Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2008-07-14 #TAGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 14, 2008 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU: David Carmany, City Manager FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF RESPONSE LETTER RE: ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT "No County for Old Boomers -When Orange County Baby Boomers Retire, Where Will They Live?" SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Authorize Mayor to execute response letter to the Orange County Grand Jury report on "No County for Old Boomers -When Orange County Baby Boomers Retire, Where Will They Live?' Instruct Staff to forward to the Planning ~ Commission for information and Receive and File Staff Report. BACKGROUND: The 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury released a report on May 2, 2008 titled "No County for Old Boomers -When Orange County Baby Boomers Retire, Where Will They Live?' A copy of the report was forwarded to each city in Orange County along with a directive for the City Council to respond to specific "Findings" and "Recommendations" regarding the provision of affordable housing for senior residents within Orange County. Staff has reviewed the report, which is provided as Attachment 2 for the information of the City Council, and has prepared a draft response letter for the Mayor to execute, upon City Council authorization, that responds to each of the "Findings" and "Recommendations" in the subject report. The Grand Jury report provides information and statistics regarding the cost of housing, the shortage of affordable units, and the anticipated future needs for additional affordable housing throughout Orange County. The report also details the assumptions of the Grand Jury that the state-mandated Housing Element should more directly address the housing needs for senior residents. • Agenda Item T Z:\07-14-08 Council Mseting -Agenda Items\DS -Staff Report - T - OC Grand Jury - No County for Old Boomers.doc\LW\06-23-08 Approval of Response Letter re Orange County Grand Jury report - °No County for Old Boomers° City Council Staff Report • July 14, 2008 OVERVIEW OF GRAND JURY "FINDINGS" AND "RECOMMENDATIONS": The Grand Jury's report includes four findings regarding affordable housing for seniors in Orange County and four recommendations for addressing senior housing needs in the Housing Element update process. The Grand Jury "findings" are: °F-7 The Housing Elements for the cities and County of Orange do not reflect that the number of afforclab/e senior housing units in Orange County will not accommodate the projected population. F-2 The Housing Elements for the County of Orange and the cities do not focus sufficiently on or analyze the population growth and housing needs of the aging baby boomer generation. F-3 Not all Housing Elements are available online for easy access by the public. • F-4 Municipalities are not proactive enough in encouraging the development of affordable senior housing. Responses to Findings F-1 through F-4 are required from the mayors of a1134 Orange County cities and requested from the CEO and the County of Orange Resource and Development Management Department." In addition to the above "findings" the Grand Jury also issued the following four "recommendations" asking each City to incorporate them into the current and future Housing Element updates. The Grand Jury also required that if a city agreed to implement these recommendations, that the city provide an annual report to the Grand Jury until each recommendation is implemented. The Grand Jury "findings" are: "R-7 Include the current and projected affordable senior housing inventory by type, location and cost in the 2008 and future years' development of the Housing Element. R-2 Include sufficient data in the Housing Element to acknowledge the imminent growth in the county's aging • population. This data is to include the current population and 2 City Response.No County for Old Boomers.OC Grand Jury Report Approval of Response Letterre Orange County Grand Jury report - °No County for Old Boomers° • City Council Staff Report July 74, 2008 the growth trend of the aging baby boomer generation as well as the current median income and the income trend of the senior population. R-3 Put all Housing Elements online on each city's website. R-4 Confer with developers to establish the needs for affordable senior housing and to encourage investment in future projects. Responses to Recommendations R-7 through R-4 are required from the mayors of all 34 Orange County cities and requested from the CEO and the County of Orange Resource and Development Management Department." RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Grand Jury's report specifically requires the City Council to respond the • above "findings" and "recommendations" by July 31, 2008. In accordance with the requirements of the Grand Jury report, staff has prepared responses to each item for consideration by the City Council. The proposed response letter is provided as Attachment 1 for the consideration and approval by the City Council. The proposed response letter states whether the City agrees or disagrees with each of the Grand Jury's findings and notes where and how Seal Beach currently addresses the needs for senior housing as well as other special needs in the Housing Element. State Housing Element law requires that cities analyze and update Housing Elements approximately every five years. The required updates are subject to specific statutory authority requirements of the California Government Code and require a mandatory review by the State Department of Housing and Community Development. The State Housing Element law is the State's primary market- based strategy to increase housing supply, choice, and affordability for all economic segments and special needs populations, including senior populations. The applicable provisions of Government Code § 65583(a)(7) require that as part of the Housing Element update, an analysis of special needs groups be included to quantify the number of persons in the locally-identified special needs groups. The State Housing Element law also requires a quantification of need, description of potential housing problems, and identification of potential program or policy options and resources to address identified need during the term of the Housing Element update. • 3 City Response.No County for Old Boomers.OC Grand Jury Report Approval of Response Letter ro Orange County Grand Jury report - °No County for Old Boomers° City Council Staff Report Juty 14, 2008 The State of California has already established the requirements and timeframes that must be addressed in the Housing Element Update process and has provided local jurisdictions with a toolkit that provides detailed information and resources to complete an effective Housing Element Update. The City does not agree with the Grand Jury recommendations that would add conditions or requirements to the statutory provisions of State Housing Law. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize Mayor to execute response letter to the Orange County Grand Jury report on "No County for Old Boomers -When Orange County Baby Boomers Retire, Where ill They Live?" Instruct Staff to forward to the Planning Commission for information and Receive and File Staff Report. SUBMITTED BY: e Whittenberg Director of Development Services Attachments: (2) NOTED AND APPROVED: °~~'~ David Carmany City Manager Attachment 1: City of Seal Beach Draft Response Letter re: "No County for Old Boomers" Attachment 2: "No County for Old Boomers -When Orange County Baby Boomers Retire, Where ill They Live?", Orange County Grand Jury Report, dated May 2, 2008 4 • • City Response.No County for Old Boomers.OC Grand Jury Report • Approval of Response Letter re Orange County Grand Jury report - °No County for Old Boomers" City Council Staff Report July 74, 2008 ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF SEAL BEACH DRAFT RESPONSE LETTER RE: "NO COUNTY FOR OLD BOOMERS" 5 City Response.No County for Old Boomers.OC Grand Jury Report Approval of Response Letter re Orange County Grand Jury report - °No County for Old Boomers' e City Council Staff Report July 14, 2008 July 14, 2008 The Honorable Nancy Wieben Stock Presiding Judge of the Superior Court 700 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, CA 92701 Dear Judge Wieben Stock: SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO GRAND JUF~Y REPORT - "NO COUNTY FOR OLD BOOMERS" This letter is submitted in response to the recent Orange County Grand Jury report °No County For Old Boomers -When Orange County Baby Boomers Retire, Where ill They Live?" The City acknowledges the opportunity to • respond to the findings and recommendations made in the subject report. The City's responses to each finding and recommendation, indicating agreement or disagreement, either partially or in whole, are noted below. Responses to Findings: ~9 The Housing Elements for the cities and County of Orange do not reflect that the number of affordable senior housing units in Orange County will not accommodate the projected population. Response: The City disagrees with this finding relative to the housing needs for low income seniors living in Seal Beach. The City has 9,068 persons 65 or over living in the City: 37.5% of the city's population. As is indicated in the Grand Jury Report, Seal Beach is the home of one of "two very large °55 and over" communities." Seal Beach Leisure World comprises 5,934 senior housing units, or 41.4% of all housing units in the City, and provides a regional housing supply at reasonable and affordable prices for seniors over 55 who chose to live in a retirement community. ~2 The Housing Elements for the County of Orange and the cities do not focus su~cientiy on or analyze the population growth and housing • _ needs of fhe aging baby boomer generation. 6 City Response.N° County for Old Boomers.OC Grand Jury Report Approval of Response Letter re Orange County Grand Juryreport - °No County for Old Boomers° City Council Staff Report • July 14, 2008 Response: The City disagrees with this finding. The Housing Element is required by law to discuss and analyze population growth and housing needs of special needs groups, including the senior population. Therefore, it does discuss the needs of the aging population. F-3 Not all Housing Elements are available online for easy access by the public. Response: The City agrees with this finding as to the City of Seal Beach. The Housing Element is not available online. F-4 Municipalities are not proactive enough in encouraging the development of affordable senior housing. Response: The City disagrees with this finding as to the City of Seal Beach. As indicated in the response to finding 1 above, Seal Beach currently provides 5,934 senior housing units, or 41.4% of all housing units in the City, and provides a regional housing supply at reasonable and affordable prices for seniors over 55 who chose to live in a retirement community. Given the large component of existing senior housing in our community, the concerns of the community are focused on providing • affordable housing for other special needs groups. Responses to Recommendations: R-7 Include the current and projected afifordab/e senior housing inventory by type, location and cost in the 2008 and future years' development of the Housing Element Response: The recommendation will not be implemented. The data and analysis requested by the Grand Jury is not currently required under State Housing Element law, would be extremely costly and time consuming to attempt to project, and would be extremely speculative regarding the particular issues of type and cost. The major difficulty of being able to implement this type of speculative analysis would be the response of the private market to construct the desired products at price levels that would be affordable. California continues to struggle with affordability issues for all family, age, and income types and unless state-wide actions are taken a local jurisdiction cannot hope to effectively address the requested items of the Grand Jury. The City does not agree with the Grand Jury recommendations that would add conditions or requirements to the statutory provisions of State • Housing Law. The City will continue to comply with the provisions of State 7 City Response.No County for Old Boomers.OC Grand Jury Report Approval of Response Leifer re Orange County Grand Jury report - °No County for Old Boomers" • City Council Staff Report July 14, 2008 Government Code § 65583(a)(7), which requires an analysis of special needs for the elderly among other special needs populations. The statutory provisions provide sufficient opportunities to address changing demographic situations for all segments of the City's population. In addition, the Grand Jury does not identify any time frame and the vague nature of the recommendation does not provide adequate guidance in completing the recommended analysis. Therefore, the City respectfully disagrees that this recommendation should be completed due to the reasons cited above. R-2 Include sufficient data in the Housing Element to acknowledge the imminent growth in the county's aging population. This data is to include the current population and the growth trend of fhe aging baby boomer generation as well as the curnent median income and the income trend of the senior population. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented. As indicated in the response to Recommendation 1, above, the City will continue to comply with the provisions of State Govemment Code § 65583(a)(7), • which requires an analysis of special needs for the elderly among other special needs populations. The statutory provisions provide sufficient opportunities to address changing demographic situations for all segments of the City's population. Further, in Seal Beach the trend between the 1990 and 2000 Census was a reduction in the number of residents 65 or over residing in the City. R-3 Put all Housing Elements online on each city's website. Response: The recommended action will be implemented upon adoption of the next Housing Element Update. R-4 Confer with developers to establish the needs for affordable senior housing and to encourage investment in future projects. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented. As indicated in the response to Finding 1 and 4, above: ^ The City has 9,068 persons 65 or over living in the City: 37.5% of the city's population. As is indicated in the Grand Jury Report, Seal Beach is the home of one of °two very large "55 and over" communifies." Seal Beach Leisure World comprises 5,934 senior housing units, or 41.4% of all housing units in the City, and provides a regional housing supply at reasonable and affordable 8 City Response.No County for Old Boomers.OC Grand Jury Report Approval of Response Leifer re Orange County Grand Jury report - °No County for Old Boomers" City Council Staff Report July 14, 2008 prices for seniors over 55 who chose to live in a retirement community; and ^ given the large component of existing senior housing in our community, the concerns of the community are focused on providing affordable housing for other special needs groups. If you have any questions regarding the City of Seal Beach's responses to the above matters please contact our Director of Development Services, Mr. Lee Whittenberg, at either (562) 431-2527, ext 1313 or Iwhittenberg@ci.seal- beach.ca.us. Sincerely, Charles Antos, Mayor City of Seal Beach CC: David Carmany City Manager Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Planning Commission Ann Avery Andres, Foreman Orange County Grand Jury 700 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, CA 92701 9 • • • Clly Response.No County for Old Boomers.OC Grand Jury Report Approval of Response Letter re Orange County Grand Jury report - °No County for Old Boomers" • City Council Staff Report July 74, 2008 ATTACHMENT 2 "NO COUNTY FOR OLD BOOMERS - WHEN ORANGE COUNTY BABY BOOMERS RETIRE, WHERE WILL THEY LIVE?", ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT, DATED MAY 2, 2008 C, ~o Oity Response.No County for Old Boomers.OC Grand Jury Report • ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 700 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST• SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 •714/834-3320 FAX 714/834-5555 Charles Antos, Mayor City of Seal Beach 211 8~' Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Dear Mayor Antos: Apri125, 2008 Enclosed is a copy of the 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury report, °°No County for Old Boomers -When,, Orange County Baby Boomers Retire, Where Will They Live?" Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05(f), a copy of the•report is being provided to you at least two working days prior to its public release. Please note that, "No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report." (Emphasis added.) It is required that you provide a response to each of the findings and recommendations of this report directed to your office in compliance with Penal Code 933.05(a) and (b), copy attached. For each Grand Jury recommendation accepted and not implemented, pmvide a schedule for future implementation. In addition, by the end of March of each subsequent year, please report on the progress being • made. on each recommendation accepted but not completed. These annual reports should continue until all recommendations are implemented. It is requested that the response to the recommendations be mailed to Nancy Wieben Stock, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701, with a separate copy and an electronic format (PDF on CD preferred) mailed to the Orange County Grand Jury, 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701, no later than 90 days after the public release date, May 2, 2008, in compliance with Penal Code 933, copy attached. The due date then is July 31, 2008. Should additional time for responding to this report be necessary for further analysis, Penal Code 933.05(b)(3) permits an extension of time up to six months from the public release date. Such extensions should be advised in writing, with the information required in Penal Code 933.05(b)(3), to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, with a separate copy of the request to the Grand Jury. We tentatively plan to issue the public release on May 2. Upon public release, the report will be available on the Grand Jury web site (www.ocgrandiury.org). AAA:dv Enclosures Grand Jury Report • Penal Code 933, 933.05 cc: David N. Carmony, City Manager Very trul yours, An e o 2007-2008 ORANG GRAND JURY NO COUNTY FOR OLD BOOMERS • When Orange County Baby Boomers Retire, Where Will They Live? SUMMARY More baby boomers aze reaching retirement age every yeaz. The swell in aging population growth will affect Orange County's economy and services, especially housing. The 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury found that the county is not prepazed to meet these housing demands. By the yeaz 2030, the population segment over 65 will have doubled. As "new" seniors reach this age, the demands for affordable senior housing options will soaz. Orange County may find itself with dramatic affordable housing shortages for its seniors or face an exodus of one of its lazgest population segments, unless plans for accommodating this growth aze undertaken now. ---- - - The Grand Jury believes that the County of Orange and the individual cities can better anticipate the problem by incorporating essential data into the "Housing Elements" of their General Plans. Every five yeazs the County and the cities have updated the Housing Element of their General Plans as required by the State of California. The update reassesses the housing needs within its community as well as plans for addressing those needs. The Grand Jury found that most of these governmental entities do not give sufficient focus to seniors and the needs to house an aging population. REASON FOR INVESTIGATION It is projected that there will be neazly 720,000 people over the age of 601iving in Orange County in the yeaz 2020, a 64% increase from 2005. It is further projected that 60,735 of these will be over 85? Orange County's 838,000 baby boomers will begin turning 65 in 2011.1 With the declining trend in employer-funded retirement pensions, the lack of sufficient retirement savings, and the uncertain future of Social Security, it is doubtful that ' there will be sufficient affordable senior housing options available in Orange County for its aging population. Therefore, the Grand Jury initiated this report to assess the County's and the cities' proposed plans for addressing senior housing to avert this potential aging tsunami. • ~ CA Dept. of Finance, U.S. Census Projections ~ Dept of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, 2007 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION To fully appreciate the demands for resources in the future, it is essential to capture a snapshot of the demographics and needs of the senior population today, including their • sources of income, the resources available to them and their cost. The Grand Jury had several interviews with: • the County of Orange's: o Office on Aging o Housing and Community Development Agency o Resource & Development Management Department's (BOND) planning and Development Services, and the Housing and Community Development Departments of two cities, and a private community master planner. All provided a lazge body of documents including: • 2005-2009 Area Plan from the Office on Aging • Conditions of Older Adults, 2003 Report, prepazed by a subcommittee of the Interagency Committee on Aging (ICA)3 • Listings, with costs and capacities of all: o Assisted Living Facilities o Boazd and Caze Facilities o Affordable Housing o Seiuor Apartments, and o Homeless Shelters • Housing Elements of City and County General Plans • The Orange County Housing Authority Administrative Plan • • Housing and Community Development Consolidated Plans from sample cities The Grand Jury attended a housing workshop and a session of the Orange County Planning Commission which focused on its Housing Element development. Articles on the Internet and in the local newspapers were researched and reviewed. Several Assisted Living facilities were contacted to determine costs, accommodations, age ranges and vacancy rates. This research, along with data from California's Department of Finance, allowed the Grand Jury to construct a profile of how seniors today have accommodated their lifestyles with the options available to them. 3 The ICA was a coalition of public and private organizations which, in 2003, includin the Offic • Aging, the Health Care Agency, CalOptima, the Orange County Transportation Authority, the Housing and Community Services Departinent, and the Social Services Agency. ~2 BACKGROUND AND FACTS • Housing Elements -What are they? The County and every city develop a General Plan (usually every ten yeazs) to be the primary blueprint for all of the long-range planning to preserve and enhance Orange County's cities and unincorporated azeas. Each General Plan includes seven chapters, or elements, including Land Use, Housing, Circulation, Conservation, Open Space, Noise and Safety. The State of California Government Code §65584 requires that one of the seven mandatory elements of the General Plan for cities and counties (for Orange County, the unincorporated areas) be a Housing Element. The Housing Element of each jurisdiction is a key resource for assessing how prepared each is in providing appropriate housing for its seniors. These elements are chapters within the General Plan that aze written and updated routinely by the planning departments of each city as well as the County. The Housing Element contains assessments and recommendations that guide all future development and addresses the housing problems and needs of the city or county. It contains policies and procedures, goals and objectives, and incentives and programs aimed at resolving those housing issues. These elements aze usually updated every five years but they may cover timeframes beyond the five-yeaz period. A recent change in state law, to give the cities more time to comply, allowed for an extension oftwo-and-a-half yeazs for the - current review cycle and has extended the length of future review cycles from five to six yeazs for those counties governed by Southern California Association of Governments • (SCAG). It is during this current time period (through June 2008) that the County and most cities aze conducting community data gathering workshops. These workshops aze intended to solicit the relevant input from participants that will reshape housing plans for future needs. All Housing Elements must be submitted for approval to the State Department of Housing and Community Development by June 30, 2008. They will cover the term of January 1, 2006, to June 30, 2014. Housing Elements -What they reveal To assess the local governments' awareness of senior housing needs, the Grand Jury reviewed the most recently published Housing Elements, available on most cities' and the County Resource & Development Management Department's websites (however, not all General Plans and Housing Elements were available online). The most recently published Housing Elements contain data which is used to forecast housing needs primarily on income levels of residents, not age. Very little attention has been paid to senior housing in previous plans. The Grand Jury believes the needs of the aging population can be addressed more proactively through the housing element process. Each element has a section dedicated to describing the housing needs of its "Elderly" residents and assessing the size and growth rate of their senior populations. The Grand Jury evaluated these sections to determine which municipalities had some awazeness of the senior "boom" coming their way. • Senior Living Options As Orange County's population ages, it faces a variety of possible housing transitions from total independence to living accommodations where extensive services may be required to • meet its needs. The array of possibilities falls along a wide spectrum of options which contribute to their fulfillment. As many of the baby boomer generation retire and transition to much smaller fixed incomes, some may stay in their homes if mortgage-free; others may downsize to smaller homes, and some may move to retirement communities, or other affordable housing. Of those remaining in their homes, some may require assistance such as housekeeping services or transportation to the store or to doctors appointments. Many will also require financial assistance to properly maintain their homes. Some aging pazents with strong cultural traditions may live with children or other relatives as part of an extended family. An alternative for some will be to transition into assisted living retirement communities, where services range from accommodated independent living to full-service assisted living. Those in independent living can take advantage of some or all meals provided in a common dining area, housekeeping services, transportation, and planned social activities and trips. Seniors who require more assistance can move to accommodations where all meals, frequent laundry and housekeeping services, transportation to doctors appointments, dispensing of medications and daily social activities aze provided. There aze a variety of options for seniors who may need around-the-clock care. Many may receive full-care services through cazegivers in the home. Others, with mild physical or cognitive impairment, may live in Residential Caze Facilities for the Elderly. These boazd • and caze facilities aze typically semi-private rooms in a home setting where there are six or fewer beds. And for those with advanced medical conditions and limited mobility, they may live in a full-care nursing facility where medical assistance is available on-site 24 hours per day. With the lazge baby boomer population entering the over-65 category in the yeazs ahead (starting with the yeaz 2011), questions arise: where will they live and is the number of senior living options keeping pace with the accelerated growth in this population or will seniors be forced to move outside of the county, a less attractive option for many? The Picture Today Currently Orange County has two very lazge "55 and over" communities, one in Seal Beach and the other in Laguna Woods, where home prices range from under $100,000 to over $1,200,000. Of the 3% of homes (approximately 350) available today in Laguna Woods, over 50% are under $250,000, though monthly residence fees can exceed $500. Some apartment-like units charge home owner association fees from $1,300 to $1,600 per month. Throughout Orange County there aze 112 senior apartments complexes (all but seven have affordable units within them), and 810 boazd and care facilities with costs ranging from $1,200 to over $5,000 per month. There aze currently 93 assisted living facilities in • a Affordable units are defined as those where the rent is less than 30% of the resident's median income. 4 - Orange County with a combined capacity to serve over 10,000 residents. Many assisted living facilities polled by the Grand Jury indicated that they had waiting lists. According to a source at Community Care Licensing, a division of California De arhnent of Social Services, the average age of seniors living m assisted living facilities is 84.5 Orange County's current population over 85 is greater than 34,000, so only one-third of these seniors can currently be served by assisted living facilities. Monthly costs range from $890 to $7,100, with an average cost of $2,800. In the year 2020, the projected population of those over 85 will exceed 60,000. This alone could double the number of assisted living beds needed, driving monthly fees out of reach for many. Affordable Housing In 2000 the median annual income in Orange County for those households with one or more members 65 and older was $38,138 versus the county median for all households of $58,820. In 2006 the median income of those 65 and older was $41,850, a 9.7 % growth, while the countywide median of $70,232 showed a 19.4% growth over the same period. To understand what aging baby boomers face, it is necessary to define what is meant by "affordable housing." The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) have established the income categories which define - affordability. These income levels are based on a percentage of the Median Family Income (1VIFI). The following table shows the income groups and their common designation (e.g, very low, low, etc.). Although there is a countywide Median Family • Income, the unincorporated area of the county and each city have separately calculated MFIs based upon the population within each entity. The example below shows the MFI for the entire county. Income Group Definition of Income Grou s Ve Low Below 50% of MFI Low 51 % to 80% of MFI Moderate 81 % to 120% of MFI Above Moderate Above 120% of MFI Orange County's 2007 IVIFI = $70,23 Less than $35,116 $35,116 to $56,186 $56,888 to $84,278 Greater than $84.278 s« Is assisted living the right choice?"Adapted from Consumer Reports Complete Guide to Health Services for Seniors, by Trudy Lieberman and the editors of Consumer Reports. An important parameter used to measure the affordability of housing is overpayment. ' "State and federal standazds state that a household overpays for housing if it spends 30 percent or more of its gross income on housing."6 An example to illustrate this would be: • Assume the Median Family Income for Orange County to be $70,000 • • Assume the Median Family Income for seniors in Orange County to be $40,000 • Assume the monthly housing expenditures for these seniors are $1,200 per month, or 36% of their gross income • Because $40,000 is 57% of $70,000, this family would be considered to be in the low income category and they would have overpaid for their housing because it is greater than 30% of their income • Affordable housing for this family would need to cost $1,000 per month or less. • Affordable housing typically addresses those in the low and very low income groups The Picture Tomorrow "Neazly one-third of baby boomers ages 51 to 61 aze at risk of not having enough in savings to finance a comfortable retirement, according to a study by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College."~ Today, retirement benefits for most seniors aze paid for with income streams coming from full pensions, Social Security, personal savings, and home equity. With a generation of future seniors lacking in adequate financial retirement planning, with corporate-sponsored pensions disappearing and with a potential collapse of Social Security, the need for affordable senior housing options is critical. Another nationwide study of baby boomers, reported in the McKinsey Quarterly, indicated "that only about a quarter of the boomers are financially prepazed for their twilight years.s8 It further stated, "At the other end of the spectrum, `disadvantaged' boomers (representing • another quarter of the generation's population) have an average income of only $15,000 a yeaz and a net worth of $75,000....The rest of the boomers-50 percent of the generation's population, controlling almost 25 percent of total US consumption by 2015-envision a comfortable retirement like that of the affluent but haven't prepazed for it. These `unprepazed' boomers spend more than they earn and have an average net worth of just 15 percent of their affluent counterparts.s8 The McKinsey report went on to say, "Our analysis also indicates that 60 percent of boomers will need to work just to maintain 80 percent of their current consumption and that more than 40 percent will be working at age 65. That is twice the number of people from the silent generation [those born from 1925 to 1945] who were working at the same age (30 percent)." After the Grand Jury reviewed past Housing Elements and some currently under development, and attended a community planning session concentrated on future housing needs, it appears that in most cases there is insufficient focus on housing needs for the senior population. The exceptions are cities like Brea and Costa Mesa, which do an excellent job in monitoring trends in their senior populations. Brews housing element states, "According to the Orange County Register, Brea's senior population is projected to triple by 2020." These two cities cleazly foresee the trend that will ultimately impact them. Most Housing Elements acknowledge the need for affordable senior housing but few e Brea 2000 General Plan, Housing Element • ~ The Boston Globe, July 31,2007 s "Serving aging baby boomers", found in the McKinsey Quarterly 2007 Number 4, by David Court, Diana Farrell, and John E. Forsyth articulate the need with meaningful data or demographics, such as actual senior population, senior population trends, the median income of seniors today and what they are projected to be for the next decade and beyond. Most references to senior needs aze expressed in • very generic and unquantifiable terms such as, "Most elderly persons are retired and liv on fixed retirement incomes"9 or "The proportion of elderl~ can be expected to increase as those persons between the ages of 35 and 64 grow older.s1 Some cities do acknowledge the aging baby boomer population but few document how many aze senior residents, what their income levels may actually be, what their housing preferences and needs aze, and when they anticipate making any housing changes. Not all cities have a growing senior population segment, but for the most part, the cities and the County (for the unincorporated areas) need to take steps to acknowledge the impact of the aging baby boomers on their cities. Input from city residents in this age segment should drive the Housing Elements through community workshops to specifically include the following: • The number of residents who aze or will be in the 65 and over age bracket within the timeframe of their updated element • The income segments of those 65 and over • Where seniors prefer to live (e.g. remain in their existing home, downsize to a smaller home or apartment, seek active retirement communities) • What types of housing they can afford - • What special needs they might have ~ - - - • What the current housing inventory provides in the way of o Senior accommodations, such as size, elevators, handicap access, and safety • grab bazs in the showers and bathrooms o Proximity to services, transportation and medical facilities o Activities that meet the needs of this "new" aging generation. Once the Housing Elements are comprehensively developed, the city and county community development managers should work with private developers to fulfill the needs of seniors. Although some cities do plan for senior housing, officials of the cities interviewed by the Grand Jury, indicated that they do not proactively drive the development of housing communities; they let the mazket dictate what specific housing segments will be planned. They may provide incentives in some cases or leverage available government funding, but it is the developer who ultimately decides that a pazcel of land will become an apartment building or a senior assisted living complex. Due to the visionary approach of Rancho Mission Viejo, the master planner of the last remaining large parcel of unincorporated land in Orange County, there is still hope. Within these planned communities of 14,000 residences, 6,000 will be dedicated to the over-55 segment, now referred to by the industry as "age-qualified." This south Orange County area will have a mix of both dedicated "age-qualified" areas, as well as integrated communities where one street might be traditional housing and the next might be filled with homes designed for those over 55. Housing options will include downsized one-story homes or two-story homes where the master bedrooms are located on the first floor. These homes are meant to attract baby boomers who want to transfer from equity-rich homes to • ones more manageable, but still remain "close to the grandkids." Community centers will 9 2000 Irvine Housing Element 10 2000 Mission Viejo Housing Element 7 include pools, exercise rooms and other features that aze design-appropriate for both families and the active senior. Much forethought has been given to include not only single family homes, but multi-unit retirement and assisted living facilities so that a transition to added-care environments does not require a move out of the azea. It is not certain when • these communities will be available, but active development will not begin before 2009. The Grand Jury acknowledges that the state-mandated process for developing the Housing Element is an effective method to assess the anticipated housing needs for each community..However, with the impending dramatic increase in the number of seniors from the baby boomer generation, significant effort should be made to address their changing needs within the Housing Elements. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The 2007-2008 Grand Jury thanks Karen Roper, Executive Director, County of Orange Office on Aging & Homeless Prevention, for the wealth of information she provided. The time spent by Ms. Roper and her staff to respond to our numerous inquiries proved to be invaluable. FINDINGS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each finding will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The. responses aze to be . submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. The 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at the following findings; F-1 The Housing Elements or the c' ' • .f sties and County of Orange do not reflect that the number of affordable senior housing units in Orange County will not accommodate the projected population. F=~ The Housing Elements for the County of Orange and the cities do not focus sufficiently on or analyze the population growth and housing needs of the aging baby boomer generation. F-3 Not all Housing Elements are available online for easy access by the public. F'-4 Municipalities are not proactive enough in encouraging the development of affordable senior housing. Responses to Findings F-1 through F-4 are required from the mayors of all 34 Orange County cities and requested from the CEO and the County of Orange Resource and Development Management Department • RECONIlVIENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation • will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses aze to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this report, the 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations: R-1 Include the current and projected affordable senior housing inventory by type, location and cost in the 2008 and future years' development of the Housing Element It-2 Include sufficient data in the Housing Element to acknowledge the immr'nent growth in the county's aging population. This data is to include the current population and the growth trend of the aging baby boomer generation as well as the current median income and the income trend of the senior population. R-3 Put all Housing Elements online on each city's website. R-4 Confer with developers to establish the needs for affordable senior housing and to encourage investment in future projects Responses to Recommendations R-1 through R-4 are required from the mayors of a1134 Orange County cities and requested from the CEO and the County of Orange Resource and Development Management Department REQUIRED RESPONSES: • The California penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections aze quoted below: §933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the fording. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, ~ which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regazding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepazed for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of ,publication of the grand jury report. • (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. California Penal Code Sections X933 and &933.05 • Note: to reduce grand jury requests for additional response informatio the n, grand~ury has bolded those words in §933.05 which should be appropriately included in a response] §933 (a) Each grand jury shall submit to the presiding judge of the superior court a final report of its findings and recommendations that pertain to county government matters during the fiscal or calendar year, Final reports on any appropriate subject maybe submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court at any time during the term of service of a grand jury, A final report may be submitted for comment to responsible officers, agencies, or departments, including the county board of supervisors, when applicable, upon finding of the presiding judge that the report is in compliance with this title. For 45 days after the end of the tens, the forepersoa and his or her designees shall, upon reasonable notice, be available to clarify the recommendations of the report (b) One copy of each final report, together with the responses thereto, found to be incompliance with this title shall be placed on file with the clerk of the court and remain on file in the office of the clerk. The clerk shall immediately forward a true copy of the report and the responses to the State Archivist who shall retain that report and all responses in perpetuity, (c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or ~agericy head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations, All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding • judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury, A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall~be placed on file with the applicable grind jury final report by, and in the control of the cun:ently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. (d) As used in this section "agency" includes a department, §933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding, (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not wamdnted or is not • reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, 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. (d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior ~ their release. (e} During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental. (fj A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report. • •