWNER/LESSEE.

Facade Improvement Grant Agreement Page 4 of 5

Owner/Lessee's Facade Improvement Program Application
Facade Improvement Grant Agreement Page 5 of 5

TO:

VIA:

FROM:

DATE:

CITY COUNCIL

CITY ADMINISTRATOR

DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
SEPTEMBER 5, 2023
Placentia City Council
SUBJECT: FY 2023-24 FIRST QUARTER BUDGET REPORT
FISCAL
IMPACT:

Fund
General Fund
Special Revenue
Capital Projects
Enterprise Funds
Financing Authority
Total
SUMMARY:

AGENDA REPORT
Revenues
(Including Transfers -In)
$ 2,818,065
$ 1,898,611
$ 4,197, 362
$ 929,800
$ 264,700
$10,108,538
Appropriations
(Including Capital &
Transfers -Out)
$ 4,657,930
$ 9,986,180
$ 3,704,252
$ (770,039) 1
$ 264,700
$17,843,023
The City's Operating Budget is reviewed and presented to the City Council quarterly for recommended amendments and to provide current information on the financial activities of the City. Additionally, these types of quarterly reports assist City departments in communicating their financial operations throughout the fiscal year including any program changes and significant impacts to their annual budgets, as well as ensuring spending and revenues received throughout the year closely align with the adopted budget. This report includes requested departmental budget adjustments through the first quarter of fiscal year 2023-24, covering the period through August 31, 2023.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council take the following action:

1. Approve the First Quarter Budget Report and adopt Resolution No. R-2023-76, amending the City's FY 2023-24 Budget; and

2. Approve the corrected Salary Master Schedule.

1.h.

Sept. 05, 2023

City Council Agenda
September 5, 2023

STRATEGIC PLAN STATEMENT:

This item is consistent with the City Council approved 5 -Year Strategic Goal to Ensure Long -Term Fiscal Sustainability, under Objective #1.6 Update the existing 10 -Year Financial Plan.

DISCUSSION:

General Fund: The General Fund FY 2023-24 Amended Budget includes revenues of $50.8 million and expenditures of $50.1 million. The proposed budget adjustments in the FY 2023-24 First Quarter Budget Report include an increase to revenues of $1.7 million and a decrease in expenditures of $213,563. The significant change is due to the accounting for the use of funds received from the American Recovery Plan Act ("ARPA"). Per accounting rules, ARPA revenue is not to be recognized until actually spent on approved projects. This increase in revenue is mirrored by the increase in expenditures from the carryforward of FY 2022-23 ARPA funded Capital Improvement Projects that were not completed in the previous fiscal year.

Adopted Amended
II p iv 41
Requests Amended
Revenue
Property Taxes 19,578,023 19,578,023
Sales & Use Taxes 9,175,000 9,175,000
Other Taxes 7,905,500 7,905,500
Permits/ Licenses 2,802,000 2,802,000
Fines & Forfeitures 452,500 452,500 -
Intergovernmental 312,000 312,000 1,642,875
Charges for Service 1,514,000 1,514,000 -
Misc. Revenue 2,454,000 2,454,000 -
Subtotal Revenues 44,193,023 44,193,023 1,642,875
19,578,023
9,175,000
7,905,500
2,802,000
452,500
1,954,875
1,514,000
2,454,000
45,835,898
Operating Transfers -In 1,047,800 1,047,800 4,950 1,052,750 Measure U Transfer In: -
Employee Retention 2,760,000 2,760,000 - 2,760,000
OPEB 1,112,649 1,112,649 - 1,112,649
Subtotal Transfers -In 4,420,449 4,920,449 4,950 4,925,399 Total Operating
Resources 49,113,472 49,113,472 1,647,825 50,761,297
Revenue budget adjustment requests include the following:
• Intergovernmental — Recognize revenue of $1,642,875 for remaining American Recovery Plan Act ("ARPA") that is unspent.
• Operating Transfers -in — Record $4,950 transfer from Technology Fee Fund for the additional modules for the permit tracking software.

City Council Agenda
September 5, 2023

Operating
Expenditures
Legislative
City Administrator
Administrative Services
Finance
Development Services
Public Safety -Police
Fire & Life Safety
Public Works
Community Services
General Government
Subtotal Operating
Expenditures
Non -Operating
Expenditures
Interfund Transfers Out
GF Debt Service
Subtotal Non -
Operating
Expenditures
Total Operating
Expenditures
r I, 1 I 1 .i
Adopted Amended Requests Amended
1,004,000 1,004,000
1,085,823 1,085,823
6,133,073 6,133,073
1,305,000 1,305,000
1,571,100 1,571,100
14, 535, 811 14, 535, 811
4,746,706 4,746,706
4,795,070 4,473,270
2,947,452 3,269,252
5,557,200 6,262,549
43,681,235 44,386,584
36,214 36,214
6,021,200 6,021,200
6,057,414 6,057,414
49,738,649 50,443,998
1,004,000
19,757 1,105, 580
103,425 6,186,498
31,468 1,336,468
43,456 1,589,606
222,253 14,758,064
93,014 4,839,720
78,448 4,551,718
55,265 3,324,517
(630,349) 5,632,200
16,737 44,328,370
(260, 300)
36,214
5,760,900
(260,300) 5,797,114
(243,563) 50,125,485
Notable expenditure budget adjustment requests include the following:
• Operating Departments - Adjustment of adopted MOU one-time payments from estimates adopted by City Council on 7/11/23 (all departments).
• General Government — Addition of $75,000 for administrative costs from the County of Orange for property tax management.
• Public Works — Addition of $10,000 for Maintenance uniforms for that was not included in adopted budget.
• GF Debt Service — Adjustment based on payment schedule per the recently completed bond issuance for Public Service Building.

City Council Agenda
September 5, 2023

1, _ _ . 1 - • , •
Adopted Amended Requests Amended
Other Changes to Fund
Balance
Measure U Reserve
Contribution 920,000 920,000 - 920,000
Capital Projects Revenue 9,989,804 1,170,240 11,160,044 Capital Projects (2,264,280) (14,734,084) (4,900,993) (16,137,560) EIFD Loan (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (1,000,000)
Public Safety Building (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (4,497,517) Net Change to Fund
Balance (3,344,280) (5,824,280) (3,730,753) (9,555,033) Other changes to fund balance includes Capital projects from FY 2022-23 that are being carried forward totaling $4,900,993 and related revenues related to those projects. Please refer to attachments for the detailed list of capital projects being carried forward.

Special Revenue Funds: The Special Revenue Fund FY 2023-24 Amended Budget includes revenues of $12.2 million and expenditures of $15.6 million. The proposed budget adjustments in the FY 2023-24 First Quarter Budget Report include an increase in revenues of $1.9 million and an increase in expenditures of $6.5 million. Approval of this item will result in a net decrease of $4.6 million in the Special Revenue Fund budgetary fund balance. Notable non -capital project adjustments include:
• State Gas Tax — Reduction of revenue by $67,037 based on new estimates received. • Measure M — Increase of expenditures by $47,160 for senior mobility program. • Air Quality Management - Increase of expenditures by $11,740 for senior mobility program. • Placentia Navigation Center — Increase of expenditures by $150,000 from projects not completed in prior fiscal year.

City Council Agenda
September 5, 2023

Capital Projects: The proposed budget adjustment in the FY 2023-24 First Quarter Budget Report includes projects from the previous fiscal year that have not been completed that will be continued into the current fiscal year. Below is a summary of the capital projects to be carried forward.

FY 2022-23 Ca • ital Pro'ects to be Carried Forw-
101 General Fund (0010)
117 Measure U Fund (0079)
209 State Gas Tax - RMRA (0060)
210 Measure M (0018)
215 Air Quality Management (0019)
225 Asset Seizure (0021)
233 Gen Plan Update Fees (0074)
234 Technology Impact Fees (0075)
236 Parks & Rec Impact Fees (0063)
237 Citywide Sewer Impact Fee (0064)
238 City Traffic Impact Fees (0065)
240 Sewer Construction (0024)
242 City Pub Safety Impact Fee (0067)
243 City Quimby In Lieu Fee (0069)
246 TOD Traffic Impact Fees (0070)
247 TOD Sewer Impact Fees (0071)
248 TOD Streetscape Impact Fee (0072)
250 Thoroughfare Construction (0026)
270 CDBG Fund (0030)
280 Misc Grants Fund (0050)
283 County Annexation (0084)
401 City Capital Projects (0033)
Total
See attachment for a detailed list of projects.

Revenue Expense
1,170, 240 4,900,993
3,416,207
359,959
-
36,064
- 170,638
- 50,000
73,258
71,385
1,745,589
- 35,269
93,000
(1,800,000)
75,000
1,242,941
20,954
- 307,188
-
7,364
4,172
28,936
1,905,224
1,903,604
119,594
4,197,362 3,704,252
7,301,762 16,537,431

City Council Agenda
September 5, 2023

FISCAL IMPACT:

The fiscal impact associated with the approval of this item is summarized below with the detailed budget adjustments as listed in Exhibit A.

Fund
General Fund
Special Revenue
Capital Projects
Enterprise Funds
Financing Authority
Total
Prepared by:

Gavin Houn
Sr. Financial Analyst
Reviewed and Approved by:

Damien R—Arrula�
City Administrator
Revenues Appropriations
(Including Transfers- (Including Capital & Transfers -
In)
$ 2,818,065
$ 1,898,611
$ 4,197, 362
$ 929,800
$ 264,700
$10,108,538
Reviewed by:

Jen fifer Lampman
Director of Finance
Out)
$ 4,657,930
$ 9,986,180
$ 3,704,252
_ $ (770,039)1
$ 264,700
$17,843,023
Attachments:

1. Resolution R-2023-76 – Authorizing a Budget Amendment in Fiscal Year 2023-24 a. Exhibit A – Detailed Budget Adjustments
b. Exhibit B- Salary Schedule effective July 1, 2023

RESOLUTION NO. R-2023-76

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

PLACENTIA, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING A BUDGET
AMENDMENT IN FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 IN COMPLIANCE

WITH CITY CHARTER OF THE CITY OF PLACENTIA
SECTION 1206 PERTAINING TO APPROPRIATIONS FOR
ACTUAL EXPENDITURES; AND AUTHORIZING THE

POSITION ALLOCATION PLAN AND COMPENSATION
PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
A. Recitals.
(i). The adopted budget for the 2023-24 Fiscal Year sets out estimated appropriations for City expenses throughout the year.
(ii). From time to time the adopted budget must be adjusted when precise expenditures are finally determined or when estimated expenditures exceed projected costs allocated.
(iii). City Charter of the City of Placentia § 1206 authorizes the City Council to amend or supplement the budget by motion adopted by the affirmative votes of at least three members so as to authorize the transfer of unused balances appropriated for one purpose to another purpose, or to appropriate available revenues not included in the budget. All other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. (iv). The City of Placentia Position Allocation Plan and Compensation Plan, effective July 1, 2023 for the PCEA, PPOA, PPFMA, FIRE employees and unrepresented employees including the City Administrator, Executive Management, and Mid - Management employees; effective July 1, 2023 are components of the annual budget process.
(v). The City Council desires to amend said Position Allocation Plan and Compensation Plan in accordance with the Fiscal Year 2023-24 First Quarter One (1) Budget, effective September 5, 2023.

B. Resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLACENTIA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

1. In all respects as set forth in the Recitals, Part A., of this Resolution.

Resolution R-2023-76 ATTACHMENT 1

2. The adopted budget for Fiscal Year 2023-24, Resolution No. R-2022-60, is hereby amended to reflect the following available balances from FY2023-24 from the to the Account specified:

Fund
See Exhibit A
Description
Department
GL Account
Amount
Type

3. The City Council desires to amend said Position Allocation Plan and Compensation Plans in accordance with the provisions of the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Quarter one (Q1) Budget, effective September 5, 2023. When the City Council approves a new position or the City Administrator amends a position between updates of the Plan, such a change shall constitute a revision to the City's Position Allocation Plan that shall be reflected in the next update of the Resolution adopting the Plan. Compensation and benefits not specifically amended by this Resolution shall remain in full force and effect.

4. The Mayor shall sign this resolution, and the City Clerk shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption thereof.

PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS 5th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023.

Ward L. Smith, Mayor
ATTEST:

Robert S. McKinnell, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF ORANGE
I, Robert S. McKinnell, City Clerk of the City of Placentia, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Placentia held on the 5th day of September 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Councilmembers:

Councilmembers:

Councilmembers:

Councilmembers:

Robert S. McKinnell, City Clerk
Resolution R-2023-76 ATTACHMENT 1

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Christian Bettenhausen, City Attorney
Resolution R-2023-76 ATTACHMENT 1

Fund Fund Description
101 General Fund (0010)
Total
Q1 Summary by Fund

GENERAL FUND
Revenue
2,818,065.07
2,818,065.07

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Fund Fund Description
117 Measure U Fund (0079)
205 State Gas Tax (0017)
208 Sccssr Agncy Ret Oblg (0054)
209 State Gas Tax - RMRA (0060)
210 Measure M (0018)
215 Air Quality Management (0019)
225 Asset Seizure (0021)
231 Placentia Reg Nav Cent(0078)
233 Gen Plan Update Fees (0074)
234 Technology Impact Fees (0075)
236 Parks & Rec Impact Fees (0063)
237 Citywide Sewer Impact Fee (0064)
238 City Traffic Impct Fees (0065)
242 City Pub Sfty Impct Fee (0067)
243 City Quimby In Lieu Fee (0069)
246 TOD Traffic Impact Fees (0070)
247 TOD Sewer Impact Fees (0071)
248 TOD Strscape Impct Fee (0072)
249 TOD District CFD (0080)
250 Thoroughfare Constction (0026)
265 Landscape Maintenance (0029)
270 CDBG Fund (0030)
280 Misc Grants Fund (0050)
283 County Annexation (0084)
Total
Revenue
(67,037.00)
31,488.00
28,936.00
1,905,223.79
1,898,610.79

CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Fund Fund Description Revenue
401 City Capital Projects (0033) 4,197,362.00

ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Fund Fund Description Revenue
275 Sewer Maintenance (0048)
240 Sewer Construction (0024)
501 Refuse Administration (0037) 929,800.00
Total 929,800.00

FINANCING AUTHORITY
Fund Fund Description Revenue
302 Public Financing Autho(0082) 264,700.00
Total 264,700.00
Expense
4,657,929.57
4,657,929.57
Expense
3,416,207.00
2,916.71
359,959.28
83,224.00
182,378.00
50,000.00
154,510.65
73,257.50
71,384.92
1,745,588.64
35,269.38
93,000.00
75,000.00
1,242,941.32
20,953.52
307,187.78
7,364.00
24,000.00
4,172.00
13,666.89
1,903,604.09
119,594.04
9,986,179.72
Expense
3,704,252.33
Expense
13,967.33
(1,794,596.02)
1,010,589.74
(770,038.95)
Expense
264,700.00
264,700.00
Exhibit A

Key
100000
101511
101511
101512
101512
101513
101513
101514
101514
101515
101515
101523
101523
101534
102020
102020
102531
102531
102531
102531
102532
102532
102533
102533
102534
102534
103040
103040
103041
103041
103042
103042
103043
103043
103047
Budget Division
General Fund/General Revenues
City Administrator
City Administrator
Human Resources
Human Resources
Records
Records
Disaster Preparedness
Disaster Preparedness
Public Safety Communications
Public Safety Communications
Information Technology
Information Technology
Economic Development/Marketing
Finance Administration
Finance Administration
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
Building & Safety
Building & Safety
Code Enforcement
Code Enforcement
Economic Development
Economic Development
Police Administration
Police Administration
Police Field Services
Police Field Services
Police Investigation
Police Investigation
Police Support Services
Police Support Services
Traffic
Q1 Proposed Adjustments
Fund Fund Description Object
101 General Fund (0010) 4211
101 General Fund (0010) 5022
101 General Fund (0010) 5023
101 General Fund (0010) 5022
101 General Fund (0010) 5023
101 General Fund (0010) 5022
101 General Fund (0010) 5023
101 General Fund (0010) 5022
101 General Fund (0010) 5023
101 General Fund (0010) 5022
101 General Fund (0010) 5023
101 General Fund (0010) 5022
101 General Fund (0010) 5023
101 General Fund (0010) 5022
101 General Fund (0010) 5022
101 General Fund (0010) 5023
101 General Fund (0010) 5022
101 General Fund (0010) 5023
101 General Fund (0010) 6099
101 General Fund (0010) 7082
101 General Fund (0010) 5022
101 General Fund (0010) 5023
101 General Fund (0010) 5022
101 General Fund (0010) 5023
101 General Fund (0010) 5022
101 General Fund (0010) 5023
101 General Fund (0010) 5022
101 General Fund (0010) 5023
101 General Fund (0010) 5022
101 General Fund (0010) 5023
101 General Fund (0010) 5022
101 General Fund (0010) 5023
101 General Fund (0010) 5022
101 General Fund (0010) 5023
101 General Fund (0010) 5022
Object Description
COVID-19 Relief Funds
Alternative H&W Payout
Signing Bonus Payout
Alternative H&W Payout
Signing Bonus Payout
Alternative H&W Payout
Signing Bonus Payout
Alternative H&W Payout
Signing Bonus Payout
Alternative H&W Payout
Signing Bonus Payout
Alternative H&W Payout
Signing Bonus Payout
Alternative H&W Payout
Alternative H&W Payout
Signing Bonus Payout
Alternative H&W Payout
Signing Bonus Payout
Professional Services
Transfer in from GP Update
Alternative H&W Payout
Signing Bonus Payout
Alternative H&W Payout
Signing Bonus Payout
Alternative H&W Payout
Signing Bonus Payout
Alternative H&W Payout
Signing Bonus Payout
Alternative H&W Payout
Signing Bonus Payout
Alternative H&W Payout
Signing Bonus Payout
Alternative H&W Payout
Signing Bonus Payout
Alternative H&W Payout
Q1
Adjustments
1,642,875.07
393.75
20,162.75
(2,055.00)
29,048.32
(1,005.00)
7,738.72
(50.00)
5,455.11
(3,250.00)
62,563.10
(1,050.00)
6,029.57
(800.00)
(760.25)
32,228.45
(2,500.00)
25,878.61
4,950.00
4,950.00
(50.00)
2,802.79
(550.00)
4,244.18
1,512.50
7,168.35
250.00
18,267.31
(4,325.00)
149,078.94
250.00
37,647.99
(1,550.00)
18,363.96
(1,250.00)
Rev/Exp
Revenue
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Revenue
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Exhibit A

Key
103047
103065
103065
103066
103066
103067
103550
103550
103551
103551
103590
103590
103650
103650
103650
103652
103652
103654
103658
104070
104070
104071
104071
104076
104076
104076
104078
104078
105525
105525
105525
109595
109595
103067
170000
Budget Division
Traffic
Fire Administration
Fire Administration
Fire Operations
Fire Operations
Community Risk Reduction
Public Works Administration
Public Works Administration
Public Works Engineering
Public Works Engineering
Public Works Tranportation
Public Works Tranportation
Maintenance Services Admin
Maintenance Services Admin
Maintenance Services Admin
Maint Svcs Street Maint
Maint Svcs Street Maint
Maint Svcs Facilities Maint
Maint Svcs Fleet Operations
Comm Svc Administration
Comm Svc Administration
Comm Svc/Recreation Svc
Comm Svc/Recreation Svc
Park Maintinance
Park Maintinance
Park Maintinance
Heritage Festival
Heritage Festival
General Fund/Debt Service
General Fund/Debt Service
General Fund/Debt Service
General Government
General Government
Community Risk Reduction
State Gas Tax Fund/Revenue
Q1 Proposed Adjustments
Fund Fund Description
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
101 General Fund (0010)
205 State Gas Tax (0017)
Object
5023
5022
5023
5022
5023
5022
5022
5023
5022
5023
5022
5023
5023
6315
6360
5022
5023
5023
5023
5022
5023
5022
5023
5015
5022
5023
6099
6401
6925
6935
6936
5023
6296
5023
4079
Object Description
Signing Bonus Payout
Alternative H&W Payout
Signing Bonus Payout
Alternative H&W Payout
Signing Bonus Payout
Alternative H&W Payout
Alternative H&W Payout
Signing Bonus Payout
Alternative H&W Payout
Signing Bonus Payout
Alternative H&W Payout
Signing Bonus Payout
Signing Bonus Payout
Office Supplies
Uniforms
Alternative H&W Payout
Signing Bonus Payout
Signing Bonus Payout
Signing Bonus Payout
Alternative H&W Payout
Signing Bonus Payout
Alternative H&W Payout
Signing Bonus Payout
Overtime
Alternative H&W Payout
Signing Bonus Payout
Professional Services
Community Programs
Issuance Costs
Lease Expenditure
Lease Revenue Bond Exp
Signing Bonus Payout
Admin Service Fee
Signing Bonus Payout
State Gas Tax (2103)
Q1
Adjustments Rev/Exp
5,519.37 Expense
750.00 Expense
19,744.12 Expense
(3,050.00) Expense
69,316.78 Expense
(2,000.00) Expense
192.50 Expense
10,695.62 Expense

75.00 Expense
5,314.71 Expense
(50.00) Expense
6,687.09 Expense
13,610.30 Expense
500.00 Expense
10,000.00 Expense
200.00 Expense
10,277.59 Expense
14,920.29 Expense
6,524.45 Expense
(25.00) Expense
9,847.09 Expense
(550.00) Expense
17,506.63 Expense
5,000.00 Expense
450.00 Expense
3,036.26 Expense
10,000.00 Expense
10,000.00 Expense
(525,000.00) Expense
(3,819,000.00) Expense
4,083,700.00 Expense
(705,349.00) Expense
75,000.00 Expense
8,253.46 Expense
(33,433.00) Revenue
Exhibit A

Key
170000
170000
170000
170000
547525
547525
184071
194315
784070
784070
784070
243551
243551
243551
720000
720000
800000
800000
800000
800000
800000
296561
296561
296561
484356
484356
484376
484376
825525
825525
370000
370000
374386
374386
374386
Budget Division
State Gas Tax Fund/Revenue
State Gas Tax Fund/Revenue
State Gas Tax Fund/Revenue
State Gas Tax Fund/Revenue
Succsr Agncy Retrmnt Oblig Rev
Succsr Agncy Retrmnt Oblig Rev
Measure M - Comm Svc
AQMD Environmental Services
Navigation Center CS
Navigation Center CS
Navigation Center CS
Sewer Engineering
Sewer Engineering
Sewer Engineering
TOD Stscape Impact Fee
TOD Stscape Impact Fee
TOD Streetscape Impact
TOD Streetscape Impact
TOD Streetscape Impact
TOD Streetscape Impact
TOD Streetscape Impact
Landscape Maint District
Landscape Maint District
Landscape Maint District
Envrn Svcs Swr Maint Fnd-Swrs
Envrn Svcs Swr Maint Fnd-Swrs
Environmental Svcs Sewer Maint
Environmental Svcs Sewer Maint
2020A LRB Bond
2020A LRB Bond
Refuse Administration Fund
Refuse Administration Fund
Environmental Svcs Refuse Mgt
Environmental Svcs Refuse Mgt
Environmental Svcs Refuse Mgt
01 Proposed Adjustments
Fund Fund Description
205 State Gas Tax (0017)
205 State Gas Tax (0017)
205 State Gas Tax (0017)
205 State Gas Tax (0017)
208 Sccssr Agncy Ret Oblg (0054)
208 Sccssr Agncy Ret Oblg (0054)
210 Measure M (0018)
215 Air Quality Management (0019)
231 Placentia Reg Nav Cent(0078)
231 Placentia Reg Nav Cent(0078)
231 Placentia Reg Nav Cent(0078)
240 Sewer Construction (0024)
240 Sewer Construction (0024)
240 Sewer Construction (0024)
248 TOD Strscape Impct Fee (0072)
248 TOD Strscape Impct Fee (0072)
249 TOD District CFD (0080)
249 TOD District CFD (0080)
249 TOD District CFD (0080)
249 TOD District CFD (0080)
249 TOD District CFD (0080)
265 Landscape Maintenance (0029)
265 Landscape Maintenance (0029)
265 Landscape Maintenance (0029)
275 Sewer Maintenance (0048)
275 Sewer Maintenance (0048)
275 Sewer Maintenance (0048)
275 Sewer Maintenance (0048)
302 Public Financing Autho(0082)
302 Public Financing Autho(0082)
501 Refuse Administration (0037)
501 Refuse Administration (0037)
501 Refuse Administration (0037)
501 Refuse Administration (0037)
501 Refuse Administration (0037)
Object Object Description
4080 State Gas Tax (2105)
4082 State Gas Tax (2106)
4084 State Gas Tax (2107)
4086 State Gas Tax (2107.5)
5022 Alternative H&W Payout
5023 Signing Bonus Payout
6401 Community Programs
6401 Community Programs
5022 Alternative H&W Payout
6899 Other Capital Outlay
5023 Signing Bonus Payout
5022 Alternative H&W Payout
6750 Infrastructure - Sewer
5023 Signing Bonus Payout
4306 Development Impact Fees
4505 CFD Assessments
4505 CFD Assessments
6115 Landscaping
6301 Special Department Supplies
6335 Water
6330 Electricity
5022 Alternative H&W Payout
5023 Signing Bonus Payout
6115 Landscaping
5022 Alternative H&W Payout
5023 Signing Bonus Payout
5022 Alternative H&W Payout
5023 Signing Bonus Payout
4711 Lease Revenue
6915 Interest/Bonds/COP's/Leases
4354 City Admin Fee
4358 Contractor
5022 Alternative H&W Payout
5023 Signing Bonus Payout
6101 Disposal
Q1
Adjustments
(14,934.00)
(7,685.00)
(18,485.00)
7,500.00
(58.75)
2,975.46
47,160.00
11,740.00
(50.00)
150,000.00
4,560.65
(1,050.00)
(1,200,000.00)
6,453.98
29,900.00
(29,900.00)
31,488.00
15,000.00
5,000.00
3,000.00
1,000.00
(32.50)
3,699.39
10,000.00
(172.25)
8,603.09
137.50
5,398.99
264,700.00
264,700.00
75,800.00
854,000.00
(102.50)
10,172.24
854,000.00
Rev/Exp
Revenue
Revenue
Revenue
Revenue
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Revenue
Revenue
Revenue
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Revenue
Expense
Revenue
Revenue
Expense
Expense
Expense
Exhibit A

Key Budget Division
1 374386 Environmental Svcs Refuse Mgt
01 Proposed Adjustments
Fund Fund Description Object Object Description
501 Refuse Administration (0037) 6290 Dept. Contract Services Q1
Adjustments Rev/Exp
146,520.00 Expense
Exhibit A

Key Budget Division
101009 Alta Vista/Rose Landscape Imp.
101206 Caltrans Public Art Program
103101 TOD/Crowther Sewer Project
105207 City Hall HVAC Replacement
105208 City Ha11/PD Womens Restrooms
105209 City Hall Solar
105211 Main Street Parking Lot Improv
105212 Senior/Community Center 35%
105213 Public Safety Building
105213 Public Safety Building
105213 Public Safety Building
105214 EOC OFFICE RENOVATION
106207 Additional Fire Radios
109202 EFID Design
791201 FY 2021-22 Roadway Rehab Proje
791201 FY 2021-22 Roadway Rehab Proje
791301 FY 2022-23 Roadway Rehab Proje
791302 FY 2022-23 Concrete Repair Pro
791303 Bastanchury Rd Landscape Media
791304 Yorba Linda Blvd Median
794201 Storm Drain Master Plan
795208 City Hall Modernization Projec
795211 Main Street Parking Lot Improv
795301 Refurbish Police Chief Admin C
795302 Refurbish PD Jail Booking Area
795303 Refurbish PD Report Writing Ro
795305 City Hall/PD Interior Lighting
795307 EOC Office Improvement Project
795313 Whitten Center Flooring Improv
796302 IT Infrastructure Replacement
797203 Playground Equipment Replaceme
797205 Replace Park Benches
797305 Replace Park BBQs
797306 Replace Park Picnic Tables
797307 Replace Park Trash cans
Fund
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
117
117
117
117
117
117
117
117
117
117
117
117
117
117
117
117
117
117
117
117
117
FY2022-23 Capital Projects Carryforward
Fund Description
General Fund (0010)
General Fund (0010)
General Fund (0010)
General Fund (0010)
General Fund (0010)
General Fund (0010)
General Fund (0010)
General Fund (0010)
General Fund (0010)
General Fund (0010)
General Fund (0010)
General Fund (0010)
General Fund (0010)
General Fund (0010)
Measure U Fund (0079)
Measure U Fund (0079)
Measure U Fund (0079)
Measure U Fund (0079)
Measure U Fund (0079)
Measure U Fund (0079)
Measure U Fund (0079)
Measure U Fund (0079)
Measure U Fund (0079)
Measure U Fund (0079)
Measure U Fund (0079)
Measure U Fund (0079)
Measure U Fund (0079)
Measure U Fund (0079)
Measure U Fund (0079)
Measure U Fund (0079)
Measure U Fund (0079)
Measure U Fund (0079)
Measure U Fund (0079)
Measure U Fund (0079)
Measure U Fund (0079)
Q1
Object Object Description Adjustments Rev/Exp
6740 Infrastructure - Streets 100,000.00 Expense
4240 Intergovernmental - CalTrans 1,038,240.00 Revenue
6750 Infrastructure - Sewer 116,437.70 Expense
6850 Building & Facilities 110,806.28 Expense
6850 Building & Facilities 150,000.00 Expense
6850 Building & Facilities 110,806.30 Expense
6850 Building & Facilities 17,116.31 Expense
6850 Building & Facilities 445,849.59 Expense
4210 County Grants 132,000.00 Revenue
6850 Building & Facilities 3,172,000.00 Expense
6850 Building & Facilities 325,516.82 Expense
6850 Building & Facilities 10,063.00 Expense
6840 Machinery & Equipment 388.19 Expense
6770 Infrastructure - Major Studies 342,008.97 Expense
6132 Repair & Maintenance/Streets (658.00) Expense
6740 Infrastructure - Streets 322,576.64 Expense
6740 Infrastructure - Streets 39,418.10 Expense
6740 Infrastructure - Streets 107,273.56 Expense
6740 Infrastructure - Streets 33,845.00 Expense
6740 Infrastructure - Streets 14,844.00 Expense
6751 Infrastructure - Storm Drain 3,821.76 Expense
6850 Building & Facilities 174,500.00 Expense
6850 Building & Facilities 46.00 Expense
6850 Building & Facilities 46,098.56 Expense
6850 Building & Facilities 40,000.00 Expense
6850 Building & Facilities 25,000.00 Expense
6850 Building & Facilities 27,415.78 Expense
6850 Building & Facilities 13,637.81 Expense
6850 Building & Facilities 50,000.00 Expense
6364 Computer Hardware 363,614.72 Expense
6760 Infrastructure - Parks 300,000.00 Expense
6760 Infrastructure - Parks 35,139.20 Expense
6760 Infrastructure - Parks 10,000.00 Expense
6760 Infrastructure - Parks 49,500.00 Expense
6760 Infrastructure - Parks 5,897.24 Expense

Key Budget Division
797311 Gomez Park Landscape Improveme
797312 Koch Park Playground Phase 2
797902 Prqe del Arroyo Verde
799202 EFID Design
799203 Hazard Mitigation Plan
601201 FY 2021-22 Roadway Rehab Proje
601301 FY 2022-23 Roadway Rehab Proje
181201 FY 2021-22 Roadway Rehab Proje
181301 FY 2022-23 Roadway Rehab Proje
192002 Orangethorpe TS Sync
192203 Rose/Tustin Regional Traffic S
192808 ImpHwy TS Synch-JL68010
192809 ChapMal TSSynch-JL68004
195102 Civic Center EV Charging Pay S
216203 Purchase New Desktop Computers
749102 Housing Element Update
749104 Chapman Corridor
756205 Citywide Digitalization Proj
635103 Backs Comm. Center Multi-Purpo
637102 Los Vaqueros Perrgola replacem
637304 Handball Courts Resurfacing
637308 Replace Park Drinking Fountain
637902 Prqe del Arroyo Verde
643101 TOD/Crowther Sewer Project
652002 Orangethorpe TS Synchro
652203 Rose/Tustin Regional Traffic S
659302 Caltrans Sustainable Active Tr
659303 Local Roadway Safety Plan
243301 Old Town Sewer Rehab
675308 Refurbish PD Traffic Bureau Wo
675309 Refurbish PD Armory
675311 Refurbish PD Motor Barn
692003 Bicycle Corridor Improvement
697210 Playground Resurfacing (Variou
697212 McFadden Pergola Replacement
FY2022-23 Capital Projects Carryforward
Fund Fund Description
117 Measure U Fund (0079)
117 Measure U Fund (0079)
117 Measure U Fund (0079)
117 Measure U Fund (0079)
117 Measure U Fund (0079)
209 State Gas Tax - RMRA (0060)
209 State Gas Tax - RMRA (0060)
210 Measure M (0018)
210 Measure M (0018)
215 Air Quality Management (0019)
215 Air Quality Management (0019)
215 Air Quality Management (0019)
215 Air Quality Management (0019)
215 Air Quality Management (0019)
225 Asset Seizure (0021)
233 Gen Plan Update Fees (0074)
233 Gen Plan Update Fees (0074)
234 Technology Impact Fees (0075)
236 Parks & Rec Impact Fees (0063)
236 Parks & Rec Impact Fees (0063)
236 Parks & Rec Impact Fees (0063)
236 Parks & Rec Impact Fees (0063)
236 Parks & Rec Impact Fees (0063)
237 Citywide Sewer Impact Fee (0064)
238 City Traffic Impct Fees (0065)
238 City Traffic Impct Fees (0065)
238 City Traffic Impct Fees (0065)
238 City Traffic Impct Fees (0065)
240 Sewer Construction (0024)
242 City Pub Sfty Impct Fee (0067)
242 City Pub Sfty Impct Fee (0067)
242 City Pub Sfty Impct Fee (0067)
243 City Quimby In Lieu Fee (0069)
243 City Quimby In Lieu Fee (0069)
243 City Quimby In Lieu Fee (0069)
Object Object Description
6760 Infrastructure - Parks
6760 Infrastructure - Parks
6760 Infrastructure - Parks
6770 Infrastructure - Major Studies
6770 Infrastructure - Major Studies
6740 Infrastructure - Streets
6740 Infrastructure - Streets
6740 Infrastructure - Streets
6740 Infrastructure - Streets
6741 Infrastructure - Traffic
6741 Infrastructure - Traffic
6741 Infrastructure - Traffic
6741 Infrastructure - Traffic
6850 Building & Facilities
6840 Machinery & Equipment
6017 Special Studies
6017 Special Studies
6840 Machinery & Equipment
6840 Machinery & Equipment
6760 Infrastructure - Parks
6760 Infrastructure - Parks
6760 Infrastructure - Parks
6760 Infrastructure - Parks
6750 Infrastructure - Sewer
6741 Infrastructure - Traffic
6741 Infrastructure - Traffic
6770 Infrastructure - Major Studies
6770 Infrastructure - Major Studies
6750 Infrastructure - Sewer
6850 Building & Facilities
6850 Building & Facilities
6850 Building & Facilities
6741 Infrastructure - Traffic
6760 Infrastructure - Parks
6760 Infrastructure - Parks
Q1
Adjustments Rev/Exp
25,000.00 Expense
600,000.00 Expense
748,060.77 Expense
333,268.48 Expense
47,907.38 Expense
(890.00) Expense
360,849.28 Expense
354.00 Expense
35,710.00 Expense
22,000.00 Expense
53,000.00 Expense
25,000.00 Expense
45,638.00 Expense
25,000.00 Expense
50,000.00 Expense
3,257.50 Expense
70,000.00 Expense
71,384.92 Expense
140,800.00 Expense
24,788.64 Expense
30,000.00 Expense
50,000.00 Expense
1,500,000.00 Expense
35,269.38 Expense
8,000.00 Expense
50,000.00 Expense
25,000.00 Expense
10,000.00 Expense
(600,000.00) Expense
25,000.00 Expense
25,000.00 Expense
25,000.00 Expense
5,697.25 Expense
150,000.00 Expense
50,000.00 Expense

Key Budget Division
697213 Koch Picnic Shelter Replacemen
697301 Playground Equipment Replaceme
697302 Playground Shade Sails
697303 Replace Park Benches
697902 Parque Del Arroyo Verde
702001 TOD Traf Mitigation
709201 Citywide Wayfinding Signage
713101 TOD/Crowther Sewer Project
729201 Citywide Wayfinding Signage Pr
262002 Orangethorpe TS Synchro
305101 Old City Hall ADA Improvement
501301 FY 2022-23 Roadway Rehab Proje
501301 FY 2022-23 Roadway Rehab Proje
502003 Bicycle Corridor Improvement
502003 Bicycle Corridor Improvement
505003 Powell Build HVAC
505003 Powell Build HVAC
505212 Senior/Community Center 35%
507203 Playground Equipment Replaceme
507313 Jaycee Parkette Renovation
507313 Jaycee Parkette Renovation
507911 La Placita Parkette Improvemen
507911 La Placita Parkette Improvemen
509104 Chapman Corridor
509104 Chapman Corridor
509105 Adoption of CEQA Guidelines
509105 Adoption of CEQA Guidelines
841306 Urban Forest Tree Planting Pro
331201 FY 2021-22 Roadway Rehab Proj
331801 GoldenAv Bridge JL61116
331801 GoldenAv Bridge JL61116
332908 HSIP Traffic Singals
332908 HSIP Traffic Singals
339303 Local Roadway Safety Plan
339303 Local Roadway Safety Plan
FY2022-23 Capital Projects Carryforward
Fund Fund Description
243 City Quimby In Lieu Fee (0069)
243 City Quimby In Lieu Fee (0069)
243 City Quimby In Lieu Fee (0069)
243 City Quimby In Lieu Fee (0069)
243 City Quimby In Lieu Fee (0069)
246 TOD Traffic Impact Fees (0070)
246 TOD Traffic Impact Fees (0070)
247 TOD Sewer Impact Fees (0071)
248 TOD Strscape Impct Fee (0072)
250 Thoroughfare Constction (0026)
270 CDBG Fund (0030)
280 Misc Grants Fund (0050)
280 Misc Grants Fund (0050)
280 Misc Grants Fund (0050)
280 Misc Grants Fund (0050)
280 Misc Grants Fund (0050)
280 Misc Grants Fund (0050)
280 Misc Grants Fund (0050)
280 Misc Grants Fund (0050)
280 Misc Grants Fund (0050)
280 Misc Grants Fund (0050)
280 Misc Grants Fund (0050)
280 Misc Grants Fund (0050)
280 Misc Grants Fund (0050)
280 Misc Grants Fund (0050)
280 Misc Grants Fund (0050)
280 Misc Grants Fund (0050)
283 County Annexation (0084)
401 City Capital Projects (0033)
401 City Capital Projects (0033)
401 City Capital Projects (0033)
401 City Capital Projects (0033)
401 City Capital Projects (0033)
401 City Capital Projects (0033)
401 City Capital Projects (0033)
Object Object Description
6760 Infrastructure - Parks
6760 Infrastructure - Parks
6760 Infrastructure - Parks
6760 Infrastructure - Parks
6760 Infrastructure - Parks
6741 Infrastructure - Traffic
6770 Infrastructure - Major Studies
6750 Infrastructure - Sewer
6770 Infrastructure - Major Studies
6741 Infrastructure - Traffic
4201 Federal Grants
4241 Intergovernmental - OCTA
6740 Infrastructure - Streets
4201 Federal Grants
6741 Infrastructure - Traffic
4206 State Grants - Prop 68
6840 Machinery & Equipment
6850 Building & Facilities
6760 Infrastructure - Parks
4206 State Grants - Prop 68
6760 Infrastructure - Parks
4206 State Grants - Prop 68
6760 Infrastructure - Parks
4206 State Grants - Prop 68
6017 Special Studies
4206 State Grants - Prop 68
6017 Special Studies
6740 Infrastructure - Streets
4710 Reimbursements/Other Revenue
4201 Federal Grants
6740 Infrastructure - Streets
4206 State Grants - Prop 68
6741 Infrastructure - Traffic
4205 State Grants
6770 Infrastructure - Major Studies
Q1
Adjustments
100,000.00
300,000.00
45,000.00
66,927.80
525,316.27
13,586.52
7,367.00
307,187.78
7,364.00
4,172.00
28,936.00
200,000.00
63,272.40
96,386.79
27,028.97
208,837.00
208,837.00
500,000.00
2,000.00
610,000.00
610,000.00
640,000.00
395,434.70
130,000.00
77,031.02
20,000.00
20,000.00
119,594.04
309,362.00
2,200,000.00
2,754,415.68
1,643,000.00
904,836.65
45,000.00
45,000.00
Rev/Exp
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Expense
Revenue
Revenue
Expense
Revenue
Expense
Revenue
Expense
Expense
Expense
Revenue
Expense
Revenue
Expense
Revenue
Expense
Revenue
Expense
Expense
Revenue
Revenue
Expense
Revenue
Expense
Revenue
Expense

Master Salary Schedule
Job Class and Annual Salary Schedule
Effective July 1, 2023

STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP E
JOB CLASS Hr. Monthly Annual Hr. Monthly Annual Hr. Monthly Annual Hr. Monthly Annual Hr. Monthly Annual ACCOUNT CLERK 20.65 3,579.21 42,950.53 21.76 3,772.49 45,269.86 22.94 3,976.20 47,714.43 24.18 4,190.92 50,291.03 25.48 4,417.23 53,006.73 ACCOUNTANT 34.80 6,031.37 72,376.47 36.54 6,332.94 75,995.29 38.36 6,649.59 79,795.05 40.28 6,982.07 83,784.80 42.30 7,331.17 87,974.05 ACCOUNTING MANAGER 50.77 8,800.96 105,611.47 53.31 9,241.00 110,892.05 55.98 9,703.06 116,436.66 58.78 10,188.21 122,258.48 61.72 10,697.62 128,371.41 ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN 24.26 4,204.92 50,459.04 25.57 4,431.99 53,183.82 26.95 4,671.31 56,055.74 28.41 4,923.56 59,082.74 29.94 5,189.43 62,273.20 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 24.13 4,182.03 50,184.34 25.43 4,407.86 52,894.30 26.80 4,645.88 55,750.58 28.25 4,896.76 58,761.11 29.78 5,161.18 61,934.22 ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST 25.82 4,475.77 53,709.18 27.22 4,717.45 56,609.46 28.69 4,972.20 59,666.38 30.23 5,240.70 62,888.37 31.87 5,523.69 66,284.34 ASSISTANT CITY ADMINISTRATOR 82.22 14,251.86 171,022.33 86.33 14,964.45 179,573.45 90.65 15,712.68 188,552.12 95.18 16,498.31 197,979.72 99.94 17,323.23 207,878.72 ASSISTANT PLANNER 29.32 5,081.93 60,983.19 30.90 5,356.36 64,276.30 32.57 5,645.60 67,747.21 34.33 5,950.46 71,405.55 36.18 6,271.79 75,261.47 ASSISTANT TO CA / ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MANAGER 56.29 9,756.59 117,079.10 59.10 10,244.42 122,933.04 62.06 10,756.64 129,079.68 65.16 11,294.47 135,533.70 68.42 11,859.20 142,310.36 ASSOCIATE CIVIL ENGINEER 44.03 7,631.50 91,577.96 46.22 8,012.04 96,144.49 48.54 8,413.20 100,958.46 50.96 8,833.12 105,997.38 53.51 9,275.52 111,306.25 ASSOCIATE PLANNER 38.19 6,619.21 79,430.58 40.10 6,950.18 83,402.12 42.10 7,297.69 87,572.24 44.21 7,662.57 91,950.83 46.42 8,045.70 96,548.37 BUILDING INSPECTOR 30.80 5,338.43 64,061.11 32.46 5,626.70 67,520.42 34.21 5,930.54 71,166.52 36.06 6,250.79 75,009.50 38.01 6,588.33 79,060.01 BUILDING PERMIT TECHNICIAN 24.26 4,204.92 50,459.04 25.57 4,431.99 53,183.82 26.95 4,671.31 56,055.74 28.41 4,923.56 59,082.74 29.94 5,189.43 62,273.20 CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL 52.90 9,169.14 110,029.73 55.54 9,627.60 115,531.22 58.32 10,108.98 121,307.78 61.24 10,614.43 127,373.17 64.30 11,145.15 133,741.83 CHIEF DEPUTY CITY CLERK 43.15 7,479.89 89,758.69 45.31 7,853.89 94,246.62 47.58 8,246.58 98,958.95 49.96 8,658.91 103,906.90 52.45 9,091.85 109,102.25 CITY ADMINISTRATOR 109.29 18,944.26 227,331.07 114.76 19,891.47 238,697.63 118.78 20,587.67 247,052.05 139.60 24,197.11 290,365.29 147.97 25,648.93 307,787.20 CITY CLERK SPECIALIST 25.82 4,475.77 53,709.18 27.22 4,717.46 56,609.48 28.69 4,972.20 59,666.39 30.23 5,240.70 62,888.37 31.87 5,523.70 66,284.35 CITY ENGINEER/DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS 63.51 11,008.51 132,102.11 66.69 11,558.93 138,707.22 70.02 12,136.88 145,642.58 73.52 12,743.72 152,924.70 77.20 13,380.91 160,570.96 CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER 43.44 7,529.16 90,349.90 45.61 7,905.62 94,867.40 47.89 8,300.90 99,610.76 50.28 8,715.94 104,591.30 52.80 9,151.74 109,820.87 CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER 28.23 4,892.38 58,708.57 29.75 5,156.57 61,878.83 31.36 5,435.02 65,220.30 33.05 5,728.52 68,742.21 34.83 6,037.86 72,454.27 CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR 37.02 6,415.99 76,991.91 38.87 6,736.79 80,841.51 40.81 7,073.63 84,883.59 42.85 7,427.32 89,127.81 44.99 7,798.68 93,584.15 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING MANAGER 43.44 7,529.16 90,349.90 45.61 7,905.62 94,867.40 47.89 8,300.90 99,610.76 50.28 8,715.94 104,591.30 52.80 9,151.74 109,820.87 COMMUNITY SERVICES COORDINATOR 25.82 4,475.77 53,709.18 27.22 4,717.45 56,609.46 28.69 4,972.20 59,666.38 30.23 5,240.70 62,888.37 31.87 5,523.69 66,284.34 COMMUNITY SERVICES OFFICER 23.05 3,995.57 47,946.85 24.30 4,211.33 50,535.99 25.61 4,438.74 53,264.94 26.99 4,678.44 56,141.24 28.45 4,931.07 59,172.87 COMMUNITY SERVICES SUPERVISOR 37.02 6,415.99 76,991.91 38.87 6,736.79 80,841.51 40.81 7,073.63 84,883.59 42.85 7,427.32 89,127.81 44.99 7,798.68 93,584.15 CRIME ANALYST 37.02 6,415.99 76,991.91 38.87 6,736.79 80,841.51 40.81 7,073.63 84,883.59 42.85 7,427.31 89,127.76 44.99 7,798.68 93,584.15 CRIME PREVENTION OFFICER 23.66 4,100.39 49,204.65 24.93 4,321.81 51,861.71 26.28 4,555.19 54,662.23 27.70 4,801.17 57,613.99 29.19 5,060.43 60,725.15 CUSTODIAN 19.95 3,458.20 41,498.44 21.03 3,644.95 43,739.35 22.16 3,841.77 46,101.25 23.36 4,049.23 48,590.72 24.62 4,267.89 51,214.63 DEPUTY CHIEF OF POLICE 82.84 14,358.72 172,304.61 86.98 15,076.65 180,919.84 91.33 15,830.49 189,965.83 95.90 16,622.01 199,464.12 100.69 17,453.11 209,437.33 DEPUTY CITY ADMINISTRATOR 97.54 16,907.49 202,889.92 102.42 17,752.87 213,034.42 107.54 18,640.51 223,686.13 112.92 19,572.54 234,870.45 118.56 20,551.16 246,613.96 DEPUTY CITY CLERK 33.73 5,846.25 70,155.03 35.41 6,138.56 73,662.77 37.19 6,445.49 77,345.90 39.04 6,767.77 81,213.18 41.00 7,106.16 85,273.87 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 69.36 12,022.07 144,264.88 72.83 12,623.18 151,478.12 76.47 13,254.34 159,052.03 80.29 13,917.05 167,004.63 84.31 14,612.91 175,354.86 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES 48.60 8,424.59 101,095.05 51.03 8,845.82 106,149.79 53.59 9,288.11 111,457.29 56.26 9,752.51 117,030.14 59.08 10,240.14 122,881.66 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COORDINATOR 28.23 4,892.38 58,708.56 29.75 5,156.57 61,878.82 31.36 5,435.02 65,220.28 33.05 5,728.51 68,742.17 34.83 6,037.85 72,454.25 DIGITAL MEDIA ANALYST 37.02 6,415.99 76,991.91 38.87 6,736.79 80,841.51 40.81 7,073.63 84,883.59 42.85 7,427.31 89,127.76 44.99 7,798.68 93,584.15 DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 78.34 13,578.52 162,942.26 82.25 14,257.45 171,089.35 86.37 14,970.32 179,643.84 90.69 15,718.84 188,626.03 95.22 16,504.78 198,057.33 DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICE 78.34 13,578.52 162,942.26 82.25 14,257.45 171,089.35 86.37 14,970.32 179,643.84 90.69 15,718.84 188,626.03 95.22 16,504.78 198,057.33 DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SVCS 78.34 13,578.52 162,942.26 82.25 14,257.45 171,089.35 86.37 14,970.32 179,643.84 90.69 15,718.84 188,626.03 95.22 16,504.78 198,057.33 DIRECTOR OF FINANCE 78.34 13,578.52 162,942.26 82.25 14,257.45 171,089.35 86.37 14,970.32 179,643.84 90.69 15,718.84 188,626.03 95.22 16,504.78 198,057.33 DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES 74.42 12,899.66 154,795.90 78.14 13,544.64 162,535.69 82.05 14,221.87 170,662.48 86.15 14,932.97 179,195.60 90.46 15,679.62 188,155.39 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS 78.34 13,578.52 162,942.26 82.25 14,257.45 171,089.35 86.37 14,970.32 179,643.84 90.69 15,718.84 188,626.03 95.22 16,504.78 198,057.33 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MANAGER 43.44 7,529.16 90,349.90 45.61 7,905.62 94,867.40 47.89 8,300.90 99,610.76 50.28 8,715.94 104,591.30 52.80 9,151.74 109,820.87 ENGINEERING AIDE 19.13 3,315.62 39,787.43 20.16 3,494.66 41,935.96 21.25 3,683.38 44,200.52 22.40 3,882.28 46,587.35 23.61 4,091.92 49,103.07 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE OFFICER 28.94 5,016.95 60,203.43 30.51 5,287.87 63,454.42 32.15 5,573.41 66,880.96 33.89 5,874.38 70,492.54 35.72 6,191.59 74,299.12 EQUIPMENT MECHANIC 26.08 4,521.37 54,256.47 27.49 4,765.53 57,186.33 28.98 5,022.87 60,274.39 30.54 5,294.10 63,529.21 32.19 5,579.98 66,959.78 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO CITY ADMINISTRATOR 29.53 5,118.85 61,426.18 31.13 5,395.26 64,743.18 32.81 5,686.61 68,239.32 34.58 5,993.69 71,924.23 36.45 6,317.35 75,808.15 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE TECH 25.93 4,495.30 53,943.62 27.33 4,738.05 56,856.57 28.81 4,993.90 59,926.84 30.37 5,263.57 63,162.88 32.01 5,547.81 66,573.66 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE TECH II 27.40 4,748.59 56,983.05 28.88 5,005.01 60,060.12 30.43 5,275.28 63,303.36 32.08 5,560.14 66,721.73 33.81 5,860.39 70,324.71 FINANCE SERVICE MANAGER 50.77 8,800.96 105,611.48 53.31 9,241.00 110,892.05 55.98 9,703.05 116,436.65 58.78 10,188.21 122,258.49 61.72 10,697.62 128,371.41 FIRE BATTALION CHIEF 40.63 9,859.21 118,310.51 42.82 10,391.60 124,699.25 45.13 10,952.73 131,432.78 47.57 11,544.18 138,530.20 50.14 12,167.55 146,010.61 FIRE CAPTAIN 30.64 7,436.21 89,234.49 32.30 7,837.77 94,053.20 34.04 8,260.97 99,131.69 35.88 8,707.05 104,484.56 37.82 9,177.20 110,126.45 FIRE CHIEF 78.34 13,578.52 162,942.26 82.25 14,257.45 171,089.36 86.37 14,970.32 179,643.82 90.69 15,718.84 188,626.04 95.22 16,504.78 198,057.32 REVISED: 9/5/2023

Master Salary Schedule
Job Class and Annual Salary Schedule
Effective July 1, 2023

STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP E
JOB CLASS Hr. Monthly Annual Hr. Monthly Annual Hr. Monthly Annual Hr. Monthly Annual Hr. Monthly Annual FIRE DEPUTY CHIEF 69.36 12,022.07 144,264.88 72.83 12,623.18 151,478.12 76.47 13,254.34 159,052.03 80.29 13,917.05 167,004.63 84.31 14,612.91 175,354.86 FIRE ENGINEER 26.30 6,381.28 76,575.38 27.72 6,725.86 80,710.36 29.21 7,089.09 85,069.13 30.79 7,471.91 89,662.94 32.45 7,875.35 94,504.14 FIRE FIGHTER 23.11 5,608.24 67,298.93 24.36 5,911.12 70,933.49 25.67 6,230.31 74,763.72 27.06 6,566.74 78,800.88 28.52 6,921.35 83,056.18 FIRE MARSHAL 59.72 10,352.17 124,226.04 62.95 10,911.18 130,934.21 66.35 11,500.37 138,004.42 69.93 12,121.39 145,456.71 73.71 12,775.93 153,311.14 FIRE PATROL ENGINEER 30.68 6,381.28 76,575.38 32.34 6,725.86 80,710.36 34.08 7,089.09 85,069.13 35.92 7,471.91 89,662.94 37.86 7,875.35 94,504.14 FIRE PREVENTION SPECIALIST 37.02 6,415.99 76,991.91 38.87 6,736.79 80,841.51 40.81 7,073.63 84,883.59 42.85 7,427.31 89,127.76 44.99 7,798.68 93,584.15 GIS SPECIALIST 24.13 4,182.03 50,184.34 25.43 4,407.86 52,894.30 26.80 4,645.88 55,750.59 28.25 4,896.76 58,761.12 29.78 5,161.18 61,934.22 GIS TECHNICIAN 27.18 4,711.41 56,536.95 28.65 4,965.83 59,589.95 30.20 5,233.98 62,807.81 31.83 5,516.62 66,199.44 33.55 5,814.52 69,774.22 HUMAN RESOURCE ANALYST 37.02 6,415.99 76,991.91 38.87 6,736.79 80,841.51 40.81 7,073.63 84,883.59 42.85 7,427.31 89,127.76 44.99 7,798.68 93,584.15 HUMAN RESOURCE TECHNICIAN 27.18 4,711.41 56,536.95 28.65 4,965.83 59,589.95 30.20 5,233.98 62,807.81 31.83 5,516.62 66,199.44 33.55 5,814.52 69,774.22 HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER 43.44 7,529.16 90,349.90 45.61 7,905.62 94,867.40 47.89 8,300.90 99,610.76 50.28 8,715.94 104,591.30 52.80 9,151.74 109,820.87 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGER 57.98 10,049.29 120,591.46 60.88 10,551.75 126,621.03 63.92 11,079.34 132,952.07 67.12 11,633.31 139,599.71 70.47 12,214.97 146,579.67 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SPECIALIST 37.02 6,415.99 76,991.91 38.87 6,736.79 80,841.51 40.81 7,073.63 84,883.59 42.85 7,427.31 89,127.76 44.99 7,798.68 93,584.15 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TECH 30.80 5,338.43 64,061.11 32.46 5,626.70 67,520.42 34.21 5,930.54 71,166.52 36.06 6,250.79 75,009.50 38.01 6,588.33 79,060.01 IT POLICE SERGEANT 50.60 8,771.01 105,252.16 53.33 9,244.65 110,935.79 56.21 9,743.86 116,926.33 59.25 10,270.03 123,240.35 62.45 10,824.61 129,895.32 MAINTENANCE CREW LEADER 26.62 4,613.58 55,362.94 28.05 4,862.71 58,352.53 29.57 5,125.30 61,503.55 31.17 5,402.06 64,824.76 32.85 5,693.77 68,325.29 MAINTENANCE WORKER 23.66 4,100.39 49,204.64 24.93 4,321.81 51,861.67 26.28 4,555.18 54,662.21 27.70 4,801.16 57,613.96 29.19 5,060.43 60,725.11 MANAGEMENT ANALYST 37.02 6,415.99 76,991.91 38.87 6,736.79 80,841.51 40.81 7,073.63 84,883.59 42.85 7,427.31 89,127.76 44.99 7,798.68 93,584.15 MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT 27.18 4,711.41 56,536.95 28.65 4,965.83 59,589.95 30.20 5,233.98 62,807.81 31.83 5,516.62 66,199.44 33.55 5,814.52 69,774.22 MEDIA SERVICES SPECIALIST 28.23 4,892.38 58,708.57 29.75 5,156.57 61,878.83 31.36 5,435.02 65,220.30 33.05 5,728.52 68,742.21 34.83 6,037.86 72,454.27 NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES MANAGER 43.44 7,529.16 90,349.90 45.61 7,905.62 94,867.40 47.89 8,300.90 99,610.76 50.28 8,715.94 104,591.30 52.80 9,151.74 109,820.87 OFFICE ASSISTANT 18.63 3,229.22 38,750.69 19.64 3,403.60 40,843.23 20.70 3,587.40 43,048.76 21.81 3,781.11 45,373.38 22.99 3,985.30 47,823.54 OFFICE CLERK 20.65 3,579.21 42,950.53 21.76 3,772.49 45,269.86 22.94 3,976.20 47,714.43 24.18 4,190.92 50,291.03 25.48 4,417.23 53,006.73 OFFICE SPECIALIST 22.00 3,812.59 45,751.13 23.18 4,018.48 48,221.70 24.44 4,235.47 50,825.68 25.75 4,464.19 53,570.25 27.15 4,705.25 56,463.06 PARKING CONTROL OFFICER 19.95 3,458.20 41,498.44 21.03 3,644.95 43,739.35 22.16 3,841.77 46,101.25 23.36 4,049.23 48,590.72 24.62 4,267.89 51,214.63 PLANNING AIDE 19.13 3,315.62 39,787.43 20.16 3,494.66 41,935.96 21.25 3,683.38 44,200.52 22.40 3,882.28 46,587.35 23.61 4,091.92 49,103.07 PLANNING MANAGER 57.74 10,007.73 120,092.74 60.62 10,508.11 126,097.38 63.65 11,033.52 132,402.25 66.84 11,585.20 139,022.36 70.18 12,164.46 145,973.48 PLANNING TECH 24.26 4,204.92 50,459.04 25.57 4,431.99 53,183.82 26.95 4,671.31 56,055.74 28.41 4,923.56 59,082.74 29.94 5,189.43 62,273.20 PLANS EXAMINER 42.79 7,416.16 88,993.96 44.92 7,786.97 93,443.68 47.17 8,176.32 98,115.84 49.53 8,585.14 103,021.63 52.01 9,014.39 108,172.71 POLICE ACADEMY TRAINEE 39.02 6,763.33 81,159.99 LI =I 1 ISI 1 1 1 1 1 1 POLICE CAPTAIN 71.06 12,316.57 147,798.80 74.89 12,981.66 155,779.94 78.94 13,682.67 164,192.06 83.20 14,421.54 173,058.43 87.69 15,200.30 182,403.57 POLICE CHIEF 87.45 15,157.56 181,890.69 91.82 15,915.43 190,985.22 96.41 16,711.21 200,534.46 101.23 17,546.77 210,561.20 106.29 18,424.11 221,089.26 POLICE CIVILIAN INVESTIGATOR 31.95 5,537.92 66,454.98 33.67 5,836.96 70,043.56 35.49 6,152.16 73,825.92 37.41 6,484.38 77,812.52 39.43 6,834.53 82,014.40 POLICE LIEUTENANT 61.22 10,612.05 127,344.59 64.53 11,185.10 134,221.20 68.01 11,789.10 141,469.14 71.69 12,425.71 149,108.48 75.56 13,096.70 157,160.35 POLICE OFFICER 41.07 7,119.30 85,431.56 43.29 7,503.74 90,044.86 45.63 7,908.94 94,907.27 48.09 8,336.02 100,032.27 50.69 8,786.17 105,434.01 POLICE PROPERTY TECHNICIAN 28.53 4,944.38 59,332.58 30.07 5,211.38 62,536.54 31.69 5,492.79 65,913.52 33.40 5,789.41 69,472.86 35.20 6,102.03 73,224.40 POLICE SERGEANT 48.01 8,321.64 99,859.73 50.60 8,771.01 105,252.16 53.33 9,244.65 110,935.77 56.21 9,743.86 116,926.30 59.25 10,270.03 123,240.32 POLICE SERVICE OFFICER 23.05 3,995.57 47,946.85 24.30 4,211.33 50,535.99 25.61 4,438.74 53,264.94 26.99 4,678.44 56,141.24 28.45 4,931.07 59,172.87 POLICE SERVICES SUPERVISOR 33.55 5,815.14 69,781.73 35.36 6,129.16 73,549.94 37.27 6,460.14 77,521.63 39.28 6,808.98 81,707.80 41.40 7,176.67 86,120.01 PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATION MANAGER 57.98 10,049.29 120,591.46 60.88 10,551.75 126,621.03 63.92 11,079.34 132,952.07 67.12 11,633.31 139,599.71 70.47 12,214.97 146,579.67 PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATION SUPERVISOR -DISPATCH 43.56 7,550.55 90,606.60 45.91 7,958.28 95,499.36 48.39 8,388.03 100,656.32 51.01 8,840.98 106,091.76 53.76 9,318.39 111,820.72 PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHER 31.36 5,435.03 65,220.34 33.05 5,728.52 68,742.25 34.83 6,037.86 72,454.34 36.71 6,363.91 76,366.89 38.70 6,707.56 80,490.69 PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR 30.40 5,268.59 63,223.07 32.04 5,553.09 66,637.12 33.77 5,852.96 70,235.52 35.59 6,169.02 74,028.24 37.51 6,502.15 78,025.76 PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER 57.74 10,007.73 120,092.74 60.62 10,508.11 126,097.38 63.65 11,033.52 132,402.25 66.84 11,585.20 139,022.36 70.18 12,164.46 145,973.48 PUBLIC WORKS SUPERINTENDENT 43.44 7,529.16 90,349.89 45.61 7,905.61 94,867.37 47.89 8,300.90 99,610.75 50.28 8,715.94 104,591.29 52.80 9,151.74 109,820.85 PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISOR 34.80 6,031.37 72,376.45 36.54 6,332.94 75,995.28 38.36 6,649.59 79,795.04 40.28 6,982.07 83,784.79 42.30 7,331.17 87,974.03 RISK MANAGER 57.98 10,049.29 120,591.46 60.88 10,551.75 126,621.03 63.92 11,079.34 132,952.07 67.12 11,633.31 139,599.71 70.47 12,214.97 146,579.67 SENIOR ACCOUNTANT 42.79 7,416.16 88,993.96 44.92 7,786.97 93,443.68 47.17 8,176.32 98,115.84 49.53 8,585.14 103,021.63 52.01 9,014.39 108,172.71 SENIOR ACCOUNTANT II 48.60 8,424.59 101,095.06 51.03 8,845.82 106,149.81 53.59 9,288.11 111,457.30 56.26 9,752.51 117,030.17 59.08 10,240.14 122,881.67 SENIOR ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN 27.18 4,711.41 56,536.95 28.65 4,965.83 59,589.95 30.20 5,233.98 62,807.81 31.83 5,516.62 66,199.44 33.55 5,814.52 69,774.22 SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 28.23 4,892.38 58,708.57 29.75 5,156.57 61,878.83 31.36 5,435.02 65,220.30 33.05 5,728.52 68,742.21 34.83 6,037.86 72,454.27 SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR 31.15 5,399.30 64,791.56 32.83 5,690.86 68,290.31 34.60 5,998.17 71,977.98 36.47 6,322.07 75,864.80 38.44 6,663.46 79,961.49 REVISED: 9/5/2023

Master Salary Schedule
Job Class and Annual Salary Schedule
Effective July 1, 2023

STEP A STEP B STEP C STEP D STEP E
JOB CLASS Hr. Monthly Annual Hr. Monthly Annual Hr. Monthly Annual Hr. Monthly Annual Hr. Monthly Annual SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER 56.29 9,756.59 117,079.10 59.10 10,244.42 122,933.04 62.06 10,756.64 129,079.68 65.16 11,294.47 135,533.70 68.42 11,859.20 142,310.36 SENIOR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER 30.80 5,338.43 64,061.11 32.46 5,626.70 67,520.42 34.21 5,930.54 71,166.52 36.06 6,250.79 75,009.50 38.01 6,588.33 79,060.01 SENIOR CUSTODIAN 24.37 4,223.40 50,680.78 25.68 4,451.46 53,417.52 27.07 4,691.84 56,302.08 28.53 4,945.20 59,342.38 30.07 5,212.24 62,546.87 SENIOR ENGINEERING AIDE 27.40 4,748.59 56,983.05 28.88 5,005.01 60,060.12 30.43 5,275.28 63,303.36 32.08 5,560.14 66,721.73 33.81 5,860.39 70,324.71 SENIOR FINANCIAL ANALYST 43.15 7,479.89 89,758.68 45.31 7,853.89 94,246.62 47.58 8,246.58 98,958.95 49.96 8,658.91 103,906.90 52.45 9,091.85 109,102.23 SENIOR HUMAN RESOURCE ANALYST 43.15 7,479.89 89,758.68 45.31 7,853.89 94,246.62 47.58 8,246.58 98,958.95 49.96 8,658.91 103,906.90 52.45 9,091.85 109,102.23 SENIOR HUMAN RESOURCE TECHNICIAN 28.53 4,944.38 59,332.58 30.07 5,211.38 62,536.54 31.69 5,492.79 65,913.52 33.40 5,789.41 69,472.86 35.20 6,102.03 73,224.40 SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST 43.15 7,479.89 89,758.68 45.31 7,853.89 94,246.62 47.58 8,246.58 98,958.95 49.96 8,658.91 103,906.90 52.45 9,091.85 109,102.23 SENIOR PLANNER 48.60 8,424.59 101,095.05 51.03 8,845.82 106,149.79 53.59 9,288.11 111,457.29 56.26 9,752.51 117,030.14 59.08 10,240.14 122,881.66 TRAFFIC ENGINEER 52.90 9,169.14 110,029.72 55.54 9,627.60 115,531.21 58.32 10,108.98 121,307.78 61.24 10,614.43 127,373.18 64.30 11,145.15 133,741.84 TRANSPORTATION MANAGER 52.90 9,169.14 110,029.72 55.54 9,627.60 115,531.21 58.32 10,108.98 121,307.78 61.24 10,614.43 127,373.18 64.30 11,145.15 133,741.84

PART TIME

STEP A STEP B STEPC STEP D
JOB CLASS Hr. Hr. Hr. Hr.

ADMINISTRATIVE INTERN 15.75 16.06 16.38 16.71
CLERICAL AIDE 18.54 18.91 19.29 19.67
COMMUNITY SERVICES LEADER 15.61 15.92
COMMUNITY SERVICES SPECIALIST 17.57 17.93 18.28 18.64
INSTRUCTOR GUARD 17.57 17.93 18.28 18.64
LIFEGUARD 16.55 16.88 17.22 17.56
MAINTENANCE AIDE 15.75 16.06 16.38 16.71
POLICE CADET 15.75 16.06 16.38 16.71
POLICE RESERVE OFFICER - LEVEL 1 21.43 22.82 24.21 25.70 POOL MANAGER 20.82 21.24 21.65 22.00
PRODUCTION ASSISTANT 15.61 15.92
PRODUCTION COORDINATOR 19.50 19.89 20.29 20.69
PROGRAM COORDINATOR 21.00 21.42 21.85 22.29
SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES LEADER 16.23 16.55 16.89 17.23 SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES SPECIALIST 19.03 19.41 19.80 20.20 SENIOR INSTRUCTOR GUARD 19.69 20.09 20.49 20.90

ELECTED
SALARY

JOB CLASS MONTHLY
MAYOR/COUNCILMEMBERS 150
CITY CLERK 150
CITY TREASURER 50
REVISED: 9/5/2023

TO:

VIA:

FROM:

DATE:

Placentia City Council

CITY COUNCIL

CITY ADMINISTRATOR

DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
SEPTEMBER 5, 2023

AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: CITY RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT ENTITLED: "WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD" ARE CITIES RESPONSIBLY MANAGING THE
INTEGRATION OF GROUP HOMES?
FISCAL
IMPACT: NONE
SUMMARY:

The Orange County Grand Jury publicly issued a report on June 12, 2023, entitled: "Welcome to the Neighborhood" Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes? 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 Grand Jury Report provides a series of findings and recommendations for local agencies to address and implement. The City of Placentia, along with all Orange County cities and the County of Orange were directed by the Grand Jury to review and respond to its findings and recommendations. Pursuant to State law, the City is obligated to provide a response, which is attached to this agenda report for the City Council's review.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:

1. Review the City's response to the Grand Jury Report; and

2. Direct Staff to submit the attached letter to the Presiding Judge of the Orange County Grand Jury, to be signed by Mayor Smith.

STRATEGIC PLAN STATEMENT:

This item is consistent with the City Council approved 5 -Year Strategic Goal to achieve:

Goal 8 to Improve City Governance, as Objective Number 8.1 encourages the City to update all rules and policies consistent with State regulations and Objective 8.2 encourages the City to monitor legislation. This agenda item will result in the City monitoring any changes to group home regulations at the State level and also results in the City actively establishing revised group home regulations and policies consistent with State law if changes to State law occur.

1.i.

Sept. 05, 2023

City Council Agenda
September 5, 2023

BACKGROUND:

On June 12, 2023, the Orange County Grand Jury released a report entitled, "Welcome to the Neighborhood, Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes? "The purpose of the report, as stated on page 6, is to examine how Orange County cities are addressing group homes, the impact group homes have on neighborhoods and group home residents, how cities are managing the influx of group homes, and identify best practices. A complete copy of the report is included as Attachment 1.

DISCUSSION:

California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 requires any public agency that the Grand Jury reviews to respond to the findings and recommendations of the Grand Jury Report. The City of Placentia is required to respond because it is reviewed in the report along with the other 33 Orange County cities and the County of Orange. Staff has reviewed the Grand Jury Report and drafted a response letter with the Mayor's signature for City Council consideration. The proposed response letter in Attachment 2 responds to each of the applicable findings and recommendations listed on pages 24-25 of the report.

Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the City's response to the Grand Jury Report is due on September 10, 2023. Staff recommends that the City Council review the proposed response, provide input to staff, and, if appropriate, authorize the Mayor to sign Attachment 2.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the recommended actions.

Prepared by:

TDr
ic•Ietr ,Iias
Cotnmunications and Marketing Manager
Reviewed and approved:
7 -rad Butts
Chief of Police
Reviewed and approved:

OJ sephM. ambert
Director of Development Services
Reviewed and approved:

Damien R. Arrula
City Administrator
Attachments:

1. Orange County Grand Jury Report on group homes

2. City of Placentia's Response Letter

June 7, 2023
Mayor Ward L. Smith
City of Placentia
401 E. Chapman Ave.

Placentia, CA 92870
Dear Mayor Smith:

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY
700 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST • SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 • 714/834-3320 www.ocgrandjury.org • FAX 714/834-5555

CONFIDENTIAL
Enclosed is a copy of the 2022-2023 Orange County Grand Jury report, "Welcome to the Neighborhood" Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes? Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05(f), a copy of the report is being provided to you at least two working days. prior to its public release. Please note that under that subsection, "No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report." (Emphasis added.) It is required that you provide a response to each of the findings and recommendations of this report directed to your office in compliance with Penal Code 933.05(a) and (b), copy is enclosed.

Please distribute this report to your governing body.

For each Grand Jury recommendation accepted and not implemented, provide a schedule for future implementation. In addition, by the end of March of each subsequent year, please report on the progress being made on each recommendation accepted but not completed. These annual reports should continue until all recommendations are implemented.

Please mail the response to the recommendations to Maria Hernandez, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701, with a separate copy mailed to the Orange County Grand Jury, 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701, no later than 90 days after the public release date, June 12, 2023, in compliance with Penal Code 933, copy enclosed. The due date then is September 13, 2023.

Should additional time for responding to this report be necessary for further analysis, Penal Code 933.05(b)(3) permits an extension of time up to six months from the public release date. Such extensions should be advised in writing, with the information required in Penal Code 933.05(b)(3), to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, with a separate copy of the request to the Grand Jury.

We tentatively plan to issue the public release on June 13, 2023. The report will be available on the Grand Jury website at www.ocgrandjury.org upon public release.

JVS:jm
Enclosures: Grand Jury Report
Penal Code 933, 933.05
Cc: Damien Arrula, City Manager
V. ragusa oreperson
2022-2023 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY

California Penal Code Sections ,S933 and ,S933.05
(Note: To reduce grand jury requests for additional response information, the grand Jury has bolded those words in §933.05 which should be appropriately included in a response.)
933. (a) Each grand jury shall submit to the presiding judge of the superior court a final report of its fndings and recommendations that pertain to county government matters during the fiscal or calendar year. Final reports on any appropriate subject may be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court at any time during the term of service of a grand jury. A final report may be submitted for comment to responsible officers, agencies, or departments, including the county board of supervisors, when applicable, upon finding gill,' presiding jildgP that the report is in compliance with this title. For 45 days after the end of the term, the foreperson and his or her designees shall, upon reasonable notice, be available to clarify the recommendations of the report. (b) One copy of each final report; together with the responses thereto, found to be in compliance with this title shall be placed on file with the clerk bf the'court and remain on file in the office of the clerk. The clerk shall immediately forward a true copy of the report and the responses to the State Archivist who shall retain that report and all responses in perpetuity.
(c) No later than 90 days after -.the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority; the governing body of the. public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings' and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations • pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the.findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be .placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years.
(d) As used in this section "agency" includes a department. 933.05. (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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)- For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, 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 timeframe for implementation.
(3.) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or -department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe 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)__.However; if a. finding or.recommendation ofthe 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_thegrand jury; but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary orpersonnel 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.
(d) .A grand jury mayrequesta subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the _grand jury -.report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release. -
(e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental.
(0 A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report,

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
III Ili 1 0111111111 1 1.1

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 Toss 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.

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 3 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

BACKGROUND
Orange County has 42 miles of beautiful coastline, three harbors, and 25 urban and wilderness parks - including 230 miles of riding and hiking trails. Orange County also has the dubious honor of having more than its share of our State's total number of group recovery and sober living residences. Frequently referred to as "The Rehab Riviera", several cities in Orange County have been dealing with pockets of over - concentration of these types of group homes. This has posed challenges for the residents in whose neighborhoods they are located, as well as the occupants of the recovery and sober living homes.

The Orange County coast is a magnet for 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.

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.'
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 4 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
I li iii II ILII . In
Since deinstitutionalization, the State of California has resisted appeals from local cities to pass permitting laws, distancing requirements, or any type of regulation at all. There is a misconception that these regulatory ordinances are intended to discriminate against people who are disabled due to alcohol and drug addiction, and the State of California has cited this misconception as the guiding principle for its dogged challenge of most attempts by cities to manage the responsible integration of group homes into residential neighborhoods. Rather, such city ordinances are intended to protect those people who suffer from alcohol and drug addiction, as well as the neighborhoods where group homes are located.

Licensed residential rehab programs are subject to the same local laws as single-family homes, and no more. State law imposes fewer restrictions on licensed rehab programs than other licensed group homes. The Community Care Facilities Act, from which alcohol and drug rehab facilities are exempt, imposes restrictions that protect the character of residential neighborhoods. Under this act, cities receive written notice of a proposed facility, and any city or county may request denial of the license based on overconcentration of residential care facilities. While alcohol and drug programs that provide 24-hour residential non-medical services to adults recovering from drug or alcohol abuse must obtain a State license, they cannot be regulated any differently from a single-family home if they serve six or fewer people.

California Health & Safety Code Sections 1520.5 and 1267.9 state it is a policy of the State to prevent overconcentration of residential facilities that impair the integrity of residential neighborhoods. Section 1520.5 states that the department shall deny an application for a new residential facility license if the department determines the facilities location is proximate to an existing residential facility therefore resulting in overconcentration. The statute recognized the need for a balanced policy to prevent overconcentration of residential care facilities which indicates an awareness and understanding of the impact of overconcentration on the integrity of residential neighborhoods. The statute defines overconcentration as less than 300 feet for some types of group homes and up to 1000 feet for others. At the time the statute was enacted it was specific only to certain types of group homes. However, the recent emphasis on providing more housing in California has eroded the intent of this act.

Federal and State fair housing laws protect people with disabilities from housing discrimination. Recovering alcoholics and drug addicts are disabled for purposes of anti- discrimination laws. When people in recovery live together in a "sober living" home, cities cannot discriminate based on such disabilities, therefore an ordinance cannot treat sober living homes differently than other similar uses in single-family residential zones.

Sober living homes are not required to be licensed and are not limited to six or fewer residents. Because no treatment is provided in these substance -free, mutually supportive living environments, no license is required. The limitation of most other group ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 5 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
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.

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 6 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

METHOD OF STUDY
The Grand Jury has evaluated official documents, examined news articles, visited multiple recovery/sober living websites, and assessed secondary sources.

The Grand Jury reviewed
numerous documents, including
the 2022 State of California's
Group Home Technical Advisory2
and the 1990 State of California
Health and Safety Code.3
To better understand the impact
of density, jurors attended
townhall and city council meetings
virtually, through recordings, and
visited neighborhoods in several
cities where there is a heavy
concentration of group homes.

The Grand Jury interviewed numerous subject matter experts, city managers, County and city officials, legislators, city attorneys, group home operators, and legal and real estate professionals. It also examined local, state, and national media reports and opinion pieces regarding group recovery and sober living residences. The Findings and Recommendations herein are based on this work.

INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS
Orange County has some of the heaviest concentrations of group homes and sober living residences in the nation.4 The densities are more than the local population can bear and residents believe the influx of the group home residents seriously impacts their neighborhoods. Similarly, group home and sober living industry experts cite negative impacts on the group home residents themselves.

Operators can open a group home where they desire, without having a license or State - endorsed certification, and they can open as many group homes as they desire regardless of local need. Because regulation is slack, cities are challenged to track and regulate the density without any guidance or support from the State. Adding to these concerns is a recent State of California memorandum titled "Group Home Technical Advisory" that characterizes any attempts to regulate the homes as discriminatory.5 It seems that method of thinking has no positive effect on how the homes are run or on how the vulnerable residents in these homes are treated, and quite possibly has the opposite effect.

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 7 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
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.'
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"
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.

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 8 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
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.

Los Padres
National Forest
j Sant; Barbara
annel
ands
nal Park
Victorville
w
Amboy
Si
w
•S
Ventura Thouse;
•.••!• (.Bks
•J _ •:

Gte and •,.+.!.�
Santa
Map data 12023 Goothe. INEGI Terrns
•
t
i, �i•,:.3rc.r! • • San !! !
• Beelafekk
;National Forest i•
�� r• ! ! Palm Borings Joshua Tree
• •• National Park
• ,. •� !Indio
Falm Des eV: 4,
Long
Huli4ingto'•so
,'•:

Beach ;.5•,
talina Island
I P�sential
FisJi abitat...
20mi
Go gle My Maps
Ca■•`•!.
'ondido •
•
!
Anza-Borrego
Desert
State Park
Cleveland
N �tinnnl Cnr, t
N,„
El
Keyboard shortcuts
Points show the primary addresses of all non-medical alcoholism and drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities licensed and/or certified by the California Department of Health Care Services as of May 4, 2017. (Map by Ian Wheeler, Orange County Register/SCNG)
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 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023

1 11 1111111 11111 1 11111

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
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.

WHERE THE REHABS ARE
California has 1,864 rehab lac&itles, arid more than half (1,117) are in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange and Riverside counties. The map below shows the concentrations of these centers and the ratio of rehabs per resident in some of our cities.

L __ Li'l ,1i
0t.
~'1► ,?asadena
s
a • X7,78
3 .' • . . llrt (18)
�: iiirgsies
..

Ma ibu 8,087
(4427;4 N-( 9) ire _ •
. • _r
•... +.s r A. i to
Lang Beadhi 4 "i;r..�i:.

M 1/21,330 esa 1,11-
(22)
1/00 Rehabs per resident (1
(00) Total rehabs
Rehab center
Sc.•ra:CA'01r1141I rrtnic^tcr a, lc
r.

R vb►Mde
• 1fl2,885
• (25)
L na Bea San Juan Cepl strano
(21'83 •.�_ (219j38
Temecula
�� 1/5.932
1111(18)
Pain Springs
1/3.857
Mymet (12)
1/9,083
(9)
n (i1)1. 1, 'IL `I, tiC:

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 enfurGtrriolt establish and actively utilize a searchable database that includes ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 10 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
11 I 111111 I I II II IIIA IMI II I Yl i 111 11 11111 I 11 1111 t 111 1111 III 1111 I 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.

Common Nuisances
Secondhand
Smoking
Vomiting in
Driveways
Curbing
Box Truth
Deliveries
Higher Noise
Levels
Increased Street
Parking
0 Substantial
Rubbish @ Front
Lawns
Increased Foot
Traffic
Relapsing in
Public
Increased Traffic
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.

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 11 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
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.1° 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. "The well -funded operators are supported by
industry organizations and associations
in their lawsuits..."
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 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 12 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
11 .141.;. .11.1.1;11„ ,A ., ..11 11
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 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 13 of 42

II.

Snaps + t o

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
'tigation Costs
City of
Cost Mesa
$10
million
SINCE
2008
San Clemente's Support to
Newport Beach
*5000
$5.2
million
Settlement: City
of Newport Beach
$ 4 million
City of
Newport Beach
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 short- term temporary moratorium against the establishment of new group residential uses. Pacific Shores Recovery has in turn alleged that the City's group ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 14 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
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 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 15 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
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.

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 16 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ImII it i. ii li ill n
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 residences - group homes that provide housing for persons recovering from alcoholism or drug addiction. These amendments have raised concerns that local governments are not complying with their affirmative obligations under state planning and ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 17 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
II
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.
"The document is labeled a "technical
advisory" but reads as a
policy statement..."
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 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 18 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
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 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 19 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
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. "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."
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 Targe 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 Targe 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.

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 20 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
The Planning Commission was seemingly prepared to accept the staff recommendation for approval. Public comment took over five hours, most of which was overwhelmingly against the approval of the group home. The applicant and the Planning Commission both expressed surprise at the public backlash. Ultimately, the approval recommendation was scrapped, and the Planning Commission voted to deny the CUP.

Grandma's House filed an appeal and the application for the CUP was heard by the City Council. The public attended that meeting in larger numbers than at the Planning Commission meeting and they were every bit as angry and frustrated as they were at the earlier meeting. In spite of robust response on the issue at the meeting of the Planning Commission just two months earlier, the Anaheim City Council was unprepared for the charged nature of the adversarial clash. Most speakers were passionate but respectful, while some were rude and offensive. It was essentially an angrier repeat of the first meeting and led to the same conclusion, a denial of the CUP.27
The affected public walked away with no better understanding of the reasons why these group homes are hard to regulate due to the pressures put on cities by the State of California. The applicant ultimately filed suit against the city alleging violations of the Housing Element Law, Housing Accountability Act, and statutes governing anti- discrimination in local land use laws.

Nearly 200 people packed the Mission Viejo City Council chamber on March 29 for a Town Hall meeting regarding sober living homes. (Tomoya Shimura, Orange County Register, April 1, 2016) The City of Anaheim has not responded to the public concerns in an organized manner.

It has not provided an opportunity for the public to come together in a townhall-like meeting where the City could address the issues and the challenges they face, have subject matter experts on hand for short presentations, and allow for comments and questions.28
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 21 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
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
©Leonard Ortiz, Orange County Register
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 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 22 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
inform their constituents, and allow for a robust but respectful dialogue, they create an opportunity for collaborative problem solving.31
How Has This Issue Evolved?
The timing of this investigation aligned with the required submission of the Housing Element portion of each city's General Plan. The State's disapproval of a city's Housing Element carries heavy consequences, and the State of California has used the withholding of this needed approval to coerce cities to abandon their group home ordinances.

The Grand Jury was previously unaware of the power behind group home lobbyists and the number of proposed legislative bills that never made it to a vote. The State's policy- making role limits a city's ability to responsibly manage the integration of group homes and, as a consequence, the trajectory and focus of the study changed and widened with this knowledge. The Grand Jury looked at broader factors influencing the group home industry, its influence, its effect on communities and often its seeming lack of real concern about its clients. The group home industry is immense, requires improved relations with cities, and needs more effective local governmental oversight.

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 23 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD

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.

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 24 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ihi.nAei i4 Ji ill11ill

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 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 25 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
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.

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 26 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
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 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 27 of 42

Laguna Woods
Lake Forest
Lake Forest
Los Alamitos
Los Alamitos
Mission Viejo
Mission Viejo
Newport Beach
Newport Beach
Orange
Orange
Placentia
Placentia
Rancho Santa Margarita
Rancho Santa Margarita
San Clemente
San Clemente
San Juan Capistrano
San Juan Capistrano
Santa Ana
Santa Ana
Seal Beach
Seal Beach
Stanton
Stanton
Tustin
Tustin
Villa Park
Villa Park
Westminster
Westminster
Yorba Linda
Yorba Linda

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11,
R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9,F10,F11
R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 28 of 42

1 GLOSSARY
2 ADU
3 4 An accessory dwelling unit, usually just called an ADU, is a secondary housing 5 unit on a single-family residential lot. These may be converted garages, backyard 6 cottages, or granny flats, for example.
7 8 Brokering
9 10 A referral system where money or other inducements are exchanged by owners of 11 disreputable homes to get new clients. The recipients may be residents, clinics, or even 12 members of self-help groups such as AA12-step programs. 13 14 Code Enforcement
15 16 Activity by local government agencies to identify and correct problems and abuses by 17 citizens and businesses.
18 19 Congregate Care Living
20 21 A residential home that offers inpatient services to its residents. Generally, the care that 22 this institution provides is more intense than what a skilled nursing care facility offers but 23 less intense than what a general acute care hospital provides. 24 25 Curbing
26 27 The act of evicting residents, often done late at night, so-called because they and 28 their belongings are sent to the curb. Eviction may occur when such residents' 29 insurance runs out or for violating house rules. They frequently have nowhere to go and 30 often have no resources, essentially rendering them homeless. 31 32 Deinstitutionalization
33 34 The closing (or reduction of services) of residential facilities, often referred to as mental 35 hospitals, and the reliance on smaller, more personal "homes" as a means of 36 rehabilitation.
37 38 Detox
39 40 Program or facility for assisting a person undergoing treatment from an intoxicating or 41 addictive substance.
42 WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
43 EBT
44 45 Acronym for Electronic Benefit Transfer, previously known as Food Stamps, these are 46 debit cards issued to eligible participants for the purpose of buying food and other 47 necessities.
48 49 Emotional Wellness Homes
50 51 A facility where a person develops the ability to handle their emotions and varied 52 experiences they encounter in life. Emotional wellness is an awareness, understanding, 53 and acceptance of our feelings and the ability to manage and change challenges 54 effectively.
55 56 Good Neighbor Policy
57 58 A set of principles and activities designed to provide a consistent means of 59 communication between facilities that provide resident services and their respective 60 neighbors. The Good Neighbor Policy is applicable for Residential Programs when 61 residents and the services have a potential impact including but not limited to 62 community safety, cleanliness, and security in the surrounding neighborhood(s). 63 64 Group Home (GH)*
65 66 A residential unit utilized as a supportive living environment for people meeting the legal 67 definition of disabled. Provides housing only for a classified group of people. No medical 68 care, services, or treatment can take place in a Group Home. Only State -licensed 69 facilities can provide care, services, or treatment under State law (see Residential 70 Care Facilities)
71 72 Hospice
73 74 .A type of health care that focuses on the palliation of a terminally ill patient's pain and 75 symptoms and attending to their emotional and spiritual needs at the end of life. 76 Hospice care prioritizes comfort and quality of life by reducing pain and suffering. 77 78 Housing Element
79 80 Since 1969, California has required that all local governments (cities and counties) 81 adequately plan to meet thehousing needs of everyone in the community. California's 82 local governments meet this requirement by adopting housing plans as part of their 83 "general plan" (also required by the state). General plans serve as a local 84 government's "blueprint" for how the city and/or county will grow and develop and 85 include eight elements: land use, transportation, conservation, noise, open space, 86 safety, environmental justice, and housing.
87 88
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 30 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
89 Integral Facilities
90 91 Integral facilities means any combination of two or more facilities located on the same or 92 different parcels, collectively serving seven or more persons, not including the licensee 93 or members of the licensee's family or persons employed as facility staff, that are under 94 the control or management of the same owner, operator, management company or 95 licensee or any affiliate of any of them, and which together comprise one operation. 96 Integral facilities shall include, but not be limited to, the provision of housing in one 97 facility and recovery programming, treatment, meals, or any other service or services at 98 another facility, or facilities, or by assigning staff, or a consultant or consultants, to 99 provide services to or in more than one facility.
100
101 Licensing
102
103 A permit from an authority to own or use something or to do a particular thing or carry 104 on a trade. In reference to this report's subject matter, licensing from a State or county 105 agency or department.
106
107 Like -for -Like
108
109 Identifying the spacing of group homes by type, e.g., sober living within a given distance 110 of sober living, assisted living within a given distance of assisted living, etc. Sober living 111 near assisted living does not meet the like -for -like criteria. 112
113 Model Ordinance
114
115 A common set of policies and procedures developed by a government agency to 116 oversee the licensing and operation of group homes. 117
118 NIMBY
119
120 Acronym for "Not in My Backyard". A term used, among other things, to identify citizens 121. who object to having group homes in their neighborhood. 122
123 Referral Facility
124
125 Either a Residential Care Facility, Group Home, or Sober Living Home where one or 126 more person's residency is per a court order or similar directive. Referral facilities must 127 follow the permit procedure according to the base use classification, and are not 128permitted in the RL (Residential Low Density) zone.
129
130 Rehab Riviera
131
132 The nickname given to some sober living facilities in Southern California, referring to the 133 climate. Often used as a selling point in advertising to emphasize the outdoor appeal of 134 homes in the region.

ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 31 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
135
136 Rehabilitation
137
138 The action of restoring someone to health or normal life. Care that can help one get 139 back, maintain or improve abilities.
140
141 Residential Care Facilities (RCF)*
142
143 A State Licensed residential facility where care, services, or treatment are provided to 144 persons living in a community residential setting. Provide housing and care/treatment 145 for the elderly, developmentally disabled, chronically ill, and chemical addiction 146 treatment facilities, among others. RCFs that specifically provide drug and or alcohol 147 abuse treatment are licensed by the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) and 148 are known as alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities. 149 Homes are required to be licensed by the DHCS when at least one of the following 150 services is provided: detoxification, group counseling sessions, individual counseling 151 sessions, educational sessions, or alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment 152 planning.
153
154 Residential Treatment Centers
155
156 Sometimes known as rehab which is a live-in health care facility providing services for 157 substance use disorders, mental illness, or other behavioral problems. 158
159 Saturation
160
161 Having several group homes within a neighborhood.
162
163 Single Housekeeping Units
164
165 Individuals occupying a dwelling unit that have established ties and familiarity with each 166 other; share a lease agreement, have consent of the owner to reside on the property, or 167 own the property; jointly use common areas and interact with each other; and share the 168 household expenses such as rent or ownership costs, utilities, and other household and 169 maintenance costs activities.
170
171 Six or Under
172
173 Homes with six or fewer residents. Under State law these may not be required to be 174 licensed or registered.
175
176 Sober Living Home (SLH)*
177
178 Sober Living Homes are also group homes, but specifically for people recovering from 179 a chemical addiction that meets the legal definition of disabled. Provides "housing 180 only" that is primarily meant for people who have just come out of rehab and need a ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 32 of 42

11,011111111 1 11111 1 1
I ilii. iii io u4k h

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
181 place to live that is structured and supportive for those in recovery. For the purposes of 182 the Ordinance, a Sober Living Home is not state licensed. No medical care, services, or 183 treatment can occur in a Living Home. Only State licensed facilities can provide care, 184 services, or treatment under State law (see Residential Care Facilities). 185
186 Tracking
187
188 A method to obtain data, monitor movements and a system to identify and map the 189 location of group homes.
190
191 Treatment Center
192
193 A facility where a client or clients go under one roof for services to improve their 194 physical or mental health. A residential treatment center (RTC), sometimes called 195 rehab, is a live-in health care facility providing therapy for substances abuse use 196 disorders, mental illness, or other behavioral problems. Residential treatment may be 197 considered the "last-ditch" approach to treating abnormal psychology or 198 psychopathology.
199
200 *For the purposes of this report, the City of Huntington Beach's definitions of group living 201 homes is being used as published on the city's website. 202
203
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 33 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
204 BIBLIOGRAPHY
205 Teri Sforza, Will U.S. Supreme Court engage on Costa Mesa's sober living rules?, Orange County 206 Register, Wednesday, March 15, 2023
207 Teri Sforza, Addiction centers flee Costa Mesa, move to less regulated OC cities, Orange County 208 Register, Sunday, February 19, 2023
209 David Zisser, Letter from CA Department of Housing and Development to City of Huntington 210 Beach Planning Department - RE "Ordinance to Ban "Builder's Remedy" Projects under the 211 Housing Accountability Act (HAA) — Notice of Potential Violation", California Department of 212 Housing and Community Development web site, Monday, February 13, 2023 213 Ring Bender Law, SoCal Recovery and Raw Recovery v City of Costa Mesa: Amici Curiae Brief Of 214 The League Of California Cities, The Association Of California Cities Of Newport Beach, Fountain 215 Valley, Mission Viejo, And Orange In Support Of Appellee's Petition For Rehearing En Banc, 216 Court Filings, Thursday, February 9, 2023
217 Teri Sforza, Sober homes gain some ground in fight with Costa Mesa, Orange County Register, 218 Sunday, January 15, 2023
219 Covenant Hills, Day Patient and Outpatient Addiction Treatment in Orange County, YouTube 220 Posting, Friday, November 4, 2022
221 General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, 222 Orange County Sober Living I Sober Living Near You in SoCaI (kaizenhouserecovery.com), 223 Wednesday, October 19, 2022
224 General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, 225 Sober Living Homes for Men & W General Information omen - Orange County Recovery, 226 Wednesday, October 19, 2022
227 General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, 228 Orange County Sober Living Homes 1 Sober Living Homes near me 229 (ocsoberlivingbestsolution.com), Wednesday, October 19, 2022 230 General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Drug 231 Rehab Orange County - Lighthouse Treatment Center, Wednesday, October 19, 2022 232 General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, 233 Huntington Beach Rehab 1 Drug & Alcohol Substance Abuse Recovery 234 (orangecountyrecovery.com), Wednesday, October 19, 2022 235 General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, 236 Sober Living Homes in Southern California - Elysium Health Care, Wednesday, October 19, 2022 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 34 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
111 1111 11 i1 i,i iL111 Till I •Gln
237 General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, 238 Zinnia Healing - Drug & Alcohol Rehab (serenitylodgelakearrowhead.com), Wednesday, October 239 19, 2022
240 General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, 241 California addiction rehab centers (sunshinebehavioralhealth.com), Wednesday, October 19, 242 2022
243 General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, 244 Halfway Houses 1 % way Houses 1 Sober Homes in California (addictionblog.org), Wednesday, 245 October 19, 2022
246 General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, 247 Requirements For California Rehabilitation and Sober Living Houses (hypogalblog.com), 248 Wednesday, October 19, 2022
249 General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, A 250 Place for Mom, Wednesday, October 19, 2022
251 Jeff Collins, These Southern California governments have approved housing plans, Orange 252 County Register, Tuesday, October 18, 2022
253 Jeff Collins, Most Southern California cities miss complete new deadline to complete housing 254 plans, Orange County Register, Tuesday, October 18, 2022 255 Alicia Robinson, Anaheim should allow home for homeless women with mental health issues, 256 California Attorney General says, Orange County Register, Wednesday, October 5, 2022 257 Alicia Robinson, Anaheim should allow home for homeless women with mental health issues, 258 California Attorney General says, Orange County Register, Tuesday, October 4, 2022 259 Public Notice City of Mission Viejo, Council passes Sober Living and Group Home Ordinance to 260 ensure such facilities operate with the confines of the law, City of Mission Viejo web site Home 261 1 City of Mission Viejo, Wednesday, August 24, 2022 262 Public Notice, Council passes Sober Living and Group Home Ordinance to ensure such facilities 263 operate within the confines of the law, City of Mission Viejo website 264 https://cityofmissionviejo.org/ , Wednesday, August 24, 2022 265 Teri Sforza, Rehab Riviera: New law hopes to keep misleading rehabs from misleading patients, 266 families patients, families, Orange County Register, Wednesday, August 24, 2022 267 Teri Sforza, California rehab doctor pleads guilty to insurance fraud, Orange County Register, 268 Tuesday, August 16, 2022
269 Vanessa Serna, Real-life Frankenstein' Beverly Hills surgeon and his girlfriend plead guilty to 270 $600 Million fraud scheme: Used 'body brokers' to find drug addicts to get unnecessary shots so ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 1 2023 Page 35 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
271 they could bill insurance companies to fund their life of luxury, DailyMail.com, Tuesday, August 272 16, 2022
273 California Codes, Various Codes, California Code Search "Text" of the following– using "sober" 274 and "living"., Monday, August 8, 2022
275 City of Laguna Beach Department of Community Development, City of Laguna Beach General 276 Plan Housing Element, City of Laguna Beach Web Site 638115638915170000 277 (lagunabeachcity.net), Thursday, July 21, 2022
278 Matt Meyer, What is 'California sober' — and does it actually work?, Nexstar Media Inc Fox 279 News San Diego, Saturday, June 25, 2022
280 Website Information Idea Flight, 9 Different Types of Group Home in California, Idea Flight Web 281 Site Page 9 Different Types of Group Home in California - ideaflight, Friday, April 1, 2022 282 City of Westminster, Adopted Housing Element 2021-202-, City of Westminster website 283 https://www.westminster-ca.gov/ , Wednesday, January 26, 2022 284 Scott D. Tenley and Kelly M. Hagemann of Michelman & Robinson LLP, Federal Authorities Have 285 Their Eyes On Sober Living Home Operators And Marketers, Especially In Orange County, 286 Mondaq web site, Friday, November 19, 2021
287 City of Newport Beach, Community Meeting on Group Residential Uses Meeting Summary, City 288 of Newport Beach web site City of Newport Beach 1 Home newportbeachca.gov), Monday, 289 October 11, 2021
290 City of Newport.Beach, Power Point from Community Meeting Sober Living Homes, Group 291 _ . Homes, and_State.Licensed_Residential Care Facilities, City of Newport Beach web site City of 292 Newport Beach 1 Home newportbeachca.gov), Monday, October 11, 2021 293 City Newport Beach, Document comparing City of Newport Beach Group Home Ordinance to 294 City of Costa Mesa Group Home Ordinance, City of Newport Beach web site City of Newport 295 Beach 1 Home newportbeachca.gov), Friday, September 24, 2021 296 Staff, How to Open a Sober Living Home in California, Blog Post at Sober Living App, Tuesday, 297 May 11, 2021
298 Web Site Posting, How. Much Profit Can Be Made From a Halfway House?, HALFWAY GROUP 299 LLC website How Much Profit Can Be Made From A Halfway 300 House?.openupahalfwayhouse.com), Tuesday, February 2, 2021 301 County of Orange Press Release, Ending Rehab Riviera: Orange County First, County of Orange 302 website, Thursday, October 1, 2020
303 County of Orange, County of Orange Group Home Ordinance, County of Orange website, 304 Tuesday, July 28, 2020
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 1 2023 Page 36 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
II 1111 .1 li Iln I
305 David Gorn, Doing the 'sober -living dance' on the Orange County coast, CalMatters, Tuesday, 306 June 23, 2020
307 Elysia Richardson, Do Drug Treatment Centers Increase Local Crime Rates?, California Highlands 308 Vista Drug Treatment Centers Web Site https://californiahighlandsvistas.com/blog/crime- 309 rates/, Monday, February 10, 2020
310 Orange County Public Works, Fact Sheet on Group Home Requirements, County of Orange 311 website https://myoceservices.ocgov.com , Saturday, February 1, 2020 312 Michelle Mears, Orange County Tackles Homeless Issue by regulating Group Homes, Glove, 313 Friday, September 27, 2019
314 Michelle Mears, Orange County Tackles Homeless Issue by Regulating Group Homes, California 315 Globe, Friday, September 27, 2019
316 City of Newport Beach, Group Home List, City of Newport Beach web site City of Newport 317 Beach 1 Home newportbeachca.gov), Thursday, September 19, 2019 318 Frank Kim, OC County Executive Officer, Memo regarding proposed ordinance to regulate Sober 319 Living Homes, County of Orange Web Site, Wednesday, June 19, 2019 320 California Department of Social Services,.Overview of the Group Home Rate Classification 321 Levels, DSS Website information sheet, Thursday, April 4, 2019 322 Miami -Dade County Form, Miami -Dade County Group Home Application, Miami -Dade County 323 Website.Group Home Application -no aff disc 2019 (miamidade.gov), Monday, April 1, 2019 324 Steven P. Dinkin, Utilizing the Safe Streets Now playbook, San Diego Union -Tribune, Sunday, 325 January 13, 2019
326 Brady P. Horn, Aakrit Joshi, Johanna Catherine Maclean, Substance Use Disorder Treatment 327 Centers And Property Values, National Bureau Of Economic Research, Tuesday, January 1, 2019 328 Teri Sforza, New rehab laws may revamp addiction treatment in California, Orange County 329 Register, Thursday, September 27, 2018
330 City of Laguna Niguel, Group Home Permit Application, City of Laguna Niguel website 331 _ https://cityoflagunaniguel.org/ , Wednesday, July 4, 2018 332 William Leonard, Sober living homes in Orange County California, Sober Living Local, Saturday, 333 May 5, 2018
334 Tony Saavedra, Teri Sforza, Death in rehab generates $7 million award, Orange County Register, 335 Sunday, February 18, 2018
336 Teri Sforza, Tony Saavedra, Quest for sobriety often ends in sexual assault at some rehabs in 337 Southern California, Orange County Register, Friday, January 19, 2018 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 37 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
338 US Department of Health and Human Services, Ensuring Beneficiary Health and Safety in Group 339 Homes Through State implementation, DHSS Web Site
340 https://www.hhs.gov/guidance/document/joint-report-ensuring-beneficiary-health-and-safety- 341 group -homes -through -state , Wednesday, January 10, 2018 342 Teri Sforza, Rehab Riviera: California testing Vermont's model to fight addiction, Orange County 343 Register, Friday, December 29, 2017
344 Teri Sforza, Tony Saavedra, Scott Schwebke, Rehab Riviera: Industry struggling to get clean, 345 Orange County Register, Friday, December 29, 2017
346 Teri Sforza, Rehab Riviera: Are drugs for drug addicts a solution or a crutch?, Orange County 347 Register, Thursday, December 28, 2017
348 Tony Saavedra, Scott Schwebke, How a multimillion -dollar empire built around urine drug tests 349 exposes flaws in California's rehab laws, Orange County Register, Sunday, December 17, 2017 350 Jordan Graham, Are drug rehab centers fueling homelessness in Southern California?, Orange 351 County Register, Sunday, December 17, 2017
352 Teri Sforza, Are implants for opioid addicts a new hope or a new scam?, Orange County 353 Register, Sunday, October 22, 2017
354 Teri Sforza, San Clemente's 'discriminatory' rules on addiction treatment centers intact after 355 suit settles, Orange County Register, Wednesday, July 5, 2017 356 Teri Sforza, California the over -regulator? Not for addiction treatment, Orange County Register, 357 Friday, June 23, 2017
358 Teri Sforza,'Addiction treatment: The new gold rush. 'It's almost chic', Orange County Register, 359 Friday, June 16, 2017
360 US Congress Committee on Energy and Commerce, Letter to Thomas E. Price, M.D. Secretary 361 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Regarding problems resulting from the 362 dramatic surgeof addiction treatment centers and "sober living" homes, Congressional Record, 363 Tuesday, June 13, 2017
364 Scott Schwebke, Teri Sforza, Federal agents search Sovereign Health rehab in San Clemente, 365 elsewhere, Orange County Register, Tuesday, June 13, 2017 366 California Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division, Power Point on 367 Orange County Regional Office and what it does Newport Beach Meeting, Web Site of 368 Department of Social Services www.ccld.ca.gov , Thursday, June 1, 2017 369 Teri Sforza, Detox can end in death at some 'non-medical' Southern California rehabs, Orange 370 County Register, Tuesday, May 23, 2017
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 1 2023 Page 38 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
371 Todd Harmonson, Sean Emery, O.C. District Attorney charges family, doctors with insurance 372 fraud related to sober living homes, urine tests, Orange County Register, Tuesday, May 23, 2017 373 Teri Sforza, Tony Saavedra, Scott Schwebke, Lori Basheda, Mindy Schauer, Jeff Gritchen, Ian 374 Wheeler, How some Southern California drug rehab addiction centers exploit addiction, Orange 375 County Register, Sunday, May 21, 2017
376 Teri Sforza, Is there a link between neighborhood rehab programs and petty crime in 377 California?, Orange County Register, Sunday, May 21, 2017 378 Staff Report, The Southern California rehab industry spans the nation, Orange County Register, 379 Sunday, May 21, 2017
380 Jan Wheeler, Registered Rehabs Map, Orange County Register, Thursday, May 4, 2017 381 Mindy Schauer, Heroin's hold: One man's journey through the Southern California rehab 382 industry, Orange County Register, Monday, May 1, 2017 383 CBS News, OC Neighbors Not Comfortable Next to Sober Living Homes, YouTube Posting, 384 Tuesday, November 29, 2016
385 California Research Bureau, Sober Living Homes in California: Options for State and Local 386 Regulation, California Research Bureau Publication in State Library 387 https://www.library.ca.gov/crb/ , Friday, October 7, 2016 388 Amy A. Mericle, Katherine J. Karriker-Jaffe,.Shalika Gupta, David M. Sheridan, Doug L. Polcin, 389 Distribution and Neighborhood Correlates of Sober Living House Locations in Los Angeles, 390 American Journal of Community Psychology, Thursday, September 1, 2016 391 Teri Sforza, California argues sober home ordinances are illegal, forcing cities to make expensive 392 decisions, Orange County Register, Saturday, December 19, 2015 393 J Murphy - City of La Mesa Fact Sheet, Residential Care Facilities (or "Group Homes") in the City 394 of La Mesa, City of La Mesa website http://www.cityoflamesa.com , Thursday, October 29, 2015 395 County of Orange published guideline, Orange County Adult Alcohol And Drug Sober Living 396 Facilities Certification Guidelines, County of Orange Sheriff Departments website, Monday, 397 January 27, 2014
398 Sober Living by the Sea, Drug Rehab and Alcoholism Treatment OC CA by Sober Living by the 399 Sea, YouTube Posting, Wednesday, May 23, 2012
400 You Get Me3, Santa Ana Sober Living Homes, YouTube Posting, Saturday, July 3, 2010 401 Paul J. Weinberg, Alcohol And Drug Rehab Homes classic Nimbyism Or Everyone's Fair Share, 402 Thomson Reuters/West
403 Zoning and Planning Law Report, Wednesday, October 1, 2008 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 39 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
404 City of Newport Beach, City of Newport Beach Residential Group Home Permit, City of Newport 405 Beach web site City of Newport Beach 1 Home newportbeachca.gov), Friday, February 1, 2008 406 David DeBerry, Group Homes in the Neighborhood, Western City, Friday, September 1, 2006 407 NOTICE
408 Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal 409 Code section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name 410 of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides 411 information to the Grand Jury.
412
413 END NOTES
1 Group Homes in the Neighborhood David Debarry, Jeff Bellinger, Western City 09-01-2006 https://www.westerncity.com/article/group-homes-neighborhood 2 Ibid. Division of Housing Policy Development. "Group Home Technical Advisory." California Department of Housing and Community Development, December 2022.
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/group-home-technical-advisory- 2022.pdf
3 CA Health & Safety Code Section 1267.9
' Sforza, Terri. "California the over -regulator? Not for addiction treatment." Orange County Register, June 23, 2017._ https://www.ocregister.c4om/2017/06/23/california-the-over-regulator-not-for-addiction- treatment
5 ibid . Division of Housing Policy Development. "Group Home Technical Advisory." California Department of Housing and Community Development, December 2022. https://www . hcd.ca:gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/group-home-technical-advisory- 2022.pdf
6 Sforza, Terri. "California the over -regulator? Not for addiction treatment." Orange County Register, June 23, 2017. https://www.ocregister.c6om/2017/06/23/california-the-over-regulator-not-for-addiction- treatment/
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
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 40 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
I .111171 111
9Orange County Register Megan Nicolai, July 15, 2015, Newport Beach Settles legal battle over Sober - Living homes_
10 Orange County Register Megan Nicolai, July 15, 2015, Newport Beach Settles legal battle over Sober - Living homes.
11 Los Angeles Times Susannah Rosenblatt, May 22, 2008, Sober living homes rushing to meet Newport's deadline.
12 Community Meeting on Group Residential Uses October 11, 2021 Meeting Summary https://nbpd.newportbeachca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/70754/637703409585700000 13 New regional task force will tackle issues with sober living and recovery homes,News Category, City of Mission Viejo Public Notices, September 1, 2022, new regional task force will tackle issues with sober living and recovery homes 1 City of Mission Viejo
14 Grandma's House of Hope v. City of Anaheim and City Council of Anaheim Case No. 30-2022- 0124183-CU-WM-OJC
15 Newport Beach Ordinance 2008-05
16 Orange County Register Megan Nicolai, July 15, 2015, Newport Beach Settles legal battle over Sober - Living homes_
17 City of Costa Mesa Ordinance Chapter 13-3001
18 Orange County Register Article, May 21, 2021 — State argues sober home ordinances are illegal, forcing cities to make expensive decisions
19 $42 Billion U.S. Addiction Rehab Industry Poised for Growth, and Challenges (marketresearch.com) 20 Ca Department Of Housing And Community Development, Group Home Technical Advisory, dated December 2022
21 Housing Element Update, 2021-2029 Planning Period FAQ & Fact Sheet,City of Arcadia https://cros9files.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://cros9files.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://cros9files.revize.com/arcadia/Shape%20Arcadia/Development%20Services/planning/Housing%20 Element%20Update/FAQ/Housing%20Element%20Fact%20Sheet_FINAL.pdf ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 41 of 42

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
26 Walker, Theresa OC Register 10-25-2021 Housing for mentally ill homeless women draws heated Anaheim response
https://www.ocregister.com/2021 /10/25/housing-for-mentally-ill-homeless-women-draws-heated-anaheim- response/
27 Grandma's House of Hope v. City of Anaheim and City Council of Anaheim Case No. 30-2022- 0124183-CU-WM-OJC
28 City of Anaheim Planning Commission.PC Action Packets 8-30-2021 https://records.anaheim.net/CityClerk/DocView.aspx?id=2428318&dbid=0&repo=C ITYOFANAH E IM 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) 3o Ibid. Many attend town hall on rehab houses
31 Sober Living Homes Town Hall
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 12023 Page 42 of 42

Mayor
WARD L. SMITH
Mayor Pro Tem
JEREMY B. YAMAGUCHI
Councilmembers:

KEVIN KIRWIN

RHONDA SHADER
CHAD P. WANKE
The People are the City

PLACENTIA
401 East Chapman Avenue — Placentia, California 92870
August 29, 2023
The Honorable John V. Siragusa
Presiding Judge, Orange County Superior Court
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
City Clerk:

ROBERT S. MCKINNELL
City Treasurer
KEVIN A. LARSON
City Administrator
DAMIEN R. ARRULA
RE: 2022-2033 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ENTITLED
"`WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD' ARE CITIES RESPONSIBLY
MANAGING THE INTEGRATION OF GROUP HOMES?"
Dear Judge Siragusa:

The City of Placentia has reviewed the 2022-2023 Orange County Jury Report, "`Welcome to the Neighborhood' Are Cities Responsibly Managing the Integration of Group Homes?" We thank the volunteer members of the Grand Jury for their time and considerable effort in analyzing the various aspects of Group Home procedures in Orange County. The report made a number of findings and recommendations to which the City of Placentia is required to comment on Findings F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 and Recommendations R1, R2, R3, R4, R5. Please consider this letter the City's official response to these findings and recommendations.

Finding 1 (F1): Group homes too close to one another contribute to the problems associated with overconcentration.

City Response: Agree
Finding 2 (F2): Common nuisances are more likely and disruptive when sober living homes are concentrated in a small geographic area of a neighborhood.

City Response: Agree
Finding 3 (F3): Some cities have successfully addressed and informed community members about the challenges faced in regulating group homes.

City Response: Agree
Finding 4 (F4): Community satisfaction was minimal when cities took the traditional public comment approach towards addressing community complaints.

City Response: Agree

Finding 5 (F5): Cities are not utilizing police, fire, and code enforcement complaints as a means of locating and tracking Group Homes.

City Response: Disagree. Cities often learn of the location of an unlicensed group home due to calls for service or code enforcement complaints. However, there are many limitations to using police, fire, and code enforcement complaints for tracking purposes.

For example, law enforcement calls for service are subject to privacy protection. Further, if group homes are not subject to local ordinances or permitting requirements and are protected by State policies, tracking may be difficult.

Finding 6 (F6): Cities are inhibited from enacting and enforcing ordinances due to fears over the potential cost of litigation.

City Response: Agree.

Finding 7 (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.

City Response: Disagree Partially. The City of Placentia has no substantial evidence to support the statement that these other cities that require a ministerial permit for group homes do not enforce their ordinances.

Finding 8 (F8): City and County officials are deterred from regulating group homes by California Housing and Community Development's housing element approval process.

City Response: Agree. State law requires that ordinances related to group homes are very narrowly focused, and often, those ordinances do not result in providing a "tool" for enforcement. Most local ordinances regarding group homes simply echo the State laws regarding group homes instead of being useful as a local regulatory tool.

Finding 9 (F9): Cities have historically strategized and acted independently in addressing group home challenges and solutions
City Response: Disagree partially. The City of Placentia agrees that cities have acted independently to address group homes. Every city has different circumstances, and it is best left to cities to address local challenges in ways that are appropriate to the local needs. Further, the League of California Cities, a group comprising membership of the vast majority of California cities, has previously engaged in legislative discussions to further local control to the extent possible. More local control would be beneficial.

Finding 10 (F10): Well -operated group homes can integrate smoothly into neighborhoods.

City Response: Disagree partially. The City of Placentia has experienced increased neighborhood issues due to the presence of some group homes. However, it may be the case that well -operated group homes in other jurisdictions are integrating smoothly into the neighborhoods. However, there is not enough evidence to completely agree with this finding.

Finding 11 (F11): There is a lack of regulatory oversight for the health and safety of residents of unlicensed group homes.

City Response: Agree
Recommendation 1 (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)
City Response: This recommendation requires further analysis and may require direction from the City Council regarding creating such a panel. Any direction to create such a panel would be implemented by December 2023.

Recommendation 2 (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) City Response: Will be implemented. This recommendation is a feasible way to address issues that jurisdictions have in common, as it can provide "model" regulations that would be effective for most cities to adopt and implement. This type of procedure generally results in saving time and money as well. The City of Placentia supports the creation of relevant model ordinances that could be adopted by jurisdictions no later than December 31, 2024.

Recommendation 3 (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)
City Response: Will not be implemented. As described in the Grand Jury Report, many obstacles to the implementation of local ordinances regulating group homes exist. While the City of Placentia is negatively affected by Group Homes, and it is a drain on local Police, Fire/Life Safety and Code Enforcement resources. The City is not necessarily experiencing issues with overconcentration of group homes. Therefore, participation in the defense of other cities' group home ordinances is not an appropriate use of local taxpayer funds.

Recommendation 4 (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) City Response: Not yet implemented. However, assuming the County of Orange and the Orange County cities partner to develop such a task force, it should be implemented by December 2023. The City of Placentia agrees that it would be beneficial to create a task

force to generate awareness among State legislators and regulators of the need for improved group home regulations to protect our residents. The City of Placentia supports the creation of such a task force by December 2023.

Recommendation 5 (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)
City Response: Will not be implemented. Jurisdictions have many different ways of collecting and organizing code enforcement data. The City of Placentia's data collection methods are sufficient to meet the needs of our code enforcement program. However, we are not opposed to other cities modifying the collection and organization of code enforcement data.

Thank you for affording us this opportunity to comment upon the findings and recommendations of the Grand Jury. Should you have any questions or need clarification regarding the City's responses contained herein, please do not hesitate to contact my office.

Sincerely,
Ward Smith
Mayor, City of Placentia
cc: City Council
Damien Arrula, City Administrator
Orange County Grand Jury

Placentia City Council

AGENDA REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
VIA: CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: CHIEF OF POLICE
DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 2023
SUBJECT: POLICE DEPARTMENT 2021-2022 BIENNIAL REPORT
FISCAL
IMPACT: NONE
SUMMARY:

The Placentia Police Department ("Department") is pleased to introduce the 2021-2022 Biennial Report. The Biennial Report ("Report") is a snapshot of some of the projects, programs, services and statistics exhibited by the men and women of the Department. It provides insight, activities, and comparisons of Department data. It also indicates available current agency resources to address workload challenges.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council take the following action:

Receive and file a copy of the completed Biennial Report and Chief Butts' presentation introducing the report.

DISCUSSION:

The Department has completed a Biennial Report for 2021-2022. The Report gathers information about departmental activity throughout the year and is a produced publication that summarizes events, crime statistics, budget, and important investigations. This Report is produced for the public to relay information about the Department's performance, accomplishments, and organizational changes. The Report in its entirety will be posted to the City website effective September 6, 2023.

Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved:

Chris Anderson
Administrative Lieutenant
Brad Butts �/
Chief of Poli‘7

3.a.

Sept. 05, 2023

City Council Agenda
September 5, 2023
Page2of2
Reviewed and Approved:

Damien R. Arrula
City Administrator
Attachment:

Presentation — Introduction of Police Department 2021-2022 Biennial Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OUR COMMUNITY

MISSION/VISI ON/VALUES

MESSAGE FROM CHIEF

CITY COUNCIL

STRATEGIC PLAN

ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

COMMAND STAFF

POLICE ADMINISTRATION

OPERATIONS DIVISION

EMERGENCY CALLS

CALLS FOR SERVICE

CRIME STATISTICS

NIBRS CRIMES

PATROL DIVISION

TRAFFIC BUREAU

TRAFFIC CITATIONS/COLLISIONS CHART
K-9 UNIT

SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER

POLICE SERVICE OFFICER

JAIL OPERATIONS

RESERVE POLICE OFFICER PROGRAM

VOLUNTEERS IN POLICE

CHAPLAINS

POLICE EXPLORER

HOMELESS LIAISON OFFICER

ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS BUREAU

INTERNAL AFFAIRS
04, 05
06 2
09 10,11
12,13

1. 14
15 TRANSPARENCY

INVESTIGATIONS BUREAU

NOTABLE INVESTIGATION

GANG UNIT

DEA TASK FORCE

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

CRIME ANALYST

RECORDS BUREAU

PROPERTY AND EVIDENCE DIVISION

DEPARTMENT BUDGET AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES UNIT
25 26, 27
28 29
31 CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION

HONOR GUARD

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER

SOCIAL MEDIA TEAM

RANGE TRAINING UNIT

PEER SUPPORT

TERRORISM LIAISON

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROGRAMS

GUN BUYBACK EVENT

ORANGE COUNTY GANG REDUCTION AND INTERVENTION

JUSA TOPSOCCER

COFFEE WITH A COP

LAW ENFORCEMENT CODE OF ETHICS
211
N.
31 32
33 33
33 34
35 36, 37
38 39
40 41
41 42
42 43
43 44
44 44
45 45
46 47
47 48
48 49
3 mum
Me
OUR

COMMUNITY
Thank you to our community who
continues to support us. We pride
ourselves on serving the residents
and business owners of Placentia.

Your true generosity does not go
unnoticed. We appreciate the friendly
waves, handshakes, kind letters, and
warm meals brought to our station
for our staff.

MISSION /VISION /VALUES
k 11

MISSION STATEMENT
The Placentia Police Department is dedicated to improving the quality of life through proactive criminal enforcement, education and community partnerships. We act with integrity and accountability to reduce fear and crime, while treating all with respect, compassion and fairness.

VISION STATEMENT
Through the delivery of professional law enforcement services, we work to safely reduce crime in our community while building on a trusting partnership with the community and one another.

ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES
Professionalism - Building partnerships with our community through respectful communication and providing the highest level of customer service.

Lommitmei t to xcellencE - Striving to achieve the highest standards of ethics, performance, teamwork and ongoing
professional development in all aspects of modern-day policing.

Drift — We have pride, both individually a nd for our department, through outstanding policing and safeguarding the reputation of our profession.

Cot,' ay, - Sharing a strong sense of duty to take corrective action in confronting problems both within the department and within the community.
1 If
e�'

A MESSAGE FROM

CHIEF BUTTS
I am proud to present the 2021-2022 Placentia Police
Department's Biennial Report. Working alongside
community members, City staff, and elected officials,
our staff is committed to providing a safe environment
and a high quality of life for those who live, work,
and visit our vibrant city. This report highlights our
exceptional work and the services we provide.

We responded to over 56,000 calls for service and
made 2,850 arrests and took 29,824 reports during
this reporting period. Our department response
times to emergencies averaged under 5 minutes.

We authored a new mission statement, vision
statement and organizational values. We also created
a strategic plan, which covers a three-year operational period, from 2021 through 2023. Having already met the main goals of the plan, we are working on a completely new strategic plan for the next three years.

Our exceptional staff are our most valuable resource. Understanding that we cannot accomplish our goals without proper staffing, employee recruitment and retention have been a primary focus. We re -vitalized our recruitment team and created an incentive package for improved recruitment and retention. During this reporting period, we hired 13 police officers, 5 full-time professional staff, and 4 part-time staff. We also made 9 promotions, which included a Chief, Captain, 2 Lieutenants, 3 Sergeants, a Records Supervisor and a Management Analyst.

We completed the first all -hands meeting since 2014. I shared my vision for the department with all team members. Focus areas included goals and expectations for overall stability, improved performance, and employee development for succession planning. 1 included my expectations for continual positive culture change, and we have adopted a shared mantra where "all department members are leaders."
Maintaining a culture of accountability and fostering partnerships with our community is the foundation of the department. 1 want to thank all who worked alongside and supported us in accomplishing our mission. We will continue leading with conviction and professionalism.

Lastly, I want to express how proud 1 am of our staff and all we have accomplished. 1 am honored to serve as Police Chief and 1 could not be more pleased with the service our men and women provide to benefit our community. I look forward to continuing to lead our committed staff. - z
Brad Butts
Chief of Police
6 7

•
.�1
PLACENTIA CITY COUNCIL 2023
- +=. omit -i�4.1 Wiiii#
mei ,i•L imk INLINCif arlikemi , mi di id Mr SI -di di illi mi- mo- -ii fili mi. emijine AP ,imiimr -ft,---.; 1 wih eiii:IS. -to" ;Noi ma ma illib 111111 ;IM .1iMi -all im. MI 4.1P ED Mc MP rOD —1 ISssva 71116_ WI ss-ma—Mr Mr - -. sa.-i-M .ii:

JP -
oh am, Mil -- Ilk wiIMI
41/41.
8 i imp
MAYOR
WARD SMITH, DISTRICT 5

MAYOR PRO TEM
JEREMY B. YAMAGUCHI, DISTRICT 3

COUNCIL MEMBER
RHONDA SHADER, DISTRICT 1
i

COUNCIL MEMBER
KEVIN KIRWIN, DISTRICT 2

COUNCIL MEMBER
CHAD P. WANKE, DISTRICT 4
CITY ADMINISTRATOR DAMIEN R. ARRULA

CITY TREASURER KEVIN LARSON
CITY CLERI ROBERT S. MCKINNELL

STL PLAN
The cepartment'sleadershioreliesonformal strategic planning in ooth operational and administrative management of the department. In 2021, the department created a three-year strategic plan (2021-2023) outlining broac goals anc objectives for the entire ceoartment. The strategic plan includes goals anc objectives, measurable outcomes, projected personnel, anc capital expenses, all with the end goal of recucing crime anc increasing the quality of life in the City of Placentia. There were twelve (12) goals anc objectives in the strategic plan as follows:

1. PREVENT AND SUPPRESS CRIME.

2. REBUILD AND MAINTAIN ADEQUATE STAFFING.

3. INCREASE EMPLOYEE MENTORING AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT.

4. REDUCE HOMELESSNESS COMPLAINTS AND SUPPORT THE NAVIGATION CENTER.

5. IMPROVE TRAFFIC SAFETY.

6. MAINTAIN RESPONSE TIMES UNDER 5 MINUTES FOR EMERGENCY CALLS FOR SERVICE.

7. RESEARCH A BODY WORN CAMERA PROGRAM AND PRESENT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

8. IMPLEMENT A NEW FIELD TRAINING MANUAL.

9. EXPAND PEER SUPPORT TEAM.

10. REVIEW PATROL BEATS AND RECOMMEND CHANGES BASED UPON CALL VOLUME.

11. MAINTAIN FISCAL EFFICIENCY.

This detailed strategic plan enabled the cepartment to work with city leadership to determine priorities and funding.

We are happy to report that 10 of the 12 goals have already oeen accomplished and remain an ongoing priority for our ceoartment.
9 . ' : : , ,\ ,..i 14-.

Y 1 F
.10'11 1 . ri/414:(11 1 I ' f ' 7 ) ,Alii., ri .
��^ }fr
;_ ' 1
.Cid ` i..: • ti iF i I I i)/41:

I"• til �.' 1
l
p y'� x` '
•�
'�i'�.pr(�h ��1C •WMY
:r.;•;_. ORGANIZATIONAL .'
FI

7. v I+
II
•
. r
�,�pcY -•{ I I
-0 15.

Administrative
Division

Y! {
■

PLACENTIA POLICE

DEPARTMENT COMMAND STAFF
Our Command Staff consists of the Chief, two Captains
and three Lieutenants. Together, the team facilitates all matters for the Police Department. They are responsible for procuring and finalizing contracts, preparing items that go before City Council, maintaining community relations, managing staffing levels and decision making for the
entire organization.

CHIEF OF POLICE

BRAD BUTTS
•
Chief Brad Butts has led the Placenti
Police Department since October of 2021.

He is a 28 -year sworn law enforcement
veteran and he began his service with
Placentia as a police officer in 2001. He
has worked at every rank that Placentia
Police Department employs. He holds
a graduate degree in Law Enforcement
and Public Safety Leadership from the
University of San Diego.
-lt
s` CAPTAIN

JAMES MCELHINNEY

CAPTAI N

BRIAN PERRY
•

ADMINISTRATIVE

LIEUTENANT
CHRIS

ANDERSON
aft
PATROL

LIEUTENANT
ADAM
GLOE
PATROL

LIEUTENANT
SCOTT

M I LLSAP
Captain James McElhinney is currently
the Administrative Division Commander,
overseeing Investigations, Professional
Standards, Property& Evidence, Records,
Fleet, and Facilities. Captain McElhinney
is a 35-yearveteran of the Placentia Police
Department, having worked as a Police
Cadet and Reserve Police Officer before
being promoted to Police Officer in 1993.

He earned his BS in Criminal Justice
Management and MS in Organizational
Leadership from Union Institute &
University. He is also a graduate of the
Sherman Block Supervisory Leadership
Institute.

Captain Brian Perry is currently the
Operations Division Commander,
overseeing all field operations. He is a 28
year sworn law enforcement professional
and he began his service with the
Placentia Police Department as a police
officer in 2001. He earned his graduate
degree in Organizational Leadership from
Union Institute and University and he is a
graduateoftheSherman Block Supervisory
Leadership Institute.
12 13

The miff of the Operations Division is to
IFensure the safety and security of those who
live, work, and visit the City of Placentia.

This mission is accomplished by providin
timely and professional police services to the
community through community policing
oriented philosophies and by utilizing a
problem -solving approach in partnership
with the community through prevention,
suppression, and apprehension strategies.

The Operations Division is also known as the
"field services" division and it is overseen by
the Operations Division Commander and two
Patrol Lieutenants. Operations consists of
the Patrol Division, Traffic Bureau, K-9 Unit,
School Resource Officer Detail, and Police
Service Officers, Police Reserves, and the
Police Chaplain Program.
2021 AND 2022 PROMMOTIONS

EMERGENCY CALLS

FOR SERVICE

CALLS FOR

SERVICE
The Placentia Police Department proudly
serves the 51,000 plus residents of the City of
Placentia. Emergency calls for service are our
highest priority incidents. These calls range
from the physical well-being of a person in
jeopardy, disasters, or crimes in progress. Some
examples would include injury traffic collisions,
suicide attempts, domestic disputes, any call
involving the use of weapons, including fights
and robberies.

LIEUTENANT ANDERSON

SERGEANT MACCUBBIN

SERGEANT GARZA

SERGEANT GILLIS

RECORDS SUPERVISOR GRIFFITH

CHIEF BUTTS

CAPTAIN PERRY

LIEUTENANT M I LLSAP

SERGEANT HERREN
29,000
28,000
27,000
28,898
Priority 1 (P1) incidents - This is the highest
priority incident. P1 a re calls where the physica f `
well-being of a person is in jeopardy., disasters,
or crimes in progress. Examples would include
injury traffic accidents, suicide attempts,
domestic disputes, any call involving the use
of weapons, including fights and robberies.

Also included in P1 calls, but to a lesser degree,
are calls in which property is in jeopardy and
the crime is in progress or just occurred and
the suspects are still in the area.

Priority 2 (P2) incidents - These calls for
service do not require an emergency response
but are dispatched as soon as units are
available. Examples would be when no lives
are in immediate danger.

Priority 3 (P3) incidents - These incidents are
informational in nature, or the time element
indicates that no person or property is in
jeopardy or incidents that are not in progress
reports.
2021 2022
•00
4:00
2:00
5:47
—GO S• 5:34
4:42 - ■
4:24
0:0
PRIORITY] P I RITY 2
PRIORITY3

CALLS FOR SERVICE
YEAR 2021 COMPARED TO YEAR 2022

AVERAGE RESPONSE TIMES FOR EMERGENCY CALLS

FOR SERVICE
YEAR 2021 COMPARED TO YEAR 2022 (MIN/SEC)

CRIME STATISTICS
As of January 1, 2021, the Placentia Police Department
collects and reports crime data based on the National
Incident -Based Reporting System (NIBRS), which is an
incident -based reporting system used by law enforcement agencies in the United States for collecting and reporting data on crimes. Local, state, and federal agencies generate NIBRS data from their records management systems.

NIBRS captures details on each single crime incident—as well as on separate offenses within the same incident.
•
2021
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS - 257
HOMICIDE - 0
RAPE - 35
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT - 222
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY - 1522
ROBBERY - 28
ARSON - 8
BURGLARY - 269
MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT - 124
FORGERY - 62
EMBEZZLEMENT- 5
RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY - 44
VANDALISM - 277

THEFT/LARCENY -
FRAUD 236
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS -158
DECREASE OF 39%
COMPARED TO 2021
HOMICIDE - 0
RAPE - 21
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT -137
CRIMES AGAINST SOCIETY- 690
WEAPONS OFFENSES- 80
DRUG OFFENSES- 610
GROUP B CRIMES - 650
CURFEW - 9
DISORDERLY CONDUCT - 31
DUI -100
DRUNKENNESS -11 4

OFFENSES AGAINST FAMILY/
CHILDREN - 2
LIQUOR LAWS - 23
RUNAWAYS - 58
ALL OTHER OFFENSES - 416
2022
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY - 1525
INCREASE OF LESS THAN 1%
COMPARED TO 2021
ROBBERY - 31
ARSON - 4
BURGLARY - 298
MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT - 128
FORGERY - 62
EMBEZZLEMENT -1
RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY - 43
VANDALISM - 241
THEFT/LARCENY - 534
FRAUD - 236
CRIMES AGAINST SOCIETY - 472
DECREASE OF 32%
COMPARED TO 2021
WEAPONS OFFENSES - 53
DRUG OFFENSES - 419
GROUP B CRIMES - 627
DECREASE OF 4%
COMPARED TO 2021
CURFEW - 9
DISORDERLY CONDUCT -14
DUI - 93
DRUNKENNESS - 2

OFFENSES AGAINST FAMILY/
CHILDREN - 2
LIQUOR LAWS - 2
RUNAWAYS - 79
ALL OTHER OFFENSES - 426
16 17

PATROL DIVISION
The Patrol Division is the backbone of our policing service. Patrol officers work around the clock to safeguard our community.

The Patrol Division includes the Traffic Bureau, K9 Unit, School Resource Officers, Police Service Officers, and Reserve Officers.

Patrol Officers handle the first response to all crimes, they patrol for criminal activity and take the lead on criminal enforcement.

They also work with residents, business owners, educational partners, and other community partners in reducing public safety problems, including quality of life issues that concern our community or impact the safety and living conditions of the public. "VP'
The Patrol Division is made up of two Police Lieutenants, six Police Sergeants, twenty-four Police Officers (including K-9 Officers, SROs, and HLOs), one Police Services Supervisor, and two Police Service Officers.

TOTAL
2021

RAFFIC BUR
•
TOTAL ARRESTS 2021 = 1,405
Top 3 Arrests
Possess Controlled Substance, HS 11377(a) = 123 arrests Possess Drug Paraphernalia, HS 11364(a) = 91 arrests
DUI Alcohol, VC 23152(a) = 48 arrests
TOTAL ARRESTS 2022 = 1,446
Top 3 Arrests
Traffic Officers are primarily responsible for traffic safety-related laws.

They educate the public on traffic safety, investigate traffic collisions, and maintain traffic safety for special events like the Heritage Day Parade and Festival and the Placentia Tamale Festival. They also monitor traffic conditions at our schools during student drop-off and pick-up times for student safety. A Sergeant oversees the Traffic Bureau, and consists of two Motorcycle Officers and two Parking Control Officers enforcing street sweeping and other parking problems within the city. Additionally, two employees are assigned to run day-to-day operations at the department's impound Iota„
Driving Without a License, VC 12500 = 87 arrests
Possess Controlled Substance, HS 11377(a) = 85 arrests
18 Possess Drug Paraphernalia, HS 11364(a) = 68 arrests

RAFFIC CITATIONS TRAFFIC COLLISIONS
657
7412
PARKING CITATIONS 2021 TRAFFIC

HAZARDOUS CITATIONS CITATIONS

NON- HAZARDOUS CITATIONS
TRAFFIC COLLISIONS 2021 TRAFFIC
0 TRAFFIC FATAL COLLISIONS

TRAFFIC PERSONAL INJURY

TRAFFIC PROPERTY DAMAGE
240
174
PARKING CITATIONS 2022 TRAFFIC

HAZARDOUS CITATIONS CITATIONS

NON- HAZARDOUS CITATIONS
TRAFFIC COLLISIONS 2022 TRAFFIC

TRAFFIC FATALITIES COLLISIONS

TRAFFIC PERSONAL INJURY

TRAFFIC PROPERTY DAMAGE

„ s
niermrp-
The Placentia Police Department Canine (K9) Program began in 1988 with its first dog, K9 Nanto. The K9 Program was established to augment police services and is an essential tool in the fight against crime, providing protection for the officers and the community at - large. The unit is comprised of skilled officers partnered with highly trained canines. The K9, specifically chosen for their intelligence and keen sense of smell, are used to supplement police operations to locate weapons, contraband, and to apprehend criminal offenders.

When K9 officers are not responding to calls for service, they patrol the business and residential areas of the city to deter and detect crime. K9's Kyra and Champ currently serve the City of Placentia.

VALENCIA

HIGH SCHOOL
In partnership with the Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District L (PYLUSD), the Department currently has two School Resource Officers (SROs), both of which have officers located on their respective campus.

One Officer is assigned to El Dorado High School, and another is assigned to Valencia High School. Both SROs perform the same functions as our patrol officers. However they also perform several other functions unique to schools. Our SROs become an integral part of their school sites and work in collaboration with school staff to keep our students safe.

SROs provide school staff with training on active shooters, gangs, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, bullying, and other school related concerns.

SROs also make lasting connections with students by educating i so-or,a
FiKar
TIGER$
them on the issues they face, as well as providing mentorship and et”
counseling. Placentia's SROs are more than just police officers, they are an integral resource for our schools and their students.

24 POLICE SERVICE

OFFICERS (PSO)
The Police Service Officer (PSO) is comprised of two
non -sworn PSOs and one non -sworn Police Services
Supervisor (PSS). PSOs support sworn Police Officers
by performing a combination of field, office, and jail
duties. Their duties include responding to low risk calls for service, taking reports, and managing jail operations.

JAIL

OPERATIONS
The Placentia Police Department's Jail Facility is a
Temporary Holding Facility. The jail is only certified
to hold arrestees for up to 24 hours due to the
classification status with the California Department
of Corrections. If an arrestee stays longer than the
booking process, the arrestee will receive meals every
6 hours provided by the Jailer or Watch Commander.

Arrestees are brought into the jail for general booking procedures which include processing, fingerprinting,
and photos. Once the booking process is complete
the arrestee is then transported to the Orange County
Jail facility for housing. The Placentia Jail Facility has 4 holding cells that will accommodate 8 arrestees with
an additional sobering cell for intoxicated subjects. The Placentia Police Department also allows for juvenile
arrestees to be placed in a non -secure holding cell for up to 6 hours, which is separate from the jail. Juveniles must be released to a parent or guardian within the 6 -hour
limit or will be transported to a county facility for housing.

RESERVE POLICE OFFICER

PROGRAM
Reserve Officers assist full-time officers in the enforcement of laws and in maintaining peace and order within the
community. Reserve Officers usually are assigned to augment the Operations Division, but they may be assigned to other areas within the Department as needed. Reserve Officers are required to work a minimum of 16 hours per month.

VOLUNTEERS IN
POLICE
For nearly 40 years, the Volunteers
in Police (VIP) have provided
dedicated supporttothe members
ofthe Placentia Police Department.

The primary goal of the VIPs is to
further the partnership between
the Police and the community by
developing a spirit of cooperation
and establishing collaborative
relationships. Volunteers assist
in specified duties which create
efficiencies for the Department,
improving our service delivery
to the community. Some of the
volunteer duties are reporting
crime, assisting with police
responsiveness, information
input, performing vacation home
checks, and involvement in various
community outreach activities.

Volunteers meet bi-monthly to
coordinate events. Interested
candidates must be at least 18
years old and possess a high
school diploma. Commitment,
dedication and regular attendance
are required in the program.

CHAPLAINS
The Police Department has a team of
Cha plainswhoserveourcommunity.

The Chaplains are fully ordained
with the churches and synagogues
in our city and represent a variety of
faiths.Theyare an integral part ofthe
department and available around
the clock to assist members of the
community in time of crisis or need.
4 a.
25 ft

A�41-.
w .
r,
pri
g",
r

PLACENTIA
•" year of joining the Post and receive
year-round instruction and training at
the police station. This training includes
inspections, physical development, and
a basic understanding of police service.

The Explorer Post provides thousands
of service hours to the city and local
community. The lessons in leadership,
responsibility, and service to the
community provide a life-long benefit
to each member.

The Placentia Police Explorer Program
is designed to give young men and
women between the ages of 14 and 21
opportunities to develop leadership
skills and team -building concepts.

The members of the Explorer Post
are provided with an insight into law
enforcement as a career. Explorers
attend a training academy within one

HOMELESS LIAISON OFFICER INT
(HLO)
The Homeless Liaison Officer program is assigned within Patrol.

HLOs attend meetings with collaborative groups, Placentia Police Administration, Placentia City Staff, City Council Members, and outside law enforcement agencies. Their goal is to place homeless individuals in designated shelters, providing wraparound services for permanent housing, and to address community homelessness concerns. HLOs stay up - to - date on current laws and work to navigate this difficult issue by knowing what kind of resources are available to our homeless population. HLOs work collaboratively with staff members of the Navigation Center. PPD has two HLOs who are specifically trained to deal with homeless related issues.

ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
Homeless -Related Calls for Service an
Officer -Initiated Activities ..

Year 2021 compared to Year 2022
Citizen -Initiated
Officer -Initiated
The Administrative/Support Services Division is one of two divisions within the Police Department and is overseen and managed by a Police Captain. Each Division has one or more "Bureaus" within it that are uniquely designed to handle specific duties within the department.

The Division consists of Administration, Professional Standards Bureau, Investigations Bureau, Property & Evidence Bureau, and Information Technology. Administrative staff consists of the Division Captain, Administrative Lieutenant, Professional Standards Sergeant, IT Sergeant, Management Analyst, and Senior Administrative Assistant to the Chief of Police. In addition, all internal affairs investigations are handled through the Division Commander's office and assigned to supervisory staff members.

Administrative staff is tasked with preparing and managing the department budget, purchasing and requisitions of equipment and supplies, personnel selection, policy, and procedures, grant management, contract services, and human resources liaison. Each bureau supervisor within the division report directly to the Administrative Division Commander who is responsible for the division's daily activities and long-term strategic goals. 1,208 929

PROFESSIONAL

STANDARDS BUREAU
The Professional Standards
bureau is responsible for many
police administrative duties.

These include employee
recruitment, pre-employment
background investigations,
new hire processing, and
first week orientation. This
also includes the ongoing
professional training that our
department personnel must
attend throughout their career,
which can equate to thousands
of hours for an individual. This
training varies from complying
with ever changing state mandates, to maintaining department and industry standards. Also allowing for the development of expertise in a certain field by permitting our individual sworn and professional staff to request training courses that are in a desired dimension. Additionally, complaints against police personnel, whether generated from an external source or internally, are thoroughly investigated through this office. Investigations of our personnel are taken seriously and are of the highest importance to ensure we maintain trust with the community we serve.

PROFESSIONAL

STANDARDS
BUREAU
When Placentia Police Officers attend the Basic Police Academy, they are required to receive over 1,000 hours of training prior to graduation. After the academy, ongoing professional training continues throughout their careers.

Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) requires officers in this state to complete at least 24 hours of advanced training every 2 years. Most of our officers exceed this minimum standard every year. Advanced officer training is vital and allows our officers to remain professional and be some of Southern California's best officers. Some examples of the training our officers receive are, effective policing of the homeless, community relations, cultural diversity, peer support, local, state, and federal law changes, proper use of force applications, pursuit driving updates, arrest and control techniques, first aid CPR /AED, drug recognition expert (DRE) DUI investigations, de-escalation techniques, and investigative techniques.

In addition to POST advanced officer training, our officers have received hundreds of hours of training through the department in range training, policy and procedure updates, and briefing training. Placentia Police Officers who are members of the North County SWAT team received approximately 500 hours of SWAT related training in 2021 and 2022. Our K9 officers received approximately 700 hours of K9 related training in 2021 and 2022.

INTERNAL

AFFAIRS
The Placentia Police Department
takes all complaints seriously
regarding the service provided by
the depa rtment and the Gond uct of
its members. The department will
accept and address all complaints
of misconduct in accordance with
policy and applicable federal, state,
and local law. It is also the policy
of this department to ensure
that the community can report
misconduct without concern for
reprisal or retaliation.

Each personnel complaint is
classified with one of the following
dispositions:

UNFOUNDED - When the
investigation discloses that the
alleged acts did not occur or did
not involve department members.

Complaints that are determined
to be frivolous will fall within the
classification of unfounded.

EXONERATED - The investigation
discloses that the alleged act
occurred but that the act was
justified, lawful, and/or proper.

NOT SUSTAINED - The investigation
discloses that there is insufficient
evidence to sustain the complaint or
fully exonerate the member.

SUSTAINED - A final determination
by an investigating agency,
commission, board hearing officer,
or arbitrator as applicable, following
an investigation and opportunity for
an administrative appeal pursuant
to Government Code 3304 and
Government Code 3304.5 that the
actions of an officer were found to
violate law or department policy
(Penal Code 832.8).

INTERNAL - Investigations are
initiated at the direction of the Chief.

EXTERNAL - Investigations are
complaints received by members of
the community.

TRANSPARENCY
In 2021, the Placentia Police Department responded to 27,896 calls for service and made 1,405 arrests. There were nine (9) internal affairs investigations for the year. Five (5) of these investigations were generated internal and four (4) were external. The investigations were thoroughly investigated, and the findings were as follows:
2021
2 UNFOUNDED 3 NOT SUSTAINED 4 SUSTAINED
In 2022, the Placentia Police Department responded to 28,898 calls for service and made 1,445 arrests. There were six (6) internal affairs investigations for the year. Three (3) of these investigations were generated internal and three (3) were external. The investigations were thoroughly investigated, and the findings were as follows:
2022
1 EXONERATED 2 UNFOUNDED 2 NOT SUSTAINED 1 SUSTAINED
30 31

INVESTIGATI
BUREAU
1 The Investigations Bureau is comprised of V
General Detectives(oneCrimes-Person and A
one Property Crimes), two Gang Detectives, wit
one Task Force Officer (DEA), one Crime.

Analyst, and three Civilian Investigators.

The bureau is supervised by a Sergeant and + a
overseen by the Administrative Lieutenant
and Administrative Division Captain.
•
ACTIVE - An investigation that is being
conducted with a reasonable, good
faith belief that it could lead to the
filing of administrative, civil, or criminal
proceedings, or that is ongoing and
continuing and for which there is a
reasonable, good faith anticipation of
securing an arrest or prosecution.
32 0
1 INACTIVE - An investigation where there
is little evidence to work with, or follow-
up on, but is available to reopen if further
information comes to light
• #
Aira
CLEARED - An offense that is cleared by
arrest but have exhausted all leads and/or
have done everything possible to clear a
case, the case is cleared exceptionally.

UNFOUNDED - False or baseless
complaints.

ACTIVE

INACTIVE

CLEARED
S� ��� 2022

ACTIVE INACTIVE

UNFOUNDED
0 •

CLEARED UNFOUNDED

NOTABLE GANG

INVESTIGATION UNIT
On April 25, 2021, at approximately 3:40
AM, Placentia Police Officers responded
to a report of a stabbing that had just
occurred in an apartment in the City of
Placentia. Officers arrived and learned
that there were two victims with multiple
stab wounds. The victims of the stabbings
were an adult father and his juvenile son.

It was learned that the two unknown
suspects wore face masks and had forced
their way into the apartment to commit
the stabbing. Both suspects fled the
apartment prior to officers' arrival. Both
victims were treated at a local trauma
center and survived after a lengthy recovery.

Placentia Detectiveswerecalled in and took
over the investigation. Since the victims
did not know the suspects and there was
no evidence located at the crime scene,
detectives had their work cut out for them.

Detectives spent several days combing the
area for video surveillance and ultimately
locatedfootageofa possiblesuspectvehicle
in the area. Detectives spent countless days
investigating the incident and were able to
identify the suspects involved in the crime.

Detectives obtained and served several
search warrants arresting the two
suspects. Through further investigation,
Detectives learned that the wife of the
stabbing victim was having an affair with
one of the suspects and had conspired
with him to murder her husband.

After learning of the information,
Detectives arrested the victim's wife
on numerous felony charges, including
conspiring to murder her husband.

Despite no initial evidence or leads,
Detectives worked countless hours
to bring justice to the victims.

Since the incorporation of the City in
1926, three of the oldest gangs in Orange
County were formed within the borders of
the City of Placentia. Each of these gangs
are traditional Turf Street Gangs as defined
by the Street Terrorism Enforcement and
Prevention Act, commonly referred to
as the STEP Act under California Penal
Code section 186.22. The three gangs
have tremendous negative impact on
the City of Placentia. They commit a large
number of reported and unreported
crimes in the City and a majority of them
are being committed by the younger
members of the gang. This information
comes from numerous investigations,
arrests, and information from citizens.

DEA

TASK FORCE
The Placentia Police Department currently
participates in a Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) Task Force and
has done so for over two decades by
dedicating an officer to serve on the
team. Currently, five police departments
dedicate officers to the DEA Task Force.

The DEA Task Force is charged with the
enforcement of the Controlled Substance
Act as well as investigation of the highest
level of domestic and international
narcotics traffickers. During 2021 and
2022, the DEA Task Force seized over 12
million dollars and over 200 kilograms
of various narcotics (including cocaine,
methamphetamine, heroin, and fentanyl).
33 1

INFORMATIO ECHNOLOGY Al CRIME ANALYST
(IT) SERGEANT
In December of 2019 staff created the
position of IT Sergeant to manage
the workload of the Department's
rapidly increasing digital footprint. The
position is responsible for maintaining
all systems in the span and control of
Placentia Public Safety and the Placentia
Communications Center. The IT Sergeant
also serves as the Department's liaison
with all local, county, and state partners
to maintain operational connectivity,
including the 800Mhz radio system, 911,
NG -911, Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD),
Records Management System (RMS),
Placentia Fire & Life Safety systems, and
EMS provider support. Additionally, the
IT Sergeant serves as the Department's
Body Worn (BWC) and Fleet (MVS)
camera coordinator. All BWC and MVS
discovery requests are also processed
through the office of the IT Sergeant. In
addition, the IT Sergeant is responsible
for all Assembly Bill 953 (RIPA), NIBRS
offense data submission, and all other
mandated data reporting. Lastly, current
and new special projects involving Public
Safety technology are managed by the IT
Sergeant. Placentia makes every effort to
be a leader in technology-based solutions
that create an actionable data -driven
service model.

Crime analysis is a law enforcement function that involves systematic analysis for identifying and analyzing patterns and trends in crime and disorder. Placentia PD has one full time crime analyst.

CRIME ANALYSIS
Crime Analysis is defined as the systematic study of crime and disorder problems as well as other police -related issues- including socio demographic, spatial, and temporal factors - to assist the police in criminal apprehension, crime and disorder reduction, crime prevention, and evaluation. - University of Maryland

ADMINISTRATIVE
Deals with long-range comparisons (quarterly, semi-annually, or annually), typically requested by Police Management.

STRATEGIC
Operational strategies, seeks solutions to ongoing problems (weeks, months, quarters, or years). The purpose is to perform police services more effectively and efficiently by matching service delivery to demand.

TACTICAL
Deals with recent criminal offenses (immediate, hours, days, or weeks). It promotes a quick response to offenses, such as burglaries and robberies. Provides information to assist operational personnel identify crime trends and arrest offenders.

Utilizing a sophisticated records management system, the Records Bureau collects, maintains, and distributes all police reports and related records. Some responsibilities and duties of our records personnel consist of :

Assisting the public at the front counter
• Answering business and non -emergency phone calls
• Filing reports
LiveScan (Electronic Fingerprinting)
Background checks
• Records requests
Non -suspect info reports
Citation sign -off
• Vehicle release forms
Sex, arson, and narcotic registrants
Scan police reports into Laserfiche for records retentions and accessibility Placing calls for service
Process arrest reports to be electronically filed with the Dist me
Using software such as Elete, Records Managent. Sys •-d Dispatch, and Electronic Direction for Complaint,
ri
Attorney's Office
, tc,9 raft*
tet•
CATEGORY 2021 2022

PARKING PERMITS ISSUED
1,014 968
F CASES SUBMITTED TO DISTRICT ATTORNEY 1,407 1,088
CITATION SIGN OFFS 209 240
1 STOLEN VEHICLES ENTERED 165 196
MISSING PERSONS ENTERED 157 244
The Placentia Police Department Records Bureau is staffed by one Records Supervisor, two full-time Records Specialists, five Police Cadets and is managed by the Administrative Division Captain.

The Records Bureau performs a vital function by working closely with all members of the Police Department to ensure timely processing of reports and ensuring the service standards are met.

PREP ' &

EVIDENCE DIVISION
914,
41111511F
The Property and Evidence Division is staffed by a Police Services Supervisor and one full-time Property Technician and is managed by the Administrative Division Captain. Property personnel are tasked with the proper handling, storage, transportation, release, and/or disposal of all items seized by the Placentia Police Department. Property assists the courts by providing copies of case documents, audio and video, surveillance, interviews, photographs, 911 dispatch tapes, and, physical evidence as requested. Some evidentiary items handled by this division include firearms, narcotics, currency, sexual assault kits, DNA swabs, blood/urin&42 samples, photographs, audio, video, and much more.

ME4141
M. 110.
primary goal of this division is to store and dispose of evidentiary items in accordance with the law and directions of the court. Our property personnel are responsible for safeguarding all evidence until the case has been completed and adjudicated.
lew
021 20 2
1 Items
Destroyed
5,818
38 Items Received1,
5,239
Returned to
Owner
502
Items Received
4,588

DEPARTMENT BUDGET &

ADVINISTRATIVE SERVICES
UNIT
The Department's Budget &
Administrative Services Unit is
• responsible for a multitude of
fiscally minded functions. The
primary being the preparation
and daily oversight of our
department's annual budget. This
sets the fiscal direction for our
department and establishes goals
and objectives for each division
to work within. Additional duties
include creating and maintaining
contracts with outside service
providers, fleet services, false alarm
management, grant overview, and
0 • agency surveys/analysis when
needed.

Items Returned to
Destroyed Owner
5,471 369
t
•
•
M •
►GE
FY _ ., 2 FY 22/23
12, 664;799 11, 926, 426
39 ANCILLARY ASSIGNMENTS

NORTH COUNTY SWAT
The North County Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) was incorporated in 2001 and is comprised of individual agency SWAT teams, Crisis Negotiation teams, and Tactical Dispatchers.

Along with Placentia, other assigned agencies include Brea, California State University -Fullerton, Fullerton, La Habra, and La Palma Police Departments.

The team provides support in critical field operations where negotiations or special tactical deployment methods are required. Placentia's allocation commitment to the team is six officers, two sergeants, two crisis negotiators, and two tactical dispatchers.

The SWAT team supplies specialized support in handling critical field operations where intense negotiations and/or special tactics deployment methods exceed the capacity of field officers. Though the team is part- time, each member is on-call 24/7. They train monthly, conducting over 250 hours of specialized training per year. The selection process includes a memorandum of interest, scoring above 90% on the SWAT firearms qualification, completing the SWAT obstacle course under the strict time limit, and completing an oral interview with the Team Leaders. Once selected, officers must pass the obstacle course twice a year and a quarterly weapons qualification. This detail takes a tremendous amount of commitment and a high level of firearms proficiency and physical fitness.

In December 2019,after significanttesting and evaluation,the Department began deployment of body -worn cameras for all enforcement operations.

In January 2021, the fleet mobile video system was deployed in the field. The system has been a success and has greatly aided in routine investigations, minimizing citizen complaints, and has even expedited the discovery process for the video evidence custodians. The purpose of the MVS and the BWC system is to provide an accurate,
unbiased audiovisual record of enforcement -related
and non -criminal incidentsthatwill enhance criminal
prosecutions. The Placentia Police Department
recognizes that audio and video recording of
contacts between departmental personnel and the
x public provides an objective record of these events,
and the use of a recording system complements
field personnel in the performance of their duties
by providing a digital record of enforcement
and investigative field contacts. Additionally, the
use of MVS and BWC will aid the department in
areas of public safety and department transparency, and accordingly, should be considered with all other available evidence, including witness statements, officer interviews, and forensic analysis. The systems and program are overseen and managed by the IT Sergeant.

NALOXONE/NARCAN
All officers are trained to administer the nasal spray
Naloxone/Narcan, which blocks and reverses the
effects of opioids (including heroin, methadone,
morphine, opium, codeine, fentanyl, oxycodone, and
hydrocodone). The officers can also use the nasal
spray if they are exposed to an opioid in powder form.

Placentia Police officers have had several successful
saves with the Naloxone/Narcan.

LIVES SAVED
2021 2022

RECRUITMENT TEAK
The Placentia Police Department's Recruitment Team is made up of officers and detectives who assist with the recruiting of new officers to join the department. They go to police academies throughout Southern California and talk with academy recruits who are not yet hired by a police department about the Placentia Police Department and all we have to offer. They have also gone to military bases to recruit service members whose military commitment is coming to an end. The Recruitment Team will also assist with the testing to become a Placentia Police Officer. This includes proctoring the written and physical agility tests as well as being a panel member for oral interviews. 4 +r
7 Sworn
1 Officers
hired
2021 2022
21 Applicants
processed
WWI
9 Civilian
staff hired
6 Sworn
Officers
hired
ealls
OW. St
NSW Nil 41111-
05:11 0111
n
r
42 Applicants
processed
7 Civilian
staff hired

CRIMBSOENE INVESTIGATION
iiiopoe 011!

03. (CSI)
400 00.0 •••••
Arm 00
Placentia Police Department's Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) Unit is staffed by the Property Police Services Supervisor and the Property Technician. All CSI Technicians are certified Field Evidence Technicians that respond to crime scenes and assist Patrol and Detectives in their investigations. Our CSI Technicians are on call 24/7. While out at crime scenes, our CSI Technicians photograph, document the scene and collect evidence.OurCSlTechniciansaretrainedto processitemsfrom DNAand/orfingerprints as needed. They also process in-house evidence previously collected by officers. *Minor CSI is conducted by Police Officers and PSOs not included in the above activities.

HONOR GUARD
The Placentia Police Department's Honor Guard was founded in 2012 and has since grown into a multifaceted detail. It is currently made up of one Sergeant and four team members. The immediate duty of the detail is to render final honors to fallen officers and their families. They comfort family members, reassuring them that their loved one is remembered. These final honors give family and friends the opportunity to reflect on the time their loved one spent in service to their community, with the hopes of bringing them closure. Our Honor Guard Detail is a specifically trained, decorated, and highly disciplined unit that serves as the "guardians of the colors" by displaying and escorting the national flag on ceremonial occasions. These instances include state functions such as the Peace Officer's Memorial services, Veteran's Day services, as well as promotional and award ceremonies. The Honor Guard Detail prides itself on providing its services with the utmostpect, decorum, and humility. •1II11".f

PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER (P10)
-the main job of the Public Information Officer (P10) at the department is to act as a formal liaison and spokesperson for the Department when interacting with the public via the media. This includes writing press releases, conducting media interviews, monitoring and implementing social media campaigns, and acting as an intermediary between PPD and the media groups. PPD has three PIOs.

These PTOs receive special training to assist in communicating with the press corps and to navigate laws pertaining to the release of information to the public. 42 43

SOCIAL MEDIA
-"; TEAM
The Social Media Team's main goal is to improve
v' communication and public relations with the community in which we serve. The department uses social media platforms for external purposes including community engagement
and public notifications, and internal purposes, including •a investigations and recruitment. Enhanced communication, V facilitated by social media engagement, leads to greater community cooperation and understanding.

AG. 4100
44 RANGE TRAINING UNIT
fAk
41)
The Range Training Unit consists of one Range Master and five Firearms Instructors. The unit trains and mentors all sworn PPD Officers in the use, functionality, and decision- making processes involving various assigned weapons.

The unit conducts bi-monthly live -fire qualification and simulation exercises.

PEER SUPPORT
The Peer Support Team provides assistance,
support, and resources to employees and
direct family members during difficult times
in their personal or professional lives. This
program is designed to provide emotional
support during and after times of personal
or professional crisis to other employees
who need assistance, ongoing follow-up
support, promote trust, allow anonymity,
and preserve confidentiality for persons
using peer support within the guidelines of
the program.
ppoLicz,.

TERRORISM LIAISON

OFFICER
Terrorism Liaison Officers are specially trained to be a point of contact in matters related to terrorism and they maintain a relationship with local fusion center. They receive and disseminate terrorism -related information. They educate other agency personnel about suspicious activity, enhancing situational awareness, early warning, and operational
readiness.

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS
(DRONES) ..,_;�
In 2022, Placentia PD became fully operational with the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) team. All team members
have passed and obtained their remote pilot certificates from the FAA. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), commonly referred to as drones, have proven to be a valuable resource for law enforcement and first responders during emergency operations, supplanting the helicopter as a more efficient and cost-effective alternative for small-scale missions.

Drones are an efficient way of providing law enforcement critical information when responding to calls for service, including providing an overhead view of an area or incident for ground personnel, providing detailed documentation of crime and accident scenes, and searching for
lost or missing persons - to name a few.
45_
ta=r

CITIZENS ACADEV

GUN BUYBACK
EVENT
The Placentia Police Department Citizens Academy is designed to teach citizens about the philosophy, policies, and guiding principles of law enforcement, and ethical conduct governing police services in any given community. This allows the "students" to become more aware of how the Department functions in its daily operations, and they learn how they can play an integral role in helping keep our communities safe through community policing partnerships. The Academy also allows the Department to become more aware of the feelings and concern of the community and helps build positive and interactive relationship between itizens and police personnel. The Department also launched its first panish Citizens Academy in 2022, with much succes In 2022, County Supervisor Doug
Chaffee approached the North OC
Public Safety Collaborative and
offered funding to complete a gun
buyback event. County Supervisor
Chaffee offered funds for gift cards
in exchange for unwanted weapons
and full reimbursement for personnel.

Chief Butts volunteered Placentia PD
to host the event, in conjunction with
partnering local law enforcement
agencies. The goal was to collect
unwanted firearms before they ended
up in the wrong hands. This voluntary
event was an opportunity for those
who had unwanted and operable
firearms and were looking for a way to
dispose of them safely and responsibly.

Our officers often encounter criminals
possessing firearms, and many
times we learn of firearms being
stolen from family members and
through residential burglaries. This
event provided a service to persons
who already wanted to dispose of
firearms, either because they are not
comfortable possessing them, or they
are concerned of a loved one or others
coming into possession of firearms.

This was a "no questions asked" event,
meaning there were no recording
license plates or the IDs of persons
wanting to dispose of firearms. The
event was held in October of 2022,
and over 400 guns were collected.

Guns will be destroyed in accordance
with state law unless they are found
to be stolen or evidence of a crime. If
they were reported stolen, they will
be returned to the owner. If they are
found to be evidence, they will be
forwarded to the appropriate agency.

ORANGE COUNTY GANG

REDUCTION AND INTERVENTION

PARTNERSHIP
The Placentia Police Department
participates in the Orange County Gang
Reduction and Intervention Partnership
("OC GRIP").This program involves multiple
organizations, agencies, and volunteers to
prevent kids from participating in gang
activity and enhances the relationship
between the Orange County District
Attorney's office, local law enforcement,
and community policing. OC GRIP has set
out to provide education and recreational
opportunities for students who struggle
with attendance, academics, and attitude.

LAW ENFORCEMENT

CODE OF ETHICS
JUSA TOrSoccEp
TOPSoccer is a modified version of the game of soccer. It was designed to provide opportunities for athletes with disabilities. It provides an affordable opportunity for fitness, fun, and building self-esteem. Modifications are made to the game to allow for full participation and enjoyment for each athlete. One-on-one assistance is available to those who are in need of it, and the Placentia Police Department is proud to partner with the organization.

AS a Law Enforcement Officer, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the Constitutional rights of all men to liberty, equality and justice.

I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all; maintain courageous calm in the face of danger, scorn, or ridicule; develop self- restraint; and be constantly mindful of the welfare of others. Honest in thought and deed in both my personal and official life.

I will be exemplary in obeying the laws of the land and the regulations of my department. Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in my official capacity will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty.

I will never act officiously or permit personal feeling, prejudices, animosities or friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise for crime and with relentless prosecution of criminals, I will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force or violence and never accepting gratuities.

I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of the police service. I will constantly strive to achieve these objectives and ideals, dedicating myself before God to my chosen profession... law enforcement.

Placentia PD is proud to participate in Coffee with a Cop that brings police officers and the community members they serve together -over coffee -to discuss issue . n. -arn more about each other.

401 E. Chapman Avenue Placentia, CA 92870 1 (714) 993-8164

TO:

VIA:

FROM:

DATE:

SUBJECT:

Placentia Cit Council

AGENDA REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

CITY ADMINISTRATOR

FIRE CHIEF
SEPTEMBER 5, 2023

INTRODUCTION OF PULSEPOINT RESPOND APP
FISCAL
IMPACT: NONE
SUMMARY:

The Placentia Fire and Life Safety Department ("Department") is pleased to introduce the launch of PulsePoint Respond, a phone application to allow users to view and receive alerts on fire and emergency medical service calls in Placentia.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council take the following action:

Receive Chief Dobine's presentation introducing the app.

DISCUSSION:

At the February 7, 2023 City Council Meeting, Council approved funding of PulsePoint Respond to increase communication of incidents to the community.

The Department has completed the implementation of PulsePoint Respond to launch on September 5, 2023. PulsePoint Respond was procured to be utilized as a communication tool to notify the public when CPR assistance is needed during a medical emergency at a public location, and additionally, PulsePoint Respond can let the user know what type of dispatched incidents are occurring in Placentia.

The Department has prepared a video and marketing images to be posted on social media and the City website to encourage the Placentia community to download and utilize PulsePoint Respond for free.

3.b.

Sept. 05, 2023

City Council Agenda
September 5, 2023