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
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT
DATE: AUGUST 15, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MARK A. PULONE, CITY MANAGER
PREPARED BY: ALLISON ESTES, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO 2023 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT, “GIMMIE SHELTER AND A POUND OF ADVICE: THE STATE OF ANIMAL WELFARE OVERSEEN BY THE COUNTY OF ORANGE”
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council review the draft response to the Orange County Grand Jury Report and authorize the Mayor’s signature for submittal to the Presiding Judge of the Orange County Superior Court by the statutory deadline of September 1, 2023.
BACKGROUND
The Orange County Grand Jury (“OCGJ”) is a civil grand jury made up of Orange County residents empaneled by the Superior Court of California. The OCGJ routinely conducts investigations related to the operations of the County of Orange. On June 7, 2023, the OCGJ published a report entitled, “Gimmie Shelter and a Pound of Advice: The State of Animal Welfare Overseen by the County of Orange” (“Report”) (Attachment 1). The Report is critical of the animal care services provided by Orange County Animal Care (“OCAC”), which is the County agency that many cities (including Yorba Linda) contract with for the State-mandated provision of animal care and shelter services. In particular, the Report is critical of OCAC operations both during and after COVID-19.
DISCUSSION
The City of Yorba Linda routinely provides responses to reports published by the OCGJ.
The Grand Jury Report includes 11 findings and 1 recommendation for which the City of Yorba Linda must respond to. Although the City of Yorba Linda is not the direct provider of animal care and shelter services, all cities that contract with OCAC are required to respond to the Report within 90 days of its publication. As such, in compliance with Penal Code 933, the City of Yorba Linda must submit a response to the Report by September 1, 2023. Staff, in conjunction with the City Attorney’s Office, has prepared a draft response to each of the findings and recommendations based on the instructions provided within the report for Council’s consideration (Attachment 2). Additionally, OCAC’s response to the Grand Jury was included on the agenda for the August 8, 2023 Board of Supervisors Meeting, and is also attached for Council’s reference (Attachment 3).
RESPONSE TO 2023 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT, “GIMMIE SHELTER AND A POUND OF ADVICE: THE STATE OF ANIMAL WELFARE OVERSEEN BY THE COUNTY OF ORANGE”
P a g e | 2
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ALTERNATIVES
Provide revisions to the proposed response letter.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Orange County Grand Jury Report, “Gimmie Shelter and a Pound of Advice: The State of Animal Welfare Overseen by the County of Orange”
2. Proposed City of Yorba Linda Draft Response
3. OCAC Response to the Grand Jury
.
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
The State of Animal Welfare Overseen by the County of Orange
COUNTY OF ORANGE
Grand Jury 2022-2023
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 2 OF 51
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. 2 TABLE OF FIGURES AND TABLES............................................................................... 3 SUMMARY...................................................................................................................... 4 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 5 REASON FOR STUDY ................................................................................................... 8 METHOD OF STUDY...................................................................................................... 8 Interviews .................................................................................................................... 8 Surveys........................................................................................................................ 9 Site Visits..................................................................................................................... 9 Key Documents ........................................................................................................... 9 Documents Requested but Not Provided................................................................... 10 INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS................................................................................ 10 Services and Facilities............................................................................................... 10 Volunteer and Rescue Relations ............................................................................... 12 Human Resources..................................................................................................... 13 Animal Care Attendants............................................................................................. 14 Communication.......................................................................................................... 16 Policies and Procedures ............................................................................................ 16 COVID-19 .................................................................................................................. 17 Facilitating Adoption .................................................................................................. 18 Spay and Neuter Overview........................................................................................ 19 Trap, Neuter and Return............................................................................................ 20 Euthanasia Report..................................................................................................... 22 Asilomar Reports ....................................................................................................... 22 Analysis of OCAC Data ............................................................................................. 23 Dog Euthanasia: ........................................................................................................ 25 Impediments to the Investigation ............................................................................... 27 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 30 FINDINGS..................................................................................................................... 31 Management:............................................................................................................. 31 Animal Welfare .......................................................................................................... 31 Communication / Outreach........................................................................................ 32
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 3 OF 51
Impediments to the Investigation ............................................................................... 32 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................. 33 Management:............................................................................................................. 33 Welfare ...................................................................................................................... 33 Communication / Outreach........................................................................................ 34 Impediments to the Investigation ............................................................................... 35 REQUIRED RESPONSES............................................................................................ 36 Findings – 90-day Response Required...................................................................... 37 Recommendations – 90-day Response Required ..................................................... 38 REQUESTED RESPONSEs ......................................................................................... 39 Findings – 90-Day Response Requested .................................................................. 39 Recommendations – 90-Day Response Requested.................................................. 39 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. 40 APPENDIX 1 ................................................................................................................. 42 Table 1 - Adult Cat Euthanasia and TNR Rates by Quarter ...................................... 42 APPENDIX 2 ................................................................................................................. 43 Table 3 - Dog Behavioral Euthanasia Rates by Quarter............................................ 43 APPENDIX 3 ................................................................................................................. 44 Orange County Grand Jury Animal Shelter Contract City Survey.............................. 44 APPENDIX 4 ................................................................................................................. 45 Orange County Grand Jury Independent City Shelter Survey ................................... 45 Appendix 5 .................................................................................................................... 46 OCAC 4th Quarter 2022 Asilomar Report................................................................... 46 ABBREVIATIONS: ........................................................................................................ 47 GLOSSARY: ................................................................................................................. 48 DISCLAIMER ................................................................................................................ 51
TABLE OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1 - Map of Orange County.................................................................................... 7 Figure 2 - Adult Cat Euthanasia Rates.......................................................................... 24 Figure 3 - Dog Euthanasia Rates (Behavioral).............................................................. 26
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 4 OF 51
SUMMARY
Orange County Animal Care has been a source of public concern since the 1990s, with no less than five previous Orange County Grand Jury reports detailing troubling conditions. The previous reports cited excessive euthanasia rates, poor leadership, inadequate numbers of animal care attendants, a lack of cooperation between staff departments, the exclusion of kennel staff from euthanasia decisions, the lack of proper assessment of animals chosen for euthanasia, and low morale negatively impacting operation of the shelter.
Recent public outcry citing conditions at the shelter, recent litigation, and publicly circulated petitions calling for changes at the shelter suggest the previously expressed concerns remain. In addition to these publicly voiced concerns, the current Orange County Grand Jury received direct complaints requesting an inquiry. The Grand Jury determined a renewed investigation was warranted. The investigation focused on three major areas of concern: the management of the shelter, the welfare of animals under shelter care, and the communication and engagement with the public and the animal rescue community.
A particular concern of the Grand Jury was the shelter’s termination of its Trap, Neuter, and Return (TNR) program for community cats. In early 2020, the shelter decided to stop its TNR program. The Grand Jury’s investigation determined that termination of the TNR program had detrimental consequences for the welfare of the animals under the shelter’s care.
The elimination of the TNR program also has contributed to substantial public dissatisfaction and alienation that undermines the public’s and the rescue community’s relations with shelter leadership.
During the Grand Jury’s investigation, it was reported by the shelter’s senior management that the termination of the TNR program resulted from an opinion rendered by the County’s legal counsel. Understanding the reason leading to the decision to terminate the TNR program would be important for considering whether the program can and/or should be reinstated. Toward that end, the Grand Jury endeavored to obtain a copy of the opinion of the County’s legal counsel by directing a written request to the Chair of the Orange County Board of Supervisors. While the Grand Jury recognizes that the opinion may enjoy confidentiality pursuant to the attorney-client privilege, the Board of Supervisors has the discretion to waive that privilege. The Grand Jury’s request included its commitment to maintain the confidentiality of the opinion itself and its contents. Nevertheless, the request was declined, as was the Grand Jury’s alternative request that the County simply identify the legal authority reviewed in studying the issue.
Members of shelter management indicated their understanding the TNR program was terminated due to the opinion that the program violates a state law. The law makes it a crime to willfully abandon an animal notwithstanding that the program was designed to
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 5 OF 51
return cats to their original location rather than releasing them to randomly selected sites. TNR programs are widespread throughout California, not to mention the nation as set forth in a report from the American Bar Association. The Grand Jury is unaware of any published court case determining that a bona fide TNR program is prohibited under the anti-abandonment statute. Given the important benefits to animals and the public provided by such programs, the Grand Jury believes it would be prudent for the County to revisit the propriety of the former program and consider obtaining a second legal opinion.
This report highlights analysis of data provided to the Grand Jury by the shelter indicating that euthanasia rates related to dog behavior and to cats have increased significantly within the last two years. The increase in dog behavioral euthanasia rates suggests that there is inconsistency over time as to how dogs are being assessed and evaluated for behavior-related euthanasia. The increase in feline euthanasia rates appears to be correlated with elimination of the TNR program.
This report also addresses the challenges in maintaining quality staff at the shelter, especially in the Animal Care Attendant positions. Hiring practices for the shelter are too cumbersome, lengthy and lack consideration of how those practices impact animal welfare. Animal Care Attendant staffing at the shelter is inadequate and Animal Care Attendant staffing vacancies need to be filled more quickly.
This report discusses major deficiencies with each of the issues identified above and makes specific recommendations to help support a more engaged community. Status quo at the shelter is unacceptable. Appropriate remedial steps must be taken as animal welfare is paramount!
Finally, this report comments on the difficulties the Grand Jury encountered during its investigation. Without explanation, the entirety of the Orange County County Counsel’s office determined itself to be conflicted with the Grand Jury’s inquiry into Orange County Animal Care. The investigation was hampered and slowed during the six weeks the Grand Jury was required to arrange for outside legal counsel.
BACKGROUND
Orange County Animal Care (OCAC) began operations in 1941 and was responsible for rabies and tending to lost livestock. In 1950, the population of Orange County was roughly 216,000. By January 2022, the estimated population was 3.1 million people.
OCAC provides a myriad of services over a wide territory and variety of client needs and expectations. OCAC serves the unincorporated areas of Orange County and contracts its services to 14 client cities: Anaheim, Brea, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Huntington Beach, Lake Forest, Orange, Placentia, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, Tustin, Villa Park, and Yorba Linda. The remaining cities in Orange County either have their own shelter or contract with other cities or non-profit groups to provide animal care and control services. The unincorporated areas of the county and the 14
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 6 OF 51
contract cities have a combined population of approximately 1.8 million residents, greater than half of the total population of Orange County.
In March 2018, a new shelter was opened on a 10-acre site at a cost of $35 million. The shelter includes a two-story, approximately 30,000 square-foot main building, six standalone kennel buildings, multiple dog play yards, a barnyard, and a rabbit housing area.
OCAC can shelter up to 600 animals and is the single largest municipal animal facility in the western United States serving residents in one location.
OCAC has 137 authorized staff positions. Approximately 21 staff are animal care attendants who are represented by the Teamsters Union. All other staff are represented by the Orange County Employees Association. Labor relations and contract terms must be taken into consideration while operating the shelter.
OCAC, like most municipal shelters, relies upon a variety of rescue support groups and citizen volunteers to enhance animal welfare and outcomes. The relationship between shelter management, rescue groups, and volunteers has deteriorated in the last three years. The historical partnership between the shelter and rescue groups has become stressed due to a variety of reasons. The breakdown in communication, engagement, and trust between parties has negatively affected shelter operations.
Most large municipal shelters are “kill” shelters, which are shelters where animals may be euthanized for any of a variety of reasons. Privately operated shelters and smaller municipal shelters tend to be non-kill shelters. Non-kill shelters may euthanize some animals in special cases, but generally do not euthanize animals. Large municipal shelters, owing to their size, capacity, public responsibility, operational mandates, and their positioning as “shelters of last resort,” euthanize animals as a matter of course.
Animals are euthanized for a variety of reasons, such as:
• they suffer from irredeemable disease or injury,
• they are of a species that represent a danger to the community, or • they are behaviorally unfit for adoption.
Many shelters have Trap, Neuter and Return (TNR) programs. In accordance with these programs, feral and community cats are captured from their outdoor environment, taken to a shelter or veterinarian where they are neutered, and then returned to the location from where they were trapped. TNR programs serve to reduce colonies of feral and community cats in a humane manner and serve to manage and reduce this cat population. OCAC had a TNR program beginning in 2013 until early 2020 when it was discontinued.
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 7 OF 51
Figure 1 - Map of Orange County
Cities Contracted with Orange County Animal Care
The map above shows the cities and unincorporated areas currently contracted with OCAC. All city contracts are not alike in that OCAC may provide partial services for some cities and full services for others.
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 8 OF 51
REASON FOR STUDY
In 2022, the Grand Jury received 14 complaints about the Orange County Animal Care (OCAC) shelter. Many of those complaints were the same complaints addressed in five previous Grand Jury reports, including:
• the shelter’s unresponsiveness to community needs,
• restricted public access to the shelter’s kennels,
• restricted opportunities to walk through the kennels and engage with adoptable animals, and
• concerns related to inadequate staffing and volunteer levels.
Complainants also expressed concerns about animal surrenders, a perceived increase in homeless cats with less spay/neuter availability, and the shelter’s increased euthanasia rates.
About the same time the Grand Jury was receiving public complaints about the shelter, a petition with thousands of signatures was delivered to the Orange County Board of Supervisors. The petition addressed the same concerns as the complaints received by the Grand Jury and demanded change in the shelter’s appointment-only system and reinstatement of the shelter’s TNR program.
The Grand Jury also learned about a lawsuit filed by Elizabeth Hueg, Safe Rescue Team (a California 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation), and Cats In Need Of Human Care (another California 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation) seeking an injunction from the Orange County Superior Court for the assignment of a shelter monitor to oversee shelter operations.
The 2022-2023 Grand Jury revisited OCAC because public discussion pointed to new and allegedly ongoing and unresolved concerns about shelter operations. The Grand Jury focused on current practices at OCAC to determine how well the needs of the animals, staff, and public are being met.
METHOD OF STUDY
The Orange County Grand Jury’s objective is to provide an accurate portrayal of OCAC’s current operations, culture, inner workings, and challenges. The Grand Jury investigation relied on interviews, public and shelter documents, surveys, site visits, and news accounts about the shelter. The information supporting the facts, findings, and recommendations in this report is corroborated, validated, and verified through multiple sources.
Interviews
The interviews conducted by the Grand Jury focused on an in-depth review of OCAC management, staffing, operating structure, animal care procedures, communications, animal care statistics, operating plan, organization structure, morale, the volunteer
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 9 OF 51
program, relationship with rescue organizations, and complaints. Interviews included the following:
• Management and staff from OCAC.
• Current and former volunteers from OCAC.
• Management from the OC Community Resources (OCCR) office. • Management from the Orange County Centralized Human Resources and OCCR Human Resources offices.
• Community complainants from Orange County Grand Jury Public Concern Letters.
• Retained outside legal counsel.
• Leaders of Orange County city-managed shelters.
• Animal advocates.
Surveys
The Grand Jury solicited feedback from the shelter’s clients by surveying the 14 cities contracted with OCAC to provide animal care and control services. Questions in the survey were crafted to determine city satisfaction with the services provided and cost effectiveness, and to solicit any concerns city leaders, managers, and residents may have with OCAC. (Appendix 3)
A second survey was directed to the five independent city-managed animal shelters in Orange County, soliciting information about their shelter operations, staffing, animal population, adoption procedures, and other challenges. (Appendix 4) Site Visits
The Grand Jury conducted tours and site visits to the OCAC shelter:
• One visit was a guided tour of the facility, during which the Grand Jury was provided behind-the-scenes access to observe conditions and observe shelter staff as they went about their daily routines.
• A second visit was an anonymous visit by two members of the Grand Jury. The two members visited the shelter to experience, firsthand, guest services and the appointment process for adopting an animal.
• A third visit was an unscheduled visit to observe kennel cleaning and to gather additional documents and records.
The Grand Jury also toured the City of Irvine Animal Shelter and the Mission Viejo Animal Services Center.
Key Documents
• Documents and information provided by OCAC:
o Policy and Procedure Manual governing the Orange County Animal Shelter
o Volunteer Program Manual
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 10 OF 51
o Total number of volunteers who have served by year since 2018 o Organization Charts
o Job Descriptions of all authorized and contracted positions o Statistics on animals under OCAC care, including adoptions o The OCAC Monthly and Quarterly National Shelter Statistics Project Data Matrix (2018-2022)
o OCAC euthanasia records
o OCAC Asilomar Reports
• OCGJ cat and dog euthanasia statistical analysis derived from OCAC euthanasia records and OCAC Asilomar Reports
• City Run Shelters and Contracted City survey responses and summaries • Reports from city-managed shelters
• OCGJ Public Concern Letters
• Legal briefs filed in the lawsuit against OCAC (Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2022-01282419-CU-WM-CJC)
• Reports from five former OC Grand Juries: 1999-2000, 2003-2004, 2007-2008, and 2014-2015 (2 reports in 2014-2015)
• OCAC Performance Audit responses (February 4, 2016)
• American Bar Association legal opinion 102B, Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section report to House of Delegates - Resolution No. 29N, pages 1 and 2 • California Penal Code Section 597s
• OCAC Strategic Plan Executive Summary (January 22, 2018) - Strategic Priority, pages 1 to 4
• Association of Shelter Veterinarians Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters
Documents Requested but Not Provided
• Daily census of all animals plus breakdown of number of cats and dogs from 2018 through 2022 (not provided by OCAC since it reportedly is not tracked). • Complaints and Grievance log.
• The Grand Jury attempted, without success, to obtain a copy of OC County Counsel’s opinion concerning the terminated TNR program. The Grand Jury’s request to the Chair of the Orange County Board of Supervisors for a copy of the opinion was denied, as was an alternative request that the County simply identify the legal authority reviewed in studying the issue.
INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS
Services and Facilities
The Orange County Animal Care (OCAC) shelter is the largest municipal shelter in the western United States serving residents in one location. The nature, size, and scope of the shelter adds complexity and unique challenges to its operation. The shelter employs 137 staff engaged in a variety of functions including animal sheltering and care, animal control, reuniting lost pets with their owners, veterinary services, licensing, adoption, marketing, public relations, and administration. Supporting the varied needs of over 1.8
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 11 OF 51
million residents requires a substantial investment in facilities, infrastructure, personnel, organization, customer service, and public outreach.
OCAC provides temporary shelter and medical care for “lost” owned or stray animals and opportunities for adoption of these animals. OCAC houses and provides medical care for impounded dogs, cats, and exotic animals. OCAC also provides animal control services that include removing dangerous non-domesticated animals where they pose a hazard to humans or other animals.
OCAC is not a No-Kill shelter. OCAC euthanizes animals for several different and sometimes compelling reasons, including animals injured beyond redemptive medical care, behavior, species and breed, and age.
The size and complexity of the shelter leads to numerous managerial and operational challenges. The shelter has space capacity to care for up to 600 animals; however, at times, the number of animals at the shelter exceeds shelter capacity. When capacity is exceeded, temporary capacity is created by moving cat cages into administrative areas such as the facility’s training and conference room. On the day the Grand Jury toured the shelter, there were 450 animals. The Grand Jury was unable to obtain a full accounting of the average number of animals per day at the facility since OCAC only began keeping daily animal census records in December 2022. However, the Grand Jury was able to estimate average daily cat and dog count from the shelter’s Asilomar reports.
Average daily cat and dog count based on quarterly Asilomar data for the years 2021 and 2022 was between 350 and 400 cats and dogs. Actual daily counts will vary from the average and counts vary with the seasons.
The Grand Jury surveyed the cities being served by OCAC. Most cities expressed satisfaction with the services provided by the shelter. During interviews with the Grand Jury, shelter management voiced the challenge of expanding and enhancing services versus the willingness of contract cities to pay for additional services. Shelter management expressed the need to balance services with the cost consciousness of their contract cities and the county budget, while also providing a level of service expected by the public. Shelter management expressed awareness that contract cities have alternative service options if the prices charged by OCAC for its service are beyond city expectations or budget.
From 1995 through 2016, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) collected and published data from California’s animal shelters. Currently, CDPH does not keep or compile comprehensive data on animal shelters operating within the State. Out of concern for crowding and high euthanasia rates, animal welfare groups within the State have pressed for legislative action in Sacramento. In January of 2023, Assembly Bill 332, called the “Shelter Animal Collection Data Act,” was introduced by Assemblyman Alex Lee (D-San José) and coauthored by Assemblywoman Marie Waldron (R-Valley Center).
Assembly Bill 332, if adopted, would require shelter data collection and reporting that piggybacks onto current rabies reporting mandates. The bill would further require CDPH to collect and publish animal shelter intake and outcome data, including adoption, redemption, euthanasia, and other categories.
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 12 OF 51
Volunteer and Rescue Relations
Most animal shelters rely on a host of shelter volunteers to help with the care and enrichment of the animals under supervision, and they also rely on private rescue organizations (rescues) to help with the adoption process and fostering. OCAC is no exception.
Shelter volunteers help by assisting shelter staff with animal care, socialization, and enrichment; community outreach and events; conducting tours; greeting shelter visitors; and assisting with shelter adoptions. Volunteers are often the ones who walk the dogs, work with their socialization, and foster kittens without mothers. The volunteer program is vital.
Rescue organizations help by accepting animals from the shelter and facilitating adoptions or placing animals in foster care for eventual adoption. Rescues help relieve the shelter of overcrowding. These organizations benefit animals by facilitating adoptions or placing them in foster homes with enriched social environments greater than the shelter can reasonably provide.
The coordinated efforts of shelter staff, volunteers, and rescue organizations are vital to OCAC’s success and the welfare of animals under its care. OCAC has been challenged by both inadequate staffing and strained collaboration between the shelter, volunteers, and rescues. Some challenges are the result of the recent COVID-19 crisis, when the volunteer program was shut down in response to County health mandates. Other challenges are due to some rescue organizations’ responses to changes in shelter organization, operation, and procedures within the last 2 to 3 years. Moreover, some organizations report recent funding challenges that limit their ability to fully assist the shelter with its animal welfare mandate. Funding has been especially challenging for rescues since COVID-19.
The shelter’s volunteer program was not restarted until late 2022, although state COVID19 restrictions were lifted June 15, 2021. Unfortunately, restarting the program required more than calling all volunteers back from COVID-19 isolation. Some former volunteers have not returned because they have moved on with their lives. Some volunteers have not returned because of their dissatisfaction with recent changes in organization, operation, and procedures at the shelter. However, some volunteers have returned, and more are being recruited to form the foundation for a re-energized volunteer program.
Relationships between the shelter and some rescues remain strained. Leadership changes within the past three years, changes in circumstances at the shelter, and the shelter’s response to COVID-19 resulted in changes to shelter priorities and practices to which some rescues object. Some changes were precipitated by differences in priorities and concerns that came with the change in shelter leadership, some changes were in response to COVID-19 restrictions and concerns, and one change came as the result of the shelter’s response to a threat of litigation by a lone animal activist from outside Orange County challenging the shelter’s TNR program.
Strained relations between OCAC and rescue organizations are detrimental to the operations of the shelter and ultimately to the welfare of animals under the shelter’s care.
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 13 OF 51
To operate at its highest potential, OCAC needs to have a good working relationship with the rescues. Rescues want to have a good working relationship with OCAC. During Grand Jury interviews, both management at OCAC and representatives of rescues indicated a desire to work to resolve their differences, and both expressed the welfare of the animals as being their highest priority.
OCAC will benefit if it has a robust outreach program to continually recruit volunteers and will benefit by engaging with the rescue community to mend the fractured relationship that has developed between them.
Human Resources
The OCAC shelter is a 24/7 facility that requires adequate staffing during all hours to meet the highest standards of animal welfare.
Continuity of leadership at the OCAC shelter has been a challenge over the past four years with turnover in management and supervisorial staff level positions. Over the past four years, two executive directors have been hired with interim leadership having to be provided on two separate occasions. The Chief Veterinary position went unfilled for months until the current Chief Veterinarian was brought onboard in May 2022. Between September 2021 and May 2022, the shelter did not have a chief or a staff veterinarian and services were provided by one contract veterinarian.
OCAC is under the direction of OC Community Resources (OCCR). However, day-today human resource and recruitment support for the shelter is performed by OC Human Resource Services (OCHRS). OCHRS provides separate, targeted human resource support for OCAC’s recruitment, labor relations, and employee relations needs.
Personnel turnover in critical job categories, such as kennel attendants, can add huge pressure to the remaining staff. Vacancies in critical positions strain shelter operations and impact animal welfare. There are currently 21 allocated Animal Care Attendant positions out of the 136 shelter staff positions. The 21 animal care attendants are assigned to fill the shelter’s attendant needs over the 7-day shelter week. There is reason for concern and urgency when even one Animal Care Attendant position goes unfilled.
County policies and practices exacerbate high turnover and make filling vacant positions difficult. Current county practice allows an employee to promote out of their shelter position, or any position, at any time, even while they are still within their probationary period. The ease and fluidity of transitioning adds to the shelter’s understaffing and staffing volatility.
Staff vacancies, which have been as high as 23%, negatively impact shelter operations and have taken as long as six months or longer to fill. Delays in filling staff positions disrupt shelter operations. Delays have resulted in qualified candidates declining job offers because they have accepted other positions. Animal Care Attendant and Veterinarian positions are particularly critical and vital to the welfare of the shelter’s animals. While OCCR has taken some steps to correct hiring delays, there needs to be an increased sense of urgency when posting and filling critical vacant positions.
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 14 OF 51
As a unionized organization, limitations exist which impact the assignment of human resources within the shelter’s organization and daily operations. Staff are siloed into operational categories and job functions, which limits managerial flexibility in their ability to respond to special operational needs. An inflexibility in management’s ability to respond to vacancies in Animal Care Attendant staffing is one such example. Staffing limitations and operational inflexibility has resulted in instances of inefficient allocation of shelter human resources. Moreover, labor rules limit shelter volunteers from performing certain duties that must be performed by shelter employees. Volunteers are drawn to the shelter out of a desire to work and care for the animals. Restricting volunteers from lending a hand when they see the need is disheartening to the volunteers.
Animal Care Attendants
Animal care attendants at OCAC provide the direct, daily care of the animals. They attend to several areas of responsibilities:
• Intaking animals brought to the shelter by the public or impounded by animal control or the cities, entering information about the animal into the shelter’s data base, and taking pictures of the animals.
• Feeding and watering of all the shelter’s animals – domestic, exotic, and wild. • Cleaning and disinfecting kennels, cages, corrals, and equipment and maintaining the general cleanliness of the shelter’s kennel facilities. • Monitoring, documenting, and reporting on the health and well-being of sick, exotic, and quarantined animals; reporting any abnormalities or changes in condition to veterinary staff.
• Assisting with animal adoptions, including providing counseling on breed characteristics, matching and introducing the appropriate animal to the potential adopter, and instructing adopters in basic animal care. • Grooming the animals for the health and comfort of the animals. • Responding to public inquiries about legal retention, adoption procedures, basic animal care, and behavior.
Animal Care Attendants may be assigned into any one of three areas of responsibility:
Intake, Cat Team, or Dog Team. Usually, Intake has two Animal Care Attendants assigned to it; they may receive 30 to 60 animals per day. The Cat Team is responsible for the kennel areas housing cats, kittens, rabbits, guinea pigs and other animals. Their duties include cleaning and feeding, enrichment, adoption and the other activities discussed above. The Dog Team is responsible for the kennel areas housing dogs. Their duties include cleaning and feeding, enrichment, adoption and the other activities noted above.
In 2016, OCAC brought in professional consultants to provide recommendations for a 2018 Strategic Plan. One of the consultant’s recommendations was for the shelter to increase staffing allocation to 26 Animal Care Attendant positions. OCAC did not implement that recommendation. Additionally, the consultant recommended the shelter follow the Association of Shelter Veterinarians (ASV) Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters. Those practices include National Animal Control Association (NACA)
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 15 OF 51
guidelines and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) guidelines (which is the current standard).
The allocation of Animal Care Attendants at OCAC is insufficient for the shelter to meet industry standards for level of care. NACA and HSUS recommend a minimum of 15 minutes of care per day per animal for feeding and cleaning each animal housed in the shelter; 9 minutes for cleaning and 6 minutes for feeding and watering.
There are currently 21 Animal Care Attendant positions allocated at the shelter. Three positions were vacant as of May 1, 2023. A normal Animal Care Attendant daily shift at the shelter is 10 hours, of which the attendants are expected to spend half their time cleaning, feeding, and watering the animals and half their time attending to other responsibilities, including those responsibilities noted above. Half the Animal Care Attendants work from Wednesday through Saturday and the others work Sunday through Wednesday. Animal Care Attendants spend about 4½ hours cleaning and feeding the animals each day.
The Grand Jury evaluated the Animal Care Attendant’s workload during the four-month period between December 4, 2022 and April 10, 2023. Individual Animal Care Attendants cared for 48 animals per shift on average and in some cases up to 90 animals per shift.
Conservatively, Animal Care Attendants at the shelter spend less than 6 minutes on average per animal attending to cleaning and feeding, which is much less than the 15 minutes recommended by the NACA and HSUS guidelines.
Of note, the four-month period reviewed by the Grand Jury is not the shelter’s busy season. During kitten season, the cats and kittens alone can number up to 500 to 600 cats and kittens per day. The Grand Jury could not evaluate daily census records prior to December 4, 2022 because OCAC did not keep daily animal census records prior to that date.
There are still other needs the animals have, such as time for animal enrichment which is required daily. The other half of the Animal Attendant’s shift is devoted to picking up animals from intake, showing animals for potential adoptions, walking dogs, stocking supplies, washing dishes or other non-direct animal care tasks.
ASV Guidelines stress enrichment should be given the same significance as feeding, watering, and veterinary care. Successful enrichment programs prevent the development and display of abnormal behavior and provide for the well-being of the animal. Regular positive daily social interaction with humans is essential for both dogs and cats. Animals need daily walking, playing, grooming, petting, etc. OCAC’s 2018 Strategic Plan called for all sheltered dogs and cats to receive appropriate daily enrichment tailored to their needs. The Grand Jury found that other shelters in Orange County walk their dogs several times per day and provide numerous opportunities for enrichment. At the OCAC shelter, dogs are not always walked daily. Instead, animal care attendants only walk dogs every other day, as time permits.
The Grand Jury recognizes that resources are limited, but the shelter must prioritize the welfare of the animals over other shelter operation considerations. This puts pressure on management to operate the shelter efficiently. Other animal care facilities report 50% of
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 16 OF 51
their staff provide direct care to their animals. At OCAC, only 15% of staff provide direct care. The Grand Jury recommends a review of the current allocation of positions within OCAC. OCAC has 137 budgeted staff positions of which only 21 positions provide direct care to the animals. Assigning adequate resources to the direct care of the animals must be a priority as the health and welfare of the animals is the shelter’s primary charge. The current allocation of Animal Care Attendant positions is insufficient.
Communication
The shelter’s organizational challenges are numerous; many challenges are systemic, but some are self-inflicted. With many constituents, such as shelter staff, volunteers, rescue organizations, and the public at large, robust communication programs are essential to addressing the concerns and needs of both internal and external audiences.
Collaboration and communication within the shelter are lacking. Departments within the shelter are siloed. Staff within departments focus solely on their duties and responsibilities and are not encouraged to think of their efforts as being part of a “Big Picture.” Morale is reported to be low. Workplace rules and position classifications tend to discourage a collaborative mindset.
In March 2015, the Orange County Office of the Performance Director issued a report on the OCAC. The OC Auditor noted that, among other things, the shelter was not holding regular “all-hands” staff meetings. The Auditor recommended that the shelter hold meetings at least every quarter. The 2014/2015 Orange County Grand Jury report of the OCAC made the same recommendation. The response from OCAC to this Grand Jury report was that all-hands meetings were implemented. However, all-hands meetings currently do not occur at any regularly scheduled interval. Although shelter staff have a general sense of shelter operations and functions, the shelter is a siloed work environment. Without regularly scheduled all-hands meetings, staff have little opportunity to hear and be heard by shelter leadership and for management to communicate a consistent message.
Shelter volunteers are limited to a program that effectively segregates them from shelter staff and management. Volunteers have little to no voice or effective input into the shelter’s decision hierarchy.
Policies and Procedures
The Grand Jury found that the shelter’s Policies and Procedures manual does not undergo regular internal review. There are policies and procedures in the manual that do not reflect current shelter practices. Additionally, there are important shelter practices and functions that are not addressed or are inadequately documented within the manual.
There are some policies and procedures in the manual addressing programs that are no longer relevant or where the manual describes practices that are outdated. It is evident some policies and procedures in the manual have from time to time been inserted or revised, but those cases appear to be done on an ad-hoc basis and are not methodical.
Individual policies and procedures documented in the manual are annotated with the date they became effective and, when applicable, revised. However, there is nothing to
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 17 OF 51
indicate when or if a policy or procedure has been contemporarily reviewed and determined to be relevant, accurate, and applicable. Some policies and procedures in the manual were written as long ago as the late 1970s with revisions in the mid-2000s.
There is no indication that any particular policy or procedure has been reviewed as current and appropriate, or by whom, or when.
Operating a shelter without up-to-date, reliable policies, procedures, and guidelines make formal training difficult, if not impossible, and results in inconsistent operating protocols and practices. More importantly, when new staff are hired, training becomes “on the job training” and subject to inconsistency. With the high level of turnover at the shelter, it is all the more important to ensure policies and procedures are up to date.
COVID-19
The impacts of COVID-19 on shelter operations should not go unacknowledged. Shelter operations were severely strained as state and county COVID-19 restrictions were put into place. The shelter was effectively closed to the public. Emergency protocols and practices were put into place to ensure the safety of the public and OCAC staff.
Leadership had to manage a 24-hour shelter, with many members of the staff required to work on site. Work shifts and resources had to be juggled to ensure staffing was sufficient and personnel were kept safe. Within the limits of the shelter’s staffing allocation, management created a Team A/Team B system that isolated one half of the staff from the other half of the staff. Staff came into work only during those days and hours their assigned team was scheduled. Extraordinary sanitation protocols were put into place.
Nevertheless, when COVID-19 illnesses did occur, management and staff rose to the occasion, working flexibly and cooperatively to prioritize the care of the animals. Both shelter leadership and staff are to be commended for managing shelter operations through a difficult time.
Unfortunately, the volunteer program was suspended during COVID-19 restrictions and engagement with rescues was significantly impacted. The volunteer program was slow to be restarted. Shelter management could and should have anticipated the end of COVID19 restrictions and worked toward reinstating the shelter’s volunteer program much earlier than late 2022.
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 18 OF 51
Facilitating Adoption
During COVID-19, most animal shelters, including OCAC, closed or restricted their shelters to public access, including stopping all public walk-in visits.
Prior to COVID-19, the adoption process at the shelter was relatively open. The public was at liberty to visit the shelter at their convenience without an appointment. The cat and dog kennels were mostly open to public viewing where a potential adopter could experience first-hand the size, look, and manner of a potential adoptee. Volunteers and staff were available to facilitate an intimate meeting where humans and animals could interact and bond. The experience was unconstrained, spontaneous, instinctive, and natural.
OCAC previously had an animal behaviorist who worked with stressed animals to facilitate their adoptability. OCAC eliminated the animal behaviorist position. Other animal shelters in Orange County have animal behaviorists working with their animals to facilitate adoptability.
During COVID-19, public adoptions were carried out by appointment only and computer facilitated. The public was required to schedule an appointment to visit the shelter. Up to three animals could be selected on the shelter’s website from photographs and biographical information about the animals. A one-on-one meet-up with the animal(s) followed. People without computer access could use the shelter’s computer kiosk to select an animal, but by appointment only. If a suitable animal was not found among the animals selected via computer, kennel staff might make recommendations to the potential adopter.
Currently, the adoption process is less restrictive than during COVID-19 but remains more restrictive than pre-COVID-19. The current appointment system is restrictive and
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 19 OF 51
does not provide prospective adopters viewing access to all available adoptable animals.
The shelter has opened to limited walk-ins on a stand-by basis when there are openings in the appointment schedule and when staff are available to assist. All potential adopters, appointments, and walk-ins are still required to use the shelter’s website to pre-select potential adoptees prior to a one-on-one meeting. The kennels are still off-limits to all visitors.
OCAC leadership expressed concern about bites to visitors as the primary reason for restricting kennel access. The shelter experienced a marked drop in bites coincidental with the closure of the facility to the public when COVID-19 restrictions were implemented:
• 2019 – 23 bites
• 2020 – 7 bites
• 2021 – 3 bites
• 2022 – 2 bites (as of December 23)
However, not all dogs are bite risks and there is space throughout the kennel facilities to provide for public viewing. Public safety is important, however, dogs representing bite risks can be segregated, and supervised viewing is a viable option.
Shelter leadership said that public viewing within the kennels stresses the animals and that restricting access keeps the animals calm. However, to address that concern, dogs prone to excitability and stress can be secluded, and supervised viewing is an option.
Spay and Neuter Overview
As mentioned earlier, the population of Orange County in 1950 was about 216,000.
Today the contract cities and unincorporated county areas served by OCAC has a population of approximately 1,800,000. With the population increase comes an increase in the number of dogs, cats, and other pets.
Euthanasia of animals at the shelter is a challenging problem confronting OCAC and pet owners. In most cases, members of the public either bring lost animals to the shelter to be reunited with their owners or bring their own animals to be adopted to new homes.
Few people bring animals to the shelter to be euthanized. One reason OCAC has so many animals and a high incidence of euthanasia is that many pet owners do not spay/neuter their pets and thereby allow them to reproduce beyond the owner’s ability to care for the offspring.
Uncontrolled reproduction is a factor in the high population of dogs and especially cats.
According to a 2011 report by the North Shore Animal League of America, each day over 70,000 puppies and kittens are born in the United States, and because of overpopulation, more than 3.7 million animals are still being euthanized each year across the country. The absence of TNR at the shelter has seriously increased the rate of euthanasia of cats, especially kittens, who are not old enough or healthy enough to adopt.
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 20 OF 51
Many communities incentivize sterilization of pet dogs by significantly lowering the cost of dog licenses for sterilized dogs in their city. Generally, community shelters and rescue organizations will only allow spayed/neutered animals for adoption or require the new owner have the animal spayed/neutered as part of the adoption process.
Some complaints received by the Grand Jury assert that the public has requested low/no cost spay/neuter assistance from OCAC without success. OCAC does not offer low or no cost spay/neuter clinics or events but does list on its website feral cat low cost spay/neuter resources. However, the Grand Jury found that some of the listed phone numbers are incorrect and for those that are correct, some of the listed prices are incorrect. Providing a low/no cost spay/neuter clinic would provide a great service to the community, decrease overpopulation of animals, and decrease the potential euthanasia of cats and dogs.
Trap, Neuter and Return
OCAC began a pilot Trap, Neuter, and Return (TNR) program for cats in 2013 and over the following years saw cat intake and euthanasia decrease dramatically. TNR has been shown to be the most humane, efficient way of stabilizing feral and community cat populations. TNR is an animal control program practiced by many animal shelters throughout the United States and the State of California. Prior to April 2020, the Orange County Animal Shelter had an active Trap, Neuter, and Return program.
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 21 OF 51
OCAC’s TNR program was a cooperative endeavor that depended and relied on the efforts of participating non-profit rescue organizations and individual members of the community. Both OCAC and community participants worked together to make the TNR program successful. Non-profits and interested members of the animal welfare community performed the field work necessary to trap feral and community cats and transport the cats to the shelter. OCAC received the animals, performed the spay and neuter procedure, vaccinated the animals, and treated them for injuries or disease.
When the animals were healthy, fit, and ready for return to their outdoor home, the same non-profit organization or community members retrieved the cats from the shelter and returned them to the same location from which they were trapped.
OCAC only provided TNR related services within its shelter facility and did not participate in locating, trapping, or returning the animals to the location from where they were trapped. However, OCAC played an integral role in the TNR process. When OCAC’s participation in the TNR program ended, TNR within the county effectively ceased.
OCAC’s TNR program was popular among many local animal welfare groups and individuals and is a necessary element to the continuance of a viable TNR program throughout the county.
The Grand Jury recognizes there is disagreement among animal control and welfare advocates whether TNR is effective in reducing feral and community cat populations, whether TNR serves the best interest of the individual animal, and whether TNR is an environmentally sound practice. In Orange County at least, there apparently is also disagreement whether TNR programs violate a provision of the California Penal Code dealing with malicious mischief.
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 22 OF 51
California Penal Code Section 597s states:
(a) Every person who willfully abandons any animal is guilty of a misdemeanor. (b) This section shall not apply to the release or rehabilitation and release of native California wildlife pursuant to statute or regulations of the California Department of Fish and Game.
As best as the Grand Jury can determine, the validity of California Penal Code Section 597s or its interpretation or application has never been adjudicated in a reported California court decision. According to a report published by the American Bar Association, it is questionable whether a bona fide TNR program, in which animals are returned to the same location where they were trapped, constitutes willful abandonment.
In or about late 2019/early 2020, OCAC received a cease-and-desist complaint demanding that it end its participation in the TNR program. OCAC referred the complaint to OC County Counsel. County Counsel reviewed and responded to the referral in an opinion. The Grand Jury went to great lengths to obtain a copy of County Counsel’s opinion, to no avail. The Grand Jury requested a copy of the opinion from OCAC, the County Counsel, the Orange County Board of Supervisors, and Orange County Public Resources. As of the publication of this report, the Grand Jury was not able to acquire a copy of County Counsel’s opinion. The Grand Jury was informed that OCCR and OCAC management were advised they could be held personally liable for any legal action arising out of continuance of the TNR program. OCAC’s TNR program was terminated in or about April 2020.
Euthanasia Report
OCAC keeps detailed records of each animal it euthanizes. The Grand Jury reviewed a comprehensive list of all euthanasia outcomes at the shelter spanning the period August 19, 2018 through December 4, 2022. The shelter euthanized 11,143 animals during that period. Of the euthanized animals, 5,123 were identified as either domestic cats or dogs. (Feral cats are classified as domestic animals.) The remaining 6,020 euthanized animals included other domestic and/or non-domesticated animals.
OCAC’s records identify every euthanized animal’s date of euthanasia, estimated age, sex, species, breed, and the reason for euthanasia. Estimated animal ages span one day to 50 years. Species span domestic cats and dogs to domestic and/or nondomesticated animals such as snakes, birds, opossums, bats, rabbits, raccoons, skunks, lizards, rats, squirrels, coyotes, deer, and more. Reasons for euthanasia are varied and include irredeemable suffering, Head Test (rabies), disease, behavior, age, species (public safety), and owner request.
Asilomar Reports
In 2004, leaders representing national organizations and industry stakeholders gathered to find common ground in the animal welfare field. Together, they wrote the Asilomar Accords, which establishes common definitions and a standardized way of reporting shelter statistics. Asilomar reports are statistical reports that animal shelters compile documenting their animal intakes and outcomes. The reports are aggregated into a national Shelter Animals Count National Database.
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 23 OF 51
OCAC compiles records and participates according to the Asilomar Accords data collection methods. The shelter publishes its Asilomar reports on its website. OCAC’s data includes statistics on monthly (pre-2021) and quarterly (post-2021) cat and dog intake and outcomes such as adoptions, transfers, returns to owner, and euthanasia.
Analysis of OCAC Data
The Grand Jury reviewed euthanasia and Asilomar outcomes to evaluate whether termination of the TNR program may have had any impact on euthanasia rates at the shelter. Possibly confounding the issue is the fact that COVID-19 restrictions were put into place about the same time the TNR program was terminated.
Figure 2 shows quarterly OCAC Asilomar adult cat TNR outcomes and adult cat euthanasia outcomes from the 3rd quarter of 2018 through the end of 2022. TNR rates are represented as a percent of total Asilomar outcomes. Euthanasia rates are represented as a percent of total Asilomar outcomes net of TNR outcomes. Juvenile cats are not included in the review because the shelter’s juvenile cat population varies widely with the season and, moreover, juveniles are not candidates for TNR.
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 24 OF 51
Figure 2 - Adult Cat Euthanasia Rates
Figure 2 illustrates that adult cat euthanasia rates increased at OCAC following the termination of the TNR program and the beginning of COVID-19 restrictions.
The average adult cat euthanasia rate in the period from the 3rd quarter of 2018 through the 1st quarter of 2020 (pre-TNR termination and COVID-19 restrictions) was 20.9%. The average adult cat euthanasia rate in the period from the 2nd quarter of 2020 through the end of 2022 (post-TNR and COVID-19) was 28.8%. The increase in the rate of adult cat euthanasia following TNR/COVID-19 is 38% over the previous period. The increase is statistically significant. (See Appendix 1)
To evaluate whether circumstances related to COVID-19 accounted for the increase in euthanasia rates, the rates from the post-COVID-19/post-TNR termination were compared to the rates pre-COVID-19/pre-TNR termination. Again, the average adult cat Comparing adult cat euthanasia rates pre-TNR
and post-TNR … the termination of the TNR
program correlate to an increase in adult cat
euthanasia rate at the shelter.
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 25 OF 51
euthanasia rate before COVID-19 and during the TNR program was 20.9%. The average adult cat euthanasia rate after COVID-19 restrictions were lifted but still during the termination of the TNR program (Q3 2021 – Q4 2022) was 25.4%. The increase in the rate of adult cat euthanasia following termination of the TNR program but after COVID19 restrictions were lifted is 21% over the pre-TNR termination/pre-COVID-19 restrictions rate. Again, the increase is statistically significant.
Comparing adult cat euthanasia rates pre-TNR and post-TNR and pre- and post-COVID19 restrictions, it appears both COVID-19 restrictions and the termination of the TNR program correlate to an increase in adult cat euthanasia rate at the shelter.
Dog Euthanasia:
OCAC euthanizes animals for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to injuries beyond redemptive medical care, age, and behavior. When OCAC euthanizes a dog for medical reasons, the Chief Veterinarian or a staff veterinarian must approve the procedure. In the case of behavior-related euthanasia, approval is determined by a fivemember Behavior Evaluation Committee.
OCAC euthanizes dogs that are determined to have irredeemable behavioral issues, including displays of aggression toward people or other animals, bites, and severe kennel stress. The five members of the Behavior Evaluation Committee include staff members representing Field Operations, Animal Services Operations, the Community Outreach team, the Chief Veterinarian, and a representative from senior management.
While there are five staff members represented on the Behavior Evaluation Committee, only three participants are voting members. The Chief Veterinarian and the member from senior management serve only as advisory members. A majority of the three voting members of the committee must approve a behavioral euthanasia – that is, at least two of the three voting members must approve.
OCAC’s Behavior Evaluation Committee evaluates dogs for euthanasia without written guidelines, policies, or procedures, resulting in inconsistent outcomes over time.
Behavior-evaluated euthanasia outcomes are dependent on the experience and personal considerations of the individual committee members and management rather than written objective standards. The voting members of the Behavior Evaluation Committee may evaluate behavior based on their own observations and/or on the written reports of other staff members. The voting members are not required to directly observe a dog’s behavior, and in some cases have not made direct observation, but they do have access to video documentation of a dog’s behavior. Voting members come to their own conclusions based on their own understanding of dog behavior and rehabilitative potential.
OCAC does not have a professional licensed, trained, or certified animal behaviorist on staff to oversee the dog enrichment programs, resulting in dogs with declining behavior being placed at greater risk of being euthanized. Voting members of the Behavior Evaluation Committee are not required to certify or participate in animal behavior education programs. The Behavior Evaluation Committee meets once per week and participation of the voting member from any one of the three voting departments may be
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 26 OF 51
delegated to a lesser experienced staff member when the regular voting member is unavailable.
The Grand Jury reviewed dog behavior-related euthanasia data and Asilomar outcomes from the fourth quarter of 2018 to the third quarter of 2022 to evaluate the nature of dog behavioral euthanasia at the shelter over time. The chart below shows quarterly dog behavior euthanasia at OCAC for the third quarter of 2018 through the third quarter of 2022. Euthanasia rates are represented as a percent of total dog Asilomar outcomes by quarter. Juvenile dogs are included in the review because the shelter’s juvenile dog population is subject to behavioral euthanasia. The Grand Jury found that for the dogs euthanized for behavior during the period under review, 7.4% of the dogs were no more than 6 months old and 14.2% were less than 1 year old. The Grand Jury was unable to determine why dogs less than one year in age would warrant behavioral euthanasia.
Figure 3 - Dog Euthanasia Rates (Behavioral)
Dog behavioral euthanasia rates increase at OC Animal Care between the second and third quarters in 2021
Figure 3 illustrates that dog behavior-related euthanasia rates increased at OCAC between the second and third quarters of 2021. The average dog behavioral euthanasia rate prior to the end of the second quarter of 2021 was 1.19% of all dog Asilomar outcomes. Beginning in the third quarter of 2021 and through the third quarter of 2022, the average dog behavioral euthanasia rate increased to 3.41% of all dog Asilomar outcomes, an increase of 187%. The increase is statistically significant. (See Appendix 2)
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 27 OF 51
Impediments to the Investigation
The Grand Jury’s function is to investigate the operation of the various officers, departments, and agencies of the local government.
Article 1, Section 23 of the California Constitution states:
“One or more grand juries shall be drawn and summoned at least once a year in each county.”
Provisions of the California Penal Code define the scope and limitations of a grand jury’s authority:
Penal Code Section 916:
… Rules of procedure shall include guidelines for that grand jury to ensure that all findings included in its final reports are supported by documented evidence, including … official records, or interviews attended by no fewer than two grand jurors and that all problems identified in a final report are accompanied by suggested means for their resolution, including financial, when applicable.
Penal Code Section 921:
The grand jury is entitled to … the examination, without charge, of all public records within the county.
Penal Code Section 925:
The grand jury shall investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments, or functions of the county … The investigations may be conducted on some selective basis each year …
Penal Code Section 925 (a):
The grand jury may, at all times, request the advice of the court, or the judge thereof, the district attorney, the county counsel, or the Attorney General … As a department of Orange County government, the County Counsel’s office provides legal counsel and services to the Orange County Board of Supervisors and all other Orange County departments and agencies, including the Grand Jury.
At the start of a Grand Jury’s one-year term, County Counsel assigns an individual attorney within its office to serve as the Grand Jury’s primary attorney. Because the individual serving as the Grand Jury’s counsel is also assigned to other departments or agencies within Orange County government, there is the potential for the Grand Jury’s designated primary counsel to have a conflict of interest when the Grand Jury investigates a department or agency otherwise served by the primary attorney. To ensure continuity of legal service to the Grand Jury, the County Counsel’s office also assigns a back-up attorney that provides service to the Grand Jury when the primary counsel is conflicted. The back-up attorney is selected so that at least the primary or
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 28 OF 51
back-up would not have a disabling conflict – that is, one or the other would be available to serve the Grand Jury in any investigation not directly related to the County Counsel’s office itself. Back-up counsel advises the Grand Jury on those matters only when the primary attorney is conflicted.
Early during its one-year term and early in its investigation, the Grand Jury learned that its primary counsel had a conflict of interest with its investigation of OCAC. The County Counsel’s office explained, and the Grand Jury understood, that the services of the County Counsel’s office would continue through the back-up attorney assigned for such circumstances. Initially, during the early stages of its OCAC investigation, the Grand Jury received the legal advice and assistance of the back-up attorney in the County Counsel’s office.
Later during its investigation of OCAC, the Grand Jury inquired into the shelter’s prior TNR program and the program’s termination in early 2020. The Grand Jury learned the program was terminated after a cease-and-desist demand to stop the program was received from a lone individual residing outside of Orange County. The Grand Jury was informed that the County Counsel’s office, in response to a request by OCAC to review the cease-and-desist demand, issued an opinion to the Orange County Board of Supervisors and OCAC about the shelter’s TNR program that evidently led to a direction to terminate the program.
In the course of the Grand Jury’s investigation, including interviews with OCAC and OCCR staff and leadership, the County Counsel’s office and its opinion were repeatedly cited as being the source of the decision to stop the TNR program.
The Grand Jury understands County Counsel’s role is to provide advice and counsel to the Board of Supervisors, County departments, and various County agencies, but that it has no decision-making authority over any division of County governance, except regarding its own internal functions. While the Grand Jury was skeptical that the County Counsel’s office actually made, or had the authority to make, the decision to terminate the TNR program, the Grand Jury nevertheless understood that the County Counsel’s opinion was pivotal to the decision. Therefore, the Grand Jury requested a copy of the opinion to learn if there was a clear impediment to or prohibition on a possible renewal of the TNR program.
The Grand Jury requested a copy of the opinion from interviewees who were privy to the document or its contents. In addition, the Grand Jury asked the County Counsel’s office for a copy of the opinion. In every instance, those requested told the Grand Jury the opinion is a privileged communication between the County Counsel’s office and the Board of Supervisors and that only the Board of Supervisors has authority to release the document. Finally, the Grand Jury asked the Board of Supervisors, through its Chair, for Grand Jury: Who was the decision maker?
Answer: “The County Counsel.”
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 29 OF 51
a copy of the opinion or alternatively for an identification of the legal authority reviewed in studying the issue, and stated the confidentiality of the document would be maintained, whereupon the Board of Supervisors declined to consider or include the request in its meeting agenda. Unfortunately, and not through a lack of trying, the Grand Jury has been unable to review or assess the basis of the opinion.
During the Grand Jury’s interviews, when various levels of leadership within OCAC asserted that County Counsel made the decision to terminate the TNR program, the Grand Jury always expressed its skepticism and inquired as to how County Counsel, an advisor to the County and OCAC, and only an advisor, could be making policy decisions for OCAC? The Grand Jury inquired and pressed its interviewees, asking if it was, in fact, a decision made at some level within OCAC’s leadership, or by OCCR, or by the Board of Supervisors. When pressed, in every case, each interviewee modified their explanation and affirmed the decision had been theirs or that they had taken part in the decision, each taking personal responsibility for the decision.
The Grand Jury was determined to obtain documentation of the decision as it continued to press for a copy of the County Counsel’s opinion, The Grand Jury then requested all internal OCAC communications documenting the decision and/or order to stop the TNR program. The Grand Jury requested departmental communications instructing staff to stand down from the TNR program, whether from the OCCR to OCAC, OCAC to animal shelter leadership, or animal shelter leadership to shelter staff.
Departmental communications about the TNR program are policy and procedure communications. The Grand Jury assumed that departmental communications would point to how and by whom the decision was made. The Grand Jury understands such communications are public records, not privileged communications. Nevertheless, the Grand Jury’s request for documentation was denied by OCAC with the reason that such communications were privileged.
Coincidental to the Grand Jury’s efforts to obtain a copy of the County Counsel’s opinion, at the end of 2022, the County Counsel’s office detached itself altogether from all matters related to the Grand Jury’s investigation of OCAC. The County Counsel’s office informed the Superior Court and the Grand Jury that its entire office was “conflicted” with regard to the investigation into OCAC and would recuse itself from assisting the Grand Jury in its investigation into all matters related to OCAC. No back-up attorney was provided and all communications ceased.
Of note, the Grand Jury’s investigation was not an investigation of the County Counsel’s office. Rather, the Grand Jury was investigating an Orange County agency, a client of the County Counsel, just as every Grand Jury investigation into County agencies represents an investigation into clients of the County Counsel. When the County Counsel’s office recused itself from the Grand Jury’s OCAC investigation, it did not explain or cite any specific aspect of the OCAC investigation that makes it exceptional from any other of the ongoing Grand Jury investigations into County departments or agencies.
Without the services of the County Counsel’s office, the Grand Jury suffered a setback in its investigation of OCAC. The pace of the investigation slowed as time and resources
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 30 OF 51
were directed toward arranging for alternative outside counsel at the recommendation and with the support of the Superior Court. After losing approximately six weeks, the Grand Jury was able to engage alternative outside counsel in early February of 2023.
As of the publication of this report, the Grand Jury was not able to confirm the logic, reasoning, or basis of the County Counsel’s opinion, or even whether in fact the County Counsel advised against the continuance of the TNR program. Moreover, the Grand Jury cannot confirm whether, or who, or at what level of authority, within the County government the decision to end TNR emanated. As a consequence, the Grand Jury cannot verify that any such decision was ever actually made, or communicated at any level of authority, by anyone within Orange County’s governing hierarchy and, more importantly, why any such decision was made. The only fact the Grand Jury can confirm with any confidence is that the TNR program was terminated in or about early 2020.
CONCLUSION
OCAC has been a source of public concern since the 1990s, with five previous Orange County Grand Jury reports and an Orange County Performance Audit detailing troubling conditions at the OCAC shelter. This Grand Jury report shines a light on deficiencies at the shelter still needing resolution. The Grand Jury believes that if the recommendations included in this report are implemented:
• Internal and external communications at OCAC will improve. • The reallocation of staffing positions within the organization, increasing the number of Animal Care Attendant positions and employing an animal behaviorist or trainer, will improve general animal welfare at the shelter. • Improvements in the timely filling of staff vacancies will enhance shelter operations and overall staff morale.
• The adoption process will be more public-friendly, leading to more adoptions. • The behavioral euthanasia decision process will be standardized, articulated, and documented, leading to consistent behavioral euthanasia outcomes. • The shelter’s Policies and Procedures will be correct and up to date. • OCAC and Orange County rescue organizations and animal advocates can work toward mending their relations for the welfare of the animals. • The shelter’s TNR program will be re-evaluated, reconsidered and reinstated. • The shelter’s volunteers will be more integrated into the shelter’s personnel team and communications.
The Grand Jury conducted many interviews with shelter personnel. The Grand Jury is very impressed with their sense of dedication and earnest concern for the welfare of shelter animals.
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 31 OF 51
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, “Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice, The State of Animal Welfare Overseen by the County of Orange,” the 2022-2023 Grand Jury has arrived at seventeen Findings, as follows:
Management:
F1 Management has limited flexibility utilizing personnel within Orange County Animal Care across departments due to structured work rules, volunteer work restrictions, and employees working in departmental silos.
F2 Low staff morale exists within Orange County Animal Care.
F3 Orange County Animal Care staffing is negatively impacted by vacant positions remaining unfilled for greater than six months due to burdensome hiring processes. This delay in recruitment and completion of hiring has resulted in qualified candidates declining job offers.
F4 Based upon industry standards and best practices, Orange County Animal Care kennel attendants are understaffed to meet the needs of animals under care.
F5 Orange County Animal Care’s operating policies and procedures manual is out of date.
F6 The Orange County Animal Care Volunteer program was stopped during COVID-19 and restarting the program has been slow, resulting in decreased animal socialization and enrichment.
Animal Welfare
F7 Orange County Animal Care’s Behavior Evaluation Committee evaluates dogs for euthanasia without written guidelines, policies, or procedures, resulting in inconsistent outcomes over time. Behavior evaluated euthanasia outcomes are dependent on the experience and personal considerations of the individual committee members and management rather than written objective standards.
F8 The rate of behavioral euthanasia of dogs has increased significantly over the last 2 years.
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 32 OF 51
F9 Orange County Animal Care does not employ a professional or trained and certified animal behaviorist to oversee the shelter’s dog enrichment program, resulting in dogs with declining behavior being placed at greater risk of being euthanized.
F10 While many county and city animal shelters throughout the state have active Trap, Neuter, and Return programs, Orange County Animal Care stopped its Trap, Neuter, and Return program, reportedly on the basis of the County Counsel’s legal opinion that the program violates a California statute related to willful animal abandonment.
F11 The termination of the Trap, Neuter, and Return program is correlated with an increase in adult cat euthanasia rate at the shelter.
F12 There have been public concerns and requests expressed over the years for public programs to include a spay/neuter program by Orange County Animal Care.
Communication / Outreach
F13 The current adoption appointment system restricts public access to the dog kennels, thereby limiting potential adopters’ access to all available animals.
F14 Orange County Animal Care’s engagement with some animal rescue partners is negatively impacted due to differences of opinion in appropriate animal care policy.
F15 Internal and community engagement does not adequately communicate the shelter’s mission and operating strategy.
F16 The information currently on the Orange County Animal Care website for lowcost spay/neuter is not up to date with regard to referrals and prices for spay/neuter procedures.
Impediments to the Investigation
F17 The OC County Counsel’s office misstated to the Grand Jury the scope of its commitment to serving and assisting the Grand Jury in its investigations into County governance respecting managing conflicts between the Board of Supervisors, OC departments and agency clients, and the Grand Jury.
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 33 OF 51
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 “Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice, The State of Animal Welfare Overseen by the County of Orange,” the 2022-2023 Grand Jury makes the following seventeen recommendations:
Management:
R1 By October 1, 2023, OC Human Resource Services should review and update recruitment strategies to significantly increase the timeliness of recruitment of vacant positions and to anticipate vacancies due to retirement, resignations, transfers. (F3)
R2 By December 31, 2023, Orange County Animal Care, OC Community Resources, and OC Human Resource Services should review hiring practices to facilitate process improvements to expedite filling OCAC vacancies. (F3) R3 By October 1, 2023, OC Community Resources and Orange County Animal Care should review their current staffing allocations of Animal Care Attendants to reflect NACA guidelines and to provide appropriate staffing allocations for animal care, feeding and enrichment. (F3, F4)
R4 By October 1, 2023, OC Community Resources and Orange County Animal Care should review their current staffing allocations of all positions within the OCAC and reallocate resources to increase Animal Care Attendants to reflect NACA guidelines to provide appropriate staffing for animal care, feeding, and enrichment. (F3, F4)
R5 By December 31, 2023, Orange County Animal Care management should review and update policies, procedures, guidelines, and practices to assure they are accurate and reflect current operating practices. (F5) R6 By June 30, 2024, the Board of Supervisors should evaluate the strategic option of creating a Joint Powers Authority for the County and fourteen contract Cities to take ownership and shared responsibility for the financial and operating policies and practices of OCAC. (F1 thru F16)
Welfare
R7 By October 1, 2023, Orange County Animal Care management should establish written guidelines, policies, and procedures as standards for evaluating animal behavior for use by the Behavior Evaluation Committee. (F5, F7)
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 34 OF 51
R8 By December 31, 2023, in the interests of transparency, Orange County Animal Care management should add a representative from a rescue organization to serve as a non-voting, at-large member on the Behavior Evaluation Committee. (F7, F14)
R9 By December 31, 2023, Orange County Animal Care, OC Community Resources, and OC Human Resource Services should hire an animal behaviorist or certified dog trainers to work with aggressive animals to reduce the high rate of dogs being euthanized and enhance their adoptability. (F8, F9) R10 By December 31, 2023, the Orange County Board of Supervisors and Orange County Animal Care management should request that County Counsel reconsider its opinion about the shelter's former Trap, Neuter, and Return program, or seek an independent second opinion to County Counsel’s opinion, to ascertain whether the program can be re-established, or a modified version of the program can be implemented. (F10, F11)
R11 By July 1, 2024, Orange County Animal Care should implement a low-cost public spay/neuter program. (F12)
Communication / Outreach
R12 By October 1, 2023, Orange County Animal Care management should hold allhands staff meetings at least every quarter. (F1, F2) R13 By October 1, 2023, Orange County Animal Care, OC Community Resources, and OC Human Resource Services should conduct annual surveys of staff to monitor morale and identify opportunities for operational improvement. (F1, F2) R14 By December 31, 2023, Orange County Animal Care management should open the shelter to the public for walk throughs to maximize opportunities for the public to adopt animals under the care of the shelter. (F13) R15 By October 1, 2023, Orange County Animal Care management should look for new ways to be more inclusive and engaged with volunteers and the rescue organizations that are necessary for the shelter’s success. (F14, F15) R16 By October 1, 2023, Orange County Animal Care should schedule quarterly meetings with community stakeholders to facilitate transparency and engagement. (F14, F15)
R17 By October 1, 2023, Orange County Animal Care management should update the information currently on its website for low-cost spay/neuter of feral cats with regard to referrals and prices for spay/neuter procedures. (F16)
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 35 OF 51
Impediments to the Investigation
R18 Beginning with the 2023/2024 Grand Jury training, and all training thereafter, County Counsel should provide detailed instruction about the circumstances under which the County Counsel’s office might recuse itself from assisting with Grand Jury investigations and the alternatives available to the Grand Jury under such circumstances. (F17)
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 36 OF 51
REQUIRED 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 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
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 37 OF 51
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.
Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933.05 are required and requested from:
Findings – 90-day Response Required
Orange County Board of
Supervisors:
F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12,
F13, F14, F15, F16, F17
City of Anaheim: F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F15, F16 City of Brea: F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F15, F16 City of Cypress: F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F15, F16 City of Fountain Valley: F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F15, F16 City of Fullerton: F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F15, F16 City of Huntington Beach: F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F15, F16 City of Lake Forest: F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F15, F16 City of Orange: F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F15, F16 City of Placentia: F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F15, F16 City of San Juan Capistrano: F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F15, F16 City of Santa Ana: F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F15, F16 City of Tustin: F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F15, F16 City of Villa Park: F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F15, F16 City of Yorba Linda: F4, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F15, F16
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 38 OF 51
Recommendations – 90-day Response Required
Orange County Board of
Supervisors:
R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12,
R13, R14, R15, R16, R17, R18
City of Anaheim: R6
City of Brea: R6
City of Cypress: R6
City of Fountain Valley: R6
City of Fullerton: R6
City of Huntington Beach: R6
City of Lake Forest: R6
City of Orange: R6
City of Placentia: R6
City of San Juan Capistrano: R6
City of Santa Ana: R6
City of Tustin: R6
City of Villa Park: R6
City of Yorba Linda: R6
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 39 OF 51
REQUESTED RESPONSES
Findings – 90-Day Response Requested
Orange County Animal Care: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14, F15, F16
OC Human Resources
Services:
F1, F2, F3, F4, F9
Orange County County
Counsel:
F10, F11, F17
Recommendations – 90-Day Response Requested
Orange County Animal Care: R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12, R13, R14, R15, R16, R17
OC Human Resources
Services:
R1, R2, R9, R13
Orange County County
Counsel:
R10, R18
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 40 OF 51
REFERENCES
American Bar Association, Tort, Trial, and Insurance Practice Section. “Report to the House of Delegates Resolution 102B.” 2017.Accessed September 30, 2022. American-BarAssociation-TNVR-report.pdf (maddiesfund.org) American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. “Asilomar Accords: Definitions.” 2004. Accessed January 28, .2023, Asilomar Accords: Definitions | ASPCA Association of Shelter Veterinarians “Shelter Terminology.” 2017. Accessed March 25, 2023, Microsoft Word - Shelter Terminology (sheltervet.org)
City of Garden Grove. “Ordinance NO. 2911”. 2019. Accessed January 28, 2023. 11-26- 19_cc_Ordinance_Amending_Animal_and_Fire_Dept_Related_Regulations.pdf City of West Hollywood. “An Ordinance of the City of West Hollywood Establishing a TrapNeuter-Return Program for Community Cats; Amending the Language of the Municipal Code to Reflect a Change in Nomenclature From "Feral Cats" to Community Cats"; Updating Section 9.48.080 To Reflect the Current Code Provision Regarding Animal Noise and Determination that the Project is Exempt From CEQA.” November 4, 2019. “California Population.” Accessed March 22, 2023. Orange County, California Population 2023 (worldpopulationreview.com)
Human Animal Support Services. “Animal Shelter Speak: Understanding Common Animal Services Jargon. 2023. Accessed March 25, 2023. Animal Shelter Speak: Understanding Common Animal Services Jargon - HASS (humananimalsupportservices.org) Newbury, Sandra et al. “Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters. The Association of Shelter Veterinarians. 2010. shelter-standards-oct2011-wforward.pdf (sheltervet.org).
North Shore Animal League. “Did you Know?” 2011. Accessed February 24, 2023 catsmultiply-pyramid.pdf (animalleague.org) Orange County Animal Care “Strategic Plan – 2018” accessed January 28, 2023. ocac_2018_strategic_plan.pdf (stayinalivelongbeach.org) Orange County. Office of Performance Audit. “Performance Audit of Orange County Animal Care.” Final Report (#141505). Orange County California, 2015. Microsoft Word - Animal Care Report (ocgov.com)
Orange County Grand Jury 2014-2015. “If Animals Could Talk About the Orange County Animal Shelter.” 2015. Accessed January 28, 2023. Shelter_Performance_V8R2_web.pdf (ocgrandjury.org)
Orange County Grand Jury 2014-2015. “The Orange County Animal Shelter: the Facility, the Function, the Future.” 2015. Accessed January 28, 2023. OC_animal_shelter.pdf (ocgrandjury.org).
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 41 OF 51
Orange County Grand Jury 2007-2008. “Is Orange County Going to the Dogs”. 2008. Accessed January 28, 2023. 2023, IS ORANGE COUNTY GOING TO THE DOGS (ocgrandjury.org) Orange County Grand Jury 2003-2004. “The Orange County Animal Shelter, Are Improvements Needed?” 2004. Accessed January 28, 2023. Microsoft Word - AnimalShelterReport draft 12a.doc (ocgrandjury.org).
Orange County Grand Jury 1999-2000. “We Can do Better…Improving Animal Care in Orange County.” 2000. Accessed January 28, 2023. FINAL.PDF (ocgrandjury.org)
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 42 OF 51
APPENDIX 1
Table 1 - Adult Cat Euthanasia and TNR Rates by Quarter Adult Cats Euthanized
as a % of Adult Cat
Asilomar Outcomes net
of TNR Outcomes
Adult Cat TNR
Outcomes as % of adult
Cat Asilomar Outcomes
2018 Q3 23.17% 40%
Q4 17.27% 36%
2019 Q1 17.42% 41%
Q2 26.81% 49%
Q3 24.95% 47%
Q4 18.77% 31%
2020 Q1 18.08% 37%
Q2 42.65% 5%
Q3 41.67% 4%
Q4 25.50% 1%
2021 Q1 27.50% 0%
Q2 27.31% 0%
Q3 25.86% 0%
Q4 23.21% 0%
2022 Q1 21.93% 0%
Q2 30.12% 0%
Q3 24.73% 0%
Q4 26.26% 0%
Table 2 - Adult Cat Euthanasia Sample T-Test
Adult Cats Euthanized as a % of Non-TNR Asilomar Outcomes Q3 2018 thru Q1 2020 vs. Q2 2020 thru Q4 2022
(TNR period vs. No TNR period)
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Q3 2018 to Q1
2020
Q2 2020 to End
of Year 2022
Mean 20.9% 28.8%
Variance 0.001571145 0.004841058
Observations 7 11
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 16
t Stat -3.0532928
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.003793173
t Critical one-tail 1.745883676
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 43 OF 51
APPENDIX 2
Table 3 - Dog Behavioral Euthanasia Rates by Quarter
All Dogs Euthanized for Behavior
as % of all Adult Dog ASILOMAR Outcomes
Dogs
Euthanized
for Behavior
All Dog
Asilomar
Outcomes
% Dogs
Euthanized
2018 Q4 8 1356 0.59%
2019 Q1 21 1385 1.52%
Q2 15 1384 1.08%
Q3 15 1522 0.99%
Q4 16 1312 1.22%
2020 Q1 13 1146 1.13%
Q2 7 701 1.00%
Q3 13 817 1.59%
Q4 13 791 1.64%
2021 Q1 8 746 1.07%
Q2 10 824 1.21%
Q3 18 868 2.07%
Q4 49 882 5.56%
2022 Q1 27 956 2.82%
Q2 44 962 4.57%
Q3 23 1143 2.01%
Table 4 - Dog Behavioral Euthanasia Rates 2 Sample T-Test All Dogs Euthanized for Behavior as a % of All Dog
ASILOMAR Outcomes Q4 2018 to Q2 2021 vs Q3 2021 to Q3 2022 t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Q4 2018 to Q2
2021
Q3 2021 to Q3
2022
Mean 1.19% 3.41%
Variance 9.40995E-06 0.000251006
Observations 11 5
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 4
t Stat -3.109244662
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.017949066
t Critical one-tail 2.131846786
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 44 OF 51
APPENDIX 3
Orange County Grand Jury Animal Shelter Contract City Survey
1. How long has your city been serviced by the Orange County Animal Shelter? a. What factors motivated the city to contract with the Orange County Animal Shelter?
2. What Services have you contracted for the Orange County Animal Shelter? (i.e., Shelter; Animal Control, Licensing, other)
3. What Animal control and care services does the city continue to reserve for itself or contract out to other agencies or vendors not with the Orange County Animal Shelter? (i.e., Control, Licensing, other)
4. How often is the city contract with the Orange County Animal Shelter reviewed and renewed?
5. Describe any regularly scheduled processes the city has in place to review the quality of service provided by the Orange County Animal Shelter.
a. Describe the measure or metrics the city uses when evaluating the Animal Shelter. Please provide a copy of the last review of the Animal Shelter conducted by the city.
b. Describe any review of the Orange County Animal Shelter and the services it provides as part of Shelter contract review and renewal? c. Who conducts Animal Shelter reviews for the city.
d. Are Animal Shelter reviews presented to the city council for their consideration?
6. Does your City have an appointed member of city staff to serve as liaison between the city and OC Animal Shelter management?
a. How frequently does your city meet with the OC Animal Shelter management?
7. As it relates to the sheltering and adoption services provided by the Orange County Animal Shelter(if any) describe your level of satisfaction or any concerns with the service and support.
8. As it relates to Animal Control services being provided (if any) describe your level of satisfaction or any concerns with the service and support.
9. As it relates to Licensing fees and processing (if any) describe your level of satisfaction or any concerns with the service and support.
10. How reasonable are the County fees for providing this service?
11.Have members of you community voiced any concern with Orange County Animal Shelter policies or practices.
a. Please provide the Grand Jury with the any of the city’s complaint logs or records pertaining to the Orange County Animal Shelter.
12.Are there any improvements in the service OC Animal Shelter provides or in the City’s relationship with the Shelter you would like to see?
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 45 OF 51
APPENDIX 4
Orange County Grand Jury Independent City Shelter Survey
1. How is the shelter organized and management governance accomplished at your Center?
2. How many cats, dogs and other animals can you shelter?
3. What services do you provide your local community?
4. How many total staff and volunteers are working or engaged with the shelter?
5. How many volunteers do you require on a daily or weekly basis? a. Do you have adequate volunteers?
6. Do you promote spay/neuter services to the members of your community? a. If yes, is there a cost to the individual?
7. From your perspective what are the challenges faced by your Center?
8. Does your center practice TNR (Trap Neuter Return)?
a. If no, was it ever in place and then discontinued - why? b. If yes, how effective is the program?
9. Does your center accept healthy cats and put them up for adoption? a. If yes, please describe the process.
10. What are the parameters that guide euthanasia at your shelter?
11. Do you have an animal behaviorist on staff? If no, why not?
12. Do you have any interaction with the Orange County Animal Shelter? a. If yes, please describe.
b. If no, why?
13. How is adoption handled in your center? (Adoption by appointment system, open visits, other)?
14. Do your adoption totals include totals transferred to rescues or does it apply only to private parties?
15. Please provide statistics (attachment) for your center (intake, adopted, transferred to shelter, euthanized, etc. by animal type for the current and past 3 years).
16. How does your center respond to complaints from the community and animal activists?
17. If tracked, please provide statistics on complaints you received.
18. Please provide intake statistics (by Cats and Dogs) for the current and 3 past years:
a. Strays
b. Relinquished by owner
c. Owner intended Euthanasia
d. Other Intakes
19. Please provide live outcomes statistics (by Cats and Dogs) for the current and 3 past years:
20. Adoptions
a. Return to Owner
b. Transferred to another agency
c. Returned to Field
21. Please provide other outcomes statistics (by Cats and Dogs) for the current and 3 past years:
a. Died in Care
b. Shelter Euthanasia
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 46 OF 51
APPENDIX 5
OCAC 4th Quarter 2022 Asilomar Report
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 47 OF 51
ABBREVIATIONS:
ABA: American Bar Association
ASPCA: The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ASV: Association of Shelter Veterinarians
CDPH: California Department of Public Health
HASS: Human Animal Support Services
HSUS: Human Society of the United States
OCAC: Orange County Animal Care
OCCR: OC Community Resources
OCGJ: Orange County Grand Jury
OCHRS: OC Human Resource Services
NACA: National Animal Control Association
NGA: Non-government Organization
TNR: Trap, Neuter, Return
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 48 OF 51
GLOSSARY:
Adoption Barriers
Policies or procedures that make adoption, fostering, or volunteering a challenge.
Asilomar
Asilomar refers to an animal welfare industry conference held at Asilomar in Pacific Grove, California. Statistical guidelines developed from this meeting became known as the Asilomar Accords. Participating shelters compile their own data into ‘Asilomar’ reports, publish their data, and forward their reports to Humane Rescue Alliance which compiles nationwide animal welfare statistics.
Behavior Dogs
Dogs identified as having challenging behaviors.
Capacity for Care
Capacity for Care is an organization’s ability to appropriately care for the animals it serves. This is based on a range of parameters including, but not limited to, the number of appropriate housing units; staffing for programs or services; staff training; average length of stay; and the total number of reclaims, adoptions, transfers, returns, or other outcomes.
Community Cat
An unowned cat can be social with people or not. A “Community Cat” is an umbrella definition that includes any outdoor, free roaming cat. These cats may be “Feral” (unsocialized) or friendly or may have been born into the wild. Usually, a Community Cat is a friendly cat.
Feral Cats
Feral cats are not socialized to, and are extremely fearful of, contact with people.
Typically, they do not respond well in captivity. A feral cat is typically born in the wild or outdoors with little to no human interaction. If you attempt to get too close or try to pet them, feral cats view your hand as a claw that will harm them and will hiss and/or run away. Feral cats are born from other ferals or from stray cats.
Kill / No Kill
Kill / No Kill refers to a shelter’s policy respecting euthanasia. A no kill shelter will not conduct euthanasia, with exceptions for humane reasons. Practices of no kill shelters vary along a spectrum that reject the use of euthanasia as a primary means of population control and health management. A kill shelter will conduct euthanasia for a variety of reasons that include animal control, medical and population control, and
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 49 OF 51
behavior. Many municipal shelters are “kill” shelters as their mandates often include animal control.
Kitten Season
A busy time in the animal shelter world when feral and community cats have kittens. The season occurs during warm weather months. Also referred to as cat breeding season.
Typically kitten season is March-October but varies from place to place and in some areas is year-round.
Legal Retention
The number of days a shelter is required by law to hold an animal for recovery by owner prior to placing the animal for adoption, for sale, or euthanizing.
Live Outcome Types
Adoption: an animal is adopted
Return-to-Owner: an animal is returned to the custody of their human/s.
Transferred-Out: an animal is transferred to the custody of another organization.
Trap Neuter Return: an animal is returned to their habitat or community after being treated for medical conditions, including spay/neuter.
Return to Field: putting an animal back where it was found, often as part of a TNR program.
Live Release Rate (Asilomar Report)
Live Release Rate is the proportion of animals leaving the shelter alive to the total number of animals leaving alive plus the number of shelter directed euthanized animals.
Live outcomes are usually achieved through adoption, reclaim by owner, transfer to another agency or other life‐saving actions
Other Outcome Types
Died in Care: any animal who died while in the custody of the shelter, not by euthanasia.
Euthanized/Killed: any animal whose life was ended purposefully while in custody of the organization.
Rescue Groups
Rescue Groups are often operated by a network of foster home‐based volunteers that may or may not be associated with a standing facility. These organizations often accept difficult‐to‐adopt animals from other shelters and may transfer them or facilitate adoptions outside of the shelter setting.
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 50 OF 51
Return to the Field
An animal who has been returned to its home or habitat. Also referred to as relocate, return to community, or return to wild.
Save Rate (Asilomar Report)
Save Rate is the proportion of animals leaving the shelter alive to the total number of animal outcomes.
Shelter Types
Municipal: an organization that provides the animal care services of a city, county, or cities or counties.
Municipal Contract: A private organization that provides contracted services for the animal care of a city, county, or cities or counties.
Rescue without a Municipal Contract: a private organization that has no affiliation to the city or county animal services.
Foster based Rescue without Shelter: an organization who houses all animals in its custody in foster homes.
Sanctuary: An organization that offers animals a place to live out the remainder of their life. Sometimes sanctuaries offer the option of adoption placement.
Animal welfare sanctuaries often offer this space for animals that have exhausted all other local resources, as an alternative to death.
Stray Hold
The number of days a shelter must hold a stray animal before determining the outcome, as determined by local ordinances. These vary from place to place.
TNR (Trap‐Neuter‐Return)
TNR (Trap‐Neuter‐Return) refers to an approach for managing community cats that is an alternative to shelter impoundment. In appropriately managed TNR programs, cats are humanely trapped and surgically sterilized, vaccinated, ear tipped, and returned to the location from where they were trapped.
TNR cats are often not taken into the custody of a spaying/neutering organization because they generally have established community colonies to which they are quickly returned. Community cat colonies are often under the care of a local human member of a community.
Treatable
Treatable means dogs and cats with medical or behavioral issues that can be rehabilitated and managed.
Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2022 I 2023 PAGE 51 OF 51
Unhealthy and Untreatable
Unhealthy and untreatable means dogs and cats who, at or subsequent to the time they are taken into possession:
1. have a behavioral or temperamental characteristic that poses a health or safety risk or otherwise makes the animal unsuitable for placement as a pet, and are not likely to become healthy or treatable; or
2. are suffering from a disease, injury, or congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects the animal’s health or is likely to adversely affect the animal’s health in the future, and are not likely to become healthy or treatable; or
3. are under the age of eight weeks and are not likely to become healthy or treatable, even if provided the care typically provided to pets by reasonable and caring pet guardians in the community.
DISCLAIMER
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.
August 15, 2023
The Honorable Maria Hernandez
Presiding Judge of the Orange County Superior Court
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
RE: California Penal Code Section 933 - Response to the Orange County Grand Jury Report, “Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice”
Dear Judge Hernandez,
The City of Yorba Linda has reviewed the Orange County Grand Jury Report entitled, “Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice” and has formulated a response to each of the required findings and recommendations. 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” or the “respondent” refer to the City of Yorba Linda, and “OCAC” refer to Orange County Animal Care.
Findings:
F4 Based upon industry standards and best practices, Orange County Animal Care ("OCAC”) kennel attendants are understaffed to meet the needs of animals under care.
The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding.
The City’s services agreement with OCAC requires OCAC to operate pursuant to all governmental laws and legal regulations that apply to animal care services. It is the City’s understanding that OCAC is working to fill all vacancies and will further evaluate staffing levels once fully staffed.
F6 The Orange County Animal Care Volunteer program was stopped during COVID-19 and restarting the program has been slow, resulting in decreased animal socialization and enrichment.
The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding.
The City is aware that certain volunteer programs were restricted and/or suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on information provided by OCAC, “The restart of the [volunteer] program has been careful and measured in light of COVID public health restrictions but in the last year has hosted monthly volunteer trainings to recruit and train new recruits.”
The Honorable Maria Hernandez – Response to OC Grand Jury Report August 15, 2023
Page | 2
F7 Orange County Animal Care’s Behavior Evaluation Committee evaluates dogs for euthanasia without written guidelines, policies, or procedures, resulting in inconsistent outcomes over time. Behavior evaluated euthanasia outcomes are dependent on the experience and personal considerations of the individual committee members and management rather than written objective standards.
The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding.
The City lacks knowledge and information sufficient to reach this conclusion and will defer to the City’s animal care services provider, OCAC. It is the City’s understanding that OCAC Behavior Evaluation Committee (BEC) evaluates dogs per euthanasia guidelines to ensure consistency in the decision evaluation process.
F8 The rate of behavioral euthanasia of dogs has increased significantly over the last 2 years.
The respondent disagrees partially with the finding.
Based on the information provided by OCAC, “a potential increase may be correlated to the significant increase in the population of unsocialized dogs with behavior/aggression issues that have been abandoned or surrendered by their owners in the last two years in the wake of the pandemic.” Although data from the report indicates dog behavior related euthanasia increased, OCAC has stated that the “dog save rate has remained stable over the past 2 years and well above the 90% referenced in [OCAC’s] Strategic Plan.” F9 Orange County Animal Care does not employ a professional or trained and certified animal behaviorist to oversee the shelter’s dog enrichment program, resulting in dogs with declining behavior being placed at greater risk of being euthanized.
The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding.
It is the City’s understanding that all OCAC employees working with animals are hired based on their experience and training, and that ongoing training and certifications are a critical part of OCAC’s employee development and provide consistent evaluation of animals at the shelter.
F10 While many county and city animal shelters throughout the state have active Trap, Neuter, and Return programs (“TNR”), Orange County Animal Care stopped its TNR program, reportedly on the basis of the County Counsel’s legal opinion that the program violates a California statute related to willful animal abandonment.
The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding.
The City has not independently assessed the prevalence of TNR programs throughout the State, and relies on OCAC’s expertise in this subject area.
The Honorable Maria Hernandez – Response to OC Grand Jury Report August 15, 2023
Page | 3
F11 The termination of the Trap, Neuter, and Return program is correlated with an increase in adult cat euthanasia rate at the shelter.
The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding.
Based on the information provided by OCAC, a direct correlation has not been established between Trap, Neuter, and Return (TNR) and adult cat euthanasia at OCAC.
F12 There have been public concerns and requests expressed over the years for public programs to include a spay/neuter program by Orange County Animal Care.
The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding.
While the City appreciates the availability of such services, it is unclear how this program would be funded or subsidized.
F13 The current adoption appointment system restricts public access to the dog kennels, thereby limiting potential adopters’ access to all available animals.
The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding.
There has not been any data available to prove or disapprove potential adopters’ access to all available animals. It is the City’s understanding that OCAC’s adoption model has restricted unescorted access, but all adoptable animals have always been accessible to the public through online viewing and in-person visits.
F15 Internal and community engagement does not adequately communicate the shelter’s mission and operating strategy.
The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding.
The Grand Jury Report does not support this finding. Moreover, OCAC hired a full-time Public Information Officer in October 2022 to focus on external communication.
F16 The information currently on the Orange County Animal Care website for low-cost spay/neuter is not up to date with regard to referrals and prices for spay/neuter procedures.
The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding.
It is the City’s understanding that prices have never been posted on the OCAC’s website as they are set by independent practices. The low cost spay/neuter information posted on the OCAC website is supplied solely for informational purposes, to provide information for privately owned pets.
The Honorable Maria Hernandez – Response to OC Grand Jury Report August 15, 2023
Page | 4
Recommendations:
R6: By June 30, 2024, the Board of Supervisors should evaluate the strategic option of creating a Joint Powers Authority for the County and fourteen contract Cities to take ownership and shared responsibility for the financial and operating policies and practices of OCAC. (F1 thru F16)
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable.
The current agreement with Orange County Animal Control for animal control and shelter services expires in 2026. This is a policy choice left to the County Board of Supervisors, over which the Grand Jury and the City do not exert control. At this time, the City of Yorba Linda has no desire of creating or participating in a Joint Powers Authority.
Should you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact our City Manager Mark Pulone at (714) 961-7110.
Respectfully,
City of Yorba Linda
Gene Hernandez, Mayor
Cc: Orange County Grand Jury
700 Civic Center West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
DRAFT Responses to Findings and Recommendations
2022-23 Grand Jury Report:
“Gimme Shelter and a Pound of Advice.”
FINDINGS AND RESPONSES:
F1. Management has limited flexibility utilizing personnel within Orange County Animal Care across departments due to structured work rules, volunteer work restrictions, and employees working in departmental silos.
Response: Disagrees partially with the finding.
Orange County Animal Care (OCAC) follows all County, state and federal workplace regulations to provide a safe and discrimination free work environment.
Abiding by working classification requirements in accordance with state labor laws and union contracts is not unique to OCAC and is required in all County departments. While the County of Orange utilizes Classification Specifications for its positions, they are intended to capture general duties and responsibilities performed that distinguish a given classification from others and is not intended to specifically identify every duty performed by an employee. The classification specifications also outline the minimum qualifications required for each classification. As such, certain job duties/tasks are limited based on knowledge, skills, abilities, education, and certification.
F2. Low staff morale exists within Orange County Animal Care.
Response: Disagrees wholly with the finding.
OCAC monitors morale closely. Although staff is affected by external factors including protests, social media campaigns and organized efforts to destabilize OCAC, ironically staff morale is generally steady. Employee engagement activities are ongoing and proactive steps are being taken to safeguard staff and promote team cohesion.
F3. Orange County Animal Care staffing is negatively impacted by vacant positions remaining unfilled for greater than six months due to burdensome hiring processes.
This delay in recruitment and completion of hiring has resulted in qualified candidates declining job offers.
Response: Disagrees Partially with the finding.
Attachment B
The County does not have any data to show that the vacancy rate has a substantiated negative impact on OCAC; however, it does acknowledge that the vacancy rate at OCAC needs to be reduced. Vacant positions are not a unique concern limited to OCAC, but rather one experienced throughout the County and beyond as Pandemic related shifts to the job market have impacted recruitments and hiring processes.
OC Human Resource Services (OCHRS) is a department within the County Executive Office that follows the County of Orange Recruitment Rules and Policies and the legal requirements outlined in the State Local Agency Personnel Standards as it pertains to recruiting for vacant positions.
There is a current Human Resource Services County work group tasked with updating existing recruitment strategies related to all County recruitments with the goal of increasing timeliness and streamlining processes. OCHRS, OC Community Resources and OCAC have added resources to increase the speed of recruitment.
F4. Based upon industry standards and best practices, Orange County Animal Care kennel attendants are understaffed to meet the needs of animals under care.
Response: Disagrees partially with the finding.
OCAC prioritizes meeting the needs of animals in its care to meet or exceed industry standards and legal requirements. OCAC is working to fill all vacancies and will further evaluate staffing levels once fully staffed. Staffing levels are part of ongoing assessment and evaluation. Due to seasonal fluctuations in shelter animal population coupled with the varying needs of animals based on species and other qualifiers, generic industry guidelines are valuable points of reference in the evaluation process but are simply one of many factors to consider. OCHRS, OCCR and OCAC have added resources to increase the speed of recruitment.
F5. Orange County Animal Care’s operating policies and procedures manual is out of date.
Response: Agrees with the finding.
Operating policies and procedures are living documents and require review and update on a continual basis. Updating OCAC’s operating policies and procedures manual is an undertaking that OCAC takes seriously. It should be noted that recently a significant amount of resources has been focused on litigation response and unprecedented levels of PRAs which has diverted staff resources from the importance of a current P&P Manual. Staff resources are now being assigned with potential contractor assistance to prioritize review and updating efforts.
F6. The Orange County Animal Care Volunteer program was stopped during COVID-19 and restarting the program has been slow, resulting in decreased animal socialization and enrichment.
Response: Disagrees wholly with the finding.
Attachment B
The COVID-19 State of Emergency in California did not end until February 23, 2023. Throughout this time, OCAC suspended volunteer recruitment and selectively used volunteers as able given safety restrictions The restart of the program has been careful and measured in light of COVID public health restrictions but in the last year has hosted monthly volunteer trainings to recruit and train new recruits.
F7. Orange County Animal Care’s Behavior Evaluation Committee evaluates dogs for euthanasia without written guidelines, policies, or procedures, resulting in inconsistent outcomes over time. Behavior evaluated euthanasia outcomes are dependent on the experience and personal considerations of the individual committee members and management rather than written objective standards.
Response: Disagrees partially with the finding.
It is inaccurate to suggest that the OCAC Behavior Evaluation Committee (BEC) operates without structure or consistency. The OCAC BEC evaluates dogs per euthanasia guidelines to ensure consistency in the decision evaluation process.
Behavior evaluated outcomes are dependent on each individual animal and, since OCAC cannot directly control its intake, the percentage of outcome results vary based on the condition and the circumstances surrounding the animal being evaluated rather than a consistent pattern over time. The County does agree, however, that the experience and training of the individuals on the BEC is critical to an accurate and well-rounded evaluation of the animal, and the BEC positions are structured to provide experience and knowledge across all areas of the shelter that interact with the animals.
F8. The rate of behavioral euthanasia of dogs has increased significantly over the last 2 years.
Response: Disagrees partially with the finding.
The increase can be correlated to the significant increase in the population of unsocialized dogs with behavior/aggression issues that have been abandoned or surrendered by their owners in the last two years in the wake of the pandemic. This tragic trend is occurring across the region, state and nation. Although data from the report indicates dog behavior related euthanasia increased, the OCAC dog save rate has remained stable over the past 2 years and well above the 90% called out in the Strategic Plan. Euthanasia is driven by the type and condition of animals that come into the shelter. OCAC cannot directly control the types of animals needing intake and in fact has focused specifically on prioritizing sick, injured, aggressive, and stray intake.
F9. Orange County Animal Care does not employ a professional or trained and certified animal behaviorist to oversee the shelter’s dog enrichment program, resulting in dogs with declining behavior being placed at greater risk of being euthanized.
Response: Disagrees wholly with the finding.
Attachment B
It is shortsighted to suggest that training and evaluation should be restricted to a single member of staff when it isintentionally designed that animals have numerous critical interfaces with multiple members of staff during their pathway through the shelter. All OCAC employees working with animals are hired based on their experience and training. Ongoing training and certifications are a critical part of employee development and provide consistent evaluation of animals at the shelter.
With this approach OCAC has been able to adapt to the changing demographic of dogs coming to the shelter and has expanded programming to provide more pathways for positive outcomes such as the TLC program and our rescues partner placement program.
F10. While many county and city animal shelters throughout the state have active Trap, Neuter, and Return programs, Orange County Animal Care stopped its Trap, Neuter, and Return program, reportedly on the basis of the County Counsel’s legal opinion that the program violates a California statute related to willful animal abandonment.
Response: The County will not respond to this finding based on the Attorney-Client privilege.
The Office of County Counsel is prohibited from responding to the Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations due to the attorney-client privilege.
F11. The termination of the Trap, Neuter, and Return program is correlated with an increase in adult cat euthanasia rate at the shelter.
Response: Disagrees wholly with the finding.
No direct correlation has been established between Trap, Neuter, and Return (TNR) and adult cat euthanasia at OCAC. TNR reduces reproduction in adult cats but has not been demonstrated to directly correlate to adult cat euthanasia. Euthanasia is driven by the type and condition of animals that come into the shelter. OCAC cannot directly control the types of animals needing intake and in fact has focused specifically on prioritizing sick, injured and aggressive.
F12. There have been public concerns and requests expressed over the years for public programs to include a spay/neuter program by Orange County Animal Care.
Response: Disagrees with the finding.
Members of the public have requested free spay/neuter services of privately owned pets, but shelter resources and city funding are scoped to only support shelter animals. Cities are free to allocate funds to provide vouchers to local veterinarians for this service. To assist the public, OCAC partners with HEART for low cost spay/neuter clinic once per month.
F13. The current adoption appointment system restricts public access to the dog kennels, thereby limiting potential adopters’ access to all available animals.
Attachment B
Response: Disagrees wholly with the finding.
The adoption model hasrestricted unescorted access, but all adoptable animals have always been accessible to the public through online viewing and in-person visits.
Furthermore, in 2022, OCAC provided 10,457 adoption visits for an average of nearly 30 visits per day. There is consistently an average of 58 appointments available per day for public access clearly demonstrating the shelter has not met its threshold for adoption visit availability and is currently able to meet the needs of the Community. OCAC uses industry best practices and continues to find ways to serve the public and our animals such as a pilot project that is under development for kennel viewing later this summer.
F14. Orange County Animal Care’s engagement with some animal rescue partners is negatively impacted due to differences of opinion in appropriate animal care policy.
Response: Respondent agrees with the finding.
OCAC is a large scale, municipal shelter tasked with balancing public safety and animal welfare. As a way-station for animals, OCAC seeks positive placements for animals in its care when appropriate to do so by, in part, partnering with over 250 sister shelters, rescue partners and networkers. While interested in input and collaboration, animal care at OCAC cannot be tailored to or directed by individual personal opinions. In this highly charged industry, it is not unusual for there to be differences of opinion, but OCAC is guided by state laws and regulations and its Strategic Plan.
F15. Internal and community engagement does not adequately communicate the shelter’s mission and operating strategy.
Response: Disagrees wholly with the finding.
OCAC hired a full-time Public Information Officer in October 2022 to focus on external communication; prior to October 2022, this position did not exist but instead held other responsibilities as well. This is an example of OCAC’s prioritization of external communication to the public. OCAC’s goal is to participate in at least 200 community events in 2023, whether it be adoption events or public outreach. Despite consistent messaging to stakeholders and focused attention on program communication, OCAC cannot control print news coverage and social media efforts designed to incite controversy.
F16. The information currently on the Orange County Animal Care website for low- cost spay/neuter is not up to date with regard to referrals and prices for spay/neuter procedures.
Response: Disagrees wholly with the finding.
Attachment B
Prices have never been posted on the OCAC website as they are set by independent practices and are outside the purview of OCAC. The low cost spay/neuter information posted on the OCAC website is supplied solely for informational purposes, and OCAC has no responsibility or obligation to provide this content.
The website is updated annually for the community’s benefit, but it should be noted that the information issubject to change at any time aslocal, privately owned clinics routinely update services and hours.
F17. The OC County Counsel’s office misstated to the Grand Jury the scope of its commitment to serving and assisting the Grand Jury in its investigations into County governance respecting managing conflicts between the Board of Supervisors, OC departments and agency clients, and the Grand Jury.
Response: Disagrees wholly with this finding.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND RESPONSES:
R1. By October 1, 2023, OC Human Resource Services should review and update recruitment strategies to significantly increase the timeliness of recruitment of vacant positions and to anticipate vacancies due to retirement, resignations, transfers. (F3) Response: The recommendation has been implemented.
OC Human Resource Services is a department within the County Executive Office that follows the County of Orange Recruitment Rules and Policies and the legal requirements outlined in the State Local Agency Personnel Standards as it pertains to recruiting for vacant positions. There is a current Human Resource Services County work group tasked with updating existing recruitment strategies related to all County recruitments with the goal of increasing timeliness and streamlining processes. Strategies are being implemented as they are developed.
R2. By December 31, 2023, Orange County Animal Care, OC Community Resources, and OC Human Resource Services should review hiring practices to facilitate process improvements to expedite filling OCAC vacancies. (F3)
Response: The recommendation has been implemented.
Since the end of the state-imposed lockdown due to COVID-19, OCAC, OCCR and OCHRS have met monthly to review OCHRS hiring practices within OCCR.
Position vacancies in HRS recruiting, ongoing COVID impacts, and a competitive job market presented challenges to achieving full staffing levels. As a result of these meetings, HRS recruiting staff assigned to OCCR was expanded with both permanent and extra help positions to address reducing the vacancy factor and increasing the speed of recruitment. Finally, OCAC assigned the oversight of all recruitments to their business office to ensure OCAC hiring managers have Attachment B
consistent support and tracking of recruitments. Review of the recruitment process is ongoing and OCHRS, OCCR and OCAC are working collaboratively toward achieving and maintaining full staffing levels. Staff at OCAC’s are the program’s most valuable resource.
Additionally, there is a current Human Resource Services County work group tasked with updating existing recruitment strategies related to all County recruitments with the goal of increasing timeliness and streamlining processes.
Strategies are being implemented as they are developed.
R3. By October 1, 2023, OC Community Resources and Orange County Animal Care should review their current staffing allocations of Animal Care Attendants to reflect NACA guidelines and to provide appropriate staffing allocations for animal care, feeding and enrichment. (F3, F4)
Response: The recommendation requires further analysis.
Review of staffing allocations is ongoing and OCHRS, OCCR and OCAC are working collaboratively toward achieving and maintaining full staffing levels.
Staff at OCAC are the program’s most valuable resource. When full staffing is achieved, the staffing model will be analyzed over a six-month period and allocations will be reviewed by OCHRS in line with industry recommendations.
R4. By October 1, 2023, OC Community Resources and Orange County Animal Care should review their current staffing allocations of all positions within the OCAC and reallocate resources to increase Animal Care Attendants to reflect NACA guidelines to provide appropriate staffing for animal care, feeding, and enrichment. (F3, F4) Response: The recommendation requires further analysis.
Review of staffing allocations is ongoing and OCHRS, OCCR and OCAC are working collaboratively toward achieving and maintaining full staffing levels.
Staff at OCAC’s are the program’s most valuable resource. When full staffing is achieved, the staffing model will be analyzed over a six-month period and allocations will be reviewed by OCHRS.
R5. By December 31, 2023, Orange County Animal Care management should review and update policies, procedures, guidelines, and practices to assure they are accurate and reflect current operating practices. (F5)
Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future.
The County will be contracting with an independent consultant to focus concentrated efforts on review and update of policies, procedures, guidelines and practices. Although paused during the COVID-19 lockdown and post-lock down due to staffing shortages, review and update of policies, procedures, guidelines and practices have resumed. Included in the contracted scope will be identification of Attachment B
organizational responsibility of this function and a process for ongoing review, consideration, and introduction of new P&Ps.
R6. By June 30, 2024, the Board of Supervisors should evaluate the strategic option of creating a Joint Powers Authority for the County and fourteen contract Cities to take ownership and shared responsibility for the financial and operating policies and practices of OCAC. (F1 thru F16)
Response: Requires further analysis.
Agreements between the County and the 14 partner cities that contract for animal care services expire in 2026. Options for future service delivery models will be evaluated in advance of expiration of contracts.
R7. By October 1, 2023, Orange County Animal Care management should establish written guidelines, policies, and procedures as standards for evaluating animal behavior for use by the Behavior Evaluation Committee. (F5, F7) Response: The recommendation has been implemented.
The OCAC BEC will continue to evaluate dogs for euthanasia using existing and updated guidelines, policies, and procedures to ensure consistency in the decision evaluation process and guidelines will be updated as needed. Behavior evaluated outcomes are dependent on each individual animal and, since OCAC cannot directly control its intake, the outcome results vary based on the condition and the circumstances surrounding the animal being evaluated.
R8. By December 31, 2023, in the interests of transparency, Orange County Animal Care management should add a representative from a rescue organization to serve as a nonvoting, at-large member on the Behavior Evaluation Committee. (F7, F14) Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable.
This will not be implemented as the Attorney General opined (No. 18-1001) that municipal agencies are ultimately responsible for decisions regarding public safety and therefore to determine if an animal is safe to place back into the community rather than rescue or 501(c)3 organizations. OCAC will continue quarterly meetings with the Rescue Partners and to provide expanded animal information for each case when and if possible, through its online OC Rescue Track website.
R9. By December 31, 2023, Orange County Animal Care, OC Community Resources, and OC Human Resource Services should hire an animal behaviorist or certified dog trainers to work with aggressive animals to reduce the high rate of dogs being euthanized and enhance their adoptability. (F8, F9)
Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable.
Attachment B
A single OCAC position is not responsible for evaluation of the animals triaged through the shelter and placed in their best and most appropriate placement. Every OCAC staff member who interacts with animals is recruited with minimum qualifications that require animal experience and handling expertise. Additionally, staff participate in ongoing trainings such as Fear Free Sheltering, bite prevention, safe aggressive animal handling. OCAC’s model is reliant on expertise in every section (intake, medical, kenneling, fostering, rescue and placement) to ensure that the animals find their best outcomes and that the shelter maintains its commitment to the save rates as called out in OCAC’s Strategic Plan. Furthermore, as a highvolume municipal animal shelter OCAC does not train aggressive dogs to increase their adoptability. OCAC’s responsibility is to accurately evaluate animals and to move them as quickly as possible out of the shelter and on to the best placement given their circumstance. It should be noted that the dog save rate for OCAC is 94 percent, well above the rate called out in the OCAC Strategic Plan.
R10. By December 31, 2023, the Orange County Board of Supervisors and Orange County Animal Care management should request that County Counsel reconsider its opinion about the shelter's former Trap, Neuter, and Return program, or seek an independent second opinion to County Counsel’s opinion, to ascertain whether the program can be re-established, or a modified version of the program can be implemented. (F10, F11) Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable.
The Office of County Counsel is prohibited from responding to the Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations due to the attorney-client privilege.
R11. By July 1, 2024, Orange County Animal Care should implement a low-cost public spay/neuter program. (F12)
Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable.
Members of the public have requested free spay/neuter services of privately owned pets, but shelter resources and city funding are scoped to only support shelter animals. OCAC currently partners with HEART, www.heart4pets.org, for monthly, mobile low cost spay and neuter services at the County shelter. In addition, Cities are able to contract for additional services as needed or desired.
R12. By October 1, 2023, Orange County Animal Care management should hold all- hands staff meetings at least every quarter. (F1, F2)
Response: The recommendation has been implemented.
OCAC renewed its All-hands Meetings on 6/20/23 and the upcoming meetings are scheduled at quarterly intervals.
Attachment B
R13. By October 1, 2023, Orange County Animal Care, OC Community Resources, and OC Human Resource Services should conduct annual surveys of staff to monitor morale and identify opportunities for operational improvement. (F1, F2) Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable.
OCAC renewed its All-hands Meetings on June 20, 2023, and upcoming meetings are scheduled on quarterly intervals. The meeting includes various feedback loops to solicit staff input. Additionally, OCAC has Labor Management Committees in place to monitor morale and identify opportunities for improvement.
R14. By December 31, 2023, Orange County Animal Care management should open the shelter to the public for walk throughs to maximize opportunities for the public to adopt animals under the care of the shelter. (F13)
Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable.
The recommendation is not warranted. As of the date of publication of this report, cat and exotic animal kennels were open for escorted public walk through. OCAC continuously reviews and initiates new programming targeted at maintaining and increasing adoption rates while ensuring public safety. On July 19, 2023, OCAC initiated the Kennel Connection – a pilot program designed by staff, spearheaded by the Director, and implemented with the assistance of volunteers, to feature inkennel viewing hours of adoptable dogs and cats on a pre-identified schedule. As a pilot program, it will be evaluated for animal benefit and shelter efficiency and revised as needed.
R15. By October 1, 2023, Orange County Animal Care management should look for new ways to be more inclusive and engaged with volunteers and the rescue organizations that are necessary for the shelter’s success. (F14, F15) Response: The recommendation has been implemented.
Clear and consistent communication is critical and OCAC values maintaining positive volunteer and rescue relationships. This is inherently challenging given the vulnerable pet population entering the shelter, the rapid assessment and placement they require and the highly emotional opinions of external stakeholders that factor into these decisions and placements. OCAC values both volunteer and rescue organizations and has worked diligently with both over many years.
OCAC has hosted monthly Volunteer Coffee meetings over the past year, has held monthly volunteer trainings, hosts an active online Facebook social media site and celebrates the achievements of shelter volunteers and foster volunteers through two annual recognition events. In addition to this, OCAC has renewed its Volunteer Roundtable Meetings on June 21, 2023, with upcoming meetings scheduled on a quarterly basis and has engaged in a refresh of the OCAC Volunteer program now that recruiting has resumed post-COVID.
Attachment B
OCAC values the role that non-profit rescue organizations play as they are uniquely designed to focus time and resources on specific animals with medical or behavioral conditions that require more intensive care or attention than a municipal shelter can provide. Rescue organizations are integrated into daily operations via the shelter web-based tool, Rescue Track which is a daily communicator regarding the animals that require specialized care and their condition, prognosis, and projected outcome without intervention. Communication with rescue organizations is maintained by the OCAC rescue team and will be enhanced by continuing to communicate daily about animals in need, offering one-on-one walk-throughs to meet individual animals in need of rescue placement, and continuing Rescue Roundtable meetings.
It should not go without notice however that compassion fatigue is a critical issue in the animal care community, and that it impacts OCAC employees, volunteers, and representatives of rescue organizations equally. Each animal is unique, has their own story and is evaluated based on their specific condition. That being said, OCAC’s responsibility as a municipal shelter is to provide for animal welfare as well as community safety. Difficult decisions regarding euthanasia can, and do, create unavoidable stress between various stakeholders and shelter staff, as all parties strive to find positive and humane outcomes for the animals in OCAC’s care.
R16. By October 1, 2023, Orange County Animal Care should schedule quarterly meetings with community stakeholders to facilitate transparency and engagement. (F14, F15) Response: The recommendation has been implemented.
OCAC holds regular quarterly meeting of the Community Outreach Committee, which is an advisory committee to the Orange County Board of Supervisors, in addition to quarterly Rescue Roundtable meetings and Volunteer Roundtable meetings.
R17. By October 1, 2023, Orange County Animal Care management should update the information currently on its website for low-cost spay/neuter of feral cats with regard to referrals and prices for spay/neuter procedures. (F16) Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable.
Prices have never been posted on the OCAC website as they are set by independent practices and are outside the purview of OCAC. The low cost spay/neuter information posted on the OCAC website is supplied solely for informational purposes, and OCAC has no responsibility or obligation to provide this content.
The website is updated annually for the community’s benefit, but it should be noted that the information issubject to change at any time aslocal, privately owned clinics routinely update services and hours.
Attachment B
R18. Beginning with the 2023/2024 Grand Jury training, and all training thereafter, County Counsel should provide detailed instruction about the circumstances under which the County Counsel’s office might recuse itself from assisting with Grand Jury investigations and the alternatives available to the Grand Jury under such circumstances. (F17)
Response: The Office of County Counsel is prohibited from responding to the Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations due to the attorney-client privilege.
Additional Information Provided in Support of Response:
• OCAC 2022 Positive Placement Infographic
Attachment B
Through the adoption model, partnerships in the community, robust foster and rescue programs, programs like Pooches on the Patio, and dedicated staff and volunteers, OC Animal Care found positive placement for over 8,400 dogs and cats that entered our shelter in 2022.
2022
POSITIVE PLACEMENT
To view the complete shelter statistics over the last ten years, visit www.ocpetinfo.com/about-us/shelter-statistics.
15.67%OF DOGS & CATS WERE REUNITED WITH OWNERS
46.57% OF DOGS & CATS WERE ADOPTED
19.83% OF DOGS & CATS WERE TRANSFERRED
The save rate includes a variety of positive placement including adoptions, return to owners, and transfers to sister shelters or rescue agencies.
Positive placement includes all live outcomes and are reported in the annual statistics. 2022 SAVE RATES FOR DOGS & CATS
94.18%
dog save rate
73.64%
cat save rate
82.07%
OF THE
OF DOGS & CATS
THAT WERE
POSITIVELY PLACE
On average, about 19 out of every 20 dogs that enter OC Animal Care find a positive outcome.
The percentage of placement is found by dividing the number of outcomes by the number of total live outcomes plus other outcomes.
The 10-year average adoption rate for OC Animal Care is ~35.2%.
Attachment B
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
DATE: AUGUST 15, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MIKE KUDRON, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION
SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACT TO DAVID VOLZ DESIGN FOR THE BRYANT
RANCH IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council authorize award of contract to David Volz Design for design services, construction documents, and construction period services for the Bryant Ranch Basketball Court project for $83,564 with 15% contingency funding ($12,534.60) for a total of $96,098.60.
BACKGROUND
The City of Yorba Linda received notification that funding has been approved as part of the State of California Budget Act for improvements at Bryant Ranch Park in the amount of $700,000. The focus of this improvement project is to construct a new basketball court (with pickleball overlay courts) and court lighting as a new recreational feature for the park. The scope is almost identical to the Vista Del Verde Basketball Court Project, which is in the final design phase with David Volz Designs, landscape architecture firm.
DISCUSSION
Since the scope of work for the Bryant Ranch Project is almost identical to the Vista Del Verde Project, staff is seeking authorization to enter into a separate agreement with David Volz Design. In addition to the scope similarities, David Volz Design was the landscape architecture firm that originally designed Bryant Ranch Park and is familiar with the site and hiring the same architect will ensure the design style will match the other design features of the park. Utilizing David Volz Design for this project will also realize economies of scale as some of the work from the Vista Del Verde project will not need to be replicated for the Bryant Ranch project. Selecting David Volz Design for this project is consistent with Administrative Policy A-F-5 (Section E-6) related to utilizing sole source/sole brand purchases. David Volz Design has also been vetted through Administrative Policy A-F-5 related to utilizing pre-approved firms to perform professional services.
AWARD OF CONTRACT TO DAVID VOLZ DESIGN FOR THE BRYANT RANCH
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
P a g e | 2
FISCAL IMPACT
Design services, construction documents, and construction period services for the Proposition 68 project at Bryant Ranch Park total $83,564. In addition, a 15% contingency of $12,534.60 is requested to account for unexpected work that may occur as part of this contract. The project is anticipated to be fully completed and constructed prior to July 1, 2025. The total cost for the project including landscape architectural costs and construction is estimated at $700,000, which will be reimbursed by the State of California. Matching funds are not required for this project.
ALTERNATIVES
City Council could choose not to approve the award of contract and provide additional direction to staff.
ATTACHMENTS
1. DVD Agreement
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT
DATE: AUGUST 15, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MARK A. PULONE, CITY MANAGER
PREPARED BY: MARK K. AALDERS, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY
MANAGER
SUBJECT: DENIAL OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES – HICKERSON
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council of the City of Yorba Linda deny the claim for damages by Steven Hickerson.
BACKGROUND
Claims for damages filed against the City are reviewed and investigated by City staff and a third-party claims administrator with the George Hills Company. George Hills Company specializes in claims management and risk management services. These services are provided through the City’s contract membership in the California Insurance Pool Authority.
Staff makes recommendations to the Council for settlement or denial based on the investigatory findings. A claimant’s failure to provide evidence of and/or supporting documents to substantiate the claim for damages will also result in a recommendation for denial of the claim.
DISCUSSION
The following claim for damages has been recommended for denial based on the investigations by City staff and the third-party claims administrator. Further details for each claim are available upon request.
Steven Hickerson
The claimant alleges that he slipped on an unknown substance while playing basketball at the Thomas Lasorda Field House gym and then fell sustaining an injury to his left foot, including a ruptured Achilles heel. Staff reviewed the video footage and the claimant appeared to be trying to move quickly to block another player and lost his footing. Basketball injuries are not uncommon and there is an inherent risk with playing the sport. The claimant also signed a waiver when signing in for the game with staff. Therefore, the third-party claims administrator and City staff recommend denying the claim.
DENIAL OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES – HICKERSON
P a g e | 2
FISCAL IMPACT
None
ALTERNATIVES
As an alternative to staff’s recommendations for the claims, the City Council has the following options:
1. Accept liability for the claims and pay the amount specified in the claim forms.
2. Grant settlement authority up to a certain amount and direct the claims adjuster to enter into settlement negotiations with the claimants.
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
DATE: AUGUST 15, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MARCIA BROWN, CMC, CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND AGENCY REPORTS
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report.
DISCUSSION
City Council members serve on a number of outside committees and agencies. Attached are updates received recently from these agencies.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Reports from City Council Organizations, Agencies and Committees
White Paper on the District’s Sterile Insect Technique (SIT) Program Staff Report – Amber Semrow, Director of Scientific Technical Services Background
Invasive Aedes mosquitoes have plagued California for more than a decade. Aedes albopictus, Ae. aegypti, and Ae. notoscriptus appeared in Los Angeles County in 2011, 2013, and 2014, respectively, while Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus were detected in Orange County in 2015, followed by Ae. notoscriptus in 2017 (Metzger et al. 2017, 2022). Since that time, their presence has changed the quality of life in southern California. These invasive mosquitoes are commonly referred to as invasive Aedes, ankle bitters, or zebra mosquitoes. These mosquitoes’ pestiferous behavior, adaptable and prolific nature, documented resistance to conventional pesticides, and vector competency make them not only problematic, but a serious public health risk. Combined, these three species are known to transmit the disease-causing agents of dengue, chikungunya, Zika, yellow fever, and dog heartworm.
These container breeding mosquitoes are aggressive day-time biters (that prefer to bite mammals) and are particularly difficult to suppress due to their unique biology coupled with the ecology of southern California. In recent years, vector control districts have been notified of many travel-acquired human infections, caused by Aedes-vectored pathogens, in southern California cities where local transmission is possible due to well established invasive Aedes populations. The World Health Organization (WHO) reported that global cases of dengue fever rose from 505,430 in 2000 to 5.2 million human infections in 2019. In 2022, there were locally transmitted cases of dengue reported in Arizona (2), Florida (57), and Puerto Rico (820) according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC). The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) reported in June 2023 that chikungunya and dengue fever outbreaks are of “high magnitude” in South America, and along with the WHO, they have issued a dengue transmission preparedness warning in Central America and the Caribbean. While there has not been a case of an Aedes-vectored disease acquired by local mosquito populations in Orange County or Los Angeles County yet, the density of Aedes mosquitoes could support local transmission.
Traditional management techniques such as source reduction and larvicide applications are well established programs at vector control agencies and work well to suppress the native mosquito species. A preference for small, cryptic breeding sources in residents’ yards as well as pesticide resistance in these invasive Aedes mosquitoes, translate into decreased efficacy of traditional control methods. This has required mosquito control agencies in southern California to find new tools to combat this significant nuisance and potential public health threat despite also having established new/focused education programs to work with the public to reduce breeding habitat.
A well-established insect management strategy called Sterile Insect Technique (SIT) has a long history of success at reducing populations of pest insects in agricultural and in veterinary settings (Klassen and Curtis 2005). The desired result of this intervention is to render the female insects incapable of producing viable offspring. This technique establishes colony raised male insects which are sterilized and released in strategic locations to compete against wild males to mate with wild female insects. If they are successful competitors, the continued release of sterile males will reduce the wild population of insects. The sterilized males must be released continually, and in high numbers, to outcompete existing non-sterilized insects in the environment.
Agenda Item G.4
SIT is a proven and effective means of reducing established non-native insect populations where traditional control methods were ineffective, such as with the Mediterranean fruit fly invasion in Los Angeles County in the late 1980’s. Most residents of southern California are unaware that the Mediterranean fruit fly suppression campaign continues to this day throughout the region. The program, managed by the California Department of Food and Agriculture and jointly funded by the United States Department of Agriculture, releases millions of sterilized male fruit flies by aircraft over approximately 1,800 sq. miles of the Los Angeles basin each week to ensure fruit flies do not threaten our citrus production industries.
Additionally, SIT is also a proven technique in lowering populations of mosquitoes (Dame 2009).
In mosquito control, there are three main innovative technologies for mosquito sterilization or other population suppression strategies that are broadly referred to as mosquito SIT, including:
genetic modification (self-limiting mosquitoes), Wolbachia (bacteria infected mosquitoes), or irradiation sterilization by either x-ray or gamma-ray. In 2018 in the Fresno California area, a
95.5% reduction of Ae. aegypti mosquitoes was achieved with the release of Wolbachia infected male mosquitoes. In Singapore a highly urbanized and densely populated city, a 90% reduction in Aedes activity was observed using SIT. In South El Monte, Los Angeles County, a trial SIT mosquito release was conducted in 2015 when Ae. albopictus was threatening to expand. The trial yielded promising results, but funding, production, and distribution challenges halted the project. Results reported from a seminal irradiated sterile male mosquito SIT project, by the Lee County Mosquito Control District in Fort Meyer, FL, resulted in a statistically significant reduction of the Ae. aegypti population on Captiva Island, FL over a three-year period.
Now that both Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus are well established in southern California, implementing a SIT strategy against these mosquitoes may aid in controlling current infestation levels, potentially lowering the biting pressure, and helping to prevent local transmission of tropical diseases. Several districts in the state are looking to establish SIT programs within their jurisdictions by contracting with companies to sterilize insects for release or doing the work inhouse.
The Southern California Sterile Insect Technique (SoCalSIT) Joint Pilot Project discussed below is an in-house mosquito SIT program, among the first in California. The SoCalSIT Project is a joint effort between the Orange County Mosquito and Vector Control District (OCMVCD) and the Greater Los Angeles County Vector Control District (GLACVCD), which aims to study the efficacy of irradiated sterile male Ae. aegypti releases to determine if this SIT technology can be applied regionally. While this is one of three early in-house SIT projects in southern California, districts in Florida and Texas have been working for several years establishing in-house programs. In developing and conducting the SIT Joint Pilot Project, OCMVCD and GLACVCD are working in compliance with state and federal regulations. Joint Project staff are also building on the previous SIT research of other programs and proven methods of SIT, through collaborations with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Health Organization, and other institutions.
SIT Strategies
As female mosquitoes mate only one time in their brief lives, the aim of SIT is to ensure that labreared sterile male mosquitoes mate with the wild female mosquitoes before they have mated with a wild male mosquito. This intervention with SIT male mosquitoes causes wild female mosquitoes to produce sterile eggs and eliminates all future progeny. Only male mosquitoes are released. Male mosquitoes do not bite and therefore do not transmit disease. The most common techniques used to sterilize mosquitoes are genetic modification (self-limiting), Wolbachia (bacteria infected), and x-ray irradiation.
Agenda Item G.4
The beauty of SIT is that, while the sterilization or population suppression strategies may vary, the successful outcomes are comparable.
1. Genetic Modification (Self-limiting mosquitoes)
In genetic modification, a population of lab reared mosquitoes are sterilized through the injection of a lethal gene sequence into mosquito eggs which is carried as adults. The gene prevents the emergence of the female offspring in the wild, and since the gene is only being passed on to half the emerging males in the next generation, the gene is self-limiting, and releases have to be continuous. This technique is seeing success in Brazil, Cayman Islands, Panama, India, and Florida.
2. Wolbachia (Bacteria infected mosquitoes)
Another method to sterilize insects (or make them incompatible) involves infecting mosquitoes with bacteria, specifically a bacterium that is naturally occurring in insects called Wolbachia.
This bacterium is present in many insects throughout the world and if the released males are infected with a different strain than the wild females they mate with, the result is non-viable eggs. In this technique, it is essential that only male mosquitoes are released. If female Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes are released, the bacterium could potentially establish in wild populations, thereby decreasing the efficacy of the technique.
3. X-ray Irradiation
Irradiation of insects for SIT was the first method explored to sterilize insects during the 1950’s and was initially attempted for mosquitoes during the 1960’s. Early attempts used high levels of irradiation, which at the time was undesirable due a severe reduction in fitness of the sterilized males in comparison to their wild counterparts. In recent years, irradiation equipment using finely calibrated x-ray technology has been developed for agricultural purposes and modified for use in mosquito SIT programs. This technique was recently refined to overcome the previous negative effects on mosquito fitness and survivability by using half the amount of radiation previously used. The reduced level of irradiation sterilizes the laboratory reared male mosquitoes while allowing them to equally compete with wild males. Aiding in expediting the distribution of irradiated male mosquitoes, permits are not required to release x-ray sterilized mosquitoes as there is no physical modification to the organisms. Another positive aspect to this strategy is it does not require extensive monitoring since the sterilization is accomplished via xray technology, and any accidental release of irradiated female mosquitoes will not result in contamination of wild populations or future progeny.
To ensure that a sufficient number of wild female mosquitoes mate with lab sterilized male mosquitoes, large quantities of SIT male mosquitoes are necessary to effectively outcompete the wild males. Obtaining the quantity of mosquitoes necessary to effectively apply SIT creates several challenges for manufacturers of sterile male mosquitoes.
There are three main challenges to successfully using SIT in a mosquito management program.
The first is rearing a sufficient quantity of male mosquitoes for sterilization and release. Insect production is a labor-intensive process that requires dedicated personnel, facilities, and equipment. The second is transporting the mosquitoes from the manufacturing location to the release locations, which can be challenging due to the delicate nature of insects. Finally, the third is monitoring the efficacy of the program.
Agenda Item G.4
Companies providing Wolbachia and genetically modified sterilized insects are currently working on obtaining the required permits and establishing rearing facilities for dissemination in California. The equipment to sterilize insects by x-ray irradiation is readily available for districts willing to produce their own mosquitoes for release. Release of irradiated mosquitoes is currently allowed in California as the x-ray sterilized mosquitoes have not been modified through genetic manipulation or through infection with bacteria.
SIT Implementation in Southern California
In total, there are currently four districts working to establish in-house SIT programs in California using x-ray irradiated mosquitoes. It is important to note that SIT is a proven effective strategy, but it is a long-term mosquito reduction strategy and significant reductions will be gradual.
Previous attempts to use SIT were time-limited trials to prove the strategy would work in southern California and this effort would build upon the lessons learned in those preliminary proof of concept trials. In-house SIT programs provide the districts with some key advantages in establishing a successful mosquito control program. The most important is that SIT, via irradiation, is available to be implemented as soon as the mosquito colonies and equipment are available.
This control method is proven to reduce Aedes mosquito populations, is cost-effective, and does not require permits/approvals for releases of sterilized insects. Producing the insects in-house would allow for production to be tailored to the release needs and ramped up for new areas to be served over time. Producing SIT mosquitoes in-house also allows districts to tailor the release methods to their specific geographic ecology and local mosquito strain biology.
Maintaining control of the SIT product from egg to distributed adult in-house allows for the districts to explore and refine techniques at a much faster pace.
Advantages of Partnership
Facing high volumes of public complaints, increased disease risk, and the financial implications of control efforts to address invasive Aedes mosquitoes, the OCMVCD and GLACVCD partnered to conduct a pilot project to study the efficacy of SIT to suppress the region’s most abundant and threatening invasive mosquito, Ae. aegypti. The OCMVCD and GLACVCD Boards of Trustees established a formal cooperative agreement in late 2021 to jointly purchase a small irradiator (Rad Source 1800 Q Unit, Buford GA, USA) and collaborate on the bijurisdictional SIT study. The advantages of partnering on the project include cost sharing of equipment and materials, inter-agency collaborative study with a large spatially scaled study design, implementation, and analysis, and the expanded opportunity for innovation and ingenuity by a large, diversified team.
Agenda Item G.4
Study Goals and Objectives
The broad goal of the SIT Joint Pilot Project is to suppress wild populations of Ae. aegypti using X-ray sterilized adult male Ae. aegypti to numbers below purported disease transmission thresholds, thereby lowering the disease risk to the community and consequently reducing biting pressure. Most published work on irradiation-based SIT using mosquitoes has examined irradiation of Ae. aegypti, (or other species) in the pupal stage. This project aims to irradiate adult male Ae. aegypti, as it is reported in the literature that irradiation in the adult stage allows for a longer timeframe to optimally administer the irradiation dose to the mosquito, allowing flexibility in the logistics of releasing mosquitoes and sharing an irradiator between agencies.
Specific objectives of the study include establishing protocols for irradiating the male mosquitoes in the adult stage, testing irradiated mosquito fitness parameters (longevity, flight ability, mating) after each manipulation (chilling, compaction, irradiation, dusting) in successive cumulative combination. To inform and prepare for project releases in 2024, a series of markrelease-recapture (MRR) studies will be conducted in the selected treatment areas simultaneously in both districts during late summer/early fall of 2023. Information from the single-point and multiple-point MRRs will determine local population’s dispersal capabilities and establish the minimum treatment area size, the proper sterile male to wild male release ratios, and total male numbers needed for weekly releases. Additionally, a distribution model will be developed.
The two Districts will evaluate the efficacy of the SIT program in residential neighborhoods concurrently, comparing treatment areas to nearby non-treatment control areas, across multiple seasons and years. If shown to be effective, plans to expand irradiated mosquito production and releases into new areas and explore the potential for releasing irradiated males to control additional mosquito species may be considered. This work is foundational for a future regional program.
SoCal SIT Next Steps
The next steps for the project involve initiating public education campaigns in the respective cities and neighborhoods where the treatment releases are planned. The Joint Project team will continue to develop and test protocols, equipment, and standard operating procedures for all steps involved in blood feeding, mass rearing, sex sorting, irradiating, and preparing the adult sterile male mosquitoes for release trials. There are currently multiple laboratory and semi-field studies in progress at both District facilities. Adult mosquito trapping and oviposition bucket collections are continuing for the second-year spring/summer of 2023; and mark, release, recapture (MRR) studies will begin in late summer 2023. Monitored (florescent powder) sterile male mosquito releases are estimated to begin in late summer/early fall of 2024.
OCMVCD staff are determining the appropriate facility needs to ensure production space and infrastructure for the quantity of colony reared mosquitoes necessary for the success of the program.
Agenda Item G.4
References Cited
Aldridge, R.L., J. Kline, J.M. Coburn, S.C. Britch, L. Boardman, D.A. Hahn, C. Chen, and K.J.
Lithicum. 2020. Gamma-Irradiation Reduces Survivorship, Feeding Behavior, and Oviposition of Female Aedes aegypti. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association 36 (3):152-160.
Center for Disease Control. Dengue Statistics Page. Accessed July 10, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/dengue/statistics-maps/2022.html
Dame, D.A., C.F. Curtis, M.Q. Benedict, A.S. Robinson, and B.G.J. Knols. 2009. Historical applications of induced sterilisation in field populations of mosquitoes. 2009. Malaria Journal 8 (Suppl 2):S2.
Klassen, W. and C.F. Curtis. History of the Sterile Insect Technique. 2005. In Sterile Insect Technique. Principles in Area-Wide Pest Management. 3-36.
Metzger, M. E., M. Hardstone Yoshimizu, K. A. Padgett, R. Hu, and V. L. Kramer. 2017.
Detection and establishment of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) mosquitoes in California, 2011-2015. J. Med. Entomol. 54: 533–543.
Metzger, M. E., W. J. Wekesa, S. Kluh, K. K. Fujioka, R. Saviskas, A. Arugay, N. McConnell, K.
Nguyen, L. Krueger, G. M. Hacker, R. Hu, V. L. Kramer. 2022. Detection and establishment of Aedes notoscriptus (Diptera: Culicidae) mosquitoes in Southern California, United States, J.
Med. Entomol. 59: 67-77.
Yamada, H., A.G. Parker, C.F. Oliva, F. Balestrino, and J.R.L. Gilles. 2014. X-Ray-Induced Sterility in Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) and Male Longevity Following Irradiation.
Journal of Medical Entomology 51 (4):811-816.
World Health Organization. Dengue and Severe Dengue. Accessed July 10, 2023. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/dengue-and-severe-dengue Pan American Health Organization, Epidemiological Update Dengue, chikungunya and Zika, 10 June 2023, Accessed July 10, 2023. file:///C:/Users/asemrow/Downloads/2023-jun-phe-updatearbovirus-eng.pdf Agenda Item G.4
Report of District Activities, August 17, 2023 Attachment No. 1 Vector of the Month-Mosquitoes of Orange County
Orange County supports a unique assemblage of mosquitoes represented among common and rare species. Several are known for their involvement with the transmission of St. Louis encephalitis, malaria, and West Nile virus to humans. The following text presents a brief synopsis of the commonly occurring mosquito species currently known from the county.
Aedes aegypti & Aedes albopictus:
These invasive mosquito species are
primarily associated with urban areas and
can be found breeding in natural and small
artificial water sources, such as flowerpots.
They are active during the day and readily
take blood meals indoors and outdoors.
These species can transmit yellow fever,
dengue, chikungunya, and zika to people,
and dog heartworm to dogs. Aedes aegypti,
also known as the “ankle biter,” is now the
species responsible for most of the District’s
mosquito complaints.
Culex quinquefasciatus: The southern
house mosquito is the species formerly
responsible for a majority of the District’s
mosquito abatement services and related
control activities. Females are active nearly
year around in the more sheltered areas of
the county and will frequently enter houses
to seek blood. Larvae are commonly
associated with all types of “urban waters”
held in sources ranging from swimming
pools to flower pots. This species serves as
our primary vector of both West Nile (WNV)
and St. Louis encephalitis (SLE) viruses.
Culex tarsalis: The western
encephalitis mosquito is considered by most
mosquito biologists to be the principal
encephalitis vector throughout much of its
range in North America. It is our primary
vector of western equine encephalitis
(WEE) virus and primary/secondary vector
of WNV and St. Louis encephalitis (SLE)
virus. Adults are active during the spring,
summer, and fall. Though more common in
less developed areas, breeding occurs
throughout the county in association with
most types of clean, standing water sources
in channels and marshes.
Culex erythrothorax: The tule
mosquito is a distinctive reddish-colored
species associated with coastal and inland
permanent wetlands, particularly the San
Joaquin Marsh. Although females do not
disperse far from breeding sources to bite,
their often painful bite is usually followed by
a severe local reaction. The tule mosquito
overwinters as mature larvae, unlike most
Culex species that overwinter as adult
females. Emergence occurs as early as late
February with continuous breeding
extending well into the fall during favorable
years. This species has been found
naturally infected with WNV, WEE, and
SLE, but is considered a less competent
vector of these mosquito-borne diseases.
Culex stigmatosoma: This close
relative of Culex tarsalis is sometimes
referred to as the foul water mosquito as a
consequence of its breeding habits in
association with either stagnant or polluted
waters. Females are on the wing throughout
the county from spring to early fall, seldom
bite humans, and only rarely enter homes.
This species has been demonstrated to be
an efficient vector of WNV and St. Louis
encephalitis (SLE) virus, and thus,
represents an important link in the
maintenance of these viruses in birds.
Report of District Activities, August 17, 2023 Attachment No. 1 Aedes squamiger: The California salt
marsh mosquito is a late winter and early
spring species that breeds in coastal
wetlands flooded by seasonal rainfall.
Larvae usually occur in rainwater filled
depressions in association with pickleweed
and salt grass. It is an extremely aggressive
day and dusk biter with the capacity to
disperse long distances to obtain a blood
meal. Bolsa Chica populations have been
found naturally infected with a California
group (CE) encephalitis (Morro Bay) virus.
The potential impact of this virus on
residents inhabiting coastal areas is
unknown.
Aedes taeniorhynchus: This summer
species is sometimes called the dark salt
marsh mosquito because of its highly
contrasting black and white coloration.
Larvae develop in upland pickleweed flats
that are flooded by high tides. It is an
aggressive biter during the day and at dusk
and can be troublesome to coastal residents
living near breeding sources.
Culiseta incidens: The cool weather
mosquito is most often encountered from
February through June. It is found
throughout the county in association with a
variety of larval habits that include rainwater
pools, artificial containers, and ornamental
ponds. Although this mosquito in not
considered a major pest, females will
occasionally enter homes or bite residents
outdoors near breeding sources.
Anopheles hermsi: This spring,
summer, and fall mosquito is found
sporadically throughout the county in
association with breeding sources
containing floating mats of filamentous
algae. As a competent vector of
human malaria, this species has been
involved with the autochthonous
(indigenous) transmission of this disease in
San Diego County. Malaria transmission is
possible in Orange County if residents are
bitten by females that have been infected as
a consequence of feeding on either a
resident or transient experiencing a typical
relapse.
Culiseta inornata: The impressive
large winter mosquito is encountered during
the cooler months of the year. Larvae
develop in all types of natural sources.
Abundant larval populations occur in
association with Ae. squamiger in salt
marsh habitats. At times,
this species can be locally troublesome to
coastal residents. Elsewhere, this species
has been involved with the transmission of a
number of mosquito-borne encephalitides:
WEE, SLE, and Jamestown Canyon
viruses.
Culiseta particeps: Similar to Culiseta
inornata, this distinctive species with scale
patches on the wings usually breeds during
the cooler months of the year. Larvae occur
in shaded alga-laden pools along foothill
streams both inland and near the coast.
Aedes washinoi: Aedes washinoi
occurs along the coast and sporadically
inland where it can be locally annoying to
residents following wet winters. Larvae
develop in fresh water located in the upland
portions of salt marshes and in floodwater
sections of coastal and inland streams.
Anopheles franciscanus: On the wing
during the spring, summer, and fall, this
species is found at a limited number of sites
within the county. It breeds in sources
supporting abundant algal-growths and
floating mats of vegetation. This species
seldom bites humans and does not
experimentally transmit human malaria in
the laboratory.
Laboratory Report, August 17, 2023 Attachment No. 2
Warning signs for West Nile virus are starting to flash on the West Coast, experts say By Meg Tirrell, CNN
Updated 8:51 AM EDT, Thu August 3, 2023
James Gathany/CDC/Reuters/FILE
A historically wet winter and, now, hotter summer are leading to “pretty big” warning signs for West Nile virus in the Western US, public health and mosquito control experts say, suggesting that residents should take care to avoid bites.
“The number of mosquitoes that have hatched off after the spring snowmelt is pretty tremendous in many of the states, whether it be Colorado or Utah or California,” said Daniel Markowski, technical adviser for the American Mosquito Control Association.
Many districts are starting to see West Nile virus in mosquitoes, he said, meaning “you’re at the right temperature, the right mosquito population and the right time of year for localized outbreaks to occur.” Health officials in Florida, Texas keeping close watch after locally acquired malaria cases West Nile virus is the most common cause of mosquito-borne disease in the continental US, with thousands of cases reported to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention every year, said Dr.
Erin Staples, the medical epidemiologist in charge of the agency’s arboviral diseases branch.
The virus doesn’t cause symptoms in about 80% of people who contract it, but 1 in 5 can have fever with muscle aches, headache and rash, Staples said. A smaller proportion of people – about 1%, according to Dr. Vicki Kramer, chief of the California Department of Public Health’s Vector-Borne Disease Section – develop severe disease, an infection involving the central nervous system that can cause paralysis or death.
“Some individuals that recover have ongoing neurologic symptoms for years, so it can be very serious,” Kramer said. Older people and those with medical conditions like diabetes, high blood pressure or a weakened immune system are most at risk. There are no vaccines or treatments for the virus in people.
West Nile, named for the region in Uganda where it was identified in 1937, is typically spread in the US by a mosquito called Culex, found across the country, Staples said.
Laboratory Report, August 17, 2023 Attachment No. 2
The mosquitoes, which can also transmit St. Louis encephalitis virus, “tend to like the dusk and dawn period,” she said, unlike the kinds of mosquitoes that transmit diseases like dengue, the Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus, which are more active during the day.
West Nile spreads as mosquitoes bite infected birds and then people, making both bird and mosquito populations important parts of public health surveillance for the disease.
And while human cases are still relatively low, at 90 across the US, August is typically the month that sees the most cases. And those surveillance systems in Western states are starting to produce “pretty big” warning signs for a potentially more active West Nile season, Markowski said.
In California, 147 dead birds had been found as of July 28, almost double what’s typically seen at this time of year, based on the state’s five-year average. The signals seen in “sentinel chickens” – flocks that vector control agencies use to monitor where the virus is spreading – are similarly ahead. (Chickens are particularly helpful for monitoring West Nile, Kramer said, because they’re not susceptible to the disease but can carry antibodies against the virus in their blood.) And the amount of virus found in mosquito samples is also up compared with the average over the past five years.
“Once you start seeing increases of West Nile virus in those mosquitoes, that does raise the alarm that people need to be taking measures to prevent being bitten by mosquitoes,” Staples said.
She noted, though, that elevated surveillance signals don’t automatically translate into higher human cases, as the transmission chain, involving mosquitoes and birds, is complicated.
But the weather cycle over the past year has created particularly unfavorable conditions, Kramer said, after record rainfall in the winter.
“Mosquitoes develop in standing water, so the more standing water you have, the more habitat there is for mosquitoes, particularly this year early in the season due to the snowmelt and rainfall,” she said.
She also noted that residents may be using more water for landscaping and other purposes with drought restrictions lifted.
And now, with recent temperatures hitting record highs in the West, “the hot weather accelerates the West Nile virus transmission cycle because mosquitoes develop faster and the virus replicates more quickly in the mosquitoes,” she said.
Mosquito control agencies target the mosquitoes to try to limit the population in areas where West Nile has been detected. Kramer also encouraged residents of California who see dead birds to report them to WestNile.ca.gov.
“The public can really help us in detecting and monitoring West Nile virus activity,” she said.
To protect against mosquito bites, experts recommend using repellent or wearing long sleeves and pants, if tolerable, particularly in the early morning and evening; keeping screens tightly fitted on doors and windows; and being vigilant about draining standing water, where mosquitoes lay their eggs.
Mosquitoes, Kramer says, “are the most dangerous animal in the world, after all.”
AUGUST 15, 2023 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 10 – COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND AGENCY REPORTS
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL RECEIVED AFTER POSTING OF AGENDA
Transportation Corridor Agencies
For the August 10, 2023, Meeting
BOARD MEETING HIGHLIGHTS
F/ETCA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
John Taylor, Chair,
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
Patricia Kelley, Vice Chair,
MISSION VIEJO
Ashleigh Aitken,
ANAHEIM
Mike Frost,
DANA POINT
Farrah Khan,
IRVINE
Scott Voigts,
LAKE FOREST
Denis Bilodeau,
ORANGE
Anthony Beall,
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA
David Penaloza,
SANTA ANA
Austin Lumbard,
TUSTIN
Beth Haney,
YORBA LINDA
Donald P. Wagner,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, 3RD DIST.
Doug Chaffee,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, 4TH DIST.
Katrina Foley,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, 5TH DIST.
Vacant, Ex-Officio Member, CALTRANS
DIST. 12
SJHTCA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Will O’Neill, Chair,
NEWPORT BEACH
Janine Heft, Vice Chair,
LAGUNA HILLS
Richard Hurt,
ALISO VIEJO
Arlis Reynolds,
COSTA MESA
Jamey Federico,
DANA POINT
Farrah Khan,
IRVINE
Stephanie Oddo,
LAGUNA NIGUEL
Cynthia Conners,
LAGUNA WOODS
Patricia Kelley,
MISSION VIEJO
John Taylor,
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
David Penaloza,
SANTA ANA
Donald P. Wagner,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, 3RD DIST.
Katrina Foley,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, 5TH DIST.
Vacant, Ex-Officio Member, CALTRANS
DIST. 12
73/133/241/261 TOLL ROADS
RYAN CHAMBERLAIN APPROVED AS NEW CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER The Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) are pleased to announce Ryan Chamberlain as their new Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The Joint Boards of Directors voted to approve Chamberlain as CEO at their August 10 Board Meeting. His contract begins August 28, 2023.
Chamberlain brings over 25 years of transportation experience in both the public and private sectors. He began his career as a transportation and environmental planner working on large-scale projects throughout California while at Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade and Douglas. Most recently, Chamberlain served as Caltrans District 12 Director responsible for the planning, design, construction, operations and maintenance of the state’s transportation system in Orange County, which includes 2,067 lane miles of highway.
Read the full press release.
STAFF PRESENTS UPDATE ON TCA’S FY24 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Staff presented project updates on the Boards approved FY24 Capital Improvement Plan. Current Capital Projects include the 241/91 Express Connector, the SR 241 Loma Improvements Project and the SR 73 Catalina View Improvements Project. These current Capital Projects are funded by their respective Agencies from cash reserves.
The 241/91 Express Connector, which requires multi-agency cooperation, improves connectivity and provides a seamless, free-flowing connection between two tolled facilities. The project will provide a direct connection between the 91 Express Lanes and the 241 Toll Road. The project will improve traffic flow in the general-purpose lanes on SR 91 and decrease peak-period queues on the northbound 241 Toll Road.
The SR 241 Loma Improvements Project provides lane improvements in each direction on SR 241 from the junction of SR 133 to north of SR 261. The project uses the existing roadway footprint to add one lane in each direction and shift southbound traffic onto the existing graded roadbed.
The SR 73 Catalina View Improvements Project consists of using the existing median to provide one additional lane in each direction through the Catalina View Mainline Toll Point and making operational improvements on SR 73 leading up to the mainline toll point in each direction.
View TCA staff’s presentation to the Joint Boards of Directors.
ANNUAL INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO REVIEW SHOWS INVESTMENT RETURNS EXCEEDED BENCHMARKS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023
The annual investment review, conducted by the Agencies’ investment advisor, Chandler Asset Management, detailed the Agencies’ investment portfolios for Fiscal Year 2023 (FY23).
In FY23, the Agencies’ combined $1.6 billion portfolio earned $26.9 million in interest and portfolio returns exceeded assigned benchmarks for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2023. The Agencies’ flexible investment strategies have enabled the portfolios to take advantage of recent increases in interest rates by reinvesting into higher yielding securities.
F/ETCA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
John Taylor, Chair,
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
Patricia Kelley, Vice Chair,
MISSION VIEJO
Ashleigh Aitken,
ANAHEIM
Mike Frost,
DANA POINT
Farrah Khan,
IRVINE
Scott Voigts,
LAKE FOREST
Denis Bilodeau,
ORANGE
Anthony Beall,
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA
David Penaloza,
SANTA ANA
Austin Lumbard,
TUSTIN
Beth Haney,
YORBA LINDA
Donald P. Wagner,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, 3RD DIST.
Doug Chaffee,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, 4TH DIST.
Katrina Foley,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, 5TH DIST.
Vacant, Ex-Officio Member, CALTRANS
DIST. 12
SJHTCA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Will O’Neill, Chair,
NEWPORT BEACH
Janine Heft, Vice Chair,
LAGUNA HILLS
Richard Hurt,
ALISO VIEJO
Arlis Reynolds,
COSTA MESA
Jamey Federico,
DANA POINT
Farrah Khan,
IRVINE
Stephanie Oddo,
LAGUNA NIGUEL
Cynthia Conners,
LAGUNA WOODS
Patricia Kelley,
MISSION VIEJO
John Taylor,
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
David Penaloza,
SANTA ANA
Donald P. Wagner,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, 3RD DIST.
Katrina Foley,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, 5TH DIST.
Vacant, Ex-Officio Member, CALTRANS
DIST. 12
73/133/241/261 TOLL ROADS
TCA HOSTS SESSION OF WTS-OC TRANSPORTATION ACADEMY
On Aug. 9, the Agencies hosted an energetic group of
undergraduate and graduate students as a part of WTS Orange County’s 2023 Transportation Academy. Our staff and senior staff members met with students interested in urban & regional planning, civil engineering, business administration and public policy.
Students were provided a tour of the 241, while learning about the history of TCA, toll operations, environmental commitment & programs, and our Capital Improvement Program – with a focus on our planned 241/91 Express Connector Project.
The afternoon ended with an interactive career panel discussion with students and TCA senior staff.
The Transportation Academy is an annual two-week immersive program that exposes undergraduate and graduate college students to different facets of the transportation industry. TCA has been a participant in the Transportation Academy since its inception in 2009.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: AUGUST 15, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DAVID BRANTLEY, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
PREPARED BY: MARY LEWIS, SENIOR COMMUNITY PRESERVATION
OFFICER
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM AND
ORDERING ABATEMENT
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-5857 declaring that weeds growing upon or in front of, and rubbish, refuse, and dirt upon or in front of certain property in the City constitute a public nuisance, and ordering abatement thereof.
BACKGROUND
Every year the City Council implements a Weed Abatement Program to minimize hazardous fire conditions within the City. This involves a multi-step process of informing property owners that have large areas of undeveloped property that are prone to wildfire hazards, due to natural vegetation overgrowth, to perform weed abatement/vegetation reduction within certain time frames prior to the heightened portion of the fire season. Although the City does obtain a high degree of compliance response from property owners as a result of the initial outreach efforts, there are some number of properties that for various reasons fail to comply in a timely manner or do not comply at all. In the interest of health and safety, state law provides for local governments to abate hazardous vegetation conditions on private properties that fail to comply.
Article 2, Section 39560 et seq. of the California State government Code authorizes cities to perform weed abatement on private properties that fail to comply through declaring such properties as a public nuisance. Therefore, on July 18, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-5856 declaring that weeds growing upon or in front of certain property (i.e., weed abatement properties) in the City of Yorba Linda constitute a public nuisance and further declaring the intention of the City of Yorba Linda to provide for the abatement thereof and setting a related public hearing for August 15, 2023.
The adoption of Resolution No. 2023-5856 was required to declare the City’s intention to set a Public Nuisance Hearing to provide for the Weed Abatement Program and receive any protest relating to the potential abatement of non-compliant, private properties.
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM AND ORDERING
ABATEMENT
P a g e | 2
Also pursuant to the provisions of these sections of the Government Code, upon the second and any subsequent occurrence of such nuisance on the same parcel or parcels within the same calendar year, no further Hearings need to be held, and it shall be sufficient, prior to abatement, to mail a postcard notice to the owners of the property as they and their addresses appear upon the current assessment roll, in accordance with the provisions for such notice contained in Section 39562.1 of the Government Code of the State of California.
DISCUSSION
On March 16, 2023, annual weed abatement notices were mailed out to approximately 1,204 properties requesting abatement by May 25, 2023, of any nuisance conditions that may be on their property and that may contribute to a fire hazard. Due to a long holiday, Community Preservation staff did not start surveying the weed abatement properties until May 30, 2023, providing property owners an additional 4 days to complete any necessary abatement on their property. After a property was inspected, a notice of pass/fail was mailed to the property owner. Properties that remained non-compliant and whose property continued to contain vegetation or litter which created a hazardous fire condition were advised to remove such vegetation or litter from their property within two weeks of the failed inspection. This year it was necessary to mail additional letters and issue citations to property owners who failed to comply with the requirements in the requested amount of time. As of this writing, of the total 1,204 weed abatement properties, only five (5) properties remain out of compliance as reflected on attached Exhibit “A” to Resolution No. 2023-5857. Should additional properties come into compliance by the upcoming August 15th public hearing date, staff will provide City Council with an updated Exhibit “A”, containing only those properties that remain out of compliance.
Pursuant to State Government Code Section 39572, if the property owner does not remove the nuisance condition from their property after receiving this notice, a City contractor may abate the hazardous condition and the cost of abatement will be assessed against the property. The abatement charges will be reviewed by City Council at a future meeting.
Weed Abatement is an on-going concern within the City of Yorba Linda. In the last several years, California has experienced devasting wildland fires, including the most recent Blue Ridge Fire in Yorba Linda in 2020. This year the unique hurdle has been the rain. California experienced an unusual amount of rainfall resulting in a super bloom of weeds. Many property owners took the initiative to conduct their weed abatement early on in this process.
These properties were also faced with rapid regrowth, resulting in having to do a second round of clean-up. These events have increased resident awareness of this hazard and they have stepped up their involvement in taking preventive action. In addition to the City’s weed abatement enforcement role, the Orange County Fire Authority also assumes responsibility for Fuel Modification parcels in the City, and for performing Wildland Task Force inspections.
The Orange County Fire Authority’s enforcement activities within these areas are separate and apart from the City enforced weed abatement properties.
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM AND ORDERING
ABATEMENT
P a g e | 3
FISCAL IMPACT
The program has been budgeted for Fiscal Year 23/24 under the Public Nuisance section of the Community Preservation budget in the amount of $15,000.00, which is anticipated to cover the actual final cost of abatement action by the City based on prior years’ costs.
However, the cost of abatement will be assessed upon the affected parcels requiring abatement through placement of a lien through the County Assessor’s Office. Therefore, City costs associated with weed abatement would be offset.
ALTERNATIVES
Continue to provide annual notices to properties that meet the Weed Abatement criteria, with no formal procedure or proactive follow-up, other than through standard code enforcement protocol, which is reactive in nature.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 2023-5857
2. Exhibit “A” – 2023 Annual Weed Abatement List Non-Compliant Properties
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-5857
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
YORBA LINDA, CALIFORNIA DECLARING THAT WEEDS
GROWING UPON OR IN FRONT OF, AND RUBBISH,
REFUSE UPON OR IN FRONT OF CERTAIN PROPERTY IN
THE CITY OF YORBA LINDA CONSTITUTES A PUBLIC
NUISANCE; AND ORDERING THE ABATEMENT
THEREOF
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2023-5856 was adopted on July 18, 2023, declaring that seasonal and recurring weeds growing upon or in front of, and rubbish, and refuse, upon or in front of certain property in the City of Yorba Linda constitutes a public nuisance and further declaring the intention of the City of Yorba Linda to provide for the abatement therof, and setting a public hearing thereon; and
WHEREAS, Notice to Destroy Weeds and Remove Rubbish and Refuse was mailed to all affected property owners and given in the amount and form prescribed by law; and WHEREAS, at such Public Hearing the City Council of the City of Yorba Linda heard and considered all objections to such abatement; and
WHEREAS, such weeds were not destroyed or removed and such rubbish, and refuse was not removed, and the nuisance thereby abated, pursuant to such Notice.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YORBA LINDA DOES FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. That all objections to the proposed destruction and/or removal of weeds, as defined in Sec. 39560, et seq of the Government Code, and removal of weeds, rubbish and refuse upon or in front of those parcels of land described in Exhibit “A”, on file in the office of the City Clerk and incorporated herein by this reference, are overruled.
2. That the Senior Community Preservation Officer is ordered to abate such nuisance, by having such weeds destroyed and/or removed, and rubbish and refuse removed from those parcels of land described in such Exhibit, “A”.
3. That it is the intention of this Council to assess the cost of such abatement as a special assessment against each such parcel in front of or upon which such nuisance is maintained and declare such cost to be a lien upon each such parcel.
4. That the weeds on the parcels of land described in Exhibit “A” are seasonal and recurring nuisances.
5. That the Senior Community Preservation Officer is further ordered to abate such seasonal and recurring nuisance in accordance with the provisions of Article 2, Title 4, Division 3, Part 2, Chapter 13, compromised of Sections 39560-39588, inclusive, of the Government Code of the State of California, provided that upon
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-5857
PAGE NO. 2
the second and any subsequent occurrence of such nuisance on the same parcel or parcels within the same calendar year, no further Hearings need to be held, and it shall be sufficient to mail a postcard notice to the owners of the property as they and their addresses appear upon the current assessment roll, in accordance with the provisions for such notice contained in Section 39562.1 of the Government Code of the State of California.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Yorba Linda on this 15th day of August 2023. __________________________
GENE HERNANDEZ, MAYOR
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
ATTEST:
______________________________
MARCIA BROWN, CITY CLERK
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
__________________________
CITY ATTORNEY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I, MARCIA BROWN, City Clerk of the City of Yorba Linda, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Yorba Linda held on the 15th day of August 2023, and was carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
_________________________________
MARCIA BROWN, CITY CLERK
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
EXHIBIT “A”
2023 WEED ABATEMENT
NON-COMPLIANT PROPERTIES
4901 Park Place
5092 Torida Way
22590 Green Mount Place
APN 343-641-01
APN 326-021-42
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
DATE: AUGUST 15, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DIANNA HONEYWELL, FINANCE DIRECTOR / CITY TREASURER SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. 2023-1107 – REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 3.04 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE GOVERNING PROCUREMENT AND APPROVAL OF
REVISIONS TO CITY COUNCIL POLICY F-1 GOVERNING CHANGE
ORDERS AND AMENDMENTS
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Approve for first reading Ordinance No. 2023-1107 (Attachment 1) approving changes to Chapter 3.04 of the Yorba Linda Municipal Code regarding procurement; and
2. Approve a revised City Council Policy F-1 (Attachment 2) governing change orders and amendments.
BACKGROUND
Chapter 3.04 of the Yorba Linda Municipal Code is the framework upon which the City’s purchasing rules and regulations are built. Administrative Policy No. A-F-5 provides additional, more detailed requirements for City Departments to follow when making purchases, bidding on public works projects, and entering into agreements for professional or general services. Chapter 3.04 was last updated in 2020 and needs various modifications, modernizations, and clarifications to improve the efficiency of the City’s procurement practices.
City Council Policy F-1 outlines the rules related to change orders for construction projects, as well as to general and professional services contracts, maintenance work and the purchase of supplies, vehicles, and equipment. This policy was last updated in March 2017 and currently needs clarifying language and miscellaneous clean-up for consistency with the ordinance.
The proposed changes to both the ordinance and the policy governing change orders and amendments were reviewed by the Finance Committee at its meeting on July 18, 2023. The Finance Committee recommended that both the ordinance and the policy be considered by the City Council.
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 2023-1107
P a g e | 2
DISCUSSION
All the changes proposed to the City’s procurement policies and procedures are designed to better safeguard the City’s assets, as well as improve the efficiency of the City’s operations. Many of the key changes proposed in the attached ordinance and Council policy are aimed at clarifying the language that regulates these procedures.
Procurements can be divided into two categories – public projects and non-public projects.
A public project is defined by the State as a project for the construction, reconstruction, erection, alteration, renovation, improvement, demolition, painting, repainting, or repair of any publicly owned, leased, or operated street, highway, facility, real property, or other public work improvements. A non-public project is any procurement that is not a public project, such as maintenance work, professional and general services, and materials, vehicles, and equipment purchases. These two types of procurements are referred to throughout the City’s procurement rules and regulations and so it is important to understand their differences when reading the attached documents and the remainder of this report.
It is also important to note that none of the changes proposed in this report modify the requirement that funds be available in the budget for a contract to be awarded or a change order to be approved. Absent sufficient available funds in the budget to enter into a contract or change order, City Council approval is always required when the budget adjustment exceeds the City Manager’s authority of $25,000 under City Council Policy A-15.
Changes to the Municipal Code
The following is a summary of the changes to the Code:
1. Clarifying language throughout to make consistent reference to bids and proposals as opposed to one or the other term for clarity. The terms “bid” and “proposal” were used in various places interchangeably and inconsistently. Staff wants it to be clear that 1) bids have to do with public projects and general services while proposals have more to do with professional services and 2) professional services are chosen based on qualifications and not necessarily on cost.
2. Various changes to update references to the process to include electronic means of soliciting bids/proposals and processing procurements internally. Now that email solicitation for bids/proposals is very commonplace, it’s important to include a reference to the use of electronic solicitation.
3. There is a typographical correction in 3.04.080(K) to spell out $200,000.
4. Clarifying language in 3.04.080(L) of when City Council approval of contract extensions is required to avoid confusion that has occurred in the past. The Ordinance now clarifies that unless otherwise approved by the City Council, agreements and contracts will not extend beyond five years. It also clarifies that if the City Council wants to require contract extensions return to City Council for approval, that should be stated at the time of the award of the original contract.
5. Clarifying language in 3.04.130(K) that work initiated under an on-call contract requires a task order, not another contract. Every three years, staff brings forth a list of qualified firms for on-call services to the City Council for approval. At that time, a contract is executed with each of the firms on the on-call list. When the department