Agenda — Stanton City Council, August 8, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

NOTICE AND CALL

CITY COUNCIL / SUCCESSOR AGENCY / STANTON HOUSING AUTHORITY

SPECIAL MEETING

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL / SUCCESSOR AGENCY / STANTON HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR THE CITY OF STANTON AND TO THE CITY CLERK / SECRETARY:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Special Meeting of the City Council / Successor Agency / Stanton Housing Authority for the City of Stanton is hereby called by the Mayor / Chairman, to be held on August 8, 2023, commencing at 5:00 p.m. at 7800 Katella Avenue, Stanton, CA 90680.

The Agenda for the Special Meeting is attached to this Notice and Call.

Dated: August 3, 2023
s/ Patricia A. Vazquez, City Clerk / Secretary

IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, IF YOU NEED SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK AT (714) 890-4245. NOTIFICATION PRIOR TO THE MEETING WILL ENABLE THE CITY TO MAKE REASONABLE ARRANGEMENTS TO ENSURE ACCESSIBILITY TO THIS MEETING.

PUBLIC ACCESS IN-PERSON AND VIA TELECONFERENCE
(Electronically / Telephonically)
Attendance by the members of the public may view the meeting live in one of the following ways:
• Attend in person - City Council Chambers: 7800 Katella Avenue, California 90680. • Via Teleconference (electronically / telephonically) - Zoom:

In order to join the meeting via telephone please follow the steps below:

1. Dial the following phone number +1 (669) 444-9171 (US).

2. Dial in the following Meeting ID: (882 9023 2580) to be connected to the meeting.

In order to join the meeting via electronic device please utilize the Zoom URL link below:
• https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88290232580?pwd=L0J6c2sxVnJlZzJQcjg3bE45OWF6QT09

ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ANY ITEM ON THE AGENDA MAY DO SO AS FOLLOWS:
• Attend in person and complete and submit a request to speak card to the City Clerk. • E-Mail your comments to [email protected] with the subject line “PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM #” (insert the item number relevant to your comment). Comments received no later than 5:00 p.m. before the scheduled meeting will be compiled, provided to the City Council, and made available to the public before the start of the meeting. Staff will not read e-mailed comments at the meeting. However, the official record will include all e-mailed comments received until the close of the meeting.

Should you have any questions related to participation in the City Council Meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (714) 890-4245 or via e-mail at [email protected].

Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk August 8, 2023

Page 1 of 12 ends

AGENDA

CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY/STANTON HOUSING AUTHORITY

JOINT REGULAR MEETING
STANTON CITY HALL, 7800 KATELLA AVENUE, STANTON, CA 90680 TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 2023
SPECIAL CLOSED SESSION - 5:00 P.M.

JOINT REGULAR SESSION - 6:30 P.M.

In compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Office of the City Clerk at (714) 890-4245 or via e-mail at [email protected]. Notification prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting.

In order to join the meeting via telephone please follow the steps below:

1. Dial the following phone number +1 (669) 444-9171 (US).

2. Dial in the following Meeting ID: (882 9023 2580) to be connected to the meeting.

In order to join the meeting via electronic device please utilize the Zoom URL link below:
• https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88290232580?pwd=L0J6c2sxVnJlZzJQcjg3bE45OWF6QT09

Should you have any questions related to participation in the City Council Meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (714) 890-4245 or via e-mail at [email protected].

Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk August 8, 2023

Page 2 of 12 ends

The City Council agenda and supporting documentation is made available for public review and inspection during normal business hours in the Office of the City Clerk, 7800 Katella Avenue, Stanton California 90680 immediately following distribution of the agenda packet to a majority of the City Council. Packet delivery typically takes place on Thursday afternoons prior to the regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday. The agenda packet is also available for review and inspection on the city’s website at www.StantonCA.gov.

1. CLOSED SESSION (5:00 PM)

2. ROLL CALL Council / Agency / Authority Member Taylor Council / Agency / Authority Member Torres
Council / Agency / Authority Member Warren
Mayor Pro Tem / Vice Chairperson Van
Mayor / Chairman Shawver

3. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
Closed Session may convene to consider matters of purchase / sale of real property (G.C. §54956.8), pending litigation (G.C. §54956.9(a)), potential litigation (G.C. §54956.9(b)) or personnel items (G.C. §54957.6). Records not available for public inspection.

4. CLOSED SESSION
4A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1)
Number of cases: 1

Case Name: Tina Pacific Residents Association, et al. v. City of Stanton Case Number: OCSC 39-2023-01316300-CU-WM-CXC
4B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8)
Property: 8830 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-01)
8840 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-02)
8850 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-03)
8860 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-04)
8870 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-05)
8880 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-06)
8890 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-07)
8900 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-08)
8910 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-09)
8920 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-10)
8930 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-11)
Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk August 8, 2023

Page 3 of 12 ends

8940 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-12)
8950 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-13)
8960 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-14)
8970 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-15)
8841 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-29)
8851 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-28)
8861 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-27)
8870 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-05)
8871 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-26)
8880 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-06)
8881 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-25)
8890 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-07)
8891 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-24)
8900 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-08)
8901 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-23)
8910 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-09)
8911 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-22)
8920 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-10)
8921 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-21)
8930 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-11)
8931 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-20)
8940 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-12)
8941 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-19)
8950 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-13)
8951 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-18)
8960 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-14)
8961 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-17)
8970 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-15)
8971 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-16)
Negotiating Parties: Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager, City of Stanton Hannah Shin-Heydorn, Executive Director, Housing Authority Hannah Shin-Heydorn, Executive Director, Successor Agency David M. Cook and Chaicran Daphnie, Owner
Jennie Trust, Owner
Nga Summer Thien Trang (Trang Trust), Owner
Ngoc Trieu and Andy Pham, Owner
Sky Nguyen / Nguyen Sky SN Living Trust, Owner
Steven W. Reiss Trust (Steven W. Reiss), Owner
Tammy T. Doan and H. Le Harvey, Owner
Trachy Family Trust (Phillip R. Trachy), Owner
Under Negotiation: Instruction to negotiator will concern price and terms of payment.

Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk August 8, 2023

Page 4 of 12 ends

4C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2)
Number of Potential Cases: 1
4D. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6)
Title: City Manager

5. CALL TO ORDER STANTON CITY COUNCIL / SUCCESSOR AGENCY / HOUSING AUTHORITY JOINT REGULAR MEETING (6:30 PM)

6. ROLL CALL Council / Agency / Authority Member Taylor Council / Agency / Authority Member Torres
Council / Agency / Authority Member Warren
Mayor Pro Tem / Vice Chairperson Van
Mayor / Chairman Shawver

7. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

8. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS AND AWARDS
A. Introduction of newly assigned Orange County Sheriff’s Department Stanton deputies.

B. Presentation by the Planning Commission, sharing their mission with the City Council and providing information on their current operations.

C. Presentation by the Association of California Cities Orange County (ACCOC) sharing their mission with the City Council and providing information on their current operations.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items on the Consent Calendar may be acted on simultaneously, unless a Council/Board Member requests separate discussion and/or action.

Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk August 8, 2023

Page 5 of 12 ends

CONSENT CALENDAR
9A. MOTION TO APPROVE THE READING BY TITLE OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. SAID ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS THAT APPEAR ON THE

PUBLIC AGENDA SHALL BE READ BY TITLE ONLY AND FURTHER READING WAIVED
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

City Council/Agency Board/Authority Board waive reading of Ordinances and Resolutions.
9B. APPROVAL OF WARRANTS
City Council approve demand warrants dated June 30, 2023 – July 27, 2023, in the amount of $5,283,243.82.
9C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
City Council/Successor Agency/Housing Authority approve Minutes of Joint Special and Regular Meeting – July 11, 2023.
9D. CONSIDERATION OF EXTENSION OF THE EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION

AGREEMENT WITH BRANDYWINE ACQUISITIONS GROUP, C&C DEVELOPMENT

COMPANY, AND NATIONAL COMMUNITY RENAISSANCE OF CALIFORNIA

REGARDING THE POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT OF THE TINA-PACIFIC

NEIGHBORHOOD
The City Council and Housing Authority will consider extending the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with Brandywine Acquisitions Group, C&C Development Company, and National Community Renaissance of California for the potential redevelopment of the Tina Pacific neighborhood for an additional 12 months to allow for additional time to negotiate a disposition and development agreement and any other necessary agreements.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. City Council and Housing Authority find that this item is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15378(b)(5)(Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment); and

2. Approve extension of the ENA and authorize the City Manager/Executive Director to execute the Second Amendment to the ENA.

Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk August 8, 2023

Page 6 of 12 ends

9E. RESPONSE TO THE 2022-2023 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT DATED JUNE 12, 2023, ENTITLED, “WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD – ARE CITIES RESPONSIBLY MANAGING THE INTEGRATION OF GROUP HOMES?”
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?” (Attachment A). The purpose of the report was to review 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. California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require any public agency that the Grand Jury reviews respond to the findings and recommendations of the Grand Jury Report. The City’s proposed response letter responds to each of the applicable findings and recommendations (Attachment B).

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. City Council declare this project categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, Class 32, and Section 15332; and

2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the response letter to the Orange County Grand Jury related to the findings and recommendations contained in the June 12, 2023, report entitled “Welcome to the Neighborhood – Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes?”.
9F. AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES WITH KTGY FOR

THE PREPARATION OF THE TOWN CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN
Due to significant staffing changes in the City’s Community Development Department, staff is requesting additional time to complete the Town Center Specific Plan and associated studies. A contract amendment was previously approved, to accommodate staffing changes in the consultant team, which extended the contract to June 30, 2023.

Staff requests the Council authorize an extension to January 31, 2024 to allow for completion of the final phases of the project.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. City Council find that this item is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15378(b)(5)(Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment); and

2. Approve the Second Amendment to the Agreement for Consulting Services with KTGY to extend the term of the contract to January 31, 2024; and

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Second Amendment between the City of Stanton and KTGY.

Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk August 8, 2023

Page 7 of 12 ends

9G. AWARD OF CONTRACT TO G2 CONSTRUCTION TO INSTALL CATCH BASIN

AUTOMATED RETRACTABLE SCREENS AND CONNECTOR PIPE SCREENS AND

APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS
In 2022, City staff applied for competitive grant funding from the Measure M2 Environmental Cleanup Program administered by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) for the installation of proprietary G2 Construction, Inc. automated retractable screens and connector pipe screens in 31 catch basins to prevent trash from entering local waterways. The OCTA Environmental Cleanup Program Allocation Committee awarded the requested grant funding to the City for these screens, and as such, the City must now proceed with installations.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. City Council declare this project to be categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, Class 1, Section 15301(b) as minor alteration of existing public utility; and

2. Accept the Measure M2 Environmental Cleanup Program grant funding in the maximum amount of $61,890; and

3. Waive the competitive bidding requirement in the City’s purchasing policy by using the County of Orange Master Agreement with G2 Construction, Inc. to purchase and install the devices; and

4. Award a construction contract to G2 Construction in the amount of $69,626; and

5. Approve an appropriation of $7,000 from the City’s Gas Tax Fund (#211) to fund any contingencies; and

6. Authorize the City Manager to make minor changes, if needed, to the City’s construction contract documents with approval of the City Attorney; and

7. Authorize the City Manager to bind the City of Stanton and G2 Construction, Inc. in a contract; and

8. Authorize the City Manager to approve contract change orders with G2 Construction, Inc., as needed and determined by City staff, up to $7,000.

Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk August 8, 2023

Page 8 of 12 ends

9H. APPROVAL OF CONTRACT AMENDMENT #1 AMENDING CONTRACT WITH

MASTER JANITORIAL SERVICE, LLC TO INCREASE SCOPE OF WORK Master Janitorial Service, LLC has been providing professional janitorial services since July 2022, which includes routine maintenance and additional services (such as tile and carpet cleaning) for City facilities, not including the City Yard. With an increased number of City staff operating out of the City Yard, janitorial services are required for the City facility to maintain cleanliness. As such, City staff is requesting a contract amendment to increase the scope of work and total compensation to $265,000.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. City Council declare this project to be categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, Class 1, Section 15301 as operation and maintenance of existing public facilities; and

2. Approve the First Amendment to the existing agreement with Master Janitorial Service, LLC and allow the City Attorney to make minor edits as necessary prior to the execution of the Amendment; and

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the existing Agreement with Master Janitorial Service, LLC.

END OF CONSENT CALENDAR

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS None.

11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None.

Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk August 8, 2023

Page 9 of 12 ends

12. NEW BUSINESS
12A. AMENDMENT TO STANTON’S SIDEWALK VENDING ORDINANCE
At its meeting on June 27, 2023, the City Council considered the City’s sidewalk vending ordinance and directed the City Attorney’s office to return with revisions that strengthen the regulations. The proposed ordinance (Attachment A) updates the ordinance by addressing objective health, safety, and welfare concerns associated with vending near youth centers, childcare centers, and residential care facilities for the elderly. By establishing reasonable restrictions in these designated areas, the City seeks to enhance pedestrian safety and minimize unique risks to children and the elderly.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. City Council find the proposed ordinance not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations); and

2. Consider Ordinance No. 1132 and conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1132 entitled:
“AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
STANTON, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 5.74.045 OF
CHAPTER 5.74 OF TITLE 5 OF THE STANTON MUNICIPAL CODE
REGARDING REGULATIONS ON SIDEWALK VENDING”; and

3. Set August 22, 2023 as the date for second reading of Ordinance No. 1132.

Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk August 8, 2023

Page 10 of 12 ends

12B. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH INFINITY TECHNOLOGIES FOR

MANAGED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND HELP DESK SUPPORT SERVICES The City Council will consider entering into a Professional Services Agreement with Infinity Technologies (Infinity) for Managed Information Technology (IT) and Help Desk Services. Infinity will work with the City’s IT Specialist to support all City facilities under the direction of the City Manager or her delegate.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. City Council declare that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under Section 15061(b)(3) as the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Professional Services Agreement between the City and Infinity for an initial term of five years with an option for two two-year extensions, in a total not-to-exceed amount of $163,150 annually, in a form approved by the City Attorney for Managed IT and Help Desk Services.

13. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - PUBLIC
At this time members of the public may address the City Council/Successor Agency/Stanton Housing Authority regarding any items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council/Successor Agency/Stanton Housing Authority, provided that NO action may be taken on non-agenda items.
• Members of the public wishing to address the Council/Agency/Authority during Oral Communications-Public or on a particular item are requested to fill out a REQUEST TO SPEAK form and submit it to the City Clerk. Request to speak forms must be turned in prior to Oral Communications-Public.
• When the Mayor/Chairman calls you to the microphone, please state your Name, slowly and clearly, for the record. A speaker’s comments shall be limited to a three (3) minute aggregate time period on Oral Communications and Agenda Items.

Speakers are then to return to their seats and no further comments will be permitted. • Remarks from those seated or standing in the back of chambers will not be permitted. All those wishing to speak including Council/Agency/Authority and Staff need to be recognized by the Mayor/Chairman before speaking.

14. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None.

Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk August 8, 2023

Page 11 of 12 ends

15. MAYOR/CHAIRMAN COUNCIL/AGENCY/AUTHORITY INITIATED BUSINESS 15A. COMMITTEE REPORTS/ COUNCIL/AGENCY/AUTHORITY ANNOUNCEMENTS At this time Council/Agency/Authority Members may report on items not specifically described on the agenda which are of interest to the community provided no discussion or action may be taken except to provide staff direction to report back or to place the item on a future agenda.
15B. COUNCIL/AGENCY/AUTHORITY INITIATED ITEMS FOR A FUTURE MEETING At this time Council/Agency/Authority Members may place an item on a future agenda. 15C. COUNCIL/AGENCY/AUTHORITY INITIATED ITEMS FOR A FUTURE STUDY

SESSION
At this time Council/Agency/Authority Members may place an item on a future study session agenda.

Currently Scheduled: None.
15D. CITY COUNCIL INITIATED ITEM — DISCUSSION REGARDING MITIGATION

EFFORTS OF THE THEFT OF CATALYTIC CONVERTERS WITHIN THE CITY At the July 11, 2023, City Council meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Van requested that this item be agendized for discussion. Mayor Pro Tem Van is requesting to discuss mitigation efforts of the theft of catalytic converters within the City.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

City Council provide direction to staff.

16. ITEMS FROM CITY ATTORNEY/AGENCY COUNSEL/AUTHORITY COUNSEL Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk August 8, 2023

Page 12 of 12 ends

17. ITEMS FROM CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
17A. ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY
At this time the Orange County Fire Authority will provide the City Council with an update on their current operations.

18. ADJOURNMENT
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, the foregoing agenda was posted at the Post Office, Stanton Community Services Center and City Hall, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. Dated this 3rd day of August, 2023. s/ Patricia A. Vazquez, City Clerk/Secretary

June 30-July 27, 2023
Electronic Transaction Nos. $ 4,450,528.32
Check Nos. $ 832,715.50
TOTAL $ 5,283,243.82
Demands listed on the attached
registers are accurate and funds
are available for payment thereof.
/s/ Zenia Bobadilla for Hannah Shin-Heydorn /s/ Michelle Bannigan ** Note: Check numbers 136817 and 136818 were not issued. These checks were damaged during the check printing process.

CITY OF STANTON

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE REGISTER
2680-2747
conform to the City of Stanton Annual
Budget as approved by the City Council.
136752-136872**
Demands listed on the attached registers
City Manager Finance Director
Item: 9B
Click here to return to the agenda.

ATTACHMENT A

Page 1 of 23 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 2 of 23 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 3 of 23 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 4 of 23 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 5 of 23 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 6 of 23 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 7 of 23 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 8 of 23 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 9 of 23 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 10 of 23 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 11 of 23 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 12 of 23 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 13 of 23 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 14 of 23 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 15 of 23 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 16 of 23 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 17 of 23 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 18 of 23 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 19 of 23 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 20 of 23 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 21 of 23 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 22 of 23 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Page 23 of 23 ends

DRAFT
Special & Joint Regular Meeting – July 11, 2023 - Page 1 of 8

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING

MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL / SUCCESSOR AGENCY / HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF STANTON JULY 11, 2023

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL / SUCCESSOR AGENCY / HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING (5:30 PM)

JOINT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL / SUCCESSOR AGENCY / HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING (6:30 PM)

1. CALL TO ORDER / CLOSED SESSION
The City Council / Successor Agency / Housing Authority meeting was called to order at 5:31 p.m. by Mayor / Chairman Shawver.

2. ROLL CALL

Present: Council/Agency/Authority Member Taylor, Council/Agency/Authority Member Torres, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chairperson Van, and
Mayor/Chairman Shawver.

Absent: None.

Excused: Council/Agency/Authority Member Warren.

3. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS None.

4. CLOSED SESSION
The members of the City Council / Successor Agency / Housing Authority of the City of Stanton proceeded to closed session at 5:32 p.m. for discussion regarding:
4A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1)
Number of cases: 1
Case Name: Tina Pacific Residents Association, et al. v. City of Stanton Case Number: OCSC 39-2023-01316300-CU-WM-CXC
Item: 9C
Click here to return to the agenda.

DRAFT
Special & Joint Regular Meeting – July 11, 2023 - Page 2 of 8

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING
4B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8)
Property: 8830 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-01)
8840 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-02)
8850 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-03)
8860 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-04)
8870 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-05)
8880 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-06)
8890 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-07)
8900 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-08)
8910 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-09)
8920 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-10)
8930 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-11)
8940 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-12)
8950 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-13)
8960 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-14)
8970 Tina Way, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-15)
8841 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-29)
8851 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-28)
8861 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-27)
8870 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-05)
8871 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-26)
8880 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-06)
8881 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-25)
8890 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-07)
8891 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-24)
8900 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-08)
8901 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-23)
8910 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-09)
8911 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-22)
8920 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-10)
8921 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-21)
8930 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-11)
8931 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-20)
8940 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-12)
8941 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-19)
8950 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-13)
8951 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-18)
8960 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-14)
8961 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-17)
8970 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-482-15)
8971 Pacific Avenue, Anaheim, CA (APN 126-481-16)
DRAFT
Special & Joint Regular Meeting – July 11, 2023 - Page 3 of 8

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING
Negotiating Parties: Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager, City of Stanton Hannah Shin-Heydorn, Executive Director, Housing
Authority
Hannah Shin-Heydorn, Executive Director, Successor
Agency
David M. Cook and Chaicran Daphnie, Owner
Jennie Trust, Owner
Nga Summer Thien Trang (Trang Trust), Owner
Ngoc Trieu and Andy Pham, Owner
Sky Nguyen / Nguyen Sky SN Living Trust, Owner
Steven W. Reiss Trust (Steven W. Reiss), Owner
Tammy T. Doan and H. Le Harvey, Owner
Trachy Family Trust (Phillip R. Trachy), Owner
Under Negotiation: Instruction to negotiator will concern price and terms of payment.

5. CALL TO ORDER / SUCCESSOR AGENCY / STANTON HOUSING AUTHORITY

MEETING
The City Council / Successor Agency / Housing Authority reconvened in open session at 6:30 p.m.

The City Attorney / Agency Counsel reported that the Stanton City Council / Successor Agency / Housing Authority met in closed session from 5:31 to 6:30 p.m.

The City Attorney / Agency Counsel reported that there was no reportable action.

6. ROLL CALL

Present: Council/Agency/Authority Member Taylor, Council/Agency/Authority Member Torres, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chairperson Van, and
Mayor/Chairman Shawver.

Absent: None.

Excused: Council/Agency/Authority Member Warren.

7. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Led by Ms. Patricia A. Vazquez, City Clerk.

8. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS AND AWARDS
Ms. Zenia Bobadilla, Community Services Director provided the City Council with a report and update on the City’s Sponsorship Program.

DRAFT
Special & Joint Regular Meeting – July 11, 2023 - Page 4 of 8

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING

9. CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion/Second: Taylor/Van
ROLL CALL VOTE: Council/Agency/Authority Member Taylor AYE Council/Agency/Authority Member Torres AYE
Council/Agency/Authority Member Warren ABSENT
Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chairperson Van AYE
Mayor/Chairman Shawver AYE
Motion unanimously carried:

CONSENT CALENDAR
9A. MOTION TO APPROVE THE READING BY TITLE OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. SAID ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS THAT APPEAR ON

THE PUBLIC AGENDA SHALL BE READ BY TITLE ONLY AND FURTHER

READING WAIVED
The City Council/Agency Board/Authority Board waived reading of Ordinances and Resolutions.
9B. APPROVAL OF WARRANTS
The City Council approved demand warrants dated June 16, 2023 – June 29, 2023, in the amount of $915,964.89.
9C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The City Council/Successor Agency/Housing Authority approved Minutes of Joint Regular Meeting – June 27, 2023.
9D. MAY 2023 INVESTMENT REPORT
The Investment Report as of May 31, 2023, has been prepared in accordance with the City’s Investment Policy and California Government Code Section 53646.

1. The City Council finds that this item is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15378(b)(5) (Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment); and

2. Received and filed the Investment Report for the month of May 2023.

DRAFT
Special & Joint Regular Meeting – July 11, 2023 - Page 5 of 8

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING
9E. MAY 2023 INVESTMENT REPORT (SUCCESSOR AGENCY)
The Investment Report as of May 31, 2023, has been prepared in accordance with the City’s Investment Policy and California Government Code Section 53646.

1. The Successor Agency finds that this item is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15378(b)(5) (Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment); and

2. Received and filed the Investment Report for the month of May 2023. 9F. MAY 2023 GENERAL FUND REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT; HOUSING AUTHORITY REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT; AND STATUS

OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The Revenue and Expenditure Report for the month ended May 31, 2023, has been provided to the City Manager in accordance with Stanton Municipal Code Section

2.20.080 (D) and is being provided to City Council. This report includes information for both the City’s General Fund and the Housing Authority Fund. In addition, staff has provided a status of the City’s Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) as of May 31, 2023.

2. Received and filed the General Fund and Housing Authority Fund’s May 2023 Revenue and Expenditure Report and Status of Capital Improvement Projects for the month ended May 31, 2023.

END OF CONSENT CALENDAR

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS None.

11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None.

DRAFT
Special & Joint Regular Meeting – July 11, 2023 - Page 6 of 8

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING

12. NEW BUSINESS
12A. AUTHORIZATION FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS TO ATTEND UPCOMING

MEETINGS AND EVENTS
Pursuant to the City of Stanton Travel and Reimbursement policy, a Council Member must receive City Council approval prior to a trip if the trip will exceed $500.

Council will consider the following requests for travel:
• Mayor David J. Shawver, Mayor Pro Tem Hong Alyce Van, and Council Member Donald Torres
o Event: League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo o Location: Sacramento, CA
o Dates: September 20 - 22, 2023
Staff report by Ms. Patricia A. Vazquez, City Clerk.

Motion/Second: Shawver/Van
Motion carried by the following vote:

AYES: 4 (Shawver, Taylor, Torres, and Van)
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: 1 (Warren)
Motion unanimously carried:

1. The City Council finds that this item is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15378(b)(5)(Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment); and

2. Authorized Mayor David J. Shawver, Mayor Pro Tem Hong Alyce Van, and Council Member Donald Torres’ attendance at the proposed conference/meeting as desired.
12B. 2023 ANNUAL LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CONFERENCE

APPOINTMENT OF VOTING DELEGATE AND VOTING DELEGATE ALTERNATE The League of California Cities (Cal Cities) Annual Conference and Expo is scheduled for September 20 – 22, 2023 in Sacramento, California. The League's Annual Business Meeting is scheduled to be held on September 22, 2023. At this meeting, the League membership considers and takes action on proposed bylaws and resolutions that establish League policy. In order to vote at the Annual Conference/Annual Business Meeting, the City Council must designate a voting delegate and/or voting delegate alternate whom will determine the City’s position on DRAFT
Special & Joint Regular Meeting – July 11, 2023 - Page 7 of 8

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING
each proposed bylaw and/or resolution so that the voting delegate can represent the City’s position.

Staff report by Ms. Patricia A. Vazquez, City Clerk.

Motion/Second: Shawver/Van
Motion carried by the following vote:

AYES: 4 (Shawver, Taylor, Torres, and Van)
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: 1 (Warren)
Motion unanimously carried:

1. The City Council finds that this item is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15378(b)(5)(Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment); and

2. Designated Council Member Donald Torres as the voting delegate and Mayor Pro Tem Hong Alyce Van as the voting delegate alternate to serve as the City’s representatives at the 2023 League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo in Sacramento; and

3. Directed the voting delegate and voting delegate alternate to review and determine the City’s position on each proposed bylaw amendment and/or proposed petitioned resolutions, so that the voting delegates can represent the City’s position at the 2023 Annual League of California Cities Business meeting.

13. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS – PUBLIC
• Mr. Jose L. Guerrero, resident, expressed his continued concerns and frustrations with the emitting noise levels and increased smells being produced by CR&R during non-authorized working hours.
• Mr. Daniel Riske expressed his concerns with the growing homeless population and safety concerns within/near his neighborhood.

14. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None.

15. MAYOR/CHAIRMAN/COUNCIL/AGENCY/AUTHORITY INITIATED BUSINESS 15A. COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL/AGENCY/AUTHORITY ANNOUNCEMENTS None.

DRAFT
Special & Joint Regular Meeting – July 11, 2023 - Page 8 of 8

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING
15B. COUNCIL/AGENCY/AUTHORITY INITIATED ITEMS FOR A FUTURE COUNCIL

MEETING
• Mayor Pro Tem Van requested to agendize discussion regarding mitigation efforts of the theft of catalytic converters within the City. • Mayor Shawver requested to agendize closed session discussion regarding the abatement of illegal business within the City.
15C. COUNCIL/AGENCY/AUTHORITY INITIATED ITEMS FOR A FUTURE STUDY

SESSION
None.

16. ITEMS FROM CITY ATTORNEY/AGENCY COUNSEL/AUTHORITY COUNSEL None.

17. ITEMS FROM CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
None.
17A. ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY
At this time the Orange County Fire Authority will provide the City Council with an update on their current operations.

Chief Steve Dohman provided the City Council with an update on their current operations.

18. ADJOURNMENT Motion/Second: Shawver/
Motion carried at 6:59 p.m.
_______________________________________
DAVID J. SHAWVER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________________

CITY CLERK/SECRETARY

CITY OF STANTON

REPORT TO THE

CITY COUNCIL AND STANTON HOUSING AUTHORITY
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Chairman and Housing Authority Members
DATE: August 8, 2023
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF EXTENSION OF THE EXCLUSIVE

NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT WITH BRANDYWINE ACQUISITIONS

GROUP, C&C DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, AND NATIONAL

COMMUNITY RENAISSANCE OF CALIFORNIA REGARDING THE

POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT OF THE TINA-PACIFIC

NEIGHBORHOOD
REPORT IN BRIEF:

The City Council and Housing Authority will consider extending the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with Brandywine Acquisitions Group, C&C Development Company, and National Community Renaissance of California for the potential redevelopment of the Tina Pacific neighborhood for an additional 12 months to allow for additional time to negotiate a disposition and development agreement and any other necessary agreements.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:

2. Approve extension of the ENA and authorize the City Manager/Executive Director to execute the Second Amendment to the ENA.

BACKGROUND:

At its joint meeting of December 14, 2021, the City Council and the Housing Authority Board approved an ENA with Brandywine Acquisitions Group (Brandywine), C&C Development Company (C&C), and National Community Renaissance of California Item: 9D
Click here to return to the agenda.
(National Core, and collectively, the “Developers”) for the potential redevelopment of the Tina Pacific neighborhood (Attachment 1). The ENA was for an initial term of 180 days (Attachment 2) and was extended an additional 90 days by the City Manager/Executive Director on May 12, 2022 through November 12, 2022 (Attachment 3), and on December 1, 2022 through February 10, 2023 (Attachment 4), as authorized by the ENA. At its meeting of January 24, 2023, the Council approved an additional 180-day extension of the ENA and authorized the City Manager/Executive Director to execute a First Amendment stating such.

With the most recent extension set to expire on August 10, 2023, staff is requesting the City Council/Housing Authority Board approve a final extension of 12 months, or through August 10, 2024.

ANALYSIS AND JUSTIFICATION:

Should the requested 12-month extension be approved, the Developers and City staff will work to finalize the following deliverables:
• Time schedule and cost estimates for the development of each housing development.
• Financing plan for all private and public improvements proposed for each housing development.
• A preliminary financial analysis and market study, including a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis to the City.
• Preliminary/conceptual project plans, including site, floor, landscape, and elevation plans.
• All required development applications, including any General Plan amendments (including zoning changes), specific plan amendments, conditional use permits, and other project-specific entitlements.
• (For the multifamily housing development) List of potential users or tenants and anticipated lease rate for the multifamily units to be developed. • (For the townhome housing development) Anticipated sales prices for the townhomes to be developed.
• (For the multifamily housing development) Plan to provide asset management services upon sale of the Property.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The ENA and the First Amendment allows for the City to receive from each of the Developers a deposit in immediately available funds to defray certain costs of the City in pursuing the contemplated negotiations with the Developers during the negotiation period. However, as an act of good faith and in a spirit of collaboration staff is recommending Council waive any additional deposit requirement for this final extension.

The City has no obligation to pay or reimburse the Developers for any costs or expenses incurred as a result of the ENA, the preparation and submittal of the development plan, the negotiation of a DDA or other agreements, the retention of any consultant, or the development of the Property or any other matter concerning the Property, regardless of the outcome of the negotiating period.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this item is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Sections 15378(b)(5)(Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment).

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:

Public notification provided through the regular agenda process.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney has prepared the attached Second Amendment to ENA and approved it as to form.

STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED:

Obj. No. 3: Provide a quality infrastructure.

Obj. No. 5: Provide a high quality of life.

Obj. No. 6: Maintain and promote a responsive, high-quality, and transparent government.

Prepared by: Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager
Fiscal Impact Reviewed by: Michelle Bannigan, Finance Director Approved by: Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager
Attachments:

A. December 14, 2021 Staff Report
B. Original ENA
C. ENA First Extension
D. ENA Second Extension
E. January 24, 2023 Staff Report and First Amendment to ENA F. Second Amendment to ENA
1 CITY OF STANTON

JOINT REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND

HOUSING AUTHORITY
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council and Housing Authority Board of Directors DATE: December 14, 2021
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT WITH

BRANDYWINE HOMES, C&C DEVELOPMENT, AND NATIONAL CORE

REGARDING THE TINA-PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT IN BRIEF:

Consideration of an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement by and between the City of Stanton and Brandywine Homes, C&C Development, and National Core to provide an exclusive negotiation period to attempt to negotiate a disposition and development agreement and other necessary agreements.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. City Council declare that this item is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3); and

2. Approve an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with Brandywine Acquisitions Group, C&C Development Co., and National Community Renaissance of California regarding the Tina-Pacific Neighborhood (APN 126-481-01 through 29 and APN 126- 482-05 through 15); and

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement.

BACKGROUND:

The Tina Pacific Neighborhood is generally located in the northeast quadrant of the City, at the intersection of Magnolia and Pacific Aves. More specifically, the project site is bounded by Magnolia Ave. to the east, Sherrill St. to the west, an alleyway south of Pacific Ave. to the south, and Tina Way to the north. The project site is approximately 10.27 acres, and includes 40 parcels, along with portions of two public streets and two public alleyways. The existing zoning and general plan designations are RH (High Density Residential) and High Density Residential, respectively. The neighborhood has long been in a deteriorated, blighted state. Since 2009, the Stanton Housing Authority has acquired 31 out of the 40 parcels, with the remaining nine parcels still privately owned.

Attachment: A
Click here to return to the agenda.
2 Assembly Bill 1486 (Surplus Land Act) (the “Act”), which was signed by the Governor in October 2019 and took effect January 1, 2020, amended the process governing the disposition of surplus land. The focus of the Act is to incentivize the creation of housing and/or parks on both State- and City- owned surplus property. At its regular October 27, 2020 meeting, City Council declared its 31-parcel Tina-Pacific Neighborhood property (Property) as surplus. On November 18, 2020, pursuant to State law, staff issued a Notice of Availability (NOA) to both the State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) and all housing developers entitled to notice under the Act. The NOA included information about the Property, development standards, and the City’s goals and vision for the development.

After a 90-day good-faith negotiation period with those prospective developers who submitted a notice of interest in response to the NOA, the City requested the best and final proposal from two development teams. At the conclusion of the August 24, 2021 study session, City Council directed staff to negotiate with Brandywine Acquisitions Group (Brandywine), C&C Development Co. (C&C), and National Community Renaissance of California (National Core, and collectively, the “Developers”) towards a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) regarding the Tina-Pacific Neighborhood.

Upon further negotiation and discussion, City staff and the Developers have reached mutually agreeable terms for an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) that will establish a one-hundred-and-eighty (180) day period to negotiate regarding one or more future agreements between the City and the Developers governing the potential acquisition of the Property by the Developers and development of new housing in the Tina-Pacific Neighborhood. Following the conclusion of any ENA term, and regardless of the outcome, Staff will submit to HCD the Post-Negotiation Notice and Proposed Disposition Summary, pursuant to the Act, in order to obtain HCD’s confirmation that the City has fully complied with the Act and may dispose of the property in any manner it sees fit.

ANALYSIS/JUSTIFICATION:

The Developers submitted a two-part development proposal, with Brandywine proposing a minimum of 116 market-rate ownership townhomes and C&C and National Core proposing a minimum of 108 affordable multi-family rental apartments. Altogether, this proposal comfortably meets the 25% affordable housing development minimum established in Section 54222.5 of the Act. Based on the proposal, the City and the Developers have come to a tentative agreement. Some of the major terms that the parties have reached a tentative agreement on, subject to future negotiation, include:
• The purchase price for sale of the entire Property to Brandywine shall be $22,000,000 – to be paid as follows: (A) $17,500,000 in immediately available funds, and (B) sales proceeds from Brandywine’s sale of the Multifamily Site to the Multifamily Developers, which is anticipated to be paid through a $4,500,000 land loan from the City to the Multifamily Developers, to be repaid by the Multifamily 3 Developers over the course of 55 years.
• The City’s share of the acquisition and relocation cost for the Property shall be limited to $17,500,000, and C&C and National Core will be incentivized to secure additional grant funding for the multifamily housing development. • The Developers shall submit a proposed plan to relocate existing tenants and occupants in compliance with the California Relocation Assistance Act (Government Code section 7260 et seq.).
• The Developers shall construct, to the extent economically feasible, amenities for shared use by both housing developments, market-rate and affordable. • C&C and National Core shall obtain LEED Platinum certification for the multifamily housing development.
• C&C and National Core will execute a Regulatory Agreement that restricts the multifamily site for affordable housing for fifty-five (55) years.

The ENA identifies the following deliverables to be completed and officially proposed by the Developers:
• Time schedule and cost estimates for the development of each housing development.
• Financing plan for all private and public improvements proposed for each housing development.
• A preliminary financial analysis and market study, including a comprehensive costbenefit analysis to the City. • Preliminary/conceptual project plans, including site, floor, landscape, and elevation plans.
• All required development applications, including any General Plan amendments (including zoning changes), specific plan amendments, conditional use permits, and other project-specific entitlements.
• (For the multifamily housing development) List of potential users or tenants and anticipated lease rate for the multifamily units to be developed. • (For the townhome housing development) Anticipated sales prices for the townhomes to be developed.
• (For the multifamily housing development) Plan to provide asset management services upon sale of the Property.

Upon mutual written agreement of the City Manager and all Developers, the ENA may be extended for an additional ninety days, up to a maximum of two consecutive extensions.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Pursuant to the ENA, the City shall receive from each of the Developers twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) in immediately available funds as initial deposits to defray certain costs of the City in pursuing the contemplated negotiations with the Developers during the negotiating period. At the termination of the ENA, any remaining funds shall either be applied to the purchase price or returned to the Developers. The City will retain one hundred dollars ($100) from each initial deposit as non-refundable compensation for 4 negotiating exclusively with the Developers. For each extension of the negotiating period, the City shall receive from each of the Developers five thousand dollars ($5,000) in immediately available funds as additional deposits to defray certain costs of the City in pursuing the contemplated negotiations with the developers during the extended negotiating period.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

None. This item is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly).

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney has reviewed the attached Exclusive Negotiation Agreement and approved it as to form.

STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVE(S) ADDRESSED:

3. Provide a quality infrastructure.

5. Provide a high quality of life.

6. Maintain and promote a responsive, high-quality, and transparent government.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:

Public notice for this item was made through the regular agenda process.

Prepared By: Approved as to Form By:
/s/ Jason Huynh
__________________________
/s/ HongDao Nguyen
__________________________
Jason Huynh
Management Analyst
HongDao Nguyen
City Attorney
5 Approved By:
/s/ Jarad L. Hildenbrand
__________________________
Jarad L. Hildenbrand
City Manager
Attachment(s):

A. Exclusive Negotiation Agreement

THE CITY OF ST ANTON

EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT
(Tina Pacific)
THIS EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is dated as of �1emkl1/, 2021, for reference purposes only, and is entered into by and between the City of Stanton, a California municipal corporation ("City"), on the one hand; and Brandywine Acquisitions Group, a California limited liability company ("Brandywine"), C&C Development Co., a California Limited Liability Company ("C&C"), and National Community Renaissance of California, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation ("National Core"), on the other hand, to provide a specified period of time to attempt to negotiate a disposition and development agreement. C&C and National Core are sometimes collectively referred to herein as the "Multifamily Developers," and C&C, National Core and Brandywine are sometimes collectively referred to herein as the "Developers." The City and the Developers are sometimes referred to in this Agreement, individually, as a "Party" and, collectively, as the "Parties." This Agreement is entered into by the Parties with reference to the following recited facts (each, a "Recital"):

RECITALS
A. The City is the owner of that approximately 10 acres of real property located in the Tina Pacific neighborhood of the City (APN 126-481-01 through 29 and 126-126- 482-05 through 15), including portions of Tina Way and Pacific Avenue, more specifically described in Exhibit A ("Property"); and
B. The City has an interest in developing the Property, and Developers submitted the following two-part development proposal through the procedure set forth in the Surplus Land Act (Government Code section 54220 et seq.) (the "Surplus Land Act"); and
C. Brandywine has proposed the redevelopment of a portion of the Property (the "Townhome Site") with a minimum of 116 market rate ownership townhomes, as generally depicted in the conceptual site plan attached to this Agreement as Exhibit B and incorporated into this Agreement by this reference (the "Townhome Housing Development"); and
D. The Multifamily Developers have proposed the redevelopment of a portion of the Property (the "Multifamily Site") with a minimum of 108 affordable multi-family rental apartments, as generally depicted in the conceptual site plan attached to this Agreement as Exhibit C and incorporated into this Agreement by this reference (the "Multifamily Housing Development" and together with the Townhome Housing Development, the "Housing Developments"); and
E. The intent of the City and the Developers in entering into this Agreement is to establish a specific, limited period of time to negotiate regarding one or more future agreements between the City and the Developers governing the potential acquisition of 55414.0070 I \34349345.7
Attachment: B
Click here to return to the agenda.
the Property by the Developers and development of the Townhome Housing Development by Brandywine on the Townhome Site and development of the Multifamily Housing Development by the Multifamily Developers on the Multifamily Site, all subject to mutually agreeable terms, conditions, covenants, restrictions and agreements to be negotiated and documented in a future disposition and development agreement (the "ODA") and such other agreements as the parties determine; and F. The Parties all intend that, under the ODA and other agreements, 45% of the units produced by the Housing Developments on the Property will be affordable housing units, which number will exceed the requirements of the Surplus Land Act, but the Multifamily Developers would not have any obligations with respect to the Townhome Housing Development or acquire any interest in the Townhome Site, and Brandywine would not have any obligations with respect to the Multifamily Housing Development or retain any interest in the Multifamily Site (the Townhome Site and Multifamily Site are collectively referred to herein as the "Sites").

NOW, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE CITY

RELATING TO THE SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITES AND THE PROMISES

OF THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPERS SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT, THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPERS AGREE, AS FOLLOWS:

1. Incorporation of Recitals. The Recitals of fact set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Agreement, in their entirety, by this reference.

2. Deposits.
(a) Concurrent with the Developer's execution of this Agreement, Brandywine and the Multifamily Developers shall each provide to the City a deposit in the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) in immediately available funds (the "Initial Deposits") to ensure that each Developer will proceed diligently and in good faith to fulfill their respective obligations under this Agreement during the Negotiation Period (as defined in Section 3(a)), as part of the consideration for the City's agreement not to negotiate with other persons during the Negotiation Period, and to defray certain costs of the City in pursuing the contemplated negotiations with the Developers during the Negotiation Period, pursuant to this Agreement. The City shall charge all reasonable outof-pocket third-party costs (including consultant fees and attorneys' fees associated with review and implementation of this Agreement or preparing the DOA and other agreements) against the Initial Deposits (and Extension Deposits pursuant to Section 2(b) below, as applicable). At the termination of this Agreement, any remaining funds shall, at each Developer's option, either be applied to the purchase price or returned to the applicable Developer. The Developers acknowledge that the Initial Deposits (and any Extension Deposits, pursuant to Section 2(b) below) shall be in addition to those fees and expenses required by the City for any permit, other required entitlement or Housing Developments processing. A portion of each Initial Deposit in an amount equal to One Hundred Dollars ($100) shall immediately become non-refundable upon each Developer's transfer of their respective Initial Deposit to the City under this Agreement as 55414.00701 \34349345.7
consideration for the City's agreement not to negotiate with other persons during the Negotiation Period.
(b) Upon each extension of the Negotiation Period occurring pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b), if any, the Developers shall provide to the City an additional deposit of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) in immediately available funds on the first day of any extension of the Negotiation Period occurring pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) (each, an "Extension Deposit"). Each Extension Deposit is intended to ensure that the Developers will proceed diligently and in good faith to fulfill their obligations under this Agreement during any extension of the Negotiation Period, as part of the consideration for the City's agreement not to negotiate with other persons during any such extension of the Negotiation Period, and to defray certain costs of the City in pursuing the contemplated negotiations with the Developers during any such extension of the Negotiation Period, pursuant to this Agreement. Al the termination of this Agreement, any remaining funds from an Extension Deposit shall be refundable to the applicable Developer as provided in Section 2(a), above.

3. Term of Agreement.
(a) The rights and duties of the City and the Developers established by this Agreement shall commence on the first date on which all of the following have occurred (the "Effective Date"): (1) payment of the Initial Deposits to the City by the Developers, in accordance with Section 2(a); and (2) delivery of a City Council-approved fully executed version of this Agreement to the Developers, the exact date of which shall be mutually agreed to by the Parties promptly after the Developers' receipt of the fully executed Agreement from the City as evidenced in writing signed by their respective authorized representatives. The City shall deliver a fully executed counterpart original of this Agreement to the Developers within ten (10) calendar days following the City Council's approval of this Agreement, if approved, and the execution of this Agreement by the authorized representative(s) of the City. This Agreement shall continue in effect for a period of One Hundred Eighty (180) consecutive calendar days immediately following the Effective Date ("Negotiation Period"), subject to the limitations of Section 3(b). (b) The Negotiation Period may be extended upon the mutual written agreement of the City's City Manager and all Developers for no more than two (2) additional consecutive Ninety (90) calendar day periods. Notwithstanding the immediately preceding sentence or any other part of this Agreement, in no event shall the Negotiation Period exceed Three Hundred Sixty (360) consecutive calendar days from the Effective Date.
(c) This Agreement shall automatically expire and be of no further force or effect at the end of the Negotiation Period, unless, prior to that time, both the City and the Developers approve and execute a DOA acceptable to both the City and the Developers, in their respective sole and absolute discretion, in which case this Agreement will terminate on the effective date of such DOA.
554 l 4.00701\34349345.7

4. Obligations of Developers. During the Negotiation Period, and pursuant to the attached Milestone Schedule (Exhibit D), Developers shall proceed diligently and in good faith to develop and present to City staff and, subsequently, to the City Council, for review, all of the following, with respect to such Developer's proposed Housing Development:
(a) A proposed complete conceptual development plan for such Developer's Housing Development on the applicable Site that describes and depicts: (1) the location and placement of proposed buildings; and (2) the architecture and elevations of the proposed buildings;
(b) Proposed zoning change or changes to the City's General Plan, if any, necessary to accommodate such Developer's Housing Development on the applicable Site;
(c) For the Multifamily Housing Development, a list of potential users or tenants and anticipated lease rates for the multifamily units, as developed in the Multifamily Housing Development;
(d) For the Townhome Housing Development, anticipated sales prices for the townhomes to be developed in the Town home Housing Development; (e) A proposed plan for the Multifamily Developers to provide asset management services to supervise the current management company that manages the units currently owned by the City I Housing Authority, to commence upon the sale of the Property;
(I) A proposed plan to relocate existing tenants and occupants in compliance with the California Relocation Assistance Act (Government Code section 7260 et seq.);
(g) A proposed time schedule and cost estimates for the development of each Housing Development;
(h) A proposed financing plan identifying financing sources for all private and public improvements proposed for each Housing Development; and (i) A preliminary financial analysis demonstrating the costs and benefits to the City regarding all construction, maintenance and operations of all proposed public improvements, the costs of additional or increased levels of public services and any new public revenues anticipated to be generated by each Housing Development.

5. Negotiation of ODA.
(a) During the Negotiation Period, the City and each Developer shall proceed diligently and in good faith to negotiate a ODA or other agreement for its Housing Development. The City and each Developer shall generally cooperate with each other and supply such available documents and information as may be reasonably requested 55414.00701 \34349345.7
by the other to facilitate the conduct of the negotiations. The City and the Developers shall exercise commercially reasonable efforts to complete discussions relating to the terms and conditions of the DOA and other agreements, and such other matters, as may be mutually acceptable to both the City and the Developers, in their respective sole discretion. The exact terms and conditions of the DOA and other agreements, if any, shall be determined during the course of these negotiations. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted or construed to be a representation or agreement by either the City or any Developer that a mutually acceptable ODA or other agreement will be produced from negotiations under this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall impose any obligation on either Party to agree to a definitive ODA or other agreement in the future. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted or construed to be a guaranty, warranty or representation that any proposed DOA or other agreement that may be negotiated by City staff and any Developer will be approved by the City's governing body. The Developers acknowledge and agree that the City's consideration of any ODA or other agreement is subject to the sole and absolute discretion of the City Council and all legally required public hearings, public meetings, notices, factual findings and other determinations required by law, including, without limitation, all required environmental review. (b) Based upon Developers' proposals, the Parties have come to a tentative agreement on the following terms, subject to future negotiation during the Negotiation Period:
(i) Each Developer shall assist the City in developing and implementing plans to relocate existing tenants and residents on the applicable Site; (ii) Each Developer shall pursue and obtain entitlements for its respective Housing Development prior to the close of escrow; (iii) To the extent feasible and legal, the City agrees to expedite the processing of the entitlements including CEQA;
(iv) The City accepts the density, product and design presented to City Council on August 24, 2021, with the modifications requested by the City Council, including, without limitation, an agreement between Brandywine (as developer of the Townhome Housing Development) and the Multifamily Developers to construct, to the extent economically feasible, amenities for shared use by residents of both Housing Developments;
(v) The City shall, to the best of its ability, provide the following types of reports and studies prepared for the Property within the past five (5) years:
appraisals or other valuation reports; and environmental reports and studies, without representations regarding such materials;
(vi) The purchase price for sale of the entire Property to Brandywine shall be $22,000,000- to be paid as follows: (A) $17,500,000 in immediately available funds, and (B) sales proceeds from Brandywine's sale of the Multifamily Site to the Multifamily Developers, which is anticipated to be paid through a $4,500,000 land loan 55414.00701 \34349345.7
from the City to the Multifamily Developers, to be repaid by the Multifamily Developers over the course of 55 years (the "Land Loan");
(vii) The City will sell the entire Property to Brandywine, and Brandywine will simultaneously close with the Multifamily Developers for the Multifamily Site;
(viii) At closing, the Multifamily Developers will sign a promissory note for $4,500,000 in favor of the City (the "Multifamily Note"), the City will record a deed of trust against the Multifamily Site (the "Multifamily Deed of Trust" and together with the Multifamily Note and any other documents executed by the Parties in connection with the Land Loan, the "Land Loan Documents"), and the Multifamily Developers will execute a Regulatory Agreement that restricts the Multifamily Site for affordable housing for 55 years (the "Regulatory Agreement");
(ix) The City will not provide any financial assistance of any kind to Brandywine in connection with the Townhome Housing Development and conveyance of the Property;
(x) The City's share of the acquisition and relocation cost for the Property shall be limited to $17,500,000. The Parties shall create a mechanism to incentivize the Multifamily Developers to bring in additional grant funding for the Multifamily Housing Development;
(xi) City will hold hearings and take all required steps to consider the use of eminent domain to acquire privately owned portions of each Site, so that such process could be complete within 18 months of the Effective Date; (xii) If the Multifamily Housing Development is not completed by a dale certain (to be negotiated by the Parties), the Multifamily Note shall be cancelled and title to the Multifamily Site will revert to the City;
(xiii) The City shall, pursuant to section 54230.5(b)(1) of the Surplus Land Act, provide all required notices to the State Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") to demonstrate that the City has complied with the Surplus Land Act if, prior to the end of the Negotiation Period, the Parties have finalized a DOA, including any regulatory agreement to be recorded on either Site; (xiv) The Multifamily Developers shall obtain LEED Platinum certification of the Multifamily Housing Development;
(xv) The City will hold hearings and lake all required steps to consider the vacation of portions of Tina Way, Pacific Avenue and alleys, in the City's discretion, as necessary to accommodate the proposed development. Vacated land acquired by the City after the close of escrow for the Property would be provided to the Multifamily Developers at no fee cost to the Multifamily Developers. City will waive all application and permit fees associated with such vacation of land to be included in the 55414.00701 \34349345.7
Multifamily Site; however, the Multifamily Developers shall bear the cost of any relocation of utilities (sewer, water, gas, electric) necessary due to the vacation; and (xvi) The City will process, at its expense, the environmental review for the Housing Developments. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City retains the absolute sole discretion to (i) modify each transaction, create and enter into transactional documents, and modify each Housing Development as may, in its sole discretion, be necessary to comply with CEQA, (ii) select other feasible alternatives to avoid significant environmental impacts, (iii) balance the benefits of each Housing Development against any significant environmental impacts prior to taking final action if such significant impacts cannot otherwise be avoided, and/or (iv) determine not to proceed with each Housing Development. No legal obligations will exist unless and until the Parties have negotiated, executed and delivered mutually acceptable agreements based upon information produced from the CEQA environmental review process and on other public review and hearing processes, subject to all applicable governmental approvals.

6. Restrictions Against Change in Ownership, Management and Control of Developer and Assignment of Agreement.
(a) The qualifications and identity of each of the Developers and their respective principals are of particular concern to the City. It is because of these qualifications and identity that the City has entered into this Agreement with the Developers. During the Negotiation Period, no voluntary or involuntary successor-ininterest of the Developers shall acquire any rights or powers under this Agreement, except as provided in Section 6(c).
(b) Each Developer shall promptly notify the City in writing of any and all changes whatsoever in the identity of the business entities or individuals either comprising or in Control (as defined in Section 6(d)) of such Developer, as well as any and all changes in the interest or the degree of Control of such Developer by any such person, of which information such Developer or any of its shareholders, partners, members, directors, managers or officers are notified or may otherwise have knowledge or information. Upon the occurrence of any significant or material change, whether voluntary or involuntary, in ownership, management or Control of a Developer (other than such changes occasioned by the death or incapacity of any individual) that has not been approved by the City, prior to the time of such change, the City may terminate this Agreement as to that Developer, without liability to such Developer or any other person and refund any remaining deposit funds provided by such Developer to the pursuant to Section 2(a), above, by sending written notice of termination to such Developer, referencing this Section 6(b).
(c) Each Developer may assign its rights under this Agreement to an Affiliate (as defined in Section 6(d)), on the condition that such Affiliate expressly assumes all of the obligations of such Developer under this Agreement in a writing reasonably satisfactory to the City, and further provided that the original Developer party shall, at all times, Control any such respective Affiliate and be responsible and obligated directly to the City for performance of such Developer's obligations under this Agreement. 554 l 4.00701134349345.7
(d) For the purposes of this Agreement, the term "Affiliate" means any person, directly or indirectly, controlling or controlled by or under common control with the applicable Developer, whether by direct or indirect ownership of equity interests, by contract, or otherwise. For the purposes of this agreement, "Control" means possession, directly or indirectly, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of an entity, whether by ownership of equity interests, by contract, or otherwise.

7. Obligations to Review Draft Agreements and Attend Meetings. (a) During the Negotiation Period, each Party shall diligently review and comment on draft versions of the ODA and other agreements which are provided by the other Party and, if the terms and conditions of such ODA and other agreements are agreed upon between City staff and the Developers, the Developers shall submit the ODA and other agreements, executed by the authorized representative(s) of each Developer which is party to such document, to the City Manager for submission to the City Council for review and approval or disapproval. Any future ODA and other agreements shall consist of terms and conditions acceptable to both the applicable Developer and the City Council, in their respective sole and absolute discretion. (b) During the Negotiation Period, each Developer shall also keep City staff advised on the progress of such Developer in performing its obligations under this Agreement, on a regular basis or as requested by City staff, including, without limitation, having one or more of such Developer's employees or consultants who are knowledgeable regarding this Agreement, the design and planning of the Housing Developments and the progress of negotiation of a ODA and other agreements, such that such person(s) can meaningfully respond to City and/or City staff questions regarding the progress of the design and planning of the Housing Developments or the negotiation of a ODA and other agreements, attend both: (1) periodic meetings with City staff, as reasonably scheduled and requested by City staff during the Negotiation Period, and (2) meetings of the City Council or other City commission, when reasonably requested to do so by City staff.

8. Developers to Pay All Costs and Expenses. All fees or expenses of engineers, architects, financial consultants, legal, planning or other consultants or contractors, retained by the Developers for any study, analysis, evaluation, report, schedule, estimate, environmental review, planning and/or design activities, drawings, specifications or other activity or matter relating to a Site or the Housing Developments or negotiation of a ODA or other agreement that may be undertaken by such Developer during the Negotiation Period, pursuant to or in reliance upon this Agreement or in the Developer's discretion, regarding any matter relating to a ODA or other agreement, a Site or the Housing Developments, shall be the sole responsibility of and undertaken at the sole cost and expense of the applicable Developer and no such activity or matter shall be deemed to be undertaken for the benefit of, at the expense of or in reliance upon the City.

Each Developer shall also pay all fees, charges and costs, make all deposits and provide all bonds or other security associated with the submission to and processing by the City and/or the City of any and all applications and other documents and information to be submitted to the City and/or the City by such Developer pursuant to this Agreement or 55414.00701 \34349345.7
otherwise associated with the Developer's Housing Development. The City shall not be obligated to pay or reimburse any expenses, fees, charges or costs incurred by the Developers in pursuit of any study, analysis, evaluation, report, schedule, estimate, environmental review, planning and/or design activities, drawings, specifications or other activity or matter relating to the Sites or the Housing Developments or negotiation of any DDA or other agreement that may be undertaken by the Developers during the Negotiation Period, whether or not this Agreement is, eventually, terminated or extended or any DDA or other agreement is entered into between the City and the Developers, in the future.

9. City Not to Negotiate With Others. During the Negotiation Period, the City and City staff shall not negotiate with any other person regarding the sale or redevelopment of the Sites. The term "negotiate," as used in this Agreement, means and refers to engaging in any discussions with a person other than the Developers, regardless of how initiated, with respect to the availability of the Sites or that person's redevelopment of the Sites, without the Developers' prior written consent. Developers acknowledge that City may receive and retain unsolicited offers regarding redevelopment of the Sites, but shall not entertain any offer or negotiate with the proponent of any such offer during the Negotiation Period; provided, however, that the City may notify such proponent that it is a party to this Agreement. Developers acknowledge that the City is a public agency and subject to the provisions of the California Public Records Act, Government Code Section 6254, et. seq. (the "PRA"). The City shall use its best efforts to inform Developers of any request for information received pursuant to the PRA with respect to their proposed Housing Developments. If any Developer believes the information requested is confidential, such Developer may pursuant a court order preventing the release of the requested information.

10. Acknowledgments and Reservations.
(a) The City and the Developers agree that, if this Agreement expires or is terminated for any reason, or any future DDA or other agreement is not approved and executed by both the City and the applicable Developers, for any reason, neither the City nor the Developers shall be under any obligation, nor have any liability to each other or any other person regarding the sale or other disposition of the Sites or the redevelopment of the Housing Developments or the Sites; provided, however, that in the event this Agreement terminates, the City shall return to the Developers within ten (10) business days of such termination any and all deposits due to be refunded pursuant to Section 2(a) of this Agreement.
(b) The Developers acknowledge and agree that no provision of this Agreement shall be deemed to be an offer by the City, nor an acceptance by the City of any offer or proposal from the Developers for the City to convey any estate or interest in the Sites to the Developers or for the City to provide any financial or other assistance to the Developers for redevelopment of the Housing Developments or the Sites. 55414.00701134349345.7
(c) The Developers acknowledge and agree that the Developers have not acquired, nor will acquire, by virtue of the terms of this Agreement, any legal or equitable interest in real or personal property from the City. (d) Certain development standards and design controls for the Housing Developments may be established between the Developers and the City, but it is understood and agreed between the City and the Developers that the Housing Developments and the redevelopment of the Sites must conform to all City and other applicable governmental development, land use, and architectural regulations and standards. Drawings, plans and specifications for the Housing Developments shall be subject to the approval of the City through the standard development application process for Housing Developments of this nature. Nothing in this Agreement shall be considered approval of any plans or specifications for the Housing Developments or of the Housing Developments themselves by the City.
(e) The City reserves the right to reasonably obtain further available information and data to ascertain the ability and capacity of the Developers to acquire or lease, develop and operate the Sites and/or the Housing Developments. The Developers acknowledge that they may be requested to make certain financial disclosures to the City, its staff, legal counsel or other consultants, as part of the financial due diligence investigations of the City relating to the potential sale of the Sites and redevelopment of the Housing Developments on the Sites by the Developers and that any such disclosures may become public records. The City shall maintain the confidentiality of financial information of the Developers to the extent allowed by law, as determined by the City Attorney.

I I. Nondiscrimination. The Developers shall not discriminate against nor segregate any person, or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, handicap, national origin or ancestry in undertaking their obligations under this Agreement.

12. Limitation on Damages and Remedies.
(a) THE DEVELOPERS AND THE CITY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT IS

EXTREMELY DIFFICULT AND IMPRACTICAL TO ASCERTAIN THE AMOUNT OF

DAMAGES THAT WOULD BE SUFFERED BY THE DEVELOPERS UPON THE BREACH OF THIS AGREEMENT BY THE CITY. HAVING MADE DILIGENT BUT

UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS TO ASCERTAIN THE ACTUAL DAMAGES THE

DEVELOPERS WOULD SUFFER UPON THE BREACH OF THIS AGREEMENT BY THE

CITY, THE DEVELOPERS AND THE CITY AGREE THAT A REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF EACH OF BRANDYWINE'S AND THE MUL Tl FAMILY DEVELOPERS' DAMAGES IN SUCH EVENT IS FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,000) (THE "LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AMOUNT"). THEREFORE, UPON THE BREACH OF THIS AGREEMENT BY THE CITY,

THE CITY SHALL PAY THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AMOUNT TO THE APPLICABLE DEVELOPER(S) AND THIS AGREEMENT SHALL TERMINATE. RECEIPT OF THE

LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AMOUNT SHALL BE EACH DEVELOPER'S SOLE AND 55414.00701\34349345.7

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY ARISING FROM ANY BREACH OF THIS AGREEMENT BY THE CITY.

Initials of Authorized
Representative of City
Initials of Authorized
Representative of Brandywine
Initials of Authorized Initials of Authorized
Representative of National Core Representative of C&C
(b) THE CITY AND EACH DEVELOPER EACH ACKNOWLEDGE AND

AGREE THAT THE CITY WOULD NOT HAVE ENTERED INTO THIS AGREEMENT IF

IT WERE TO BE LIABLE TO THE DEVELOPERS FOR ANY MONETARY DAMAGES, MONETARY RECOVERY OR ANY REMEDY OTHER THAN TERMINATION .OF THIS AGREEMENT AND PAYMENT OF THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AMOUNT.

ACCORDINGLY, THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPERS AGREE THAT EACH

DEVELOPER'S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE RIGHT AND REMEDY UPON THE BREACH

OF THIS AGREEMENT BY THE CITY IS TO TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT AND RECEIVE THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AMOUNT.
(c) EACH DEVELOPER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT IS AWARE OF
THE MEANING AND LEGAL EFFECT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1542, WHICH PROVIDES:

A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS

THAT THE CREDITOR OR RELEASING PARTY DOES NOT

KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE

TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, AND THAT IF KNOWN BY

HIM OR HER WOULD HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR
HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR OR RELEASED PARTY.
(d) CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1542 NOTWITHSTANDING,

IT IS THE INTENTION OF EACH DEVELOPER TO BE BOUND BY THE LIMITATION ON DAMAGES, RECOVERY AND REMEDIES SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION 12, AND

EACH DEVELOPER HEREBY RELEASES ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY

FOR MONETARY DAMAGES, MONETARY RECOVERY OR OTHER LEGAL OR

EQUITABLE RELIEF RELATED TO ANY BREACH OF THIS AGREEMENT, EXCEPT

RECEIPT OF THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AMOUNT, WHETHER OR NOT ANY SUCH

RELEASED CLAIMS WERE KNOWN OR UNKNOWN TO THE DEVELOPER AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS AGREEMENT. EACH DEVELOPER SPECIFICALLY WAIVES THE BENEFITS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1542 AND ALL

OTHER STATUTES AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS (WHETHER STATE OR FEDERAL)

OF SIMILAR EFFECT WITH REGARD TO THE LIMITATIONS ON DAMAGES AND

REMEDIES AND WAIVERS OF ANY SUCH DAMAGES AND REMEDIES CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION 12.
55414 00701\34349345.7

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY ARISING FROM ANY BREACH OF THIS AGREEMENT BY THE CITY.

AGREE THAT THE CITY WOULD NOT HAVE ENTERED INTO THIS AGREEMENT IF

IT WERE TO BE LIABLE TO THE DEVELOPERS FOR ANY MONETARY DAMAGES,

MONETARY RECOVERY OR ANY REMEDY OTHER THAN TERMINATION OF THIS AGREEMENT AND PAYMENT OF THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AMOUNT.

ACCORDINGLY, THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPERS AGREE THAT EACH

DEVELOPER'S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE RIGHT AND REMEDY UPON THE BREACH

A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS

THAT THE CREDITOR OR RELEASING PARTY DOES NOT

KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE

TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, AND THAT IF KNOWN BY

HIM OR HER WOULD HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR
HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR OR RELEASED PARTY.
(d) CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1542 NOTWITHSTANDING,

IT IS THE INTENTION OF EACH DEVELOPER TO BE BOUND BY THE LIMITATION ON DAMAGES, RECOVERY AND REMEDIES SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION 12, AND

EACH DEVELOPER HEREBY RELEASES ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY

FOR MONETARY DAMAGES, MONETARY RECOVERY OR OTHER LEGAL OR

EQUITABLE RELIEF RELATED TO ANY BREACH OF THIS AGREEMENT, EXCEPT

RECEIPT OF THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AMOUNT, WHETHER OR NOT ANY SUCH

RELEASED CLAIMS WERE KNOWN OR UNKNOWN TO THE DEVELOPER AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS AGREEMENT. EACH DEVELOPER SPECIFICALLY WAIVES THE BENEFITS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1542 AND ALL

OTHER STATUTES AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS (WHETHER STATE OR FEDERAL)

OF SIMILAR EFFECT WITH REGARD TO THE LIMITATIONS ON DAMAGES AND

REMEDIES AND WAIVERS OF ANY SUCH DAMAGES AND REMEDIES CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION 12.
55414.00701 \34349345.7

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY ARISING FROM ANY BREACH OF THIS AGREEMENT BY THE CITY.

Initials of Authorized
Representative of ty
Initials of Authorized
Representative of Brandywine
Initials of uthorized Initials of Authorized
Representative of National Core Representative of C&C
(b) THE CITY AND EACH DEVELOPER EACH ACKNOWLEDGE AND

AGREE THAT THE CITY WOULD NOT HAVE ENTERED INTO THIS AGREEMENT IF

IT WERE TO BE LIABLE TO THE DEVELOPERS FOR ANY MONETARY DAMAGES,

MONETARY RECOVERY OR ANY REMEDY OTHER THAN TERMINATION OF THIS AGREEMENT AND PAYMENT OF THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AMOUNT.

ACCORDINGLY, THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPERS AGREE THAT EACH

DEVELOPER'S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE RIGHT AND REMEDY UPON THE BREACH

A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS

THAT THE CREDITOR OR RELEASING PARTY DOES NOT

KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE

TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, AND THAT IF KNOWN BY

HIM OR HER WOULD HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR
HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR OR RELEASED PARTY.
(d) CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1542 NOTWITHSTANDING,

IT IS THE INTENTION OF EACH DEVELOPER TO BE BOUND BY THE LIMITATION ON DAMAGES, RECOVERY AND REMEDIES SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION 12, AND

EACH DEVELOPER HEREBY RELEASES ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY

FOR MONETARY DAMAGES, MONETARY RECOVERY OR OTHER LEGAL OR

EQUITABLE RELIEF RELATED TO ANY BREACH OF THIS AGREEMENT, EXCEPT

RECEIPT OF THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AMOUNT, WHETHER OR NOT ANY SUCH

RELEASED CLAIMS WERE KNOWN OR UNKNOWN TO THE DEVELOPER AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS AGREEMENT. EACH DEVELOPER SPECIFICALLY WAIVES THE BENEFITS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1542 AND ALL

OTHER STATUTES AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS (WHETHER STATE OR FEDERAL)

OF SIMILAR EFFECT WITH REGARD TO THE LIMITATIONS ON DAMAGES AND

REMEDIES AND WAIVERS OF ANY SUCH DAMAGES AND REMEDIES CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION 12.
55414.00701\34349345. 7

EXCLUSIVE REMEDY ARISING FROM ANY BREACH OF THIS AGREEMENT BY THE CITY.

Initials of Authorized
Representative of City
Initials of Authorized
Rep�z
of Brandywine
Initials of Authorized Initials of Authorized
Representative of National Core Representative of C&C
(b) THE CITY AND EACH DEVELOPER EACH ACKNOWLEDGE AND

AGREE THAT THE CITY WOULD NOT HAVE ENTERED INTO THIS AGREEMENT IF

IT WERE TO BE LIABLE TO THE DEVELOPERS FOR ANY MONETARY DAMAGES,

MONETARY RECOVERY OR ANY REMEDY OTHER THAN TERMINATION OF THIS AGREEMENT AND PAYMENT OF THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AMOUNT.

ACCORDINGLY, THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPERS AGREE THAT EACH

DEVELOPER'S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE RIGHT AND REMEDY UPON THE BREACH

A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS

THAT THE CREDITOR OR RELEASING PARTY DOES NOT

KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE

TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, AND THAT IF KNOWN BY

HIM OR HER WOULD HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR
HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR OR RELEASED PARTY.
(d) CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1542 NOTWITHSTANDING,

IT IS THE INTENTION OF EACH DEVELOPER TO BE BOUND BY THE LIMITATION ON DAMAGES, RECOVERY AND REMEDIES SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION 12, AND

EACH DEVELOPER HEREBY RELEASES ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY

FOR MONETARY DAMAGES, MONETARY RECOVERY OR OTHER LEGAL OR

EQUITABLE RELIEF RELATED TO ANY BREACH OF THIS AGREEMENT, EXCEPT

RECEIPT OF THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AMOUNT, WHETHER OR NOT ANY SUCH

RELEASED CLAIMS WERE KNOWN OR UNKNOWN TO THE DEVELOPER AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS AGREEMENT. EACH DEVELOPER SPECIFICALLY WAIVES THE BENEFITS OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1542 AND ALL

OTHER STATUTES AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS (WHETHER STATE OR FEDERAL)

OF SIMILAR EFFECT WITH REGARD TO THE LIMITATIONS ON DAMAGES AND

REMEDIES AND WAIVERS OF ANY SUCH DAMAGES AND REMEDIES CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION 12.
55414.00701134349345.7
Initials of Authorized
Representative of City
Initials of Authorized
Representative of National Core

13. Default.

Initials of Authorized
Representative of Developer
Initials of Authorized
Representative of C&C
(a) Failure or delay by any Party to perform any material term or provision of this Agreement shall constitute a default under this Agreement. If the Party who receives a notice of a default from the other Party cures, corrects or remedies the alleged default within fifteen (15) calendar days after receipt of written notice by the other Party specifying such default, such Party shall not be in default under this Agreement.

The notice and cure period provided in the immediately preceding sentence shall not, under any circumstances, extend the Negotiation Period. If there are less than fifteen (15) days remaining in the Negotiation Period, the cure period allowed pursuant to this Section 13(a) shall be automatically reduced to the number of days remaining in the Negotiation Period.
(b) The Party claiming that a default has occurred shall give written notice of default to the Party claimed to be in default, specifying the alleged default. Delay in giving such notice shall not constitute a waiver of any default nor shall it change the time of default. However, the injured Party shall have no right to exercise any remedy for a default under this Agreement, without first delivering written notice of the default and allowing the applicable period to cure any such default as set forth in Section 13(a). (c) Any failure or delay by a Party in asserting any of its rights or remedies as to any default shall not operate as a waiver of any default or of any rights or remedies associated with a default.
(d) If a default of either Party remains uncured for more than fifteen (15) calendar days following receipt of written notice of such default, a "breach" of this Agreement by the defaulting Party shall be deemed to have occurred. In the event of a breach of this Agreement, the sole and exclusive remedy of the Party who is not in default shall be to terminate this Agreement by serving written notice of termination on the Party in breach and, in the case of a breach by the City, the Developer shall also be entitled to receive the Liquidated Damages Amount.

14. Compliance with Law. Each Developer acknowledges that, pursuant to section 54230.5(b)(1) of the Surplus Land Act, prior to execution of any future ODA or other agreement, the City must obtain approval from HCD. Further, any future ODA or other agreements, if approved by the City Council, will require such Developer (among other things) to carry out the development of the Housing Developments in conformity 55414.00701\34349345.7
Initials of Authorized
Representative of City
Initials of Authorized
Representative of National Core

13. Def au It.

Initials of Authorized
Representative of-Beveleeei: So..,..o'f ta,,ie.

Initials of Authorized
Representative of C&C
(a) Failure or delay by any Party to perform any material term or provision of this Agreement shall constitute a default under this Agreement. If the Party who receives a notice of a default from the other Party cures, corrects or remedies the alleged default within fifteen (15) calendar days after receipt of written notice by the other Party specifying such default, such Party shall not be in default under this Agreement.

The notice and cure period provided in the immediately preceding sentence shall not, under any circumstances, extend the Negotiation Period. lflhere are less than fifteen (15) days remaining in the Negotiation Period, the cure period allowed pursuant to this Section 13(a) shall be automatically reduced to the number of days remaining in the Negotiation Period.
(b) The Party claiming that a default has occurred shall give written notice of default to the Party claimed to be in default, specifying the alleged default. Delay in giving such notice shall not constitute a waiver of any default nor shall it change the time of default. However, the injured Party shall have no right to exercise any remedy for a default under this Agreement, without first delivering written notice of the default and allowing the applicable period to cure any such default as set forth in Section 13(a). (c) Any failure or delay by a Party in asserting any of its rights or remedies as to any default shall not operate as a waiver of any default or of any rights or remedies associated with a default.
(d) If a default of either Party remains uncured for more than fifteen (15) calendar days following receipt of written notice of such default, a "breach" of this Agreement by the defaulting Party shall be deemed to have occurred. In the event of a breach of this Agreement, the sole and exclusive remedy of the Party who is not in default shall be to terminate this Agreement by serving written notice of termination on the Party in breach and, in the case of a breach by the City, the Developer shall also be entitled to receive the Liquidated Damages Amount.

14. Compliance with Law. Each Developer acknowledges that, pursuant to section 54230.5(b)(1) of the Surplus Land Act, prior to execution of any future DOA or other agreement, the City must obtain approval from HCD. Further, any future ODA or other agreements, if approved by the City Council, will require such Developer (among other things) to carry out the development of the Housing Developments in conformity 55414.0070 I \34349345.7
Initials of Authorized
Representative of City
Initials of Auffi 11rv 1zed
Representative of National Core

13. Default.

14. Compliance with Law. Each Developer acknowledges that, pursuant to section 54230.5(b)(1) of the Surplus Land Act, prior to execution of any future DOA or other agreement, the City must obtain approval from HCD. Further, any future DOA or other agreements, if approved by the City Council, will require such Developer (among other things) to carry out the development of the Housing Developments in conformity 554 l 4.00701\34349345.7
Initials of Authorized
Representative of City
Initials of Authorized
Representative of National Core

13. Default.

Initials of Authorized
Representative of Developer �c.-
Initials of Authorized
Representative of C&C
(a) Failure or delay by any Party to perform any material term or provision of this Agreement shall constitute a default under this Agreement. If the Party who receives a notice of a default from the other Party cures, corrects or remedies the alleged default within fifteen (15) calendar days after receipt of written notice by the other Party specifying such default, such Party shall not be in default under this Agreement.

The notice and cure period provided in the immediately preceding sentence shall not, under any circumstances, extend the Negotiation Period. If there are less than fifteen (15) days remaining in the Negotiation Period, the cure period allowed pursuant to this Section 13(a) shall be automatically reduced to the number of days remaining in the Negotiation Period.
(b) The Party claiming that a default has occurred shall give written notice of default to the Party claimed to be in default, specifying the alleged default. Delay in giving such notice shall not constitute a waiver of any default nor shall ii change the time of default. However, the injured Party shall have no right to exercise any remedy for a default under this Agreement, without first delivering written notice of the default and allowing the applicable period to cure any such default as set forth in Section 13(a). (c) Any failure or delay by a Party in asserting any of its rights or remedies as to any default shall not operate as a waiver of any default or of any rights or remedies associated with a default.
(d) If a default of either Party remains uncured for more than fifteen (15) calendar days following receipt of written notice of such default, a "breach" of this Agreement by the defaulting Party shall be deemed to have occurred. In the event of a breach of this Agreement, the sole and exclusive remedy of the Party who is not in default shall be to terminate this Agreement by serving written notice of termination on the Party in breach and, in the case of a breach by the City, the Developer shall also be entitled to receive the Liquidated Damages Amount.

14. Compliance with Law. Each Developer acknowledges that, pursuant to section 54230.5(b)(1) of the Surplus Land Act, prior to execution of any future DDA or other agreement, the City must obtain approval from HCD. Further, any future DDA or other agreements, if approved by the City Council, will require such Developer (among other things) to carry out the development of the Housing Developments in conformity 55414.0070 I \34349345. 7
with all applicable laws, including all applicable building, planning and zoning laws, environmental laws, safety laws and federal and state labor and wage laws.

15. Press Releases. Each Developer agrees to obtain the approval of the City Manager or his or her designee or successor in function of any press releases such Developer may propose relating to the lease or redevelopment of the Sites or negotiation of a DDA or other agreements with the City, prior to publication. The rights and obligations in this provision shall not apply to leasing and marketing brochures and/or information distributed by email or placed online on a brokerage website or real estate website such as LoopNet.com.

16. Notice. All notices required under this Agreement shall be presented in person, by nationally recognized overnight delivery service or by facsimile and confirmed by first class certified or registered United States Mail, with return receipt requested, to the address and/or e-mail address (with read receipt) for the Party set forth in this Section

16. Notice shall be deemed confirmed by United States Mail effective the third (3rd) business day after deposit with the United States Postal Service. Notice by personal service, e-mail, or nationally recognized overnight delivery service shall be effective upon delivery. Either Party may change its address for receipt of notices by notifying the other Party in writing. Delivery of notices to courtesy copy recipients shall not be required for valid notice to a Party
TO DEVELOPER:
55414.00701 \34349345.7
Brandywine Acquisitions Group, LLC
15680 Aston
Irvine, CA 92606
Attn: Alex Hernandez
E-mail: [email protected]
National CORE
9421 Haven Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Attn: Michael Ruane
E-mail: mruane@national core.org
C&C Development
14211 Yorba Street, Ste 200
Tustin, CA 92780
Attn: Todd Cottle
E-mail: [email protected]
TO CITY:

COPY TO:

City of Stanton
7800 Katella Avenue
Stanton, CA 90680
Attn: Jarad Hildenbrand
E-mail: [email protected]
Best Best & Krieger
18101 Von Karman Avenue, Unit 1000
Irvine, CA 92612
Attn: HongDao Nguyen
E-mail:

[email protected]

17. Warranty Against Payment of Consideration for Agreement. The Developers each warrant that they have not paid or given, and will not pay or give, any third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement. Third parties, for the purposes of this Section 17, shall not include persons to whom fees are paid for professional services, if rendered by attorneys, financial consultants, accountants, engineers, architects, brokers and other consultants, when such fees are considered necessary by the Developers.

18. Acceptance of Agreement by Developer. The Developers shall acknowledge their acceptance of this Agreement by delivering to the City three (3) original counterpart executed copies of this Agreement signed by the authorized representative( s) of each Developer.

19. Counterpart Originals. This Agreement may be executed by the City and the Developers in multiple counterpart originals, all of which together shall constitute a single agreement.

20. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties regarding the subject matters of this Agreement.

21. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to benefit any person or entity other than the City and the Developers.

22. Governing Law; Venue. The City and the Developers acknowledge and agree that this Agreement was negotiated, entered into and is to be fully performed in the City of Stanton, California. The City and the Developers agree that this Agreement shall be governed by, interpreted under, and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without application of such laws' conflicts of laws principles.

Venue shall lie in the state and federal courts of Orange County, California.

23. Waivers; Amendments. No waiver of any breach of any term or condition contained in this Agreement shall be deemed a waiver of any preceding or succeeding breach of such term or condition, or of any other term or condition contained in this 55414.00701134349345.7
Agreement. No extension of the lime for performance of any obligation or act, no waiver of any term or condition of this Agreement, nor any modification of this Agreement shall be enforceable against the City or the Developers, unless made in writing and executed by both the City and the Developers.

24. Construction. Headings at the beginning of each section and sub-section of this Agreement are solely for the convenience of reference of the City and the Developers and are not a part of this Agreement. Whenever required by the context of this Agreement, the singular shall include the plural and the masculine shall include the feminine and vice versa. This Agreement shall not be construed as if it had been prepared by one or the other of the City or the Developers, but rather as if both the City and the Developers prepared this Agreement. Unless otherwise indicated, all references to sections are to this Agreement. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement are attached to this Agreement and incorporated into this Agreement by this reference. If the dale on which the City or any of the Developers is required to take any action pursuant to the terms of this Agreement is not a business day of the City, the action shall be taken on the next succeeding business day of the City.

24. Attorneys' Fees. If either Party hereto files any action or brings any action or proceeding against the other arising out of this Agreement, then the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover as an element of its costs of suit, and not as damages, its reasonable attorneys' fees as fixed by the court, in such action or proceeding or in a separate action or proceeding brought to recover such attorneys' fees. For the purposes hereof the words "reasonable attorneys' fees" mean and include, in the case of either Party, salaries and expenses of the lawyers working for or employed by such Party (allocated on an hourly basis) to the extent they provide legal services to such Party in connection with the representation of that Party in any such matter. [Signatures on following page]
55414.00701 \34349345.7

THE CITY OF ST ANTON

EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT
(Tina Pacific)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Developers have executed this Exclusive Negotiation Agreement on the dates indicated next to each of the signatures of their authorized representatives, as appear below.

Dated: ________ _
Dated:. ________ _
Dated: ________ _
ATTEST:

By: ___________ _
City Clerk
55414 00701\34349345.7
DEVELOPERS:

By: ___________ _
By:___________ _
By: ___________ _
CITY:

THE CITY OF STANTON
By:. ___________ _
Jarad L. Hildenbrand
City Manager
December 15, 2021

THE CITY OF STANTON

Dated: ot!os/wz.-2
Dated: ________ _
Dated: ________ _
ATTEST:

By: ___________ _
City Clerk
55414.00701 \34349345.7
DEVELOPERS:

B�'�
By: ____________ _
By: ____________ _
CITY:

THE CITY OF STANTON
By: ____________ _
uarncl L. l/,l/ff!Prt%11c/
C,·'7 4n,.�e,-

THE CITY OF STANTON

Dated: ________ _
Dated :_..1-I ..:Ca+l.ilac.J-1'-ll--"a.=·-=-l --- / I
Dated:. ________ _
ATTEST:

By.:_----------
City Clerk
55414.00701 \34349345 ,7
DEVELOPERS:

Altia VI fl,I Co !>_It
By: ___________ _
By: ___________ _
CITY:

THE CITY OF STANTON
By:
, ___________ _
JPll'atl l, II/ !r/P1t6ra11d
C,,'fy Aa11fjr!r

THE CITY OF STANTON

Dated: ---------
Dated: ---------
Dated: ---------
ATTEST:

By: ___________ _
City Clerk
5541---1-.00701 34349345.7
DEVELOPERS:

By: ____________ _
By: ____________ _
CITY:

THE CITY OF STANTON
By: __ �---,---.-,-------
Jarad L. fl1idfJl!}ra,nc/
C,'fy A1anaJ6r
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

BEST BEST & KRIEGER, LLP
By: ___________ _
City Attorney
55414 00701\34349345.7
EXHIBIT"A"
TO

NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT
Property Legal Description
Real property in the City of Stanton, County of Orange, State of California, described as follows:

PARCEL 1: (APN: 126-481-15)
LOT 1 OF TRACT NO. 4208, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172 PAGE 36 AND 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS
MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

PARCEL 2: (APN: 126-481-14)
LOT 2 OF TRACT NO. 4208, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172 PAGE 36 AND 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS
MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

PARCEL 3: (APN: 126-481-13)
LOT 3 OF TRACT NO. 4208, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172 PAGE 36 AND 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS
MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

PARCEL 4: (APN: 126-481-12)
LOT 4 OF TRACT NO. 4208, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172 PAGE 36 AND 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS
MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

PARCEL 5: (APN: 126-481-11)
LOT 5 OF TRACT NO. 4208, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172 PAGE 36 AND 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS
MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

PARCEL 6: (APN: 126-481-10)
LOT 6 OF TRACT NO. 4208, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172 PAGE 36 AND 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS
MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

PARCEL 7: (APN: 126-481-09)
LOT 7 OF TRACT NO. 4208, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172 PAGE 36 AND 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS
MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

PARCEL 8: (APN: 126-481-08)
LOT 8 OF TRACT NO. 4208, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172 PAGE 36 AND 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS

EXHIBIT A
55414.00701 \34349345.7
MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

PARCEL 9: (APN: 126-481-07)
LOT 9 OF TRACT NO. 4208, IN THE CITY OF STANTON, COUNTY OF ORANGE,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGES 36 AND 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS

MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF
THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

PARCEL 9A AN UNDIVIDED 1140TH INTEREST IN AND TO LOT 41 OF TRACT NO. 4208, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN
BOOK 172, PAGES 36 AND 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE

COUNTY RECORDER
OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPT THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING:

BEGINNING IN THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT DISTANT THEREON NORTH 89° 12' 56" EAST 226. 73
FEET FROM THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE NORTH 0
° 46' 04" WEST 25
FEET; THENCE NORTH
89° 13' 56" EAST 24.20 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE IN THE NORTHEASTERLY

LINE OF SAID LOT,
THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 26 ° 18' 53" EAST 228 FEET FROM

SAID POINT THENCE
SOUTHEASTERLY 49.12 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12° 20' 42" THENCE SOUTH 0
° 46' 04" EAST 7.50

FEET TO THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE SOUTH 89° 13' 56" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 70
FEET TO THE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

PARCEL 10: (APN: 126-481-06)
LOT 10 OF TRACT NO. 4208, IN THE CITY OF STANTON, COUNTY OF ORANGE,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGES 36 AND 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS

MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF
THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY.

EXCEPT THEREFROM THE OIL, GAS, MINERALS, AND OTHER HYDROCARBON

SUBSTANCES LYING
BELOW THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND, AS PROVIDED IN DEEDS OF RECORD.

PARCEL 11: (APN: 126-481-05)
LOT 11 OF TRACT NO. 4208 IN THE CITY OF STANTON, COUNTY OF ORANGE,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGES 36 AND 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS

MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF
THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXHIBIT A
55414.00701\34349345.7
PARCEL 11A:

AN UNDIVIDED 1140TH INTEREST IN AND TO LOT 41 OF TRACT NO. 4208, IN THE

CITY OF STANTON,

COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGES 36 AND 37

OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPT THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING:

BEGINNING IN THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT DISTANT THEREON NORTH 89° 13' 56" EAST 226.73
FEET FROM THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE NORTH 0
° 46' 04" WEST 25.00
FEET; THENCE
NORTH 89° 13' 56" EAST 24.20 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE IN THE

NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID
LOT, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 26° 18' 53" EAST 228.00 FEET FROM SAID POINT;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 49.12 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12° 20' 42"
THENCE SOUTH 0
° 46' 04" EAST 7.50 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID
LOT; THENCE SOUTH
89° 13' 56" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 70.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

PARCEL 12: (APN: 126-481-04)
LOT 12 OF TRACT NO. 4208, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGES 36 AND 37 OF

MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

PARCEL 12A:AN UNDIVIDED 1140TH INTEREST IN AND TO LOT 41 OF TRACT NO. 4208, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN
BOOK 172, PAGES 36 AND 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE

COUNTY RECORDER
OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING:

BEGINNING IN THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT DISTANT THEREON NORTH 89° 13' 56" EAST 226. 73
FEET FROM THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE NORTH 0
° 46' 04" WEST 25.00
FEET; THENCE
NORTH 89° 13' 56" EAST 24.20 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE IN THE

EXHIBIT A
55414.00701\34349345.7
LOT; THENCE SOUTH
89° 13' 56" WEST ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE 70.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

PARCEL 13: (APN: 126-481-03)
LOT 13, TRACT 4208, IN THE CITY OF STANTON, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, AS PER
MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGE 36 AND 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN

THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPT THEREFROM ALL OIL, GAS, MINERALS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON

SUBSTANCES, LYING
BELOW A DEPTH OF 500 FEET FROM THE SURFACE OF SAID PROPERTY, BUT

WITH NO RIGHT OF

SURFACE ENTRY, WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY RESERVED IN INSTRUMENTS OF RECORD.

PARCEL13A:

AN UNDIVIDED 1140TH INTEREST IN AND TO LOT 41 OF TRACT NO. 4208, IN THE

CITY OF STANTON,

COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGES 36 AND 37

OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPT THEREFROM, THE FOLLOWING:

BEGINNING IN THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT DISTANT THEREON, NORTH 8901356" EAST 226.73 FEET
FROM THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE NORTH 0
°
4604" WEST 25.00 FEET;

THENCE NORTH
89°13'56" EAST 24.20 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE IN THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE

OF SAID LOT, THE
RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 26°
18'53" EAST 228.00 FEET FROM SAID
POINT; THENCE
SOUTHEASTERLY 49.12 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12°
20'42" THENCE
SOUTH 0
°
46'04" EAST 7.50 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE SOUTH 89°
13'56"
WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 70.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

PARCEL 14: (APN: 126-481-02)
LOT 14 OF TRACT NO. 4208, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGES 36 TO 37 OF

MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

PARCEL 14A:

EXHIBIT A
55414.00701 \34349345.7
AN UNDIVIDED 1140TH INTEREST IN AND TO LOT 41 OF TACT NO. 4208, AS PER

MAP RECORDED IN
BOOK 172, PAGES 36 AND 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE

COUNTY RECORDER
OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPT THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING:

BEGINNING IN THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT DISTANT THEREON NORTH 89° 13' 56" EAST 226.73FEET FROM THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE NORTH 0 ° 46'
04" WEST 25.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 89° 13' 56" EAST 24.20 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE IN THE

NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID
LOT, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 26 ° 18' 53" EAST 228.00 FEET FROM SAID POINT;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 49.12 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12° 20' 42"
THENCE SOUTH 0
° 46' 04" EAST 7.50 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID
LOT; THENCE SOUTH
89° 13' 56" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 70.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

PARCEL 15: (APN: 126-481-01)
LOT 15 OF TRACT NO. 4208, IN THE CITY OF STANTON, COUNTY OF ORANGE,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGES 36 AND 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS

MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF
THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

PARCEL 15A:

AN UNDIVIDED 1140TH INTEREST IN AND TO LOT 41 OF TRACT NO. 4208, AS PER

MAP RECORDED IN
BOOK 172, PAGES 36 AND 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE

COUNTY RECORDER
OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING:

EXHIBIT A
55414.00701134349345.7
89' 13' 56" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 70.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

PARCEL 16: (APN: 126-481-29)
LOT 16 OF TRACT NO. 4208, IN THE CITY OF STANTON, COUNTY OF ORANGE,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGES 36 AND 37 OF MAPS, IN THE

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

PARCEL 17: (APN: 126-481-28)
LOT 17 OF TRACT 4208, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGES 36 AND 37

OF MISCELLANEOUS
MAPS, AS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

PARCEL 18: (APN: 126-481-27)
LOT 18 OF TRACT NO. 4208, IN THE CITY OF STANTON, COUNTY OF ORANGE,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGE(S) 36 AND 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS

MAPS, IN THE OFFICE
OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM; ALL OIL, OIL RIGHTS, NATURAL GAS RIGHTS, MINERAL

RIGHTS, AND OTHER

HYDROCARBONS SUBSTANCES BY WHATEVER NAME KNOWN, TOGETHER WITH

APPURTENANT RIGHTS

THERETO, WITHOUT, HOWEVER, ANY RIGHT TO ENTER UPON THE SURFACE OF

SAID LAND NOR ANY
PORTION OF THE SUBSURFACE LYING ABOVE A DEPTH OF 500 FEET, AS

EXCEPTED OR RESERVED IN
INSTRUMENTS OF RECORD.

PARCEL 19: (APN: 126-481-26)LOT 19 OF TRACT NO. 4208, IN THE CITY OF

STANTON, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGE 36 AND 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS

MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF
THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPT THEREFROM ALL OIL, GAS, MINERALS AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS, BELOW A DEPTH OF 500

FEET, WITHOUT THE RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY, AS RESERVED IN DEEDS OF RECORD.

PARCEL 20: (APN: 126-481-25)
LOT 20 OF TRACT 4208, IN THE CITY OF STANTON, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE

OF CALIFORNIA, AS
PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGE(S) 36 AND 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS

MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF
THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXHIBIT A
55414.00701 \34349345.7

EXCEPT THEREFROM ALL OIL, GAS, MINERALS AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS, BELOW A DEPTH OF 500

FEET, WITHOUT THE RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY, AS RESERVED IN DEEDS OF RECORD.

PARCEL 21: (APN: 126-481-24)
LOT 21 OF TRACT NO. 4208, IN THE CITY OF STANTON, COUNTY OF ORANGE,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGES 36 OF 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS

MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF
THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPT THEREFROM ALL OIL, GAS, MINERALS AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS, BELOW A DEPTH OF 500

FEET, WITHOUT THE RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY, AS RESERVED IN DEEDS OF RECORD.

PARCEL 22: (APN: 126-481-23)
LOT 22 OF TRACT NO. 4208, IN THE CITY OF STANTON, COUNTY OF ORANGE,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGE(S) 36 AND 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS

MAPS, IN THE OFFICE
OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPT THEREFROM ALL OIL, GAS, MINERALS AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS, BELOW A DEPTH OF 500

FEET, WITHOUT THE RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY, AS RESERVED IN DEEDS OF RECORD.

PARCEL 23: (APN: 126-481-22)
LOT 23 OF TRACT NO. 4208, IN THE CITY OF STANTON, COUNTY OF ORANGE,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGE(S) 36 AND 37 OF MAPS, IN THE

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPT THEREFROM ALL OIL, GAS, MINERALS AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS, BELOW A DEPTH OF 500

FEET, WITHOUT THE RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY, AS RESERVED IN DEEDS OF RECORD.

PARCEL 24: (APN: 126-481-21)
LOT 24 OF TRACT NO. 4208 IN THE CITY OF STANTON, COUNTY OF ORANGE,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGE(S) 36 AND 37 MISCELLANEOUS

MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF
THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

PARCEL 24A:

AN UNDIVIDED 1140TH INTEREST IN AND TO LOT 41 OF TRACT NO. 4208 IN THE

EXHIBIT A
55414.00701 \34349345.7

CITY OF STANTON

COUNTY OF ORANGE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGE(S) 36 AND 37

OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPT THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING:

BEGINNING AT THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT DISTANT THEREON NORTH 89° 13' 56" EAST 226.73
FEET FROM THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT THENCE NORTH 0
° 48' 04" WEST 25.00

FEET THENCE
NORTH 89° 13' 56" EAST 24.20 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE IN THE

NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID
LOT THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 26° 18' 53" EAST 228.00 FEET

FROM SAID POINT
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 49.12 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12° 20' 42"
THENCE LOT THENCE SOUTH 0
° 46' 04" EAST 7.50 FEET TO THE

SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT
THENCE SOUTH 89° 13' 56" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 70.00 FEET TO

THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.

PARCEL 25: (APN: 126-481-20)
LOT 25, OF TRACT NO. 4208, IN THE CITY OF STANTON, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGES
36 AND 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

PARCEL 25A:

AN UNDIVIDED 1140TH INTEREST IN AND TO LOT 41 OF TRACT NO. 4208, IN THE

CITY OF STANTON,

COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGE (S) 36 AND
37 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

PARCEL 26: (APN: 126-481-19)
LOT 26 OF TRACT NO. 4208, IN THE CITY OF STANTON, COUNTY OF ORANGE,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGES 36 AND 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS

MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF
THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPT THEREFROM ALL OIL, GAS, MINERALS AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS, BELOW A DEPTH OF 500

FEET, WITHOUT THE RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY, AS RESERVED IN DEEDS OF RECORD.

EXHIBIT A
55414.00701 \34349345.7
PARCEL 27: (APN: 126-481-18)
LOT 27 OF TRACT NO. 4208, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172 PAGE(S) 36 AND 37 OF

MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

PARCEL 27A:

AN UNDIVIDED 1140TH INTEREST IN AND TO LOT 41 OF TRACT NO. 4208, IN THE

CITY OF STANTON,

COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGE (S) 36 AND
37 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPT THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING:

BEGINNING IN THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT DISTANT THEREON NORTH 89° 13' 56" EAST 226.73
FEET FROM THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT, THENCE NORTH 0
°
46'04" WEST 25.00
FEET; THENCE
NORTH 89°
13' 56" EAST 24.20 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE IN THE

NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID
LOT, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 26°
18'53" EAST 228.00 FEET
FROM SAID POINT;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 49.12 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12°
20'42"
THENCE SOUTH 0
°
46'04" EAST 7.50 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT;

THENCE SOUTH
89°
13'56" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 70.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

PARCEL 28: (APN: 126-481-17)
LOT 28 OF TRACT NO. 4208, IN THE CITY OF STANTON, COUNTY OF ORANGE,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGE(S) 36 AND 37, OF MISCELLANEOUS

MAPS, IN THE OFFICE
OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

PARCEL 29: (APN: 126-481-16)
LOT 29 OF TRACT NO. 4208, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGES 36 AND 37 OF

MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

PARCEL 29A:

AN UNDIVIDED 1140TH INTEREST IN AND TO LOT 41 OF TRACT NO. 4208, AS PER

MAP RECORDED IN

EXHIBIT A
55414.00701 \34349345.7
BOOK 172, PAGES 36 AND 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE

COUNTY RECORDER
OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPT THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING:

BEGINNING IN THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT DISTANT THEREON NORTH 89° 13' 56" EAST 226. 73
FEET FROM THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE NORTH 0
° 46' 04" WEST 25.00
FEET; THENCE
NORTH 89° 13' 56" EAST 24.20 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE IN THE

NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID
LOT, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 26° 18' 53" EAST 228.00 FEET

FROM THE SAID
POINT; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 49.12 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A

CENTRAL ANGLE OF
12° 20' 42" THENCE SOUTH 0
° 46' 04" EAST 7.05 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE
OF SAID LOT;
THENCE SOUTH 89° 13' 56" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 70.00 FEET TO

THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.

PARCEL 30: (APN: 126-482-15)
LOT 30, TRACT 4208 SHOWN ON A MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGES 36 AND 37 OF

MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

PARCEL 31: (APN: 126-482-14)
LOT 31 OF TRACT NO. 4208, IN THE CITY OF STANTON, COUNTY OF ORANGE,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGE(S) 36 AND 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS

MAPS, IN THE OFFICE
OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

PARCEL 31A:

AN UNDIVIDED 1140TH INTEREST IN AND TO LOT 41 OF TRACT NO. 4208, IN THE CITY OF STANTON.

COUNTY OF ORANGE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGES 36 AND 37

OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPT THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING:

BEGINNING IN THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT DISTANT THEREON NORTH 89° 13' 56" EAST 226. 73
FEET FROM THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE NORTH 0
° 46' 04" WEST 25.00
FEET; THENCE
NORTH 89° 13' 56" EAST 24.20 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE IN THE

EXHIBIT A
55414.00701 \34349345.7

NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID
LOT, THE RADIUS OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 26° 18' 53" EAST 228.00 FEET FROM SAID POINT: THENCE
SOUTHEASTERLY 49.12 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12° 20' 42" THENCE
SOUTH 0
° 46' 04" EAST 7.50 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE SOUTH 89° 13' 56"
WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 70.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

PARCEL 32: (APN: 126-482-13)
LOT 32 OF TRACT NO. 4208, IN THE CITY OF STANTON, COUNTY OF ORANGE,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGES 36 AND 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS

MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF
THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

PARCEL 32A:

AN UNDIVIDED 1140TH INTEREST IN AND TO LOT 41 OF TRACT NO. 4208, IN THE

CITY OF STANTON,

COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGES 36 AND 37

OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPT THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING:

BEGINNING IN THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT DISTANT THEREON NORTH 89° 13' 56" EAST 226. 73
FEET FROM THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE NORTH 0
° 46' 04" WEST 25.00
FEET; THENCE
NORTH 89° 13' 56" EAST 24.20 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE IN THE

PARCEL 33: (APN: 126-482-12)
LOT 33 OF TRACT NO. 4208, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172 PAGES 36 AND 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS, IN

THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

PARCEL 34: (APN: 126-482-11)

EXHIBIT A
55414.0070 I \34349345.7
LOT 34 OF TRACT NO. 4208, IN THE CITY OF STANTON, COUNTY OF ORANGE,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGE(S) 36 AND 37 OF MAPS, IN THE

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPT THEREFROM ALL OIL, GAS, MINERALS AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS, BELOW A DEPTH OF 500

FEET, WITHOUT THE RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY, AS RESERVED IN DEEDS OF RECORD.

PARCEL 35: (APN: 126-482-10)
LOT 35 OF TRACT 4208 AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172 PAGES 36-37, OF

MISCELLANEOUS MAPS
IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

PARCEL 36: (APN: 126-482-09)
LOT 36 OF TRACT NO. 4208, IN THE CITY OF STANTON, AS SHOWN ON A MAP

RECORDED IN BOOK
172, PAGE(S) 36 AND 37, OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE

COUNTY RECORDER OF
SAID COUNTY.

PARCEL 37: (APN: 126-482-08)
LOT 37 OF TRACT NO. 4208, IN THE CITY OF STANTON, COUNTY OF ORANGE,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172 PAGES 36 AND 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS

MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF
THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPT THEREFROM ALL OIL, GAS, MINERALS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON

SUBSTANCES, LYING
BELOW A DEPTH OF 500 FEET, WITHOUT THE RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY.

PARCEL 37A:

AN UNDIVIDED 1140TH INTEREST IN AND TO LOT 41 OF TRACT 41 OF TRACT NO. 4208, IN THE CITY
OF STANTON, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172 PAGES 36 AND 37 OF

MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPT THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING:

BEGINNING IN THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT DISTANT THEREON NORTH 89 DEGREE 13 MINUTES 56
SECONDS EAST 226.73 FEET FROM THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE NORTH O DEGREE 46
MINUTES 04 SECONDS WEST 25 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREE 13 MINUTES 56 SECONDS EAST

EXHIBIT A
55414,00701\34349345.7

24.20 FEET TO A POINT IN A CURVE IN THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT,

THE RADIUS POINT
OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 26 DEGREE 18 MINUTES 53 SECONDS EAST 228.00 FEET FROM SAID POINT;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 49.12 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12
DEGREE 20 MINUTES 42 SECONDS; THENCE SOUTH O DEGREE 46 MINUTES 04 SECONDS EAST 7.50
FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE SOUTH 29 DEGREE 13 MINUTES 56 SECONDS
WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 70.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

PARCEL 38: (APN: 126-482-07)
LOT 38 OF TRACT NO. 4208 IN THE CITY OF STANTON, COUNTY OF ORANGE,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172 PAGE(S) 36 AND 37 OF MISCELLANEOUS

MAPS FILED IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY.

PARCEL 39: (APN: 126-482-06)
LOT 39 OF TRACT NO. 4208, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGES 36 AND 37 OF

MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

PARCEL 40: (APN: 126-482-05)
LOT 40 OF TRACT NO. 4208, IN THE CITY OF STANTON, COUNTY OF ORANGE,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 172, PAGE(S) 36 AND 37 OF

MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXHIBIT A
55414.00701 \34349345.7
EXHIBIT"C"
TO

NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT
Multifamily Housing Development Description
[To Be Attached Behind This Cover Page]
55414.00701 \34349345. 7
5 1Tl:PWI I
A1.1
w:wm::>MMIQI-OO�A'd! N11HIIIAW.,,'t
STR£1\T£Jill!81T I A1.4
111111. B�Jt1fOYWlNC A1.5
1111111 BDRANDYWIHC M I hl/1MlOLIACROOtl:UOl 0o»:lEPTt.W.omtGII 1111 m H<I"�& Deveto:Jment ... .,,., .. ,..,_,., ............. �:IUilPOOT/11&1 I A1.6 MIi FSTONF
EXHIBIT"D"

MILESTONE SCHEDULE
Exclusive Negotiation Agreement Timeline
nFSCRIPTION
Within 90 Davs of Effective Date I 2021\ of ENA
Initial Pro Forma! Submit initial proforma for the proposed development.

Housing Submit Housing Development construction schedule for the.

Developments proposed development.

Due Diligence Provide written determination of property's physical suitability for develooment.

Preliminary Submit site plans and elevations. Submit all relevant applications Housina and fees.

Within 30 Days of Receipt of Preliminary Housing Developments Submittal Plan Review Staff reviews plans for compliance with applicable codes and re""' · .. ,�· l0tt.,.r
Within 15 days of Receipt of Staff's Review
Revised Site Submit revised site plans and elevations
o, .........

Within 15 days of Receipt
2 nd Plan Review Staff reviews plans for compliance with applicable codes and reaulations· letter
Within 150 Days of Effective Date of ENA
Revised Submit refined proforma and development schedule based on Proforma and! revised site plans
Market Study Submit a market study containing a forecast of regional and local! real estate
Development Submit letter identifying investment partners.

Partners.

Funding• Submit letter identifying lenders and proof of ability to obtain pc,rfn0rc c,nrl financing ..

Draft DOA Complete negotiations and draft Disposition and Development Final Revisions Finalize revisions to development proposal and all relevant materials Within 180 Days of Effective Date of ENA
City Council Present development proposal and DOA to City Council for final, Hearing review and aooroval.
55414.00701 \34349345.7
Date:
lylay 12, 2022
Todd Cottle
Principal
C&C Development
14211 Yorba Street,
Suite 200
Tustin, CA 92780
714-269-8848
[email protected]
Dear Todd,
•
•
•
7800 Katella Avenue
Stanton, CA 90680
PI (714) 379-9222
FI (714) 890-1443
[email protected]
StantonCA.gov
My ability to provide extensions to individual milestone dates may be implicit in the ENA, but what is explicit is our ability to mutually agree to extend the Negotiation Period twice by 90 days each. I would propose that we exercise the first of our two 90-day extension periods, which would have the effect of moving all of the milestone dates in the Schedule of Performance, including your submittal of the initial pro forma by 90 days.

Please indicate your agreement by signing below.

Si
.
nc�
-
r�
-
1 �
.c:.. ... . } I (
··-....... ,.___./
Ja�d· . Hildenbrand
City Manager
Agree to and accepted by:

C&C Development
By: Todd Cottle
Its: Authorized Signatory
National Community Renaissance of California
By: Michael Ruane
':%,President
Brandywine Acquisitions Group, a California limited liability company By: Brett Whitehead
Its: Chief Executive Officer
Community Pride & Forward Vision
Attachment: C
Click here to return to the agenda.

Date:

December l, 2022
Todd Cottle
Principal
C&C Development
14211 Yorba Street,
Suite 200
Tustin, CA 92780
Michael Ruane
Executive Vice
President
National Community
Renaissance of
California
9421 Haven Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga,
CA 91730
Alex Hernandez
President/
Homebuilding Division
Brandywine
Acquisitions Group,
LLC
15680 Aston
Irvine, CA 92606
To Whom It May Concern,
•
•
•
7800 Katella Avenue
Stanton, CA 90680
P I (714) 379-9222
F I (714) 890-1443
Sta [email protected]
StantonCA.gov
The City received a request to extend the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement ("ENA"), dated December 14, 2021, by and between the City of Stanton, Brandywine Acquisitions Group, LLC, C&C Development Company, and National Community Renaissance of California. The ENA became effective on February 15, 2022.

As you know, the City has extended the ENA, once, to November 12, 2022, and hereby agrees to extend the ENA a second time, through February 10, 2023. These extensions are authorized under section 3(b) of the ENA. The City also hereby confirms that it has received the additional $15,000 in deposits from the developers, pursuant to section 2{b) of the ENA. Please indicate your agreement to this extension by signing below.

The City looks forward to continuing to work with you. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,
df�M�
Hannah Shin-Heydorn
City Manager
Agreed to and accepted by:

C&C Development
By: Todd Cottle
Its: Principal
National Community Renaissance of California
By: Michael Ruane
Its: Executive Vice President
Brandywine Acquisitions Group, LLC
By: Alex Hernandez
Its: President/ Homebuilding Division
Community Pride & Forward Vision
Attachment: D
Click here to return to the agenda.

CITY OF STANTON

REPORT TO THE

CITY COUNCIL AND STANTON HOUSING AUTHORITY
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Chairman and Housing Authority Members
DATE: January 24, 2023
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF EXTENSION OF THE EXCLUSIVE

NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT WITH BRANDYWINE ACQUISITIONS

GROUP, C&C DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, AND NATIONAL

COMMUNITY RENAISSANCE OF CALIFORNIA REGARDING THE

TINA-PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REPORT IN BRIEF:

The City Council and Housing Authority will consider extending the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with Brandywine Acquisitions Group, C&C Development Company, and National Community Renaissance of California for the Tina Pacific Project for an additional 180 days to allow for additional time to negotiate a disposition and development agreement and any other necessary agreements.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:

2. Approve extension of the ENA and authorize the City Manager/Executive Director to execute the First Amendment to the ENA.

BACKGROUND:

At its joint meeting of December 14, 2021, the City Council and the Housing Authority Board approved an ENA with Brandywine Acquisitions Group (Brandywine), C&C Development Company (C&C), and National Community Renaissance of California (National Core, and collectively, the “Developers”) for the Tina Pacific Project (Attachment 1). The ENA was for an initial term of 180 days (Attachment 2) and was Attachment: E
Click here to return to the agenda.
extended an additional 90 days by the City Manager/Executive Director on May 12, 2022 through November 12, 2022 (Attachment 3), and on December 1, 2022 through February 10, 2023 (Attachment 4), as authorized by the ENA.

With the most recent extension set to expire on February 10, 2023, staff is requesting the City Council/Housing Authority Board approve a final extension of 180 days to allow for the completion of project negotiations and presentation of a finalized draft of the DDA and Purchase and Sale Agreement to the Council.

ANALYSIS AND JUSTIFICATION:

Since the execution of the original ENA, the Developers and City staff have worked diligently to advance the project. Should the requested 180-day extension be approved, the Developers and City staff will work to finalize the following deliverables:
• Time schedule and cost estimates for the development of each housing development.
• Financing plan for all private and public improvements proposed for each housing development.
• A preliminary financial analysis and market study, including a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis to the City.
• Preliminary/conceptual project plans, including site, floor, landscape, and elevation plans.
• All required development applications, including any General Plan amendments (including zoning changes), specific plan amendments, conditional use permits, and other project-specific entitlements.
• (For the multifamily housing development) List of potential users or tenants and anticipated lease rate for the multifamily units to be developed. • (For the townhome housing development) Anticipated sales prices for the townhomes to be developed.
• (For the multifamily housing development) Plan to provide asset management services upon sale of the Property.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Pursuant to the proposed First Amendment to the ENA, the City shall receive from each of the Developers ten thousand dollars ($10,000) in immediately available funds as initial deposits to defray certain costs of the City in pursuing the contemplated negotiations with the Developers during the negotiation period.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:

Public notification provided through the regular agenda process.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney has prepared the attached First Amendment to ENA and approved it as to form.

STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVE ADDRESSED:

Obj. 3:Provide a quality infrastructure.

Obj. 5:Provide a high quality of life.

Obj. 6:Maintain and promote a responsive, high-quality, and transparent government.

Prepared by: Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager
Fiscal Impact Reviewed by: Michelle Bannigan, Finance Director Approved by: Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager
Attachments:

A. December 14, 2021 Staff Report
B. Original ENA
C. ENA First Extension
D. ENA Second Extension
E. First Amendment to ENA
55414.00701\40963250.1

THE CITY OF STANTON

FIRST AMENDMENT TO EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT
(Tina Pacific)
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT (“First Amendment”) is dated as of _______, 2023, for reference purposes only, and is entered into by and between the City of Stanton, a California municipal corporation (“City”), on the one hand; and Brandywine Acquisitions Group, a California limited liability company (“Brandywine”), C&C Development Co., a California Limited Liability Company (“C&C”), and National Community Renaissance of California, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (“National Core”), on the other hand, to provide a specified period of time to attempt to negotiate a disposition and development agreement. C&C and National Core are sometimes collectively referred to herein as the “Multifamily Developers,” and C&C, National Core and Brandywine are sometimes collectively referred to herein as the “Developers.” The City and the Developers are sometimes referred to in this Agreement, individually, as a “Party” and, collectively, as the “Parties.” This Agreement is entered into by the Parties with reference to the following recited facts (each, a “Recital”):

B. The Parties entered into that certain Exclusive Negotiating Agreement, dated December 14, 2021, in order to provide for time to negotiate one or more future agreements between the City and the Developers governing the potential acquisition of the Property by the Developers and development of the Townhome Housing Development by Brandywine on the Townhome Site and development of the Multifamily Housing Development by the Multifamily Developers on the Multifamily Site (“Agreement”).

C. The Agreement became effective on February 14, 2022 pursuant to the provisions set forth in Section 3(a) of the Agreement (“Effective Date”).

D. Upon the mutual written agreement of the Parties and for consideration in the form of Extension Deposits paid by the Developers to the City, the Parties exercised two consecutive 90-day extensions to the term of the Negotiation Period, authorized pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Agreement. The current Negotiation Period expires on February 9, 2023.

E. The Parties now desire to amend the Agreement in order to extend the term of the Negotiation Period under the Agreement for a period of 180 days to expire on August 8, 2023, increase the amount of each Extension Deposit to be commensurate with the extended term, and to modify terms relating to extensions of the Negotiation Period under the Agreement (“First Amendment”).
55414.00701\40963250.1

NOW, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE CITY

RELATING TO THE SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITES AND THE PROMISES OF

THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPERS SET FORTH IN THIS FIRST AMENDMENT, THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPERS AGREE, AS FOLLOWS:

1. Deposits. Section 2(b) of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“(b) Upon the each extension of the Negotiation Period occurring pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b), if any, the Developers shall each provide to the City an additional deposit of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) in immediately available funds on the first day of any 90-day extension of the Negotiation Period occurring pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) (each, an "Extension Deposit"). Each Developer shall provide to the City an additional deposit of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) in immediately available funds on the first day of any 180-day extension of the Negotiation Period occurring pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b). Each Extension Deposit is intended to ensure that the Developers will proceed diligently and in good faith to fulfill their obligations under this Agreement during any extension of the Negotiation Period, as part of the consideration for the City's agreement not to negotiate with other persons during any such extension of the Negotiation Period, and to defray certain costs of the City in pursuing the contemplated negotiations with the Developers during any such extension of the Negotiation Period, pursuant to this Agreement. At the termination of this Agreement, any remaining funds from an Extension Deposit shall be refundable to the applicable Developer as provided in Section 2(a), above

2. Term of Agreement. Section 3 of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“(a) The rights and duties of the City and the Developers established by this Agreement shall commence on the first date on which all of the following have occurred (the “Effective Date”): (1) payment of the Initial Deposits to the City by the Developers, in accordance with Section 2(a); and (2) delivery of a City Council-approved fully executed version of this Agreement to the Developers, the exact date of which shall be mutually agreed to by the Parties promptly after the Developers’ receipt of the fully executed Agreement from the City as evidenced in writing signed by their respective authorized representatives. The City shall deliver a fully executed counterpart original of this Agreement to the Developers within ten (10) calendar days following the City Council’s approval of this Agreement, if approved, and the execution of this Agreement by the authorized representative(s) of the City. This Agreement shall continue in effect for a period of One Hundred Eighty (180) consecutive calendar days immediately following the Effective Date (“Negotiation Period”), subject to the limitations of Section 3(b). (b) The Negotiation Period may be extended upon the mutual written agreement of the City's City Manager and all Developers for no more than two (2) additional consecutive Ninety (90) calendar day periods and one (1) additional consecutive One Hundred and Eighty (180) calendar day period. Notwithstanding the immediately preceding sentence or any other part of this Agreement, in no event shall the Negotiation Period exceed Five Hundred Forty (540) consecutive calendar days from the Effective Date. 55414.00701\40963250.1
(c) This Agreement shall automatically expire and be of no further force or effect at the end of the Negotiation Period, unless, prior to that time, both the City and the Developers approve and execute a DDA acceptable to both the City and the Developers, in their respective sole and absolute discretion, in which case this Agreement will terminate on the effective date of such DDA.”

4. Remaining Provisions. Except as specifically set forth in this First Amendment, the remaining provisions of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. [Signatures on following page]
55414.00701\40963250.1

THE CITY OF STANTON

FIRST AMENDMENT TO EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT
(Tina Pacific)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Developers have executed this First Amendment to Exclusive Negotiation Agreement on the dates indicated next to each of the signatures of their authorized representatives, as appear below.

Dated:

Dated
DEVELOPERS:
_______________________
By:
___________
__________________
By:
___________
__________________

By:
___________
__________________
Dated:

CITY:

THE CITY OF STANTON
By:

ATTEST:

By:

City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

BEST BEST & KRIEGER, LLP
By:

City Attorney
55414.00701\40963250.1

THE CITY OF STANTON

SECOND AMENDMENT TO EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT
(Tina Pacific)

THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT (“Second Amendment”) is dated as of _______, 2023, for reference purposes only, and is entered into by and between the City of Stanton, a California municipal corporation (“City”), on the one hand; and Brandywine Acquisitions Group, a California limited liability company (“Brandywine”), C&C Development Co., a California Limited Liability Company (“C&C”), and National Community Renaissance of California, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (“National Core”), on the other hand, to provide a specified period of time to attempt to negotiate a disposition and development agreement. C&C and National Core are sometimes collectively referred to herein as the “Multifamily Developers,” and C&C, National Core and Brandywine are sometimes collectively referred to herein as the “Developers.” The City and the Developers are sometimes referred to in this Agreement, individually, as a “Party” and, collectively, as the “Parties.” This Agreement is entered into by the Parties with reference to the following recited facts (each, a “Recital”):

C. The Agreement became effective on February 14, 2022 pursuant to the provisions set forth in Section 3(a) of the Agreement (“Effective Date”).

E. The Parties entered into a First Amendment to amend the Agreement in order to extend the term of the Negotiation Period under the Agreement for a period of 180 days to expire on August 10, 2023, increase the amount of each Extension Deposit to be commensurate with the extended term, and to modify terms relating to extensions of the Negotiation Period under the Agreement (“First Amendment”).

F. The Parties now desire to amend the Agreement in order to extend the term of the Attachment: F
Click here to return to the agenda.
55414.00701\40963250.1
Negotiation Period under the Agreement for a period of 12 months to expire on August 10, 2024, and to modify terms relating to extensions of the Negotiation Period under the Agreement (“Second Amendment”).

NOW, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE CITY

RELATING TO THE SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITES AND THE PROMISES OF

THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPERS SET FORTH IN THIS SECOND AMENDMENT, THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPERS AGREE, AS FOLLOWS:

1. Deposits. Section 2(b) of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“(b) Upon each extension of the Negotiation Period, the Developers shall each provide to the City an additional deposit of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) in immediately available funds on the first day of any 90-day extension of the Negotiation Period occurring pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) (each, an "Extension Deposit"). Each Developer shall provide to the City an additional deposit of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) in immediately available funds on the first day of any 180-day extension of the Negotiation Period occurring pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b). No Extension Deposit is required from any Developer for the extension period between August 10, 2023 and August 10, 2024. Each Extension Deposit is intended to ensure that the Developers will proceed diligently and in good faith to fulfill their obligations under this Agreement during any extension of the Negotiation Period, as part of the consideration for the City's agreement not to negotiate with other persons during any such extension of the Negotiation Period, and to defray certain costs of the City in pursuing the contemplated negotiations with the Developers during any such extension of the Negotiation Period, pursuant to this Agreement. At the termination of this Agreement, any remaining funds from an Extension Deposit shall be refundable to the applicable Developer as provided in Section 2(a), above.

THE CITY OF STANTON

Dated:

Dated
DEVELOPERS:
_______________________
By:
___________
__________________
By:
___________
__________________

By:
___________
__________________
Dated:

CITY:

THE CITY OF STANTON
By:

ATTEST:

By:

City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

BEST BEST & KRIEGER, LLP
By:

City Attorney

CITY OF STANTON

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
DATE: August 8, 2023
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO THE 2022-2023 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT DATED JUNE 12, 2023, ENTITLED, “WELCOME TO THE
NEIGHBORHOOD – ARE CITIES RESPONSIBLY MANAGING THE
INTEGRATION OF GROUP HOMES?”
REPORT IN BRIEF:

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?” (Attachment A). The purpose of the report was to review 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. California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require any public agency that the Grand Jury reviews respond to the findings and recommendations of the Grand Jury Report. The City’s proposed response letter responds to each of the applicable findings and recommendations (Attachment B).

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. City Council declare this project categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, Class 32, and Section 15332; and

BACKGROUND:

Group homes provide, among other things, substance recovery, hospice care, residential care for the elderly, and sober living. Several significant pieces of legislation have played a part in the expansion of group homes, including 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). In response, some cities in Orange County have attempted to manage integration of group homes into neighborhoods by enacting Item: 9E
Click here to return to the agenda.
ordinances. 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.

ANALYSIS AND JUSTIFICATION:

California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require any public agency that the Grand Jury reviews respond to the findings and recommendations of the Grand Jury report. The City is required to respond because it is reviewed in the report along with the other 33 Orange County cities and the County of Orange. The City Attorney’s Office in collaboration with the City Manager’s Office has drafted a response for Council consideration. The proposed response letter responds to each of the applicable findings and recommendations listed on pages 24-25 of the report.

The Grand Jury report contains eleven findings for which the City is required to respond.

The original Grand Jury findings are repeated below in italics. The City’s responses are in bold, with additional explanation and commentary in regular typeface. References to the “City” refer to the City of Stanton.

F1 Group homes too close to one another contribute to the problems associated with overconcentration.

The respondent agrees with the finding.

The answer is inherent in the question. The question assumes that the homes are “too close,” which by definition constitutes overconcentration.

F2 Common nuisances are more likely and disruptive when sober living homes are concentrated in a small geographic area of a neighborhood.

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.

The City lacks knowledge and information sufficient to reach this conclusion. The answer may vary depending on the facts of each specific case. How large is each facility? How are they run? What regulations govern them? How close is “concentrated”? How small is “small”? The City does not assume that sober living homes of any type, of any size, regardless of how they are run, are, as a category, a disruptive source of nuisance.

F3 Some cities have successfully addressed and informed community members about the challenges faced in regulating group homes.

The City lacks knowledge and information sufficient to reach this conclusion. The City does not know what all other cities do. Nor does the City have in-depth knowledge about what any other city might have done or not done to inform its residents about regulation of group homes. The City can only opine as to its own efforts. But it is unclear what successfully means in the context of this finding, as it is a subjective qualifier. Also, what does it mean to successfully address community members on this topic, versus successfully informing them? And what is meant by challenges? The City has taken steps to educate members of the public about federal and state laws that might apply to group homes, depending on the facts, but whether or not the City has been successful in those efforts remains unknown. We have no way to measure whether residents understand the law and its application to specific situations in the City or whether they are convinced of its wisdom from a policy matter.

F4 Community satisfaction was minimal when cities took the traditional public comment approach towards addressing community complaints.

The City lacks knowledge and information sufficient to reach this conclusion.

What is meant by community satisfaction? How is that measured? What constitutes minimal? What is the “traditional public comment approach”? What kinds of complaints? About the existence of “group homes” per se? About nuisances? State regulation (too much, too little)? State and federal oversight of vulnerable populations? About treatment and welfare of group-home residents? F5 Cities are not utilizing police, fire, and code enforcement complaints as a means of locating and tracking Group Homes.

For its part, the City does not use police, fire, and code enforcement complaints as a means of locating and tracking “Group Homes” per se. The City does not single out group homes for regulation or tracking.

F6 Cities are inhibited from enacting and enforcing ordinances due to fears over the potential cost of litigation.

The City lacks knowledge and information sufficient to reach this conclusion. The City cannot say with certainty what other cities do or don’t do. There might be some city or cities somewhere that choose to not enact or enforce ordinances due to fears over potential litigation, but the City does not know this to be the case. What is meant here by inhibited? What kind of ordinances? The potential for litigation and associated costs are likely a factor in considering any new regulation.

For its part, the City does not single out group homes for particular regulation or tracking.

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.

The City lacks knowledge and information sufficient to reach this conclusion.

What is meant by several? How many is many? Regardless, the City cannot say with certainty what other cities do or don’t do. There might be some city or cities somewhere that have adopted an ordinance that requires a ministerial permit or registration to operate a group home, and, if so, some of them might not be enforcing their ordinances.

For its part, the City does not single out group homes for particular regulation.

F8 City and County officials are deterred from regulating group homes by California Housing and Community Development’s housing element approval process.

The City lacks knowledge and information sufficient to reach this conclusion.

What is meant by deterred? Prevented or merely discouraged? Regardless, the City cannot say with certainty what motivates or deters officials in other cities or counties. The City has no knowledge of whether they are deterred from regulating group homes or, if they are, by what. There might be some city or county official somewhere who takes a different approach to regulating group homes based on HCD’s comments on housing elements. The City cannot speak for them.

For its part, the City does not single out group homes for particular regulation, and the City strives to comply with the requirements of the Housing Element Law as it has been enacted.

F9 Cities have historically strategized and acted independently in addressing group home challenges and solutions.

The City lacks knowledge and information sufficient to reach this conclusion.

What is meant by historically in this context? By strategized, independently, challenges, and solutions? The finding itself presumes a certain view of group homes that the City does not necessarily understand. Regardless, the City cannot say with certainty what other cities do or don’t do. There might be some city or cities somewhere that have “historically strategized and acted independently in addressing group home challenges and solutions.” The City cannot speak for them.

For its part, the City does not single out group homes for particular regulation and acts independently to protect public health, safety, and welfare regardless of the nature of the use or the identity or ability of occupants. The City strives to follow all applicable laws regardless of what other cities or counties might do.

F10 Well-operated group homes can integrate smoothly into neighborhoods.

The respondent agrees with the finding.

The answer is inherent in the question. The question assumes that the homes are “well-operated,” which by definition would result in “smooth” integration into a neighborhood if the home is also appropriately located and sized.

F11 There is a lack of regulatory oversight for the health and safety of residents of unlicensed group homes.

The respondent agrees with the finding.

The City is aware that there have been over-doses, over-dose-related deaths, and assaults and other abuses at some unlicensed group homes. By definition, these occurrences indicate inadequate on-site supervision and oversight.

Appropriate governmental oversight can serve to encourage appropriate on-site supervision and oversight for the benefit of the vulnerable populations who reside in the homes. The City supports efforts to provide appropriate oversight of unlicensed group homes.

The Grand Jury report contains five recommendations for which the City is required to respond. Cities are required to respond based on statutorily identified responses.

The City does not single out group homes for particular regulation. It is not reasonable to convene a panel on the challenges that a city faces in regulating group homes because it would imply that the City does single them out or that it is attempting to single them out for particular restrictions.

This is a policy choice left to the City under its police power, and the Grand Jury is not justified in attempting to impose it on the City.

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) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.

The City does not single out group homes for particular regulation. It is not reasonable to require the City to collaborate with other cities to regulate contrary to the City’s own policy direction.

This is a policy choice left to the City under its police power, and the Grand Jury is not justified in attempting to impose it on the City.

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)
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.

The City does not single out group homes for particular regulation. It is not reasonable to require the City to pool its resources with those of other cities to defend lawsuits against other cities challenging those other cities’ group-home ordinances based on those other cities’ different policies.

This is a policy choice left to the City under its police power, and the Grand Jury is not justified in attempting to impose it on the City.

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) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation.

The City would support a Task Force that helps ensure the health and safety of group home residents. But it is up to the County to form and administer the Task Force. The City is willing to participate.

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)
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.

The City does not single out group homes for particular regulation or tracking. If the City receives a request for a waiver of generally applicable regulations based on an owner’s or operator’s disability-related reasonable accommodation, in accordance with applicable law, the City makes note of that. But whether or not to track group homes per se, or residents of group homes per se or based on any other indicia of disability is contrary to the City’s own policy direction.

This is a policy choice left to the City under its police power, and the Grand Jury is not justified in attempting to impose it on the City.

Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the City’s response to the Grand Jury is due on September 13, 2023.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project has been determined to be categorically exempt under Section 15332, Class 32 (In-Fill Development).

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:

Public notification provided through the regular agenda process.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City’s responses were prepared and reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office.

STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVE ADDRESSED:

Obj. No. 6: Maintain and promote a responsive, high quality and transparent government.

Prepared by: Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager
Approved by: Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager
Attachments:

A. Grand Jury Report “Welcome to the Neighborhood – Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes?”
B. City Response to Report
Welcome to the Neighborhood
Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes? County of Orange Grand Jury 2022-2023
Attachment: A
Click here to return to the agenda.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................... 3 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................. 4 REASON FOR STUDY........................................................................................................................ 6 METHOD OF STUDY......................................................................................................................... 7 INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 7 OC Group Home Density............................................................................................................. 8 Tracking Challenges .................................................................................................................. 10 Common Nuisances .................................................................................................................. 11 Lead Cities................................................................................................................................. 12 Cities Are Standing Alone.......................................................................................................... 12 Fear of Litigation Costs ............................................................................................................. 13 State Actions............................................................................................................................. 17 Housing Element....................................................................................................................... 18 Educating the Public ................................................................................................................. 19 How Has This Issue Evolved? .................................................................................................... 23 FINDINGS....................................................................................................................................... 24 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................... 25 RESPONSES.................................................................................................................................... 25 90 Day Response Required ....................................................................................................... 27 GLOSSARY...................................................................................................................................... 29 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................................. 34 NOTICE .......................................................................................................................................... 40 END NOTES.................................................................................................................................... 40

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 3 of 42

SUMMARY
Group homes are an important component in the healthcare and/or recovery of many people. These homes provide, among other things, Substance Recovery, Hospice Care, Residential Care for the Elderly, and Sober Living. When group homes are operated for the well-being of their residents and with respect for their neighbors, they can be an asset to their host community. However, they can occasionally become disruptive and the motivation for nuisance calls to local code enforcement. In extreme cases, the “curbing” of residents can contribute to the homeless population.

Negative interactions with disruptive group homes often lead to neighborhood opposition and anger towards city officials. How cities respond to the anger of their constituents impacts their ability to successfully integrate group homes. Residents are more likely to respond positively when cities offer townhall style meetings with police, fire, code enforcement, legal, and subject matter expert involvement, especially where the subject is discussed objectively, and public input is encouraged and respected.

Issues and concerns neighborhood residents have with group homes stem primarily from an over-concentration of homes in residential areas. Multiple cities in Orange County have attempted to manage integration of group homes into neighborhoods by enacting ordinances that include setting a minimum distance between group homes to avoid the problems associated with over-concentration. Most cities with such ordinances have not enforced them due to the fear of incurring litigation costs.

The Grand Jury reviewed the challenges of successfully integrating group homes into neighborhoods, including pressures exerted on Orange County cities by residents, group home operators, and the State of California.

The State of California has recently joined the group home debate, has altered the conversation, and raised the stakes. The State wields a large club with its power of approval of the required Housing Element. The California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) is withholding approval for cities that have ordinances attempting to place limits or impose oversight on group homes. Cities are then vulnerable to a loss of control over zoning and permitting, as well as loss of State and regional funding.

Some cities have decided to push back on the pressures put on them from HCD and the fight has been carried out on an individual city basis. The Orange County Grand Jury recommends that the County of Orange and cities join forces to create ordinances, pool resources for defense of lawsuits, and work together to generate awareness among legislators to improve regulations and management standards to ensure health and safety for group home residents.

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 4 of 42

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

Many of the homes in
question are privately
owned, unlicensed,
unsupervised, and a
challenge to monitor and
regulate. When a
neighborhood has multiple
group homes, it becomes
a more institutional
environment; this alters
the character of the
neighborhood and defeats
the purpose of the
“integration” of people who
are recovering.

The Orange County coast is a magnet for sober living homes To address these shortcomings, multiple cities, and the County, on behalf of unincorporated areas, have enacted ordinances that manage the permitting and tracking of group homes.

Several significant pieces of legislation have played a part in the expansion of group homes. These include California’s Lanterman Mental Retardation Act (1988), the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, the California Community Care Facilities Act, and California’s Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (Proposition 36). The resulting deinstitutionalization has had a positive effect on the lives of many people but has created a challenge for cities as they work towards the responsible integration of the group living arrangements necessary to accommodate the impacted population.
1 WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 5 of 42
Since deinstitutionalization, the State of California has resisted appeals from local cities to pass permitting laws, distancing requirements, or any type of regulation at all. There is a misconception that these regulatory ordinances are intended to discriminate against people who are disabled due to alcohol and drug addiction, and the State of California has cited this misconception as the guiding principle for its dogged challenge of most attempts by cities to manage the responsible integration of group homes into residential neighborhoods. Rather, such city ordinances are intended to protect those people who suffer from alcohol and drug addiction, as well as the neighborhoods where group homes are located.

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

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

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

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

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 6 of 42
homes to six residents is part of the State statute; however, confusion arises because the statute does not apply to sober living homes.

There is only so much a city can do to respond to the complaints of its residents when dealing with an overconcentration of group homes in a neighborhood. It is important for city residents to be educated on the barriers faced by cities, and to work with their city to overcome these barriers.

Current laws do not adequately address the need to manage the integration of group homes into neighborhoods. Courts should not be where the solutions are found.

REASON FOR STUDY
Many cities within Orange County have neighborhoods with a dense concentration of group recovery and sober living residences. In most circumstances, cities do not know where these group homes are located unless the homes generate a backlash from neighbors due to various types of disturbances. The Grand Jury examined how Orange County cities are managing the distancing of all types of group homes, and the impact group homes have on neighborhoods and group home residents when the homes are in close proximity to one another.

Group homes, most often Recovery and Sober Living homes, and the nuisances that are commonly associated with them, are not new to Orange County. Neighborhood complaints, concerns from individuals living in or related to residents of group homes, the litigious nature of the relationship between cities and group home operators, and abuse of the healthcare system have been in play in Orange County for well over a decade.

The Grand Jury began this study by looking at how cities are managing the influx and locations of group homes and identifying best practices where they are found. The working premise was that each city is responsible for the integration of group homes, which would serve to protect the residents of group homes while maintaining the existing neighborhood atmosphere.

Has there been success addressing the issues associated with group homes and what does that look like? Are cities going it alone or are there county-wide efforts? Has there been progress made in this area? The Grand Jury approached the topic of group home integration seeking answers to these questions with the expectation that there were some systems in place resulting in the successful integration of group homes. The investigation took a winding road which revealed that, despite countless attempts at change, many of the problems that surfaced over a decade ago are still present. The Grand Jury found that successfully implemented solutions have become even more impactful in light of the State of California’s heavy-handed entry into the debate.

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 7 of 42

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

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

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

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

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

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 8 of 42
“Residents of these homes are moving in and
out at an alarming, transitory rate”
OC Group Home Density
Reportedly, Orange County has more than its share of group homes in California, and the country for that matter, specific to housing individuals in need of Recovery/Sober Living Homes.6 There are no existing requirements for sober living homes with six or fewer residents to identify or register themselves as such.

It is estimated that up to 36% of houses required to be licensed (those providing services) by the State of California as group homes for six or fewer residents are located in Orange County. In addition, there are hundreds of group homes not requiring licensing that exist in Orange County neighborhoods. This lack of identification makes it extremely difficult to estimate the total number of sober living homes in our communities.7
As documented in numerous city council and townhall meetings, residents and activists have raised concerns about over-saturation and common nuisances to local community governing bodies (see Common Nuisances section). In many cases, these are neighborhoods in which multiple group homes are in close proximity (for example three in one cul-de-sac) or individual homes are run with little to no on-site supervision.

Neighborhoods are losing their original character and familial aspect, with some becoming increasingly institutional and others experiencing more of a “frat house” feel.

Residents of these homes are moving in and out at an alarming, transitory rate.

Neighbors describe some of these group homes as taking no responsibility for the actions of their inhabitants. Rules and responsibilities are either not imposed or not enforced by the group home operators. The complaints are predominantly related to non-regulated group homes.

Over the last several years, multiple cities in Orange County have sought to find a solution to alleviate these concerns. Several have performed due diligence to ensure that any action taken will provide for neighborhoods to remain neighborhoods, and that both the disabled and the recovering addicts needing to live in these types of group homes are in fact living in a normalized residential environment that provides the best opportunity to be successful in their recovery.

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 9 of 42
This is not simply a “Not In My Backyard” (NIMBY) issue or reaction as evidenced by the large number of homes that receive few or no complaints. The need for well-run Recovery/Sober Living Homes is not in dispute. Concerns arise when these homes are poorly run and/or when multiple homes are in close proximity, contributing to the problem of over-concentration. These two circumstances cause changes in the local neighborhood, and it is questionable whether they are aiding the very residents that they are meant to be assisting and whether residents of these homes are integrating into a normalized environment.

To that end, various cities have introduced ordinances toward resolving the problem.

Some of these include distancing requirements between group homes ranging from 300 to 1000 feet. Some ordinances require group homes to register or self-identify as such.

California Health & Safety Code Section 1267.9 provides specific requirements for distancing of most types of group homes settings.8 These requirements are similar to the local city ordinances in that they provide certain spacing restrictions of between 300 and1000 feet. Sober Living Homes, however, are excluded from any distancing requirement by the State.

The State imposes licensing requirements on most types of group homes and provides for oversight by one or more State or County agency. Sober Living Homes with six or fewer residents are not required to be licensed by the State and have no regulatory

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 10 of 42
oversight. These two factors alone allow anyone to set up, open, and advertise this type of group home anywhere in California. Orange County seems to be the favored location, yet has no say in the siting or quantity of group homes in our residential neighborhoods.

Tracking Challenges
Just where are these sober living homes? All over. How do we know? We actually don’t.

There are few local ordinances requiring the registration, licensing, or declaration of any type of unlicensed sober living or recovery residence that has been established in a neighborhood. There are no widely adopted methods to track or monitor any aspect of such dwellings – their location, number of people residing in them, on-site management, or their ownership.

The Grand Jury’s research found that most sober living homes are not required by law to have any kind of State license. Some cities have enacted ordinances that require a permit or registration. When a sober living establishment is registered and a complaint is received, the complaint may be recorded and could be tracked, at least for the location of that specific home.

Except for the few cities with ordinances regulating sober living homes and the few homes that applied for registration or received ministerial permits, accurate tracking and monitoring remains challenging. Tracking is attainable if cities’ code and law enforcement establish and actively utilize a searchable database that includes

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 11 of 42
information about police and fire calls, nuisance complaints or code infractions, and identification of type of establishment. The use of this information can help identify the location and density of group homes.

Common Nuisances
Residents living in cities with neighborhoods having a significant number of recovery and sober living homes complain that the proliferation of these group homes in recent years has become unmanageable, and that overconcentration is impacting the quality of life for everyone.

For years, many citizens living in neighborhoods with an unrestrained growth of sober living homes have been voicing their concerns and frustrations over the lack of protection their communities are given. While many of these group homes adopt rules and regulations and attempt to be good neighbors, a citizen’s primary method for reporting concerns about a disruptive home is initiating a nuisance complaint to their local law enforcement.

The outcry is that unregulated sober living residences make for bad neighbors. Sober living homes are not always bad neighbors, but when they are concentrated in a small geographic area or neighborhood, the common nuisances can become more visible and disruptive. Ultimately, this raises concerns about the potential or actual diminished character of the neighborhood.

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 12 of 42
“The well-funded operators are supported by
industry organizations and associations
in their lawsuits…”
Lead Cities
Although the City of Costa Mesa has been front and center in the legal fights related to group homes, it was Newport Beach that first stepped into the arena in 2008. Three companies sued the City over an ordinance that was approved by the City Council in 2008 that regulated group homes for recovering addicts.9 Pacific Shores Properties, Newport Coast Recovery, and Yellowstone Women’s First Step House sued Newport Beach for a total of $5.24 million. Still in place today, this ordinance was the first of its kind in Orange County and it established quiet hours, parking and smoking areas, and van routes. It also required the City’s approval for new unlicensed homes for recovering addicts in certain neighborhoods. In 2015, the City reached the end of its seven-year legal battle over sober-living homes with a settlement agreement.10 11 According to the Orange County Register, which cites its own archives, Newport Beach spent at least four million dollars in legal costs on the cases. In 2008, there were 81 facilities and 614 total beds identified in Newport Beach. In 2021, there were a known 30 facilities with 210 total beds. Where did all those facilities and beds go?12 Perhaps to the City of Costa Mesa. In 2015, the City of Costa Mesa enacted their own ordinance (amended in 2017) after seeing a sharp increase in the number of sober living homes followed by a steep increase in the number of community complaints. On the heels of the ordinance came the legal challenges, and Costa Mesa prevailed in all challenges until January 2023 when two sober living homes, embroiled in litigation against the city, were handed a legal victory in federal court. The earlier dismissal was reversed and remanded by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled that asking operators of sober living facilities for proof of disability violates federal law barring discrimination against those with disabilities and bars discrimination in housing.

As the legal battle waged on, other local governments explored, advanced, or enacted regulation of sober living homes, including the County of Orange (2015), and Cities of Laguna Hills (2015), San Clemente (2016), Laguna Niguel (2016), San Juan Capistrano (2016), Anaheim (2020), and Huntington Beach (2020). Most of these entities, perhaps all, have chosen not to enforce their ordinances out of concern of potential litigation, and are waiting for Costa Mesa’s litigation to conclude.

Cities Are Standing Alone
Multiple cities in the County have executed ordinances to regulate unlicensed group homes. With the exception of the newly formed South Orange County Sober Living and

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 13 of 42
Recovery Task Force, cities have not collaborated on solutions to shared and common problems. This has been done on an individual basis, with little collaboration among cities. Prior to drafting an ordinance, some cities study the details and effectiveness of other cities’ actions, particularly the City of Costa Mesa’s ordinance, and use that as a template to draft their own.13
Once enacted, few of the ordinances are being enforced. This lack of enforcement is due to a small number of very specific impediments and concerns. These include:
• Fear of litigation costs due to lawsuits filed by group home operators against cities that have enforced ordinances. (The City of Costa Mesa has reportedly incurred over ten million dollars in legal fees in relation to group home litigation.) • Fear of the State of California withholding approval of the Housing Element for cities that have ordinances related to the management of group homes, resulting in the potential loss of state funds and local zoning control. • Lack of enforcement resources. Most cities do not have the staff resources to enforce these ordinances.

While individual cities take a wait-and-see approach to follow the progress of other cities that are standing up to the State, little progress is being made. The cities and County of Orange would benefit by working in partnership with one another to garner resources and create a coalition to promote change. While the newly constituted South Orange County Sober Living and Recovery Task Force is a good start, and the first tangible recognition of the need to work together, the Grand Jury recommends a countywide cooperative taskforce.

Orange County’s cities and unincorporated areas are demographically diverse.The active sharing of ideas, experiences, and information will be valuable to the overall process of developing a worthwhile model ordinance and plan for moving forward in the efforts to protect both the individual characteristics of Orange County neighborhoods, and all individuals living in those neighborhoods.

Fear of Litigation Costs
Cities are concerned about the high cost of litigation and the time required to defend ordinances regulating group homes. Private entities have challenged ordinances and in some cases won, and in other cases continued to pursue lawsuits in spite of opposition.

In one case, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) requested that the California Department of Justice file a “friend of the court” application to intervene on behalf the litigant in its case against the City. 14 WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 14 of 42
Two examples of cities being involved in lengthy and costly lawsuits include Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. In 2007, Newport Beach had numerous sober living homes and was facing increasing pressure by residents to regulate them. In January 2008, Newport Beach passed an ordinance regulating sober living homes. The ordinance was carefully crafted to comply with State and federal law.15
By November 2008, several legal actions occurred. These included:

1. A lawsuit from a residents’ group (the “Concerned Citizens of Newport Beach” or CCNB) arguing that the City did not go far enough in enacting Ordinance 2008-

05. CCNB also sued multiple operators and asked for $250 million in damages from the City;

2. Two group home operators (Pacific Shores Recovery and Sober Living by the Sea) filed complaints with the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) alleging that the City’s ordinance and its practices have discriminated against disabled persons entitled to fair housing;

3. Multiple lawsuits were filed by Sober Living By the Sea (SLBTS) alleging that the City’s group residential uses ordinance was facially discriminatory against persons in recovery. The City reached an agreement with SLBTS;

4. The City filed lawsuits against Morningside Recovery and Pacific Shores Recovery, alleging that some of their operations opened illegally during a shortterm temporary moratorium against the establishment of new group residential uses. Pacific Shores Recovery has in turn alleged that the City’s group

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 15 of 42
residential uses ordinance was facially discriminatory against persons in recovery;

5. A cross-complaint by the City against Sober Living By The Sea and other operators that consolidated certain lawsuits in U.S. District Court.

Chairs are packed during a discussion on sober-living homes in San Clemente in 2016. (Photo by Matt Masin, Orange County Register, SCNG)
Subsequently, in 2009, three companies sued the City of Newport Beach over the ordinance, claiming it violated anti-discrimination and fair housing laws because individuals recovering from an addiction are a protected group. A federal judge ruled in favor of the City in 2011. The companies appealed the case and it went to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the Court’s majority sided with the group homes, saying there was enough evidence to argue discrimination. The Court pointed to comments made during the 2008 hearing, which implied that the City Council was targeting recovery group homes.

The City of Newport Beach asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case in 2014, but the Court declined. The City settled with the group homes for $5.25 million in 2015.

The City’s estimated legal costs exceeded four million dollars, 16 for a total cost close to
ten million dollars.

The City of Costa Mesa waged a fierce and costly legal battle to regulate sober living homes for over five years. As noted in the section regarding the State’s actions and attitude, Costa Mesa fashioned an ordinance within the limits of State and federal laws

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 16 of 42
in 2014.17 The City ultimately spent over seven million dollars in litigation, and prevailed in State and federal courts; however, in January 2023, a federal appellate court reversed and remanded the district court’s 2020 ruling.

Costa Mesa Ordinance 15-11 sets limited standards for three items that address important societal issues, none of which are discriminatory in nature:

1. Spacing (650 feet apart)

2. Background screening of the house manager

3. Process for evicting residents
Spacing between group homes maintains the purpose of the facility and residential character of the neighborhood. Screening protects the residents of the facility. Through interviewees, the Grand Jury learned of group home managers with criminal backgrounds and who are themselves currently substance abusers. Standards for evictions are needed. Through interviews and newspaper articles, the Grand Jury learned of the practice of “curbing,” putting residents out on the curb when their source of payment runs out or when they are in violation of house rules. This practice is believed to contribute to homelessness in Orange County.

Costa Mesa’s ordinance serves an important purpose, but the ordinance is still in litigation after several years and at an estimated cost of more than ten million dollars.18 Other Cities in California and Orange County are similarly facing lawsuits and costs associated with group home and sober living ordinances. Cities could pool resources to mitigate litigation cost concerns. A coalition of cities to spread costs is highly recommended.

The Grand Jury learned that the lawsuits brought against cities are supported and enabled by an extremely profitable industry. According to John LaRosa at MarketResearch.com on February 5, 2020,
19 the group home market is 42 billion dollars
per year. Mr. LaRosa also noted that the industry needed to be cleaned up as many of the operators engaged in overbilling, patient brokering, and deceptive marketing.

The well-funded operators are supported by industry organizations and associations in their lawsuits. Industry organizations include large groups such as the California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals, Behavioral Health Associates, and National Sober Living Associates. The websites of any of these organizations and several others can be viewed to see the type of support often provided. The organizations not only provide support for lawsuits, but also assist in lobbying State and federal legislators.

Many group home operators do not want any type of regulation, as evidenced by the Costa Mesa and Newport lawsuits, though the Grand Jury found some operators who welcome additional regulation to protect the industry from bad operators. In summary, the industry represents a formidable foe in lawsuits due to funding and industry associations.

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 17 of 42
State Actions
Zoning ordinances are the primary control local governments have over city land use.

The State of California has challenged the validity of group home ordinances, thereby inhibiting local governments in addressing group homes through zoning ordinances. If challenged, defense of the ordinances is costly and the alternative is to repeal them, a process that can be politically charged.

When Costa Mesa originally prevailed in the lawsuits filed against their 2014 sober living ordinance, the Cities of Encinitas, Huntington Beach, Anaheim and the County of Orange adopted similar ordinances for sober living facilities. In May 2021, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) sent a letter to the City of Encinitas stating its ordinance was in violation of statutory prohibitions on discrimination in land use. HCD said the city must take immediate steps to repeal the ordinance.

HCD’s letter to the City of Encinitas noted “The City appears to take significant comfort from certain court opinions, several unpublished, appearing to reject specific, largely different and distinguishable challenges to a different group home ordinance in Costa Mesa, which were brought by private parties rather than the State of California. Those decisions are neither on point nor binding here.” This statement is misleading to the general public because it downplays judicial rulings favoring Costa Mesa’s ordinance.

In May of 2021, HCD sent a “Letter of Technical Assistance” to the City of Anaheim in which they discuss Anaheim’s land use regulations. One of the items discussed was a phone call they had with city staff to discuss concerns with the proposed Zoning Code Amendment for group homes. HCD’s concern was that the ordinance “potentially conflict(s) with statutory prohibitions on discrimination in land use”.

Also in May of 2021, HCD sent a “Notice of Violation: City of Anaheim Notice of Violations of Housing Element Law and Anti-Discrimination in Land Use” regarding the denial of a conditional use permit for transitional housing. The California Department of Justice (DOJ) subsequently joined a civil lawsuit regarding the same action. HCD believes the City has failed to implement goals, policies, and program actions included in the housing element and failed to act consistent with Government Code requirements in applying standards to the approval of the Project.

On December 21, 2022, HCD issued a document titled Group Home Technical Advisory.
20 The executive summary includes the following:
“In recent years, some local governments have amended their zoning ordinances to add new regulations for group homes, particularly for recovery residencesgroup homes that provide housing for persons recovering from alcoholism or drug addiction. These amendments have raised concerns that local governments are not complying with their affirmative obligations under state planning and

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 18 of 42
zoning laws to promote more inclusive communities and affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH). These amendments have also generated disputes and confusion over whether local governments are violating fair housing laws by discriminating against persons with disabilities or other protected characteristics.” The document assumes the ordinances are not legally compliant and creates difficulties faced by cities trying to reasonably regulate group homes. The document is labeled a “technical advisory” but reads as a policy statement. There were apparently no public hearings regarding the document.

These actions by HCD and DOJ, as well as litigation, are challenges municipalities face in adopting ordinances regarding group homes when the courts have found these ordinances compliant with State and federal laws. This was made evident through interviews with representatives of cities. Interviewees also expressed concern that HCD interpreted the laws as being overly restrictive on zoning ordinances and failing to protect the inhabitants of group homes.

Housing Element
In the State of California, all cities are required to develop a General Plan. The General Plan serves as a blueprint for the future, prescribing policy goals and objectives to shape and guide the physical development of the city. The General Plan is a comprehensive policy document that informs future land use decisions, and it is comprised of multiple elements.
21 The Housing Element is one important part of a city or county’s General Plan. Every eight years, every city, town, and county must update their Housing Element and have it certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

The most recent cycle of the new Housing Element has been heavily impacted by the State’s laser focus on housing availability and affordability.

On September 28, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a suite of bills to boost housing production across California which accompanies the Governor’s $22 billion housing affordability and homelessness package and ongoing work by the State to spur more housing production, tackle barriers to construction, and hold local governments accountable. Taken together, the actions reflect the State’s focus on creating more “The document is labeled a “technical
advisory” but reads as a
policy statement…”

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 19 of 42
affordable housing, faster and cheaper. “The acute affordability crisis we are experiencing in California was decades in the making, and now we’re taking the necessary steps to fix it,” said Governor Newsom.22
Although this is a response to a real need in California, the real-world consequences to the “build-build-build” solution are many. One of those can be seen in the State’s myopic push for housing as it has mistakenly equated group homes with additional housing options. But housing is not increased by allowing the unbridled proliferation of recovery and sober living homes. The industry advertises heavily outside of California and brings many of their residents from out-of-state. It is not uncommon for some of these residents to be “kicked to the curb” (referred to as curbing) for various reasons, and because they are not local to Orange County, they have nowhere to go and ultimately face homelessness.

HCD wields its power to review and approve State housing elements as a threat to deter city and county efforts to regulate group homes. Approval of the Housing Element has a big impact on a city’s ability to enforce its general plan and to control what gets built and where it is built. Without the HCD’s approval of the housing element, a door is opened to developers to bypass local zoning ordinances by utilizing a seldom used loophole known as Builders Remedy. Under that law, a developer may sidestep city approvals to construct a housing development if 20% of the project’s homes are affordable housing.23
State funding programs for transportation, infrastructure, and housing often require or consider a local jurisdiction’s compliance with Housing Element Law. These competitive funds can be used for fixing roads, adding bike lanes, improving transit, or providing much needed affordable housing to communities. In some cases, funding from state/federal housing programs can only be accessed if the jurisdiction has a compliant housing element.24 25
Educating the Public
By the time the public has organized to bring their concerns to city leadership through a letter writing campaign, a joint written complaint, or a petition, their level of frustration has likely been building for quite a while. How city leadership deals with the concerns and frustrations of their constituency is likely to determine whether it will be a collaborative or an adversarial process to find a resolution. Educating the public on the reasons that cities have seemingly been unwilling to address the integration of group homes into Orange County neighborhoods is key to the success of collaborative problem solving.

Cities have been squeezed from above by a combination of intense pressure from group home operators citing federal protections for the disabled, and the State of California’s efforts to eliminate group home ordinances by withholding approval on cities’ mandated Housing Element submission. They are also squeezed from below by

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 20 of 42
“Some cities have used the multi-discipline,
educational, townhall type response to the public
outcry while others have not.

The outcome can be quite different.”
the people in neighborhoods which have been impacted by the over-concentration of group homes, and/or the level of nuisances generated by the group homes.

A lack of understanding of the challenges faced by cities leads to the perception that they are unwilling to step up and regulate the various group home types that are springing up in neighborhoods. Public education will reveal that there is not an unwillingness of cities, or the public, to find resolutions, but rather there are many hurdles promulgated by State and federal agencies that often prevent opportunities for reaching a solution. Cities should work together, and with State legislators and other stakeholders, to look for ways to affect change at the State level as well as provide more focused public education that addresses these issues.

In an effort to inform their citizens, some cities have used the multi-discipline, educational, townhall type response to the public outcry while others have not. The outcome can be quite different.

To illustrate, we need look no further than a tale of three cities: Anaheim, Newport Beach, and Laguna Hills. Anaheim’s group home issue heated up in October 2021 when Grandma’s House of Hope requested a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to use a large house as a transitional living home for 19 intractably mentally ill women. 26 It was not Grandma’s House of Hope’s first group home in Anaheim; it was the latest in many previously successful CUP requests. Local residents coalesced against this CUP request in a vocal and organized manner. Whether it was the number of residents impacted, the descriptor of the group home residents as intractably mentally ill, or just one group home too many in this neighborhood, this organized effort to prevent the approval of the large group home attracted hundreds of local citizens and activists from both sides of the issue. It seemed that the majority of these people attended the planning commission meeting to voice their opinions during the public comment portion of the agenda and to let the City’s Planning Commission see the strength of their numbers.

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 21 of 42
The Planning Commission was seemingly prepared to accept the staff recommendation for approval. Public comment took over five hours, most of which was overwhelmingly against the approval of the group home. The applicant and the Planning Commission both expressed surprise at the public backlash. Ultimately, the approval recommendation was scrapped, and the Planning Commission voted to deny the CUP.

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

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

It has not provided an opportunity for the public to come together in a townhall-like meeting where the City could address the issues and the challenges they face, have subject matter experts on hand for short presentations, and allow for comments and questions.
28 WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 22 of 42
In direct contrast to Anaheim’s response, we can look at the steps taken by the Cities of Newport Beach and Laguna Hills. Newport Beach was faced with a petition from its residents in 2007 after a rapid increase in the number of drug rehabilitation homes. The residents reported 103 treatment houses, nearly all on the Balboa Peninsula. There was a town hall hosted by (then) Assemblywoman Mimi Walters, R-Laguna Niguel, and (then) State Senator Tom Harman, R-Huntington Beach, and an estimated 200 people attended. It was an opportunity for dialogue as well as to learn about the constraints placed on cities by the State of California. Newport Beach responded to resident concerns again in late 2021 by organizing a community meeting with speakers from several city departments, a State Assemblywoman, the District Attorney, and a County Supervisor.29 30
Hundreds attend the Sober Living Homes Town Hall meeting at the at the Laguna Hills Community Center on Thursday (Christopher Yee, San Gabriel Valley Tribune, May 13, 2016) We can also look at the steps taken by the City of Laguna Hills. In 2016, the City responded to public outcry regarding group home issues by hosting a Town Hall on the subject. The Town Hall was hosted by (then) State Senator Pat Bates and several other State and local legislators. Also in attendance were attorneys with extensive knowledge of the issue as well as other subject matter experts. More than 600 people attended, and it was an opportunity for the residents in attendance to gain a better understanding of the challenges the City faces in regulating unlicensed group homes, as well as for the City to hear the concerns and frustrations of attendees. Proving that, when cities work to

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 23 of 42
inform their constituents, and allow for a robust but respectful dialogue, they create an opportunity for collaborative problem solving.31
How Has This Issue Evolved?
The timing of this investigation aligned with the required submission of the Housing Element portion of each city’s General Plan. The State’s disapproval of a city’s Housing Element carries heavy consequences, and the State of California has used the withholding of this needed approval to coerce cities to abandon their group home ordinances.

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

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 24 of 42

FINDINGS
In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2022-2023 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the findings presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.

Based on its investigation titled “Welcome to the Neighborhood - Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes?” the 2022-2023 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at eleven principal findings, as follows:

F1 Group homes too close to one another contribute to the problems associated with overconcentration.

F2 Common nuisances are more likely and disruptive when sober living homes are concentrated in a small geographic area of a neighborhood.

F3 Some cities have successfully addressed and informed community members about the challenges faced in regulating group homes.

F4 Community satisfaction was minimal when cities took the traditional public comment approach towards addressing community complaints.

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

F6 Cities are inhibited from enacting and enforcing ordinances due to fears over the potential cost of litigation.

F7 Several cities have created an ordinance that requires a ministerial permit or registration to operate a group home, however many of these cities do not enforce their ordinances.

F8 City and County officials are deterred from regulating group homes by California Housing and Community Development’s housing element approval process.

F9 Cities have historically strategized and acted independently in addressing group home challenges and solutions.

F10 Well-operated group homes can integrate smoothly into neighborhoods.

F11 There is a lack of regulatory oversight for the health and safety of residents of unlicensed group homes.

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 25 of 42

RECOMMENDATIONS
In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2022-2023 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.

Based on its investigation titled, “Welcome to the Neighborhood - Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes?” the 2022-2023 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following five recommendations:

R1 Orange County cities and the County of Orange should address citizen concerns regarding group homes by providing an opportunity for an open dialog where an interdisciplinary panel of subject matter experts can share with attendees the challenges cities are facing in the management of group homes. To be implemented by July 1, 2024. (F3, F4)
R2 By December 31, 2024, Orange County cities and the County of Orange should collaborate in their efforts to create ordinances for the regulation of group homes, including the development of model ordinances. (F6, F7, F9) R3 Orange County cities and the County of Orange should pool resources for defense of lawsuits challenging group home ordinances. To be implemented by July 1, 2024. (F6, F8, F9)
R4 The County of Orange and Orange County cities should create a Task Force that includes representatives from OC cities, unincorporated areas, and other entities as appropriate and charge it with the responsibility of developing a plan to generate awareness among State legislators and regulators of the need for improved regulations and management standards to ensure health and safety for Group Home residents. To be implemented by July 1, 2024. (F2, F10, F11) R5 Orange County cities and the County of Orange should modify code enforcement report data collection forms to include a searchable field that enables the identification of a residence operating as a group home. To be implemented by July 1, 2024. (F5, F7, F11)

RESPONSES
California Penal Code Section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 26 of 42
and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g., District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected County official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors.

Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05 specifies the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made as follows:
(a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2)The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 27 of 42
The Orange County Grand Jury requires and requests the following responses:
90 Day Response Required
County of Orange Board of Supervisors F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 County of Orange Board of Supervisors R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 City Councils of:

Aliso Viejo F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Aliso Viejo R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Anaheim F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Anaheim R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Brea F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Brea R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Buena Park F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Buena Park R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Costa Mesa F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Costa Mesa R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Cypress F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Cypress R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Dana Point F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Dana Point R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Fountain Valley F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Fountain Valley R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Fullerton F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Fullerton R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Garden Grove F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Garden Grove R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Huntington Beach F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Huntington Beach R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Irvine F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Irvine R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
La Habra F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
La Habra R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
La Palma F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
La Palma R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Laguna Beach F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Laguna Beach R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Laguna Hills F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Laguna Hills R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Laguna Niguel F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Laguna Niguel R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Laguna Woods F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 28 of 42
Laguna Woods R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Lake Forest F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Lake Forest R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Los Alamitos F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, Los Alamitos R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Mission Viejo F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Mission Viejo R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Newport Beach F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Newport Beach R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Orange F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Orange R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Placentia F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Placentia R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Rancho Santa Margarita F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Rancho Santa Margarita R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
San Clemente F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 San Clemente R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
San Juan Capistrano F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 San Juan Capistrano R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Santa Ana F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Santa Ana R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Seal Beach F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Seal Beach R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Stanton F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Stanton R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Tustin F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
Tustin R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Villa Park F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Villa Park R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Westminster F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Westminster R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Yorba Linda F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11 Yorba Linda R1, R2, R3, R4, R5

GLOSSARY
ADU
An accessory dwelling unit, usually just called an ADU, is a secondary housing unit on a single-family residential lot. These may be converted garages, backyard cottages, or granny flats, for example.

Brokering
A referral system where money or other inducements are exchanged by owners of disreputable homes to get new clients. The recipients may be residents, clinics, or even members of self-help groups such as AA12-step programs.

Code Enforcement
Activity by local government agencies to identify and correct problems and abuses by citizens and businesses.

Congregate Care Living
A residential home that offers inpatient services to its residents. Generally, the care that this institution provides is more intense than what a skilled nursing care facility offers but less intense than what a general acute care hospital provides.

Curbing
The act of evicting residents, often done late at night, so-called because they and their belongings are sent to the curb. Eviction may occur when such residents’ insurance runs out or for violating house rules. They frequently have nowhere to go and often have no resources, essentially rendering them homeless.

Deinstitutionalization
The closing (or reduction of services) of residential facilities, often referred to as mental hospitals, and the reliance on smaller, more personal “homes” as a means of rehabilitation.

Detox
Program or facility for assisting a person undergoing treatment from an intoxicating or addictive substance.

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 30 of 42
EBT
Acronym for Electronic Benefit Transfer, previously known as Food Stamps, these are debit cards issued to eligible participants for the purpose of buying food and other necessities.

Emotional Wellness Homes
A facility where a person develops the ability to handle their emotions and varied experiences they encounter in life. Emotional wellness is an awareness, understanding, and acceptance of our feelings and the ability to manage and change challenges effectively.

Good Neighbor Policy
A set of principles and activities designed to provide a consistent means of communication between facilities that provide resident services and their respective neighbors. The Good Neighbor Policy is applicable for Residential Programs when residents and the services have a potential impact including but not limited to community safety, cleanliness, and security in the surrounding neighborhood(s).

Group Home (GH)*
A residential unit utilized as a supportive living environment for people meeting the legal definition of disabled. Provides housing only for a classified group of people. No medical care, services, or treatment can take place in a Group Home. Only State-licensed facilities can provide care, services, or treatment under State law (see Residential Care Facilities)
Hospice
A type of health care that focuses on the palliation of a terminally ill patient's pain and symptoms and attending to their emotional and spiritual needs at the end of life.

Hospice care prioritizes comfort and quality of life by reducing pain and suffering.

Housing Element
Since 1969, California has required that all local governments (cities and counties) adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. California’s local governments meet this requirement by adopting housing plans as part of their “general plan” (also required by the state). General plans serve as a local government’s "blueprint" for how the city and/or county will grow and develop and include eight elements: land use, transportation, conservation, noise, open space, safety, environmental justice, and housing.

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 31 of 42
Integral Facilities
Integral facilities means any combination of two or more facilities located on the same or different parcels, collectively serving seven or more persons, not including the licensee or members of the licensee’s family or persons employed as facility staff, that are under the control or management of the same owner, operator, management company or licensee or any affiliate of any of them, and which together comprise one operation.

Integral facilities shall include, but not be limited to, the provision of housing in one facility and recovery programming, treatment, meals, or any other service or services at another facility, or facilities, or by assigning staff, or a consultant or consultants, to provide services to or in more than one facility.

Licensing
A permit from an authority to own or use something or to do a particular thing or carry on a trade. In reference to this report’s subject matter, licensing from a State or county agency or department.

Like-for-Like
Identifying the spacing of group homes by type, e.g., sober living within a given distance of sober living, assisted living within a given distance of assisted living, etc. Sober living near assisted living does not meet the like-for-like criteria.

Model Ordinance
A common set of policies and procedures developed by a government agency to oversee the licensing and operation of group homes.

NIMBY
Acronym for “Not in My Backyard”. A term used, among other things, to identify citizens who object to having group homes in their neighborhood.

Referral Facility
Either a Residential Care Facility, Group Home, or Sober Living Home where one or more person’s residency is per a court order or similar directive. Referral facilities must follow the permit procedure according to the base use classification, and are not permitted in the RL (Residential Low Density) zone.

Rehab Riviera
The nickname given to some sober living facilities in Southern California, referring to the climate. Often used as a selling point in advertising to emphasize the outdoor appeal of homes in the region.

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 32 of 42
Rehabilitation
The action of restoring someone to health or normal life. Care that can help one get back, maintain or improve abilities.

Residential Care Facilities (RCF)*
A State Licensed residential facility where care, services, or treatment are provided to persons living in a community residential setting. Provide housing and care/treatment for the elderly, developmentally disabled, chronically ill, and chemical addiction treatment facilities, among others. RCFs that specifically provide drug and or alcohol abuse treatment are licensed by the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) and are known as alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities.

Homes are required to be licensed by the DHCS when at least one of the following services is provided: detoxification, group counseling sessions, individual counseling sessions, educational sessions, or alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment planning.

Residential Treatment Centers
Sometimes known as rehab which is a live-in health care facility providing services for substance use disorders, mental illness, or other behavioral problems.

Saturation
Having several group homes within a neighborhood.

Single Housekeeping Units
Individuals occupying a dwelling unit that have established ties and familiarity with each other; share a lease agreement, have consent of the owner to reside on the property, or own the property; jointly use common areas and interact with each other; and share the household expenses such as rent or ownership costs, utilities, and other household and maintenance costs activities.

Six or Under
Homes with six or fewer residents. Under State law these may not be required to be licensed or registered.

Sober Living Home (SLH)*
Sober Living Homes are also group homes, but specifically for people recovering from a chemical addiction that meets the legal definition of disabled. Provides “housing only” that is primarily meant for people who have just come out of rehab and need a

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 33 of 42
place to live that is structured and supportive for those in recovery. For the purposes of the Ordinance, a Sober Living Home is not state licensed. No medical care, services, or treatment can occur in a Living Home. Only State licensed facilities can provide care, services, or treatment under State law (see Residential Care Facilities).

Tracking
A method to obtain data, monitor movements and a system to identify and map the location of group homes.

Treatment Center
A facility where a client or clients go under one roof for services to improve their physical or mental health. A residential treatment center (RTC), sometimes called rehab, is a live-in health care facility providing therapy for substances abuse use disorders, mental illness, or other behavioral problems. Residential treatment may be considered the “last-ditch” approach to treating abnormal psychology or psychopathology.
*For the purposes of this report, the City of Huntington Beach’s definitions of group living homes is being used as published on the city’s website.

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 34 of 42

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Teri Sforza, Will U.S. Supreme Court engage on Costa Mesa’s sober living rules?, Orange County Register, Wednesday, March 15, 2023
Teri Sforza, Addiction centers flee Costa Mesa, move to less regulated OC cities, Orange County Register, Sunday, February 19, 2023
David Zisser, Letter from CA Department of Housing and Development to City of Huntington Beach Planning Department - RE “Ordinance to Ban “Builder’s Remedy” Projects under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) – Notice of Potential Violation”, California Department of Housing and Community Development web site, Monday, February 13, 2023 Ring Bender Law, SoCal Recovery and Raw Recovery v City of Costa Mesa: Amici Curiae Brief Of The League Of California Cities, The Association Of California Cities Of Newport Beach, Fountain Valley, Mission Viejo, And Orange In Support Of Appellee’s Petition For Rehearing En Banc, Court Filings, Thursday, February 9, 2023
Teri Sforza, Sober homes gain some ground in fight with Costa Mesa, Orange County Register, Sunday, January 15, 2023
Covenant Hills, Day Patient and Outpatient Addiction Treatment in Orange County, YouTube Posting, Friday, November 4, 2022
General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Orange County Sober Living l Sober Living Near You in SoCal (kaizenhouserecovery.com), Wednesday, October 19, 2022
General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Sober Living Homes for Men & W General Information omen - Orange County Recovery, Wednesday, October 19, 2022
General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Orange County Sober Living Homes | Sober Living Homes near me (ocsoberlivingbestsolution.com), Wednesday, October 19, 2022 General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Drug Rehab Orange County - Lighthouse Treatment Center, Wednesday, October 19, 2022 General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Huntington Beach Rehab | Drug & Alcohol Substance Abuse Recovery (orangecountyrecovery.com), Wednesday, October 19, 2022 General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Sober Living Homes in Southern California - Elysium Health Care, Wednesday, October 19, 2022

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 35 of 42
General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Zinnia Healing - Drug & Alcohol Rehab (serenitylodgelakearrowhead.com), Wednesday, October 19, 2022
General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, California addiction rehab centers (sunshinebehavioralhealth.com), Wednesday, October 19, 2022
General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Halfway Houses | ¾ way Houses | Sober Homes in California (addictionblog.org), Wednesday, October 19, 2022
General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, Requirements For California Rehabilitation and Sober Living Houses (hypogalblog.com), Wednesday, October 19, 2022
General Information, Links To Sober Living Group Homes, Advertisements And Blogs In Oc, A Place for Mom, Wednesday, October 19, 2022
Jeff Collins, These Southern California governments have approved housing plans, Orange County Register, Tuesday, October 18, 2022
Jeff Collins, Most Southern California cities miss complete new deadline to complete housing plans, Orange County Register, Tuesday, October 18, 2022 Alicia Robinson, Anaheim should allow home for homeless women with mental health issues, California Attorney General says, Orange County Register, Wednesday, October 5, 2022 Alicia Robinson, Anaheim should allow home for homeless women with mental health issues, California Attorney General says, Orange County Register, Tuesday, October 4, 2022 Public Notice – City of Mission Viejo, Council passes Sober Living and Group Home Ordinance to ensure such facilities operate with the confines of the law, City of Mission Viejo web site Home | City of Mission Viejo, Wednesday, August 24, 2022
Public Notice, Council passes Sober Living and Group Home Ordinance to ensure such facilities operate within the confines of the law, City of Mission Viejo website https://cityofmissionviejo.org/, Wednesday, August 24, 2022 Teri Sforza, Rehab Riviera: New law hopes to keep misleading rehabs from misleading patients, families patients, families, Orange County Register, Wednesday, August 24, 2022 Teri Sforza, California rehab doctor pleads guilty to insurance fraud, Orange County Register, Tuesday, August 16, 2022
Vanessa Serna, Real-life Frankenstein' Beverly Hills surgeon and his girlfriend plead guilty to $600 Million fraud scheme: Used 'body brokers' to find drug addicts to get unnecessary shots so

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

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 37 of 42
David Gorn, Doing the ‘sober-living dance’ on the Orange County coast, CalMatters, Tuesday, June 23, 2020
Elysia Richardson, Do Drug Treatment Centers Increase Local Crime Rates?, California Highlands Vista Drug Treatment Centers Web Site https://californiahighlandsvistas.com/blog/crimerates/, Monday, February 10, 2020 Orange County Public Works, Fact Sheet on Group Home Requirements, County of Orange website https://myoceservices.ocgov.com , Saturday, February 1, 2020 Michelle Mears, Orange County Tackles Homeless Issue by regulating Group Homes, Glove, Friday, September 27, 2019
Michelle Mears, Orange County Tackles Homeless Issue by Regulating Group Homes, California Globe, Friday, September 27, 2019
City of Newport Beach, Group Home List, City of Newport Beach web site City of Newport Beach | Home newportbeachca.gov), Thursday, September 19, 2019 Frank Kim, OC County Executive Officer, Memo regarding proposed ordinance to regulate Sober Living Homes, County of Orange Web Site, Wednesday, June 19, 2019 California Department of Social Services,.Overview of the Group Home Rate Classification Levels, DSS Website information sheet, Thursday, April 4, 2019 Miami-Dade County Form, Miami-Dade County Group Home Application, Miami-Dade County Website.Group Home Application-no aff disc 2019 (miamidade.gov), Monday, April 1, 2019 Steven P. Dinkin, Utilizing the Safe Streets Now playbook, San Diego Union-Tribune, Sunday, January 13, 2019
Brady P. Horn, Aakrit Joshi, Johanna Catherine Maclean, Substance Use Disorder Treatment Centers And Property Values, National Bureau Of Economic Research, Tuesday, January 1, 2019 Teri Sforza, New rehab laws may revamp addiction treatment in California, Orange County Register, Thursday, September 27, 2018
City of Laguna Niguel, Group Home Permit Application, City of Laguna Niguel website https://cityoflagunaniguel.org/ , Wednesday, July 4, 2018 William Leonard, Sober living homes in Orange County California, Sober Living Local, Saturday, May 5, 2018
Tony Saavedra, Teri Sforza, Death in rehab generates $7 million award, Orange County Register, Sunday, February 18, 2018
Teri Sforza, Tony Saavedra, Quest for sobriety often ends in sexual assault at some rehabs in Southern California, Orange County Register, Friday, January 19, 2018

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

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 39 of 42
Todd Harmonson, Sean Emery, O.C. District Attorney charges family, doctors with insurance fraud related to sober living homes, urine tests, Orange County Register, Tuesday, May 23, 2017 Teri Sforza, Tony Saavedra, Scott Schwebke, Lori Basheda, Mindy Schauer, Jeff Gritchen, Ian Wheeler, How some Southern California drug rehab addiction centers exploit addiction, Orange County Register, Sunday, May 21, 2017
Teri Sforza, Is there a link between neighborhood rehab programs and petty crime in California?, Orange County Register, Sunday, May 21, 2017 Staff Report, The Southern California rehab industry spans the nation, Orange County Register, Sunday, May 21, 2017
Jan Wheeler, Registered Rehabs Map, Orange County Register, Thursday, May 4, 2017 Mindy Schauer, Heroin’s hold: One man’s journey through the Southern California rehab industry, Orange County Register, Monday, May 1, 2017
CBS News, OC Neighbors Not Comfortable Next to Sober Living Homes, YouTube Posting, Tuesday, November 29, 2016
California Research Bureau, Sober Living Homes in California: Options for State and Local Regulation, California Research Bureau Publication in State Library https://www.library.ca.gov/crb/, Friday, October 7, 2016 Amy A. Mericle, Katherine J. Karriker-Jaffe,.Shalika Gupta, David M. Sheridan, Doug L. Polcin, Distribution and Neighborhood Correlates of Sober Living House Locations in Los Angeles, American Journal of Community Psychology, Thursday, September 1, 2016 Teri Sforza, California argues sober home ordinances are illegal, forcing cities to make expensive decisions, Orange County Register, Saturday, December 19, 2015 J Murphy - City of La Mesa Fact Sheet, Residential Care Facilities (or “Group Homes”) in the City of La Mesa, City of La Mesa website http://www.cityoflamesa.com , Thursday, October 29, 2015 County of Orange published guideline, Orange County Adult Alcohol And Drug Sober Living Facilities Certification Guidelines, County of Orange Sheriff Departments website, Monday, January 27, 2014
Sober Living by the Sea, Drug Rehab and Alcoholism Treatment OC CA by Sober Living by the Sea, YouTube Posting, Wednesday, May 23, 2012
You Get Me3, Santa Ana Sober Living Homes, YouTube Posting, Saturday, July 3, 2010 Paul J. Weinberg, Alcohol And Drug Rehab Homes classic Nimbyism Or Everyone's Fair Share, Thomson Reuters/West
Zoning and Planning Law Report, Wednesday, October 1, 2008

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 40 of 42
City of Newport Beach, City of Newport Beach Residential Group Home Permit, City of Newport Beach web site City of Newport Beach | Home newportbeachca.gov), Friday, February 1, 2008 David DeBerry, Group Homes in the Neighborhood, Western City, Friday, September 1, 2006 NOTICE
Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.

END NOTES
1 Group Homes in the Neighborhood David Debarry, Jeff Bellinger, Western City 09-01-2006 https://www.westerncity.com/article/group-homes-neighborhood 2 Ibid. Division of Housing Policy Development. “Group Home Technical Advisory.” California Department of Housing and Community Development, December 2022.
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/group-home-technical-advisory2022.pdf 3 CA Health & Safety Code Section 1267.9
4 Sforza, Terri. “California the over-regulator? Not for addiction treatment.” Orange County Register, June 23, 2017. https://www.ocregister.c4om/2017/06/23/california-the-over-regulator-not-for-addictiontreatment 5 ibid . Division of Housing Policy Development. “Group Home Technical Advisory.” California Department of Housing and Community Development, December 2022. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/group-home-technical-advisory2022.pdf 6 Sforza, Terri. “California the over-regulator? Not for addiction treatment.” Orange County Register, June 23, 2017. https://www.ocregister.c6om/2017/06/23/california-the-over-regulator-not-for-addictiontreatment/ 7 California Research Bureau, Sober Living Homes in California: Options for State and Local Regulation, California Research Bureau Publication in State Library Friday, October 7, 2016, https://www.library.ca.gov/crb/,
8 CA Health & Safety Code Section 1267.9

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 41 of 42
9Orange County Register Megan Nicolai, July 15, 2015, Newport Beach Settles legal battle over SoberLiving homes. 10 Orange County Register Megan Nicolai, July 15, 2015, Newport Beach Settles legal battle over SoberLiving homes. 11 Los Angeles Times Susannah Rosenblatt, May 22, 2008, Sober living homes rushing to meet Newport’s deadline.
12 Community Meeting on Group Residential Uses October 11, 2021 Meeting Summary https://nbpd.newportbeachca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/70754/637703409585700000 13 New regional task force will tackle issues with sober living and recovery homes,News Category, City of Mission Viejo Public Notices, September 1, 2022, new regional task force will tackle issues with sober living and recovery homes | City of Mission Viejo
14 Grandma’s House of Hope v. City of Anaheim and City Council of Anaheim Case No. 30-2022- 0124183-CU-WM-OJC
15 Newport Beach Ordinance 2008-05
16 Orange County Register Megan Nicolai, July 15, 2015, Newport Beach Settles legal battle over SoberLiving homes. 17 City of Costa Mesa Ordinance Chapter 13-3001
18 Orange County Register Article, May 21, 2021 – State argues sober home ordinances are illegal, forcing cities to make expensive decisions
19 $42 Billion U.S. Addiction Rehab Industry Poised for Growth, and Challenges (marketresearch.com) 20 Ca Department Of Housing And Community Development, Group Home Technical Advisory, dated December 2022
21 Housing Element Update, 2021-2029 Planning Period FAQ & Fact Sheet,City of Arcadia https://cms9files.revize.com/arcadia/Shape%20Arcadia/Development%20Services/planning/Housing%20 Element%20Update/FAQ/Housing%20Element%20Fact%20Sheet_FINAL.pdf 22 www.gov.ca.gov/2021/09/28/governor-newsom-signs-legislation 23 Growing List of Penalties for Local Governments Failing to Meet State Housing Law, Association of Bay Area Governments, June 2021, https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021- 06/Consequences%20of%20Non-Compliance%20with%20Housing%20Laws.pdf 24 Housing Element Update, 2021-2029 Planning Period FAQ & Fact Sheet,City of Arcadia https://cms9files.revize.com/arcadia/Shape%20Arcadia/Development%20Services/planning/Housing%20 Element%20Update/FAQ/Housing%20Element%20Fact%20Sheet_FINAL.pdf 25 Housing Element Update, 2021-2029 Planning Period FAQ & Fact Sheet,City of Arcadia https://cms9files.revize.com/arcadia/Shape%20Arcadia/Development%20Services/planning/Housing%20 Element%20Update/FAQ/Housing%20Element%20Fact%20Sheet_FINAL.pdf

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 Page 42 of 42
26 Walker, Theresa OC Register 10-25-2021 Housing for mentally ill homeless women draws heated Anaheim response
https://www.ocregister.com/2021/10/25/housing-for-mentally-ill-homeless-women-draws-heated-anaheimresponse/ 27 Grandma’s House of Hope v. City of Anaheim and City Council of Anaheim Case No. 30-2022- 0124183-CU-WM-OJC
28 City of Anaheim Planning Commission,PC Action Packets 8-30-2021 https://records.anaheim.net/CityClerk/DocView.aspx?id=2428318&dbid=0&repo=CITYOFANAHEIM 29 Many attend town hall on rehab houses,OC Register, 2-23-2007 Many attend Newport town hall on rehab houses – Orange County Register (ocregister.com) 30 Ibid. Many attend town hall on rehab houses
31 Sober Living Homes Town Hall
David J. Shawver
Mayor
Hong Alyce Van
Mayor Pro Tem
Carol Warren
Council Member
Gary Taylor
Council Member
Donald Torres
Council Member
Hannah Shin-Heydorn
City Manager

7800 Katella Avenue
Stanton, CA 90680
Phone (714) 379-9222
Fax (714) 890-1443
www.stanton.ca.gov
August 9, 2023
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Dear Honorable Judge Maria Hernandez:

The City of Stanton received the 2022-2023 Orange County Grand Jury report entitled “Welcome to the Neighborhood – Are cities responsibly managing the integration of group homes?”. As required by California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the City of Stanton is responding to the findings and recommendations included in the report.

Note: The original Grand Jury findings are repeated below in italics. The City’s responses are in bold, with additional explanation and commentary in regular typeface. References to the “City” refer to the City of Stanton, California.

Findings
F1 Group homes too close to one another contribute to the problems associated with overconcentration.

The respondent agrees with the finding.

The answer is inherent in the question. The question assumes that the homes are “too close,” which by definition constitutes
overconcentration.

F2 Common nuisances are more likely and disruptive when sober living homes are concentrated in a small geographic area of a
neighborhood.