Buena Park City Council
August 25, 2026

COMMERCIAL AUTO
Any "employee" of yours is an "insured" while using a covered "auto" you don't own, hire or borrow in your business or your personal affairs.

D. SUPPLEMENT ARY PAYMENTS - INCREASED
LIMITS

1. The following replaces Paragraph A.2.a.(2) of

SECTION II - COVERED AUTOS LIABILITY
COVERAGE:
(2) Up to $3,000 for cost of bail bonds (including bonds for related traffic law violations) required because of an "accidenf' we cover. We do not have to furnish
these bonds.

2. The following replaces Paragraph A.2.a.(4) of

SECTION II - COVERED AUTOS LIABILITY
COVERAGE:
(4) All reasonable expenses incurred by the
"insured" at our request, including actual
loss of earnings up to $500 a day because of time off from work.

E. TRAILERS - INCREASED LOAD CAPACITY
The following replaces Paragraph C.1. of SECTION I- COVERED AUTOS:

1. "Trailers" with a load capacity of 3,000
pounds or less designed primarily for travel
on public roads.

F. HIRED AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE
The following is added to Paragraph 4.4., Coverage Extensions, of SECTION Ill - PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE:

Hired Auto Physical Damage Coverage
If hired "autos" are covered "autos" for Covered
Autos Liability Coverage but not covered "autos"
for Physical Damage Coverage, and this policy
also provides Physical Damage Coverage For an
owned "auto", then the Physical Damage Coverage is extended to "autos" that you hire, rent or borrow subject to the following:
(1) The most we will pay for "loss" to any one
"auto" that you hire, rent or borrow is the
lesser of:
(a) $50,000:
(b) The actual cash value of the damaged or
stolen property as of the time of the
"loss"; or
(c) The cost of repairing or repJacing the
damaged or stolen property with other
property of like kind and quality.
(2) An adjustment for depreciation and physical
condition will be made in determining actual
cash value in the event of a total "loss".
(3) If a repair or replacement results in better
than like kind or quality, we will not pay for the
amount of betterment.
(4) A deductible equal to the highest Physical
Damage deductible applicable to any owned
covered "auto".
(5) This Coverage Extension does not apply to:
(a) Any "auto" that is hired, rented or borrowed with a driver; or (b) Any "auto" that is hired, rented or borrowed from your "employee".

G. PHYSICAL DAMAGE - TRANSPORTATION

EXPENSES - INCREASED LIMIT
The following replaces the first sentence in Paragraph A.4.a., Transportation Expenses, of SECTION Ill - PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE:

We will pay up to $50 per day to a maximum of
$1,500 for temporary transportation expense incurred by you because of the total theft of a covered "auto" of the private passenger type.

H. AUDIO, VISUAL AND DATA ELECTRONIC

EQUIPMENT - INCREASED LIMIT
Paragraph C.l.b. of SECTION Ill PHYSICAL
DAMAGE COVERAGE is deleted.

1. WAIVER OF DEDUCTIBLE - GLASS
The following is added to Paragraph o., Deductible, of SECTION Ill - PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE:

No deductible for a covered "auto" will apply to
glass damage if the glass is repaired rather than
replaced.

J. PERSONAL PROPERTY
The following is added to Paragraph 4.4., Coverage Extensions, of SECTION Ill - PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE:

Personal Property Coverage
We will pay up to $400 for "loss" to wearing apparel and other personal property which is:
(1 ) Owned by an "insured"; and
(2) In or on your covered "auto".

This coverage only applies in the event of a total
theft of your covered "auto".

No deductibles apply to Personal Property coverage.

Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc. with its permission.

CA T4 20 0215

COMMERCIAL AUTO
K. AIRBAGS
The following is added to Paragraph B.3., Exclusions, of SECTION Ill PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE:

Exclusion 3.a. does not apply to "loss" to one or
more airbags in a covered "auto" you own that inflate due to a cause other than a cause of "loss" set forth in Paragraphs A.l.b. and A.l.c., but
only:
a. If that "auto" is a covered "auto" for Comprehensive Coverage under this policy; b. The airbags are not covered under any warranty; and c. The airbags were not intentionally inflated.

We will pay up to a maximum of $1,000 for any
one "loss".

L. AUTO LOAN LEASE GAP
The following is added to Paragraph 4.4., Coverage Extensions, of SECTION Ill - PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE:

Auto Loan Lease Gap Coverage for Private
Passenger Type Vehicles
In the event of a total "loss" to a covered "auto" of
the private passenger type shown in the Schedule
or Declarations for which Physical Damage Coverage is provided, we will pay any unpaid amount due on the lease or loan for such covered "auto"
less the following:
(1) The amount paid under the Physical Damage
Coverage Section of the policy for that "auto";
and
(2) Any:
(a) Overdue lease or loan payments at the
time of the "loss":
(b) Financial penalties imposed under a
lease for excessive use, abnormal wear
and tear or high mileage;
(c) Security deposits not returned by the lessor;
(d) Costs for extended warranties, Credit Life
Insurance, Health, Accident or Disability
Insurance purchased with the loan or
lease; and
(e) Carry-over balances from previous loans
or leases.

M. BLANKET WAIVER OF SUBROGATION
The following replaces Paragraph 4.5., Transfer
Of Rights Of Recovery Against Others To Us,
of SECTION IV - BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS:

5. Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against
Others To Lls
We waive any right of recovery we may have
against any person or organization to the extent required of you by a written contract executed prior to any "accident" or "loss", provided that the "accident" or "loss" arises out of the operations contemplated by such contract. The waiver applies only to the person or organization designated in such contract.

CA T4 20 0215 @2015 The Travelers Indemnity Company. All rights reserved.

Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc. with its permission.

Named Insured: VCA Consultants, Inc.

Policy Number: 6801R291569

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ JT CAREFULLY.

BLANKET ADDITIONAL INSURED
(ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS)
This endorsement modifies insurance provided underthe following:

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART

1. The following is added to SECTION II - WHO IS
AN INSURED:

Any person or organization that you agree in a
"written contract requiring insurance" to include as
an additional insured on this Coverage Part, but:
a. Only with respect to liability for "bodily injury",
"property damage" or "personal injury"; and
b. If, and only to the extent that, the injury or
damage is caused by acts or omissions of
you or your subcontractor in the performance
of "your work" to which the "written contract
requiring insurance" applies, or in connection
with premises owned by or rented to you.

The person or organization does not qualify as an
additional insured:
c. With respect to the independent acts or
omissions of such person or organization; or
d. For "bodily injury", "property damage" or
"personal injury" for which such person or
organization has assumed liability in a
contract or agreement.

The insurance provided to such additional insured
is limited as follows:
e. This insurance does not apply on any basis to
any person or organization for which
coverage as an additional insured specifically
is added by another endorsement to this
Coverage Part.
f. This insurance does not apply to the
rendering of or failure to render any
"professional services".
g. IntheeventthattheLimitsoflnsuranceofthe
Coverage Part shown in the Declarations
exceed the limits of liability required by the
"written contract requiring insurance", the
insurance provided to the additional insured
shall be limited to the limits of liability required
by that "written contract requiring insurance".

This endorsement does not increase the
limits of insurance described in Section Ill
Limits Oflnsurance.
' This insurance does not apply to "bodily
injury" or "property damage" caused by "your
work" and included in the "productscompleted operations hazard" unless the "written contract requiring insurance"
specifically requires you to provide such
coveragdor that additionalinsured,and then the
insurance provided to the additional
insured appliesonly to such "bodily injury" or
"propertydamage'that occursbeforethe end of
the period of time for which the "written
a:intrad requiring insurance" requires you to
provide such coverage or the end of the
polig period, whidiew iseaalier.

2. The following is added to Paragraph 4.a. of

SECTION IV - COMMERCIAL GENERAL
LIABILITY CONDITIONS:

The insurance provided to the additional insured
is excess over any valid and collectible other
insurance, whether primary, excess, contingent or
on any other basis, that is available to the
additional insured for a loss we cover. However, if
you specifically agree in the "written contract
requiring insurance" that this insurance provided
to the additional insured under this Coverage Part
must apply on a primary basis or a primary and
non-contributory basis, this insurance is primary
to other insurance available to the additional
insured which covers that person or organizations
as a named insured for such loss, and we will not
share with the other insurance, provided that:
(1) The "bodily injury" or "property damage" for
which coverage is sought occurs; and
(2) The "personal injury" for which coverage is
sought arises out of an offense committed;
after you have signed that "written contract
requiring insurance". But this insurance provided
to the additional insured still is excess over valid
and collectible other insurance, whether primary,
excess, contingent or on any other basis, that is
available to the additional insured when that
person or organization is an additional insured
under any other insurance.

CG 03 81 0915 @2015 The Travelers Indemnity Company. All rights reserved.

Includes the copyrighted material oflnsurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission Page I of 2

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY

3. The following is added to Paragraph 8., Transfer
Of Rights Of Recovery Against Others To Us,
of SECTION IV - COMMERCIAL GENERAL
LIABILITY CONDITIONS:

We waive any right of recovery we may have
against any person or organization because of
payments we make for "bodily injury", "property
damage" or "personal injury" arising out of "your
work" performed by you, or on your behalf, done
under a "written contract requiring insurance" with
that person or organization. We waive this right
only where you have agreed to do so as part of
the "written contract requiring insurance" with
such person or organization signed by you
before, and in effect when, the "bodily injury" or
"property damage" occurs, or the "personal injury"
offense is committed.

4. The following definition is added to the
DEFINITIONS Section:
"Written contract requiring insurance" means that
part of any written contract under which you are
required to include a person or organization as an
additional insured on this Coverage Part,
provided that the "bodily injury" and "property
damage" occurs and the "personal injury" is
caused by an offense committed:
a. After you have signed that written contract;
b. While that part of the written contract is in
effect; and
c. Before the end of the policy period.

Includes the copyrighted material oflnsurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission CG D3 81 09 15
August 25, 2026

CONSENT CALENDAR
Item No. 4E.

City Council Agenda Report
APPROVAL OF CITY RESPONSES TO 2025-2026 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT: "CALIFORNIA HOUSING MANDATES: THE UNINTENDED RESHAPING OF ORANGE COUNTY NEIGHBORHOODS"

PREPARED BY PRESENTED BY
Jessica Fewer, Senior Management Analyst Jessica Fewer, Senior Management Analyst

DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL CITY MANAGER APPROVAL
Eddie Fenton, Assistant City Manager/HR Director Aaron France, City Manager

RECOMMENDED ACTION
1) Approve the City's responses to the Orange County Grand Jury Report entitled, "California Housing Mandates:

The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods."

PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL ACTION
None.

DISCUSSION
On May 27, 2026, the Orange County Grand Jury released a report entitled, "California Housing Mandates: The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods" (Attachment 1). The report reviews the significant shift in land use authority from cities and counties to the state over the past 10 years, the reduction of local governments' authority to determine where and how housing is built, the concerns with allowing higher-density development in single-family neighborhoods, and the potential effects of streamlined approval processes that limit local discretion and public hearings.

The City of Buena Park is required to respond to specific findings and recommendations. Staff has drafted a response letter from the City (Attachment 2). With City Council approval, staff will remit this response to the Grand Jury by the August 27, 2026, deadline.

BUDGET IMPACT
There is no budget impact with the approval of this item.

Attachments
California_Housing_Mandates_The_Unintended_Reshaping_of_Orange_County_Neighborhoods.pdf Grand_Jury_Response_-Matt Edits_6-1-2026 _mf CC DRAFT.pdf California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
California State Housing Mandates

This page left intentionally blank!
California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................................... 5 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................ 6 REASON FOR STUDY .................................................................................................................................. 9 METHOD OF STUDY.................................................................................................................................10 RESEARCH........................................................................................................................................... 10 INTERVIEWS ......................................................................................................................................... 10 OBSERVATIONS AND SITE VISITS ............................................................................................................... 10 PUBLIC FORUMS AND EVENTS .................................................................................................................. 11 GOVERNMENT MEETINGS ........................................................................................................................ 11 DOCUMENT REVIEW............................................................................................................................... 11 CITY SURVEY........................................................................................................................................ 11 INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS............................................................................................................ 11 STATE HOUSING MANDATES AND LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................. 11 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT AND CEQA...................................................................................................... 13 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT PROCESS..................................................................................... 15 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS CHALLENGES .................................................................................... 17 PENALTIES FOR NOT HAVING AN HCD-APPROVED HOUSING ELEMENT ............................................................. 19 PENALTIES FOR NOT MEETING HOUSING-PLAN CONSTRUCTION GOALS ............................................................ 20 FEASIBILITY OF HOUSING MANDATE IN ORANGE COUNTY............................................................................... 20 ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL.................................................................................................................... 22 CALIFORNIA AND ORANGE COUNTY POPULATION TRENDS.............................................................................. 23 6TH CYCLE (2021–2029) HOUSING ALLOCATIONS IN OC ............................................................................... 25 CITY CHALLENGES................................................................................................................................. 27 7TH CYCLE (2029-2037) CONCERNS ......................................................................................................... 31 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................32 FINDINGS...................................................................................................................................................34 RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................................................................................36 RESPONSES CODE.....................................................................................................................................40 RESPONSES ................................................................................................................................................41 GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................................45 BIBLIOGRAPHY.........................................................................................................................................49 APPENDIX..................................................................................................................................................55 APPENDIX A: MAJOR HOUSING LAWS & WHAT THEY TRIED TO DO................................................................. 55 APPENDIX B: ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING MANDATE SURVEY QUESTIONS...................................................... 65 APPENDIX C: RESPONSIBILITIES............................................................................................................ 65 Responsibilities of OCCOG........................................................................................................... 65 California State Housing Mandates

Responsibilities of SCAG .............................................................................................................. 66 Responsibilities of HCD................................................................................................................ 66 California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026

SUMMARY
California’s perceived housing shortage has prompted the California Legislature to impose increasingly bureaucratic prescriptive State Housing Mandates (Housing Mandates) on local governments, with the stated goal of accelerating production across all income levels. Core frameworks such as the Housing Element and the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process require cities and counties to plan for significant increases in housing capacity. Many additional statutes have contributed to a streamlined development approval process and weakened local discretion with severe penalties for noncompliance. These measures are intended to overcome decades of the perceived underbuilding and restrictive zoning within cities, yet their cumulative effect has been to create unnecessary local government costs, confusion, inequity, and growing tension between state directives and local realities. All of these efforts have led to minimal housing being built.

In Orange County, a region defined by diverse cities, established neighborhoods, and distinct infrastructure constraints, as well as environmentally sensitive areas, these Housing Mandates operate as a one-size-fits-all system poorly suited to local conditions. Housing targets are derived from opaque formulas, that fail to account for land costs, land availability, funding limitations, labor shortages, construction costs, infrastructure capacity and accurate population projections. Without corresponding investments in transit, utilities, schools, parks, public safety, and affordable housing subsidies, the Housing Mandates themselves are largely impractical and difficult to achieve. In addition, because of the financial infeasibility of building low-income housing without subsidies, cities must approve developments with higher density to pay for and meet the affordable housing requirements. As a result, local cities face mounting pressure to comply with requirements that often lack economic and logistical feasibility.

The dissolution of local redevelopment agencies in 2012 eliminated a primary mechanism for financing and managing affordable housing at the local level. In response, the State layered new housing requirements through the Housing Mandates onto cities and counties without restoring comparable funding tools or infrastructure support. Although these laws are framed as solutions to homelessness and affordability, they have in fact caused unintended consequences that have not produced incremental housing production. This is primarily due to regulatory complexity, limited subsidies, and heavy reliance on private market forces. Over time, repeated legislative interventions to solve these challenges have only expanded state authority. This leaves local governments with fewer resources and diminished control.

Housing Mandates have significantly eroded local land-use authority, supplanting community-based planning with rigid, top-down rules. Residents experience a loss of California State Housing Mandates

meaningful input; even as local officials remain legally responsible for compliance.

Streamlined approvals frequently bypass public hearings and local design standards, shift liability to cities, and prioritize building over neighborhood character. The practical elimination of traditional single-family zoning and the widespread upzoning of existing neighborhoods threaten longstanding community character while limiting local oversight of height, density, parking, and environmental resilience.

The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) determines the RHNA housing allocation for most of Southern California. Within this framework, the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) serves as the County’s representative to SCAG in the RHNA process. The RHNA methodology and resulting allocations have been widely criticized as unrealistic, inequitable, and insufficiently transparent.1 OCCOG’s level of influence with SCAG is critical to regional planning outcomes.

OCCOG needs substantial funding increases to better advocate in Sacramento and within SCAG to support OC jurisdictions.

Given the significant challenges and inequitable housing allocations experienced during the current RHNA 6th Cycle (2021-2029), it is imperative that Orange County begin strategic preparation for the upcoming 7th Cycle (2029-2037) process. Proactive planning will strengthen the County’s ability to advocate within SCAG for fair, data-driven, and achievable housing allocations in the next cycle.

This report examines how Housing Mandates operate in practice within Orange County, and how well-intended legislation has produced unintended consequences for cities, neighborhoods, and local governance. It evaluates the feasibility, effectiveness, and equity of current state policies, and highlights the growing disconnect between mandated housing goals and the capacity of communities to absorb them responsibly.

The report underscores the need for housing solutions that respect local conditions, restore meaningful public participation, and align development goals with infrastructure, funding, and community priorities.

BACKGROUND
California continues to experience some of the highest housing prices and rents in the nation, while some say housing production has not kept pace with population and employment growth2. State policymakers have concluded that fragmented local decision-making, restrictive zoning practices, and lengthy approval processes, have 1 New-Pathways-to-Encourage-Housing-Production-Evaluating-Californias-Recent-Housing-LegislationApril-2023-Final.pdf 2 California Housing in 2025 - Advocacy - California Chamber of Commerce California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
contributed to this imbalance3. In response, the California Legislature has pursued a more centralized and enforceable approach to housing policy such as Senate Bill (SB)9, SB10, SB35, SB79, SB131, SB330, and Assembly Bill (AB)1050, AB2011(see Appendix A), shifting significant authority from local jurisdictions to the State. Since 2017, the California Legislature has enacted more than one hundred housing-related bills designed to establish clearer production expectations, reduce procedural delays, and strengthen enforcement mechanisms for jurisdictions that do not comply with state housing requirements.

The Housing Element Law (Government Code 65580-65589.11), originally adopted in 1969, remains the foundation of California’s housing policy. The law requires every city and county to prepare a Housing Element as part of its General Plan that identifies how the jurisdiction will meet the housing needs of all income groups.4 The RHNA process implements these Housing Mandates by assigning each jurisdiction a specified number of housing units—categorized by income level. Compliance is tied to eligibility for state housing and transportation funding, creating substantial financial implications for the County of Orange and its 34 municipalities.

Zoning has long been a cornerstone of local government authority, guiding development, and shaping the physical form of cities.

First introduced in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to address public safety concerns, zoning has since expanded into a sophisticated regulatory system governing land use, building height, setbacks, lot coverage, density, and numerous other development standards. These tools enable local governments to align growth with infrastructure capacity, environmental constraints, and long-term planning objectives, while simultaneously delivering broad public benefits. In addition to protecting public health and safety by distancing residential areas from heavy industrial activities and ensuring reliable emergency access, zoning helps preserve neighborhood character and property values. It also supports community cohesion by balancing residential, commercial, and civic uses, and guides growth in ways that correspond with available public services and facilities. Moreover, zoning plays a vital role in safeguarding environmentally sensitive areas and reducing exposure to wildfire risks, underscoring its enduring importance as a foundational instrument of urban planning.

In recent years, traditional zoning practices have been subject to increasing scrutiny.

Critics argue that low-density zoning and land-use restrictions have contributed to housing shortages, affordability challenges, socioeconomic segregation, 3 In California, statewide housing reforms brush against local resistance | Brookings 4 New-Pathways-to-Encourage-Housing-Production-Evaluating-Californias-Recent-Housing-LegislationApril-2023-Final.pdf California State Housing Mandates

automobile-dependent development, and exclusionary housing patterns.5 Housing advocates, civil rights organizations, and some policymakers have cited these concerns as justification for significant state intervention and reform of local land-use authority.6 State leaders have relied on these critiques to support a series of Housing Mandates that expand the State’s role in local planning decisions. These measures prioritize increased housing production as the central response to the State’s affordability challenges. The underlying assumption is that a significant increase in supply will help reduce housing costs. However, historical data reviewed by the 25-26 Orange County Grand Jury (OCGJ) indicate that periods of high housing production in Orange County, including during the 1990s, did not consistently result in improved affordability.7 This suggests that housing affordability is influenced by multiple factors other than housing supply, including land values, construction costs, wages, and regional economic conditions.

The dissolution of redevelopment agencies in 2012 further altered the local housing landscape. Redevelopment agencies had served as a significant source of financing for affordable housing and community revitalization projects through tax-increment financing and state-authorized planning powers. Their elimination removed a key funding mechanism for cities and counties.8 In subsequent years, the State imposed additional Housing Mandates without restoring revenue sources, leaving jurisdictions and builders responsible for meeting expanded obligations with reduced financial capacity.

The current generation of State Housing Mandates (6th Cycle) reflects multiple statewide policy objectives. Early legislative proposals referenced a goal of constructing approximately 3.5 million new housing units; later that figure was reduced to approximately 2.5 million units.9 Despite these goals, statewide production continues to fall short of identified need. To address this, state housing legislation has emphasized increased zoning density, reduced discretionary review, expanded ministerial approval pathways, strengthened density bonus incentives, and increased requirements for jurisdictions to facilitate affordable housing in lieu of government subsidies. Additional measures focus on locating new housing near employment centers and transit corridors to reduce commute times and greenhouse gas emissions.10 5 National Low Income Housing Coalition - Land Use Restrictions and Affordable Housing 6 Fixing California’s housing shortage requires new policy and new politics - Berkeley Economy & Society Initiative
7 Court Agrees Anaheim Violated State Law. Decision is a Big Win for Fair Housing in California | California Department of Housing and Community Development 8 California Post-RDA Affordable Housing Developer Survey: Analysis of Results - San Francisco Fed 9 New-Pathways-to-Encourage-Housing-Production-Evaluating-Californias-Recent-Housing-LegislationApril-2023-Final.pdf 10 California State Senate Recent Legislative Actions
California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
Collectively, these policies mark a significant shift in California’s approach to land-use governance. While intended to address housing shortages and affordability concerns, they have also raised questions regarding feasibility, infrastructure capacity, public engagement, and the long-term effects on established communities. These issues are particularly relevant in Orange County, where many cities are fully built out, constrained by environmental concerns, geography, and infrastructure limitations, and seeking to balance statutory obligations with community priorities and public expectations. The impact on Orange County and its 34 cities in meeting these Housing Mandates deserves intense scrutiny.

REASON FOR STUDY
The expansion of Housing Mandates has provoked public awareness and challenged local governments. Media coverage has grown, reflecting divergent viewpoints regarding the Housing Mandates’ effectiveness, equity, and long-term consequences.

Cities across Orange County have responded in a variety of ways, adopting compliance strategies that differ widely in breadth, transparency, and community engagement.

Residents have expressed a similarly broad range of perspectives, from support for expanded housing opportunities to concerns regarding neighborhood impacts, infrastructure strain, loss of local control, and limitations on public participation in land-use decision-making.

Housing Mandates have the potential to significantly reshape the character of Orange County Communities.

Beyond requiring increased zoning density and higher residential densities, the Housing Mandates influence demographic patterns, neighborhood character, transportation systems, public services, and environmental concern. Local jurisdictions must absorb these impacts without corresponding state investment in infrastructure, affordable housing subsidies, or restoration of tools previously used to manage growth, such as redevelopment agency financing.

Given these conditions, this report attempts to evaluate both the intended and unintended consequences of Housing Mandates as they are applied within Orange County. It will identify where state requirements may conflict with local capacity and community needs and assess how recent legislative changes have shifted the balance between state authority and local governance. In addition, this report seeks to establish a strategic framework for influencing future housing allocations within SCAG by strengthening the role and effectiveness of OCCOG as we move into the next planning phase.

California State Housing Mandates

METHOD OF STUDY
In conducting this study, the OCGJ employed a multi-method approach designed to gather information from a broad range of governmental, professional, construction industry, and community perspectives. The methodology included research, interviews, observational site visits, document review, surveys, and participation in relevant public forums. This comprehensive approach allowed the OCGJ to evaluate how Housing Mandates are interpreted, implemented, and experienced across Orange County jurisdictions.

Research
The OCGJ conducted extensive background research using publicly available sources, including:
• Governmental and agency websites
• Online news and media sources
• Local and Community news outlets
Interviews
The OCGJ conducted interviews with representatives from the following organizations and groups:
• City leadership from multiple Orange County cities
• Sitting and former city officials
• Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG)
• Orange County Public Works – Development Services
• Orange County Housing & Community Development
• Local housing program administrators
• American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) – housing specialists • Private-sector builders and development professionals Observations and Site Visits
OCGJ members conducted guided site visits and observations of housing and mixed-use developments, including:

Multiple retail and housing developments (market rate, affordable and low income) in:
• Huntington Beach
• Midway City
• Anaheim
• Santa Ana
• Westminster
• Irvine
California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
• San Juan Capistrano
Public Forums and Events
The Members of the OCGJ attended:
• The 2025 Chapman Economic Forecast
• Newport Beach Community Forum
• Foothills Neighborhood Association Town Hall
Government Meetings
The Members of the OCGJ attended:
• Orange County Board of Supervisors
• Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG)
• Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), a subcommittee of OCCOG • Monitored City Council meeting within the County
Document Review
• Complaints and correspondence submitted by Orange County residents. • Community Development Records from applicable jurisdictions City Survey
The OCGJ developed and distributed written survey questions to Orange County cities to gather information concerning:
• Housing Element compliance strategies
• Local responses to Housing Mandates
• Community engagement processes
• Infrastructure and resource constraints

INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS
State Housing Mandates and Local Implementation
The Housings Mandates, through the laws approved by the California Legislature, have pursued a more centralized and enforceable approach to housing policy (Appendix A), shifting significant authority from local jurisdictions to the State. Since 2017, the California Legislature has enacted more than one hundred housing related bills, designed to establish clearer production expectations, reduce procedural delays, and strengthen enforcement mechanisms for jurisdictions that do not comply with state housing requirements.

California State Housing Mandates

California’s housing statutes are not aspirational guidelines; they carry the force of law and impose affirmative legal obligations on local jurisdictions. Cities are therefore required to plan for, accommodate, and in many cases, approve housing development consistent with Housing Mandates, regardless of local political preferences, historic planning practices or public consensus.

According to California State policy guidance, the Housing Mandates are intended to address decades of housing underproduction that state policymakers identify as contributing to rising housing costs, overcrowding, displacement, reduced economic mobility and a lack of affordable housing.11 From the State’s perspective, reliance on regional and local discretion has not consistently generated housing at levels necessary to improve affordability, particularly for lower and moderate-income households.12 In response, the California Legislature and HCD have adopted a compliance driven model designed to ensure that every jurisdiction contributes to meeting statewide housing needs.

Orange County cities differ significantly. Th OCGJ’s investigation focused on areas where the state’s rapidly evolving legislative requirements conflicted with local zoning practices, infrastructure constraints, and past practices. It also examined how recent statutory reforms shifted authority away from local jurisdictions toward state oversight and enforcement, reshaping the governance methodology and altering both the practical and legal responsibilities of cities.

Within this context, this report does not question whether cities must comply with state housing law—they must—but rather this report’s objective is to assist Orange County jurisdictions and the public in understanding the framework within which they operate and enhance the possibility of good planning practices and design. During interviews, city officials and builders described to the OCGJ the benefits of citizen engagement, proactive and early coordination on planning, realistic site inventories, and timely engagement with state agencies to avoid punitive actions.

Public communication and civic education is essential. Several Orange County cities reported undertaking efforts to engage residents and explain how the Housing Mandates affect local decision-making authority, including reductions in traditional zoning discretion. Transparent public outreach was identified as an important practice for maintaining community trust and managing expectations in an era of constrained local control.

Through interviews, document review, site observations, and comparative analysis, several key themes emerged and are expanded on below:
11 Statewide Housing Plan
12 California Legislative Analyst's Office - California Housing California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
• Environmental Context and CEQA
• RHNA Process
• RHNA Challenges
• Penalties of Not Having an Approved HCA Housing Element • Penalties for Not meeting Approved Housing Plan
• Feasibility of Housing Mandate in Orange County
• One Size Does Not Fit All
• California and OC Population Trends
• 6th Cycle Housing Allocations in OC
• City Challenges
• 7th Cycle Concerns
Environmental Context and CEQA
In 1970, California enacted the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with broad legislative support. These are the broad body of environment laws that attempt to protect California’s environment13. Its core purpose is to ensure that state and local government agencies identify and publicly disclose the environmental impacts of proposed projects before approving them.14 Importantly, CEQA does not prohibit development; it ensures development is done responsibly, with environmental protections, public notice, and accountability. It has played a key role in shaping California’s environmental standards for over five decades. Yet recent housing laws are chipping away at these hard-won environmental protections and may put our environment at risk.

Over time, the California Legislature has adopted amendments intended to streamline housing projects. Several interviewees asserted that recent statutes—including A130 and SB131—have the effect of narrowing CEQA’s environmental review for qualifying housing projects by expanding ministerial or exempt pathways15. Before CEQA and the Federal Clean Air Act, Southern California experienced severe air pollution, with the region enduring over 200 days each year of unhealthy ozone levels. 16 In the 1970s, this
led to frequent smog alerts and restrictions on outdoor activity for vulnerable residents17. Longtime residents recall this period as one when smog was so persistent it regularly obscured visibility and affected daily life. Today, air quality in Southern California is dramatically improved, with far fewer unhealthy-air days due to decades of 13 PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and the Environment - Public Policy Institute of California 14 South Coast Air Quality Management District - CEQA
15 California Lawmakers Approve Major Overhaul of Landmark Environmental Law | KQED 16 How Los Angeles Began to Put its Smoggy Days Behind | History & Society | PBS SoCal 17 Los Angeles Historical Air Quality Analysis: AQI, PM, CO, SO2, NO2, O3 California State Housing Mandates

CEQA measures that have collectively transformed the air basin and made local conditions significantly cleaner and healthier than during the smog-filled 1970’s.18 A smoggy aerial view of downtown Los Angeles in January 1975.

Polling in California consistently shows strong public support for environmental protection, though some surveys also indicate support for regulatory changes aimed at increasing housing production and lowering costs.
19 Recent laws have made it simpler to construct housing by scaling back environmental controls.20 While this may accelerate development, it also threatens to weaken important environmental protections that California has relied on for decades. And importantly, there is no guarantee that these streamlined projects will provide affordable homes or meaningfully improve the housing crisis.
18 How Los Angeles Began to Put its Smoggy Days Behind | History & Society | PBS SoCal 19 PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and the Environment - Public Policy Institute of California 20 In California, statewide housing reforms brush against local resistance | Brookings California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
Regional Housing Needs Assessment Process
RHNA is the State mandated process that determines the number of new housing units across various income levels that each city and county must plan for each 8-year cycle.
21 It requires local governments to zone adequate land to meet projected regional housing needs.22 RHNA is implemented through the HCD whose mission statement emphasizes safe, affordable homes and sustainable communities. 23 The RHNA process begins with HCD’s review of household growth projections to estimate future housing needs by region. The California Department of Finance shares demographic projections with regional planning bodies known as Councils of Governments (COGs). These projections form the basis for RHNA determinations among California regions, and each COG then develops suballocations for counties and cities within its jurisdiction. Each city is required to update a Housing Element as part of its General Plan, describing objectives, programs, and housing sites consistent with RHNA goals. In recent years, the California Legislature has enacted statutes expanding HCD’s authority in reviewing and enforcing RHNA related plans.24 SCAG is the largest COG in the State which includes Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties. SCAG represents 197 jurisdictions across more than 38,000 square miles. SCAG develops RHNA allocations for its member jurisdictions and also engages at the state level on issues relevant to regional planning, including housing legislation.25
OCCOG, established as a joint power’s agency in 1996, serves as a representative of Orange County to SCAG on RHNA planning (and other issues, i.e., transportation). The organization emphasizes collaboration, transparency, and consistent advocacy to ensure Orange County’s interests are effectively represented in regional planning, areas where the OCGJ has identified deficiencies.26
OCCOG’s charter describes it as a voluntary advisory association of local governments seeking sub regional and regional planning, coordination, and technical assistance on issues of mutual concern. OCCOG has an Executive Director and minimal staff. A member of the Orange County Board of Supervisors serves on the OCCOG Board and is the SCAG representative for the County of Orange.
27 21 California Housing Element Law Explained – Legal Clarity 22 The California State of Real Estate - Realtor.com Economic Research 23 Welcome to HCD! | California Department of Housing and Community Development 24 Enforcement Authority | California Department of Housing and Community Development 25 About us | Southern California Association of Governments 26 Orange County Council of Governments
27 Orange County Council of Governments
California State Housing Mandates

SCAG adopted its 6th Cycle housing allocation plan for the period of October 2021 through October 2029. The plan assigns 1,341,827 additional housing units across the SCAG region—which includes most of Southern California—and distributes those units among cities and unincorporated areas, including those in Orange County.28 Stakeholders reported that the 6th Cycle methodology resulted in a significant housing unit increase compared with the 5th Cycle allocation to SCAG of 411,953 units; representing approximately a 300% increase. The dramatic increase prompted the municipalities to request reviews and appeals of their assigned housing requirements.

In response, HCD cited multiple reasons for the regional increases including unit overcrowding, affordability indicators, the ongoing effects of previously unbuilt housing units during the 2008 recession and the statutory adjustment factors under California Government Code § 65584.01 (statutory formula)29
28 Southern California COG Regional Housing Need Determination 29 Southern California COG Regional Housing Need Determination California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
Summarized are the five objectives that the COGs (i.e. SCAG) must further in their allocation methodology (Gov. Code § 65584(d)):30
• Increasing the housing supply and the mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability in all cities and counties within the region in an equitable manner, resulting in allocations for low and very low-income households, and providing for extremely low and acutely low-income allocations within the range prescribed by statute
• Promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity, protecting environmental and agricultural resources, encouraging efficient development patterns, and achieving greenhouse gas reduction targets pursuant to Government Code section 65080.
• Improving the intraregional relationship between jobs and housing, including balance between low wage jobs and housing affordable to low wage workers. • Allocating a lower proportion of housing need to an income category where a jurisdiction already has a disproportionately high share of households in that category relative to the countywide distribution.
• Affirmatively furthering fair housing.

These objectives are intended to support more economically diverse communities by assigning housing to high resource, job rich areas and by encouraging infill development while protecting environmental resources (CEQA). 31 RHNA assigns
targets to each jurisdiction by income category. For the 6th Cycle, the four income categories are: Very Low (≤ 50% of county median income), Low (50–80%), Moderate (80–120%), and Above Moderate (≥ 120%)32. Through HCD and RHNA, California instructs and enforces compliance with specific housing targets.

Regional Housing Needs Analysis Challenges
The cities’ leadership in Orange County offered multiple critiques of RHNA, including:
(1) allocation methodology at SCAG does not reflect local housing need, (2) concerns of fairness in allocation across jurisdictions, (3) the appeal process to SCAG by local governments were consistently denied, and (4) assigned housing goals do not consistently translate into actual permitting, especially for lower income households.33 HCD has stated that RHNA goals should not be interpreted as a production forecast but 30 California Department of Housing and Community Development | 31 The 5 Statutory Objectives of the RHNA Methodology
32 State Housing Law Program | California Department of Housing and Community Development 33 Best Practices for Allocating & Evaluating RHNA
California State Housing Mandates

as a planning objective.
34 Even with this planning objective, Orange County jurisdictions reported significant operational and fiscal challenges associated with implementation.

Jurisdictions described resource constraints that affect their ability to implement the Housing Mandates consistent with legislative intent, including staffing limitations, the need for specialized consultant support, and budget constraints. Several cities characterized RHNA determination and compliance as complex and costly. Some cities reported spending hundreds of thousands of dollars (sometimes reaching close to $1,000,000) to meet the reporting mandate. Taxpayer money spent on planning does not directly result in the construction of housing units.

Interviewees also reported that SCAG’s approved methodology is complex and difficult for elected officials to communicate their housing allocation and ultimate Housing Element to their constituents. HCD and SCAG should take steps to improve the RHNA processes, including enhancing communication transparency and simplifying data driven methodologies. Additionally, recognizing the compliance costs to taxpayers cannot be left unaddressed even as the 7th Cycle planning is currently underway.

In October 2021, the California State Joint Legislative Audit Committee approved an emergency audit of HCD’s regional determination process, citing limited public visibility of calculation methods and a need for independent review.35 Further, the audit identified errors in certain data calculations and raised concerns36. The California State Auditor subsequently issued findings that criticized aspects of HCD’s methodology indicating potential inflation of requirements by a substantial number of housing units.37 Some of the cited errors included the use of very outdated and inaccurate vacancy factor rates38. One report even suggests base information used was from the 1980’s39.

Others reported that HCD relied on population projections that differed from California Department of Finance forecasts, which generally show relatively modest long-term growth, and instead used assumptions that resulted in significantly higher projected housing needs.
40 HCD’s response, to the California State Auditor, and on their website, acknowledged there was room for improvement and addressed the allocation criticisms in very general terms but did not mention that the numbers had been or would be corrected.41
34 New-Pathways-to-Encourage-Housing-Production-Evaluating-Californias-Recent-Housing-LegislationApril-2023-Final.pdf 35 California Auditor Report 2021-125
36 California Auditor Report 2021-125
37 More Homes, Hardly Any Population Growth—So Why Is California Still So Expensive? 38 CA Auditor Bashes State’s Mandated Housing Numbers, Says Process Is Flawed, Lacks Oversight 39 CA Auditor Bashes State’s Mandated Housing Numbers, Says Process Is Flawed, Lacks Oversight 40 Court: 'Regional Housing Need' Determinations Aren’t Judicially Reviewable - Davis Vanguard 41 California State Auditor - Report 2021-125 Recommendation 3 Responses California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
Separately, in June 2021, OCCOG, on behalf of the Orange County cities, filed a judicial challenge to HCD’s regional housing determination, arguing that HCD failed to follow statutory requirements in developing the RHNA allocation.42 The trial court dismissed the petition in November 2021, and the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed that dismissal in July 2023, holding that neither OCCOG nor its member cities could challenge HCD’s methodology.43 On August 24, 2023, the OCCOG Board authorized counsel to petition the California Supreme Court for review, but the Court denied the petition on October 11, 2023, effectively ending OCCOG’s legal challenge. 44 During the
6th Cycle process, SCAG received 48 appeals from cities challenging their housing allocation within their 45-day appeal period. After SCAGs review, they quickly denied 47 of them.45 This demonstrates limited jurisdictional influence over the allocation and appeal process. This series of rulings confirms that HCD’s statutory authority has been upheld by the courts, and that any changes sought by local jurisdictions may be addressed better through the legislative process rather than litigation.

Penalties for Not Having an HCD-Approved Housing Element A city that fails to obtain certification of its Housing Element from the HCD is considered out of compliance with state Housing Element Law and becomes subject to a range of escalating enforcement actions.46 HCD’s Housing Accountability Unit (HAU) has authority to initiate enforcement, including referral to the California Attorney General for legal action when a jurisdiction does not meet statutory planning requirements.47 When a city is out of compliance, it can be exposed to severe statutory penalties, such as lawsuits by the Attorney General or outside entities, court-imposed fines ranging from $10,000 to $600,000 per month, and court orders that may mandate project approvals, require rezoning, suspend a city’s authority to issue building permits, or even strip the city council of land-use authority until compliance is achieved.48 The most concerning and widely known consequence of noncompliance is the Builder’s Remedy, which restricts a city’s ability to deny qualifying housing projects even when they conflict with the city’s General Plan or zoning rules.49 Under this provision, developers may propose larger, denser projects that bypass local zoning controls if at least 20% of the units are affordable to low-income households or if the project is 100% 42 OCCOG Press Release HCD
43 Orange Cnty. Council of Gov'ts. v. Velasquez - vLex United States 44 Orange County Council of Governments
45 Orange County Council of Governments
46 Analysis Finds Davis Not on Track to Meet Housing Requirements without Approval of Two Voter Projects - Davis Vanguard
4747 Analysis Finds Davis Not on Track to Meet Housing Requirements without Approval of Two Voter Projects - Davis Vanguard
48 Housing Open Data Tools | California Department of Housing and Community Development 49 “Builder's Remedy" Reform Bill Approved by Governor Newsom | Allen Matkins California State Housing Mandates

moderate-income.50 Cities without a compliant Housing Element lose their ability to regulate these projects through their typical zoning constraints unless they can demonstrate specific, adverse health or safety impacts.51 Additional consequences include loss of access to key state funding sources and being placed on a shorter four-year Housing Element update cycle rather than the standard eight-year schedule.52 As of this writing, some Orange County cities—such as Huntington Beach and Seal Beach—have not yet obtained certification of their Housing Elements for the 6th Cycle or have been subject to enforcement actions related to noncompliance, while others, such as Costa Mesa, have only achieved compliance after delays and state intervention.53
Penalties for Not Meeting Housing-Plan Construction Goals While RHNA production targets are planning requirements, not actual construction mandates – cities may face meaningful consequences if they fail to implement the programs and rezoning commitments included in their certified Housing Elements.

HCD’s HAU monitors compliance with both Housing Element commitments and state housing laws, and violations may prompt enforcement letters, monitoring actions, or legal referrals to the Attorney General.54 Courts have shown a willingness to override local discretion when a city’s failure to implement its Housing Element prevents the jurisdiction from accommodating its assigned RHNA allocation.55 In some cases, courts may mandate rezoning, invalidate local development restrictions, or require approval of specific projects to ensure that adequate housing capacity is created.56 Feasibility of Housing Mandate in Orange County
The feasibility of California’s Housing Mandates in Orange County raises significant practical concerns. HCD, during the 6th Cycle, has allocated 183,161 housing units to Orange County to be constructed by 2029 with 30% being considered ‘affordable’.

However, according to the US Census Bureau, Orange County is only producing an average of 5,000 units a year over the past 5 years.
57 Clearly this is a dilemma for the
County. While it is relatively easy for the California Legislature to pass ambitious housing laws, the actual construction of these units is far more challenging. The Housing Mandates may be well-intentioned but translating them into real-world development is complex, due to constraints in land availability and costs, infrastructure 50 Builder's Remedy Primer
51 The Builder's Remedy and Housing Elements
52 Housing Elements | California Department of Housing and Community Development 53 Appeals Court Orders Huntington Beach to Comply with State Housing Law - Davis Vanguard 54 Enforcement Process | California Department of Housing and Community Development 55 Appeals Court Orders Huntington Beach to Comply with State Housing Law - Davis Vanguard 56 Appeals Court Orders Huntington Beach to Comply with State Housing Law - Davis Vanguard 57 Index of /programs-surveys/popest/tables
California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
capacity, high construction and labor costs, community acceptance, and capital formation.

Capital formation for housing development in Orange County faces significant challenges. The cost of capital remains high, and the long timeline required to entitle, build, and eventually generate revenue increases financial risk for developers.

Interest-rate volatility further complicates financing, affecting both equity investment and construction loan terms. At the same time, affordable housing projects often struggle to qualify for limited government subsidies, leaving many developments financially infeasible. These pressures are intensified in Orange County, which has some of the highest land and construction costs in California, making lower-income housing especially difficult to deliver without substantial public support.58 59 60 61 Most parts of Orange County are already built out, leaving limited land available for new development. Substantial portions of the remaining undeveloped areas are further constrained by coastal regulations, floodplains, wildfire-prone zones, steep hillsides, protected open space, and other environmentally sensitive lands. These physical and regulatory barriers significantly reduce the amount of land that can realistically be developed. At the same time, the County faces substantial infrastructure limitations— including constraints on water and sewer systems, road capacity and traffic circulation, parking availability, schools, parks and recreation space, transit corridors, and even utilities such as electricity and natural gas. Taken together, these constraints sharply limit how much additional housing can be accommodated, even when zoning or Housing Mandates call for higher densities.

High construction costs remain a major obstacle to new housing production, driven by escalating prices for essential building materials such as lumber, steel, concrete, and electrical components. Persistent labor shortages across skilled trades further compound these costs, as limited labor supply leads to higher wages and project delays. Appliance costs have also risen significantly, especially for energy-efficient or higher-end models now commonly required by building codes or market expectations.

Additionally, the desired level of luxury or finish, such as premium flooring, countertops, fixtures, and community amenities, can substantially increase overall project budgets, making even modest housing developments expensive to deliver.

Reports indicate it cost approximately $500,000 to $800,000 to build a one-bedroom low-income rental unit in Orange County. Low Income units require rental subsidies. 58 Turner Center UC Berkeley Development Math
59 Interest Rates Impact Construction Project Funding
60 CHP State Housing Needs Report
61 The High Cost of Producing Multifamily Housing in California: Evidence and Policy Recommendations | RAND
California State Housing Mandates

With declining federal, state, and local funding subsidies, it is difficult to build affordable housing. Developer interest therefore is focused on market rate housing production.

In short, Housing Mandates are legally binding, yet remain extraordinarily difficult for many cities to achieve. While While RHNA serves a key role as a planning tool, requiring cities to zone for additional housing and align local policies with statewide objectives, meeting the full scale of assigned housing targets, especially for lower-income households, is often unrealistic without sustained public funding, expanded infrastructure, and ongoing State support. In practice, the Housing Mandates alone do not produce homes. Achieving HCD/SCAG goals in Orange County ultimately depends on market-responsive policies, and complementary funding strategies. It is not simply higher numerical requirements or punitive measures.

In practice, Housing Mandates alone do not build homes.

One Size Does Not Fit All
California’s statewide Housing Mandates are intended to address a persistent and perceived shortage of housing.62 However, the OCGJ found that the uniform statutory framework governing the RHNA process can function as a blunt instrument when applied across jurisdictions with widely differing conditions. City leadership consistently noted that a one-size-fits-all approach may not fully account for the unique character, environmental, infrastructural, economic, demographic, and geographic circumstances facing individual communities.

Several stakeholders noted that the RHNA process does not adequately differentiate among jurisdictions with varying levels of infrastructure capacity, longstanding physical or environmental constraints, or distinct development patterns. In particular, it fails to account for older, largely built-out cities—such as Garden Grove, Westminster, La Habra, and Fountain Valley, where available land is minimal and new housing can occur primarily through infill development. In these contexts, construction is typically more complex and costly, further challenging feasibility. As a result, some local governments face disproportionate burdens in accommodating housing allocations that do not fully reflect on-the-ground constraints and local conditions.

The OCGJ notes that perspectives on this issue varied considerably. Interviewees from fast-growing or infrastructure-rich areas were more likely to support uniform standards, arguing that consistent requirements prevent jurisdictions from avoiding their fair share of housing obligations. Others expressed the view that Housing Mandates are necessary to overcome decades of underproduction and local resistance to growth. 62 California Department of Housing and Community Development | California Department of Housing and Community Development
California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
Ultimately, comments on the adequacy and fairness of California’s uniform approach depended heavily on local context and a jurisdiction’s capacity to absorb additional housing.

Data source: Cities’ responses to the 2526 Grand Jury’s survey California and Orange County Population Trends
Over the past three decades, California has undergone a profound demographic shift.

After more than a century of rapid population expansion (growing from under 20 million in 1970 to nearly 40 million by 2020) the State’s growth has slowed dramatically, and in recent years has turned negative.63 According to the Public Policy Institute of California, California lost 322,000 residents between July 2020 and July 2022 due largely to emigration, declining births, and reduced immigration.
64 And although modest growth
resumed between 2022 and 2025, the overall trend remains flat and well below historical norms. As previously noted, this validates the California State Auditor’s criticism of HCD, and its projections based on population. 63 CSUF - Center for Demographic Research 64 California's Population - Public Policy Institute of California California State Housing Mandates

Source Orange County Register 65
Historically, one of California’s fastest-growing regions, Orange County, exhibits similar trajectories – population stagnation and decline. The U.S. Census Bureau has documented recent population decreases, noting that Orange County's long-standing growth pattern began to reverse in the early 2020’s due in part, to an aging population, and reduced international migration and increased outmigration. 66 These trends
challenge long-held assumptions about continuous growth in Orange County and suggest that future planning should incorporate demographic stabilization rather than expansion.

Despite these emerging realities, population projections used during the 6th Cycle (2021–2029) relied on pre-pandemic models that assumed continued growth.67 HCD’s 6th Cycle regional determination began with population forecasts from the Department of Finance and applied upward adjustments for overcrowding, cost burden, and vacancy— factors that significantly inflated the region’s housing need calculation. However, by 2020–2025, many of these underlying drivers shifted in the opposite direction as 65 Infographic: Are people leaving California? Here’s what the numbers show us – Orange County Register
66 Infographic: Are people leaving California? Here’s what the numbers show us – Orange County Register
67 Presentation: Overview of Regional Growth Forecasting, Modeling Task Force May 25, 2022 Meeting California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
California entered a period of population decline, raising questions about the accuracy of the assumptions embedded in the 6th Cycle projections. SCAG has acknowledged concerns from stakeholders regarding the appropriateness of the population and household growth assumptions used during the 6th Cycle and has initiated discussions with HCD to reform the methodology.68
Looking ahead to the 7th Cycle, California’s demographic outlook is markedly different from the 6th Cycle. The Department of Finance’s newest long-range projections (2024 baseline) show significantly slower statewide and county-level growth through 2070, with some regions, including Orange County, projected to experience prolonged stagnation or decline.69 These updated projections, combined with post-2020 population losses, underscore the necessity for HCD and SCAG to recalibrate their methodologies so that the next RHNA Cycle reflects a more accurate and data-driven assessment of true housing need. Without incorporating the State’s new demographic trajectory, RHNA risks overestimating future household growth and imposing planning obligations disconnected from both California’s and Orange County’s actual population realities.

Data source: Orange County Progress Report 2025
Notes: This chart includes only cities, who responded to the 2526 Grand Jury’s survey. 6th Cycle (2021–2029) Housing Allocations in OC
California’s Housing Element Law requires every city and county to plan for its share of regional housing need. For the 6th Cycle (October 2021–October 2029), SCAG 68 PowerPoint Template for SCAG Presentations
69 Projections | California Department of Finance
California State Housing Mandates

assigned the Orange County subregion a total of 183,861 housing units, allocated across four income categories: Very Low, Low, Moderate, and Above Moderate.70 While RHNA establishes the minimum number of units each jurisdiction must plan for, this OCGJ finds that cities seeking to meaningfully expand affordable housing production must adopt local housing targets that exceed their RHNA assignment. This is largely because the cost of constructing deed-restricted affordable units—often approaching $700,000 per unit—is rarely economically feasible without substantial public subsidy, layered financing, and other creative development strategies. As a result, cities increasingly rely on density bonus incentives, allowing developers to build additional market-rate units in exchange for providing affordable units, to help close funding gaps and meet lower-income housing obligations.

The RHNA process begins with the HCD determining the amount of housing needed for each region, including affordability levels, and continues with a regional agency (here, SCAG) dividing that need among counties and cities. SCAG’s final 6th Cycle plan assigns Orange County jurisdictions a combined 183,861 total units for 2021–2029.71 SCAG’s allocation plan further distributes Orange County’s total to each city (and to the County’s unincorporated area). The largest allocations go to major employment and population centers, with substantial totals assigned to, among others:

City Units City Units
Irvine 23,610 Huntington Beach 13,368
Garden Grove 19,168 Costa Mesa 11,760
Anaheim 17,453 OC Unincorporated 10,340
These totals reflect the regional policy judgment—guided by state objectives—that jurisdictions must plan for additional housing capacity across income categories.

In summary, RHNA 6th Cycle allocations establish minimum planning obligations, but they do not, by themselves, overcome the structural feasibility barriers that constrain low-income housing delivery. This higher target is justified by (1) the anticipated attrition between zoning capacity and constructed projects, and (2) the necessity of leveraging private development to be incentivized to build affordable housing in a market where restricted rents cannot reliably support new construction without layered public assistance.
70 Regional Housing Needs Assessment | Southern California Association of Governments 71 Regional Housing Needs Assessment | Southern California Association of Governments California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
City Challenges
California’s increasingly prescriptive Housing Mandates have placed substantial pressure on local governments in Orange County, requiring cities to plan for significantly higher levels of housing capacity. The cumulative effect has been added local government costs, uncertainty in interpreting evolving state requirements, inequities among jurisdictions, and escalating tension between state directives and the longstanding expectation of local control over planning and zoning.

While the State has articulated policy goals and methodology behind its Housing Mandates, the top-down framework often overlooks the essential role of local communities in electing officials to ensure that planning and zoning decisions reflect the values and priorities of the electorate—the very reason most cities incorporated in the first place. This disconnect has contributed to considerable tension, community frustration, and political instability in many Orange County cities, not to mention the constituents’ lack of confidence that their elected officials are representing their interests.

To successfully meet the requirement of the Housing Mandates cities must file a Housing Element with HCD every eight years to meet the aggressive targets being mandated. Many local cities lack the internal expertise and staff time to draft such housing submissions and thus must hire costly external consultants to prepare appropriate legal documents. As previously noted, the costs to cities have been between $100,000 and over $1,000,000 for some of the larger cities. With 34 cities in Orange County and the County also required to provide a housing plan, the administrative costs are in the millions of dollars just to comply. With many local cities having budgetary challenges, this administrative burden is just another unfunded liability. These taxpayer dollars are spent to comply with the law and have no commensurate direct beneficial outcome for the community.

In Orange County, the Housing Mandates have substantially narrowed local land use discretion while increasing administrative, legal, and compliance risks for cities.

Although framed as a planning requirement, the Housing Mandates have expanded residential density and embedded enforceable state oversight into what were traditionally local planning functions. As a result, compliance and enforcement mechanisms have begun to reshape municipal governance and materially influenced developmental patterns across the county. The result of these impacts in Orange County includes but are not limited to the following:
• Reduced local land-use authority
• Administrative and staffing burdens
• Financial expense
• Infrastructure limitations
California State Housing Mandates

• Increased legal exposure
• Political and community conflict
• Unfair RHNA housing allocations across the cities
Each city in Orange County has had a variety of challenges based upon differences in geography, fiscal capacity, land availability, funding availability, development interest and conditions, local policy decisions and community responses. The impact of the Housing Mandates has had dramatic impacts and cannot be ignored.

For example:

Anaheim: As the largest (population) city in Orange County, Anaheim has a strong fiscal base, including significant tourist-based revenue, and has already permitted and constructed a large number of housing units especially in light of their massive OC Vibe residential, retail and entertainment district. This is not to say, however, that they do not have their challenges with developers pushing to increase density within Anaheim Hills and the City’s concern of density and building into a designated high-fire risk area. Due to its population of over 300,000, unlike most Orange County cities, Anaheim does have access to state and federal dollars, to assist in meeting the affordable housing requirements.

Costa Mesa: Costa Mesa is one of only three Orange County cities still without a compliant Housing Element. Its continued effort to defend local regulations on sober living homes—rules that HCD does not formally recognize—has already cost the city access to certain state low-income housing funding. The situation worsened when one of the City’s largest developers withdrew all of his properties from Costa Mesa’s Housing Element inventory, slashing projected housing capacity from roughly 17,000 units to the bare minimum of about 11,750 units needed to meet state requirements.72 This leaves the City with virtually no buffer to achieve compliance.

Fountain Valley: Fountain Valley is largely built out, with approximately 90% of its land already utilized. Limited available land and constrained financing capacity present major hurdles in Fountain Valley ever being able to meet the state requirements.

Huntington Beach: Huntington Beach has adopted a totally different strategy to address the Housing Mandates. They have aggressively pursued litigation in an effort as a "charter city" to preserve local land-use authority. This approach has resulted in substantial legal costs and financial exposure for the City for noncompliance. The City’s 72 Planning Commission Bombshell: Housing Element Update Crisis in Costa Mesa California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
legal challenges have all been denied including a final appeal to the US Supreme Court.
73 Consequences for non-compliance are pending.

Irvine: Irvine's response to the Housing Mandates differs from other Orange County cities. Being very progressive with available land currently under development, and two major developers active, the master planned community of Irvine has substantial flexibility. They have submitted to the State committing to build 56,000 additional units even though their allocation is approximately 26,000 units, the highest in Orange County. The original vision of Irvine being a residential community with commercial and residential balance runs the risk of being seriously eroded with high density apartments being vigorously constructed. This suggests Irvine might ultimately be more of an urban versus suburban community in the future. Residents are starting to be concerned as to the impact on traffic, parks, and schools. Furthermore, the current City council's recent move to rezone past open space commitments has created voter activism and resistance.

Newport Beach: Newport Beach has faced difficulty implementing the Housing Mandates due the concerns regarding community character, coastal constraints, and local values, contributing to resistance to higher density residential development. While elected officials worked hard at engaging and educating the community on the Housing Mandates, as development projects started to come on-line, major public resistance ensued. A recent ballot initiative was just approved to push back on the City's approved Housing Element.
74 Mission Viejo: In March 2026, hundreds of Mission Viejo residents rallied in opposition to a proposed expansion of the Vista Del Lago apartment complex off Marguerite Parkway. The developer’s plan called for demolishing 68 existing units and replacing them with 418 new units, resulting in a net increase of 350 units, as well as constructing a new parking structure. The expansion would bring the total number of units on the 33-acre property to 958 units, dramatically increasing density in an area surrounded primarily by single-family homes.

After hours of heated public testimony and debate, the City Council voted 3–2 to advance the project. A majority of councilmembers stated they felt they had no choice but to approve the development due to the Housing Mandates, which require cities to zone and plan for significantly higher housing densities regardless of local neighborhood opposition.75
73 Attorney General Bonta Celebrates U.S. Supreme Court’s Denial of Huntington Beach’s Challenge to State Housing Laws | State of California - Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General 74 Newport Beach may dump state mandate as residents prep to vote on plan for far fewer housing units | LAist
75 Editorial: Mission Viejo’s needless angst over apartments – Orange County Register California State Housing Mandates

San Juan Capistrano: Due to its historical significance and geographic characteristics, the City has been challenged to meet the Housing Mandates. It is a tale of two communities – residents of great wealth and a large lower socioeconomic population requiring the need for more affordable housing. To date, City leadership appear to have built partnerships with low-income developers to build projects that maintain the community’s heritage and meet the needs of the City. As high-end development takes place, a "fee in lieu" is assessed that generates funds for affordable housing. Superb planning and design have led to across-the-board community support for well designed, low-income redevelopment projects completed or underway.

Santa Ana: Santa Ana is already considered by HCDs’ RHNA process to be a densely populated, lower socioeconomic community, and it has the lowest housing target in Orange County with only 3,137 units. Like Anaheim due to its population size, it has access to more federal and state housing dollars to meet its low-income housing compliance obligations.

The County of Orange: The County also has a RHNA requirement for its unincorporated areas. The County struggled to obtain certification of its Housing Element in 2025; it required multiple revisions due to the nature of small pockets of unincorporated areas it serves. Its largest development area in South Orange County, Rancho Mission Viejo of over 6,000 acres was entitled by the County before the Housing Mandates became law – few were affordable units. In addition, the largest track of undeveloped land is owned by the Federal Government (Cleveland National Forest) and not available for development.

The impacts of the Housing Mandates have disrupted governance and local control. In some communities it has created fierce resistance. The loss of local control impacts the traditions and norms within many Orange County cities. Community heritage, rightly or wrongly, is being seriously eroded.

The one-size-fits-all Housing Mandates has serious repercussions economically and politically only now coming into focus for the voters of Orange County as the implementation goes forward.

Community political activism has increased as housing projects move from approval to construction, but this engagement is often narrowly focused on individual developments rather than broader policy impacts. Cities should take a more proactive role in engaging residents in a comprehensive discussion about how RHNA implementation is affecting neighborhood character, infrastructure, and social cohesion. In addition, local elected officials have a responsibility to clearly communicate how state-directed housing policies, originating in Sacramento, shape local land-use decisions and limit municipal discretion.

California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
7th Cycle (2029-2037) Concerns
The 7th Cycle of the RHNA planning process has already started, addressing the period from 2029-2037. The OCGJ identified significant concerns related to transparency, data integrity, governance, and Orange County’s ability to competitively represent itself within the broader SCAG region. These concerns stem from documented issues in the 6th Cycle, particularly the lack of clarity of the allocation methodology, the complexity of the decision-making structure, and inadequate procedural safeguards to ensure that Orange County’s unique conditions are fully acknowledged.

The 6th Cycle methodology relied on numerous questionable inputs—including projected population, transit accessibility, job growth, vacancy adjustments, cost burden, and subjective social equity factors—derived from HCD and SCAG’s adopted methodology.76 These inputs were published but remained difficult for local jurisdictions to interpret due to their subjectivity, complexity and technical nature and the failure of HCD to clearly identify their methodology.
77 Given these findings, Orange County cities face a recurring risk, because the statewide RHNA determination feeds directly into SCAG allocations, any methodological deficiencies at the state level immediately cascade into subregional planning and ultimately influence the allocations assigned to Orange County jurisdictions.

Experiences from the 6th Cycle highlight several issues that continue to shape Orange County’s concerns heading into the 7th Cycle. The previous allocation process was marked by complexity, questionable data, late-stage modifications, and an overall lack of transparency. For example, SCAG’s 6th Cycle allocation was adopted in March 2021 and then modified only a few months later78, fueling confusion about how final numbers were determined. The process felt unfair to many local jurisdictions because the appeals window was extremely compressed, the methodology was difficult to replicate, and the relationship between data inputs—such as overcrowding, cost burden, or future transit accessibility—and final allocations was not easily understood. The appeals process was also futile and was not open to cities concerns.

Governance also played a role. SCAG and OCCOG rely on a large network of committees, working groups, and advisory bodies, which ensures broad participation but diffuses responsibility. With so many entities involved, accountability for data accuracy, timely inputs, and interpretation of the methodology becomes fragmented, making it difficult for any single entity to ensure the process is both rigorous and transparent.
76 SCAG Final RHNA Methodology, March 5, 2020
77 Best Practices for Allocating & Evaluating RHNA
78 Regional Housing Needs Assessment | Southern California Association of Governments California State Housing Mandates

The upcoming 7th Cycle is expected to be even more data-intensive.79 New state guidance calls for clearer and more prescriptive methodology factors, improved appeals procedures, new income categories, and stronger alignment with greenhouse-gas and transportation planning.80 Transit definitions are also being standardized statewide, meaning all Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) transit routes, frequencies, and hub locations must be fully validated and published early in the process. Without early coordination, the County risks being disadvantaged compared with regions that already have well-organized transit datasets.

Transparency remains a central concern. Orange County jurisdictions need access to all datasets used to calculate their allocations, ranging from growth projections to transit accessibility metrics, and must be able to replicate the calculations that lead to their assigned numbers. The California State Auditor has previously flagged gaps in how HCD documented its factors, reinforcing the need for a system that jurisdictions can audit and verify.

CONCLUSION
“We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us.” (Winston Churchill) Housing Mandates and the RHNA allocation process are highly consequential for Orange County jurisdictions, particularly because the construction of low-income housing is rarely feasible without substantial subsidy. Interviewees consistently reported that funding streams to support deed-restricted housing remain limited, leaving cities responsible for planning large numbers of units that may never be financially viable without additional state or federal assistance. This gap between planning obligations and realistic development capacity has heightened local concern about the fairness and practicality of the current RHNA framework not to mention wasted tax dollars.

Against this backdrop, a recurring theme in interviews was the need for stronger regional coordination. Per the Joint Powers Agreement, OCCOG members pay dues to support operations, based on a 2009 adopted formula tied partly to each city’s share of the county population. However, dues have not been adjusted in many years, leading several stakeholders to question whether current funding levels adequately support OCCOG’s ability to coordinate subregional planning, respond to SCAG, and represent Orange County interests on matters as significant as RHNA. SCAG likewise uses population factors in its own dues structure, meaning jurisdictions with growing populations carry greater financial responsibility. Stakeholders noted that the overall 79 California’s Housing Future 2040: The Next Regional Housing Needs Allocation | California Department of Housing and Community Development
80 California’s Housing Future 2040: The Next Regional Housing Needs Allocation | California Department of Housing and Community Development
California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
resource base may still be insufficient for the level of technical engagement required.

Many jurisdictions expressed that increased support for OCCOG, both financial and participatory, would improve transparency around RHNA inputs and allow for more robust review of the assumptions that drive housing allocations.

The OCGJ believes that OCCOG is an underutilized regional asset that could play a significantly larger role in promoting equity, transparency, and public understanding of the RHNA process. Interviewees emphasized that consistent, proactive participation by city and county representatives in OCCOG and SCAG meetings is critical, especially early in the methodology-setting phase, when data inputs, assumptions, and distribution formulas are still in development. Without regular engagement, jurisdictions risk losing opportunities to influence decisions that later become binding obligations. Several interviewees suggested that cities consider enhancing their financial contributions so OCCOG can expand its analytical capacity, conduct independent research, and engage more effectively in SCAG’s technical and policy committees and at the state level.

As work begins on the 7th Cycle, the need for collaboration is more urgent than ever.

Cities cannot afford to be passive observers. Even if cities cannot directly change the final numbers issued by HCD or SCAG, their active involvement is essential to ensuring that Orange County’s unique circumstances are understood and represented.

Meaningful engagement can also help jurisdictions align their local planning strategies, clarify shared concerns, and coordinate responses to proposed methodological changes before they become final. A more empowered and better-resourced OCCOG would strengthen Orange County’s collective voice, improve regional planning outcomes, and ensure local governments are not navigating the California’s housing requirements in isolation.

Finally, the OCGJ notes that collaboration must extend beyond government agencies to the residents they serve. As Sacramento lawmakers continue to enact significant housing legislation, much of it with direct consequences for zoning, density, local control and neighborhood character development standards, the public must be informed and involved. Cities, working through OCCOG and SCAG, have an important role in educating residents about new laws, explaining their local impacts, and encouraging constituents to register their views with State Representatives. Improving public awareness not only strengthens transparency and trust but also ensures that community perspectives are included in shaping future housing policy.

By working together, jurisdictions, regional agencies, and the public, Orange County can more effectively navigate the challenges of Housing Mandates and advocate for a clearer, more equitable, and more locally responsive RHNA process.

California State Housing Mandates

FINDINGS In accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency and city affected by the “Findings” presented in this section. Responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.

Based on its investigation “California Housing Mandates” the 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at 22 findings as follows:

F1 In recent years, the California Legislature has enacted an unusually large and burdensome volume of housing-related laws intended to strengthen compliance with State Housing Mandates.

F2 Housing Mandates are implemented through a RHNA process that often lacks transparency and relies on complex methodologies that are difficult for local officials and the public to understand or meaningfully challenge.

F3 OCCOG coordinates RHNA regional planning in partnership with the SCAG for Orange County. OCCOG lacks adequate influence with SCAG.

F4 Meaningful participation by Orange County cities in both OCCOG and SCAG meetings is critical to ensuring that local perspectives are represented during the development and implementation of Housing Mandates policies.

F5 SCAG’s 6th Cycle RHNA assigned Orange County a questionable total of 183,861 housing units for the 2021–2029 planning period, with higher allocations concentrated in cities with major population and employment centers.

F6 RHNA allocations are unrealistic and not attainable within the current planning cycle due to limited available land, built-out urban conditions, infrastructure constraints, environmental factors, and public health and safety requirements.

F7 Residents in Orange County consistently express a desire for local planning decisions to reflect community priorities, including but not limited to neighborhood character, safety considerations, the environment and open-space preservation.

F8 California’s regulatory construction costs (i.e. permitting fees) present substantial challenges for private housing developers—particularly those delivering affordable units.

California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
F9 The cost of constructing a single affordable housing unit in California typically ranges from approximately $500,000 to $800,000 per unit when fully complying with current state regulations. New low-income housing is generally not financially feasible without public subsidy.

F10 Prior to their dissolution in 2012, redevelopment agencies served as a primary mechanism for cities and counties to finance affordable housing and related infrastructure. The loss of redevelopment has reduced cities’ ability to support construction of affordable units.

F11 Because public subsidy is limited and highly competitive, cities seeking to produce meaningful quantities of low-income housing must rely in part on private development incentives, often resulting in higher overall development densities and unit counts than the RHNA allocation.

F12 The 6th Cycle RHNA methodology included numerous technical inputs published by SCAG and HCD; however, these inputs were highly complex and difficult for cities to interpret or independently verify.

F13 The California State Auditor’s 2022 review found significant deficiencies in HCD’s regional determination process—including inadequate documentation, data-entry errors, and insufficient justification for key assumptions—raising concerns that similar issues may affect the 7th Cycle process.

F14 OCCOG’s current resources and organizational structure are insufficient to fully advocate for Orange County jurisdictions during RHNA methodology development, especially when compared with larger or more heavily resourced regional councils of governments that also influence SCAG.

F15 Demands on HCD are anticipated to materially alter methodology for the 7th Cycle, but Orange County jurisdictions have not yet received clear guidance on how these allocations will be translated into SCAG policy or local impacts.

F16 The reliance on transit accessibility as a major RHNA consideration requires high-quality, early-released datasets from OCTA; however, these datasets are not currently consolidated or formally adopted for use in the 7th Cycle methodology.

F17 The large number of committees, subcommittees, and advisory groups involved in SCAG and OCCOG’s RHNA processes promotes broad participation but diffuses accountability, making it difficult to determine who is responsible for specific analytic inputs or process decisions.

California State Housing Mandates

F18 The City of Huntington Beach has been unsuccessful in its attempts to contest Housing Mandates. To date, Huntington Beach lacks an approved General Plan Housing Element related to RHNA Allocation.

F19 The City of Irvine has been progressive in submitting a housing plan that calls for twice the number of units mandated (56,000). However, this threatens the historical nature of a master plan community with substantial infrastructure challenges.

F20 Cities and other stakeholders encounter difficulty explaining RHNA outcomes to elected officials and the public due to a lack of clear, consolidated documentation describing how allocation decisions are derived from the underlying data.

F21 The absence of a clearly articulated and easily understandable description of the RHNA allocation algorithm contributes to perceptions that discretionary or political considerations may influence outcomes, even when allocations are made in compliance with state housing laws.

F22 Improved transparency and communication regarding RHNA methodology would enhance public confidence in the process and reduce misunderstandings among member jurisdictions.

RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency and city affected by the “Recommendations” presented in this section. Responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.

Based on its investigation described herein, the 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following 20 recommendations:

R1 OCCOG should expand its technical-assistance and training programs, by September 30, 2026, to ensure that all Orange County jurisdictions understand RHNA methodology, statutory obligations, and the implications of noncompliance. (F1, F2, F3, F4)
R2 OCCOG should coordinate a countywide review of sites identified in local Housing Elements, by December 31, 2026, to evaluate whether each site meets state requirements for realistic capacity and development feasibility, supported by a standardized, version-controlled change log. (F3, F4) California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
R3 OCCOG should develop and publish a comprehensive RHNA Inputs Catalog, by April 30, 2027, prior to drafting the 7th Cycle methodology, documenting all datasets used, their sources, methodological assumptions, and a version-controlled record of changes. (F3, F4) R4 OCCOG should create a public-facing RHNA Accountability Dashboard, by April 30, 2027, displaying deadlines, responsible agencies, dataset readiness, and upcoming SCAG decision points, to ensure transparency and timely action by jurisdictions. (F16)
R5 OCCOG should request that SCAG and HCD, by December 31, 2026, provide written guidance explaining how HCD’s recommendations will be applied in shaping the 7th Cycle RHNA methodology so that jurisdictions can prepare proactively. (F16)
R6 OCCOG should convene a 7th Cycle Technical Working Group, by December 31, 2026, composed of planners, data analysts, and transit experts to pre-evaluate methodology scenarios and deliver unified, countywide recommendations to SCAG. (F3, F6, F15)
R7 OCCOG, all Orange County cities and the County of Orange should reassess the current dues structure, by September 30, 2026, to ensure that OCCOG has the resources necessary to effectively represent Orange County jurisdictions in SCAG processes, including RHNA methodology development and appeals. (F3, F15)
R8 By December 31, 2026, the Orange County Board of Supervisors should partner with cities to evaluate countywide infrastructure capacity— including water, wastewater, flood control, transportation, and public-safety systems—and develop a coordinated regional plan capable of supporting the level of housing growth required under state law. (F6) R9 By September 30, 2026, the Orange County Board of Supervisors should strengthen its engagement with OCCOG and increase staff support to develop a shared, countywide database of potential housing sites and key development-feasibility factors. (F15)
R10 By June 30, 2027, the Orange County Board of Supervisors should evaluate whether the County should pursue its own independent Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) designation for purposes of regional housing planning. (F5, F6, F7, F15)
California State Housing Mandates

R11 The County of Orange and each city should ensure consistent participation in SCAG and OCCOG committees by September 30, 2026, including the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), to strengthen regional representation during RHNA-methodology development. (F3, F4, F15) R12 The County of Orange and each city should designate a single technical representative, by September 30, 2026, along with an alternate, for all RHNA-related SCAG and OCCOG committees to ensure continuity of participation and eliminate gaps in representation across multiple decision-making bodies. (F4)
R13 OCTA should provide an official, data-frozen countywide transit dataset (GTFS + GIS), by September 30, 2026, to meet OCCOG’s analytical needs for 7th Cycle RHNA planning. (F17)
R14 By April 30, 2027, the County of Orange and each city should publish annual monitoring dashboards showing (a) entitlement pipeline conditions, (b) realistic site yield, (c) assembled funding sources for affordable units, and (d) conversion rates from planned capacity to issued permits and completed units, ensuring that County and city-determined capacity assumptions remain aligned with actual production. (F13) R15 By September 30, 2026, and ongoing, the County Board of Supervisors and all city councils should make a coordinated and sustained effort to educate their constituents about the RHNA process—its requirements, its impact on local planning and community character, and the role residents can play in shaping outcomes. Public education efforts should also include guidance on how community members can effectively engage with the California Legislature and advocate for more realistic, data-driven housing policies. (F1, F7)
R16 By December 31, 2026, all cities should look to enhance their relationships with not-for-profit affordable housing developers to increase the opportunity to develop more affordable housing. (F8, F10, F12) R17 By September 1, 2026, the City of Huntington Beach should evaluate submitting an appropriate Housing Element to reduce potential exposure to HCD penalties. (F18)
R18 By September 1, 2026, the City of Irvine should ascertain the level of community support for its housing element submission and its impact on the character of its master plan. (F19)
California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
R19 By September 1, 2026, SCAG should conduct a formal review of its RHNA allocation methodology and clearly document, in understandable language, the inputs, assumptions, weighting, and decision points used in the allocation algorithm. This documentation should be publicly released and designed to improve transparency, reduce perceptions of political influence, and enhance public understanding of how allocations are determined. (F21)
R20 By September 1, 2026, SCAG should revise its RHNA appeals process to improve procedural transparency and responsiveness by clearly defining appeal criteria, documenting staff analyses and recommendations, providing written explanations for appeal decisions, and ensuring jurisdictions have meaningful opportunities to present and respond to staff findings. (F22)
California State Housing Mandates

RESPONSES CODE The following excerpts from California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the Findings and Recommendations of this Grand Jury’s report:

Penal Code §933
(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years.

Penal Code §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 California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
(c) However, if a finding or recommendation 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 decisionmaking 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.

RESPONSES The Orange County Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) the following responses:

OCCOG 90 Day Response Required
Findings F3, F4, F5, F12, F13, F14, F15, F17
Recommendations R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R9, R11, R13 County of Orange, 90 Day Response Required
Board of Supervisors
Findings F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12
Recommendations R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16 OCTA 90 Day Response Required
Findings F16
Recommendations R13
SCAG 90 Day Response Required
Findings F3, F4, F5, F12, F13, F14, F15, F17, F20, F21, F22 Recommendations R5, R11, R19, R20
City of Aliso Viejo 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16
City of Anaheim 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16
City of Brea 90 Day Response Required
California State Housing Mandates

Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16
City of Buena Park 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16
City of Costa Mesa 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16
City of Cypress 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16
City of Dana Point 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16
City of Fountain Valley 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16
City of Fullerton 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16
City of Garden Grove 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16
City of Huntington Beach 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12, F18 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16, R17 City of Irvine 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12, F19 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16, R18 City of La Habra 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16
City of La Palma 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16
California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
City of Laguna Beach 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16
City of Laguna Hills 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16
City of Laguna Niguel 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16
City of Laguna Woods 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16
City of Lake Forest 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16
City of Los Alamitos 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16
City of Mission Viejo 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16
City of Newport Beach 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16
City of Orange 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16
City of Placentia 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16
City of Rancho Santa Margarita 90 Day Response Required Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16
California State Housing Mandates

City of San Clemente 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16
City of San Juan Capistrano 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16
City of Santa Ana 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16
City of Seal Beach 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16
City of Stanton 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16
City of Tustin 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16
City of Villa Park 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16
City of Westminster 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16
City of Yorba Linda 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12 Recommendations: R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, R16
California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS ADU Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) is a secondary, independent housing unit located on the same lot as a primary residence. ADUs are sometimes called granny flats, in-law units, casitas, or backyard homes.

Builder’s
Remedy
Builder’s Remedy is a provision in California’s Housing Accountability Act (HAA) that limits a city or county’s ability to deny certain housing projects when the jurisdiction does not have a State-compliant Housing Element.

Charter City Charter City is a city governed by its own locally adopted charter rather than solely by California general law. Under the California Constitution, charter cities have greater authority over municipal affairs, including land use and zoning. However, this authority may be limited when the State determines that a matter, such as housing, is of statewide concern and subject to state law.

COG Council of Governments (COG) is a regional planning body made up of elected officials from cities and counties within a defined geographic area.

Deed-Restricted Deed-Restricted refers to a property that is subject to legally recorded limitations or conditions placed on its use, occupancy, or resale. In the housing context, deed restrictions are commonly used to ensure long-term affordability by limiting resale prices, rental rates, or eligible occupants based on income thresholds for a specified period, often several decades or longer.

Deed-in-Lieu Deed-in-Lieu (of foreclosure) is a voluntary transaction in which a property owner transfers ownership of a property to a lender to satisfy a mortgage debt and avoid foreclosure. While commonly used in the private lending context, the term may appear in discussions of property disposition, distressed assets, or redevelopment-related transactions.

Density Bonus
Incentives
Density Bonus Incentives are benefitting that California law (primarily Government Code § 65915) provides to housing developers in exchange for including affordable housing units within a residential or mixed-use project. These incentives make it easier and financially feasible to build affordable housing by allowing developers flexibility beyond local zoning limits.

Equity
Component
Equity Component is the requirement that housing need to be allocated in a way that promotes socioeconomic equity, reduces California State Housing Mandates

segregation, and balances disproportionate household income distributions across jurisdictions.

Fee-in-Lieu Fee-in-Lieu refers to a payment made as an alternative to fulfilling a low income housing requirements.

Federal Clean
Air Act
Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) is the primary U.S. federal law that regulates air pollution to protect public health and the environment. It authorizes the federal government, principally the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to set and enforce standards that limit harmful air pollutants from industrial facilities, power plants, and motor vehicles.

GIS Geographic Information System (GIS) is a type of software and data system used to map, analyze, and visualize geographic information.

Examples: ArcGIS, QGIS which integrates layers of spatial information such as: Parcels, Zoning maps, Transit lines (often imported from GTFS), Flood zones, Environmental constraints, Income and demographic data, RHNA site inventories.

Grand Jury Grand Jury (GJ) is a legal body empowered to conduct official proceedings to investigate potential criminal conduct and determine whether criminal charges should be brought.

Green State Green State generally refers to a government or jurisdiction, often a U.S. state, that prioritizes environmental protection, sustainability policies, and climate-focused governance. The term is descriptive, not legal.

GTFS General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) is a standardized, machine‑readable data format used to describe public transit systems, including Bus routes, Rail lines, Station and stop locations, Service schedules.

General Plan In California, a city General Plan is a comprehensive, long-term policy document that serves as the legal and policy foundation for all local land-use and development decisions within a city. Adopted by the city council pursuant to California Government Code § 65300 et seq., the General Plan expresses the community’s vision for physical development and conservation over time and guides zoning, public investment, and regulatory actions.

HAU Housing Accountability Unit (HAU) is a specialized enforcement and oversight unit within the California Department of Housing and Community Development created to ensure local governments comply with state housing and homelessness laws and to hold California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
jurisdictions accountable for meeting their Husing Element commitments.

HCD Housing and Community Development (HCD) is California state agency responsible for housing policy, building standards, and the administration of affordable housing and community development programs. It operates under the California Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency (BCSH).

Housing
Element Law
(65580-65589.11)
Housing Element Law is California’s foundational land-use law requiring every city and county to plan for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community. It is part of each jurisdiction’s General Plan and must be regularly updated on a state-mandated cycle.

Joint Powers
Authority
A Joint Powers Authority (JPA) is a legal structure used in California (and some other states) that allows two or more public agencies to jointly exercise their powers through a separate, shared entity.

Layered
Financing
Layered Financing (sometimes called capital stacking) is a funding approach in which a project—most commonly a real estate or affordable housing development—is financed through multiple sources of capital, each with different requirements, risk levels, repayment terms, and priorities.

Ministerial
approval
Ministerial approvals are a type of land-use or development approval in which a government agency must issue the permit automatically once an application meets all the objective, pre-established standards. Because the approval is non-discretionary, officials do not exercise judgment or interpretation, hold public hearings, or evaluate subjective criteria such as neighborhood character or compatibility.

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is a regional transportation-planning agency required by federal law in every urbanized area with 50,000 or more people.

OCGJ Orange County Grand Jury (OCGJ) refers 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury.

OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) is the county transportation planning commission, responsible for funding and implementing transit and capital projects for a balanced and sustainable transportation system.

RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocations (RHNA) works with the California Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD) to allocate each jurisdiction’s share of required housing across income levels.

California State Housing Mandates

RTP Regional Transportation Plans (RTP) are utilized to coordinate regional transportation, land-use planning, and climate-related planning (e.g., reducing vehicle miles traveled). Data, forecasts, and long-range planning. They provide demographic forecasts, economic analyses, and collaborative regional policies.

State Housing
Mandates
State Housing Mandates (Housing Mandates) are legal requirements specifically the Housing Element Law in California, obligating local governments (cities/counites) to adopt plans facilitating the construction of housing across all income levels. These mandates require compliance with Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RNHA) targets forcing localities to zone for rather than necessarily build.

SCS In California, a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) is a regional land-use, housing, and transportation planning framework prepared by a Metropolitan Planning Organization as part of its Regional Transportation Plan. Required by Senate Bill 375 (2008), the SCS is designed to integrate transportation investments, housing patterns, and land-use policies in a way that reduces greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles while supporting economic development and public health.

Vacancy Factor
Rates
Vacancy Factor Rates refer to the percentage of housing units within a defined geographic area that are assumed to be vacant at any given time. In state housing planning, vacancy rates are used as an analytical adjustment to account for normal turnover in the housing market and to ensure availability for new households. Assumed vacancy rates directly affect housing need calculations and can influence required housing production targets.
5th Cycle,
6th Cycle,
7th Cycle
The 5th, 6th, and 7th Cycles refer to sequential eight-year planning periods of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process mandated by California housing law.
• The 5th Cycle generally covered the period from 2013 to 2021 (with timing varying by region).
• The 6th Cycle generally covers the period from 2021 to 2029 and includes significantly higher housing allocations statewide. • The 7th Cycle will be the next allocation period following the 6th Cycle and is expected to further shape long-term housing planning requirements for cities and counties.

Each cycle establishes projected housing needs that jurisdictions must plan for through their Housing Elements.

California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
BIBLIOGRAPHY ABAG. “The “Builder’s Remedy” and Housing Elements”. Association of Bay Area Governments – Technical Assistance for Local Planning Housing, accessed on May 14, 2026. The Builder's Remedy and Housing Elements
Alameldin, Muhammad. “California Housing Laws That Go into Effect in 2025”. Terner Center for Housing Innovation – UC Berkeley, October 29, 2024. California Housing Laws That Go into Effect in 2025 - Terner Center
Biesiada, Noah. “CA Auditor Bashes State’s Mandated Housing Numbers, Says Process Is Flawed, Lacks Oversight”. Voice of OC, April 25, 2022. CA Auditor Bashes State’s Mandated Housing Numbers, Says Process Is Flawed, Lacks Oversight Biesiada, Noah. “Huntington Beach Reignites Fight Against State Housing Law”. Voice of OC, January 11, 2024. Huntington Beach Reignites Fight Against State Housing Law Biesiada, Noah. “How Are Orange County’s Cities Doing At Building Affordable Housing?”. Voice of OC, April 2, 2024. How Are Orange County’s Cities Doing At Building Affordable Housing?
Biesiada, Noah. “Irvine Grapples With Nearly 60,000 New Housing Unites in General Plan Proposal”. Voice of OC, May 21, 2024. Irvine Grapples With Nearly 60,000 New Housing Units in General Plan Proposal
Biesiada, Noah. “Federal Appeals Court Slaps Down Huntington Beach’s Anti Housing Lawsuit”. Voice of OC, October 30, 2024. Federal Appeals Court Slaps Down Huntington Beach’s Anti Housing Lawsuit
Bonta, Rob. “Attorney General Bonta Celebrates U.S. Supreme Court’s Denial of Huntington Beach’s Challenge to State Housing Laws”. State of California – Department of Justice, February 23, 2026. Attorney General Bonta Celebrates U.S. Supreme Court’s Denial of Huntington Beach’s Challenge to State Housing Laws | State of California - Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General Business issues and Legislative Guide. “Leading the Way to a More Prosperous California”. Advocacy, accessed on May 14, 2026. California Housing in 2025 - Advocacy - California Chamber of Commerce
CA DOF. “Population Projections (Baseline 2024)”. State of California Department of Finance, accessed on May 14, 2026. Projections | California Department of Finance CALCOG. “What Regions Do”. California Association of Councils of Governments, 2026. Home - California Association of Councils of Governments California State Housing Mandates

CALCOG. “Housing Implementation Programs Exchange”. California Association of Councils of Governments, accessed in January 2026. Housing Exchange - California Association of Councils of Governments
California Department of Housing and Community Development. “Home Page”.

California HCD, 2026. California Department of Housing and Community Development | California Department of Housing and Community Development California Department of Housing and Community Development. “State Housing Law Program”. California HCD, 2026. State Housing Law Program | California Department of Housing and Community Development
California Department of Housing and Community Development. “California Reaches Settlement with City of Fullerton over Violations of Housing Element Law”. California HCD, January 18, 2024. California Reaches Settlement with City of Fullerton over Violations of Housing Element Law | California Department of Housing and Community Development
California Government Code §65584.01(b). California Government Code section 65584.01 (2025)
California State Senate. “Recent Legislative Actions to Increase Housing production in California”. Shou Senate California Government, February 2025. California State Senate Recent Legislative Actions
Case-Law. “Orange Cnty. Council of Gov’ts. v. Velasquez”. vlex, accessed on May 14, 2026. Orange Cnty. Council of Gov'ts. v. Velasquez - vLex United States CDHC. “A Home for Every Californian”, Statewide Housing Plan, accessed on May 14, 2026. Statewide Housing Plan
CDHCD. “California’s Housing Future 2040: The Next Regional Housing Needs Allocation”. California Department of Housing and Community Development, accessed on May 14, 2026. California’s Housing Future 2040: The Next Regional Housing Needs Allocation | California Department of Housing and Community Development CDHCD. “Enforcement Authority”. California Department of Housing and Community Development, accessed on May 14, 2026. Enforcement Authority | California Department of Housing and Community Development
CDHCD. “Housing Open Data Tools”. California Department of Housing and Community Development, accessed on May 14, 2026. Housing Open Data Tools | California Department of Housing and Community Development
Center for Demographic Research. “Orange County Progress Report”. Cal State Fullerton, April 9, 2026. products | CSUF - Center for Demographic Research California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
Chase, Caroline Guibert. ““Builder’s Remedy” Reform Bill Approved by Governor Newsom”. Allen Matkins, September 19, 2024. “Builder's Remedy" Reform Bill Approved by Governor Newsom | Allen Matkins
Chief Financial Officer. “FY 2024-2025 Adopted Budget with NCC Summary”. County of Orange, 2024-2025. FY 2024-25 Final Budget Summary
Christopher, Ben. “Gavin Newsom signs law overhauling local zoning to build more housing”. Cal Matters, October 10, 2025. New California law overrules local zoning to boost housing - CalMatters
Christopher, Ben. (2025, September 28). Why the housing shortage is so hard to quantify. Los Angeles Times (Sunday). PressReader.com | Why the housing shortage is so hard to quantify
Conte, Allaire. “California Added More Homes Than People – but Buyers and Renters Still Aren’t Getting Relief”. realtor.com, April 17, 2026. More Homes, Hardly Any Population Growth—So Why Is California Still So Expensive? Elmendorf, Christopher S. “A Primer on California’s “Builder Remedy” for HousingElement Noncompliance”. UCDavid School of Law, March 29, 2022. Builder's Remedy Primer
Espinoza, Pablo “Court Agrees Anaheim Violated State Law. Decision is a Big Win for Fair Housing in California”. California Department of Housing and Community Development, February 2, 2024. Court Agrees Anaheim Violated State Law. Decision is a Big Win for Fair Housing in California | California Department of Housing and Community Development
Farzan, Yusra. “Irvine considers waiving affordable housing requirements for developer in land swap deal”. LAist, December 8, 2025. Irvine considers waiving affordable housing requirements for developer in land swap deal | LAist Farzan, Yusra. “Major OC developer can skip affordable housing requirements after Irvine land swap approval”. LAist, December 11, 2025. Major OC developer can skip affordable housing requirements after Irvine land swap approval | LAist FRBSF, “California Post-RDA Affordable Housing Developer Survey: Analysis of Results”. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, accessed on May 14, 2026.

California Post-RDA Affordable Housing Developer Survey: Analysis of Results - San Francisco Fed
Fulton, Bill. “New Pathways to Encourage Housing Production: A Review of California’s Recent Housing Legislation”. Terner Center for Housing Innovation – UC Berkeley, April California State Housing Mandates

2023. New-Pathways-to-Encourage-Housing-Production-Evaluating-CaliforniasRecent-Housing-Legislation-April-2023-Final.pdf Fulton, William. “Steps Local Governments Can Take to Unlock More Housing: Lessons from San Diego”. Terner Center for Housing Innovation – UC Berkeley, October 8, 2025. Steps Local Governments Can Take to Unlock More Housing: Lessons from San Diego - Terner Center
Garcia, David. “Making It Pencil: The Math Behind Housing Development (2023 Update)”. Terne Center for Housing Innovation – UC Berkeley, December 2023. Turner Center UC Berkeley Development Math
Goertzen, Jeff and Lansner, Jonathan. (2026, April 4) Infographic: Are people leaving California? Here’s what the numbers show us. The Orange County Register, online.

Infographic: Are people leaving California? Here’s what the numbers show us – Orange County Register
Greenwald, David. “Court: ‘Regional Housing Need’ Determinations Aren’t Judicially Reviewable”. Vanguard News Group, July 28, 2023. Court: 'Regional Housing Need' Determinations Aren’t Judicially Reviewable - Davis Vanguard Hale, Danielle and others. “The California State of Real State”. realtor.com, January 29, 2026. The California State of Real Estate - Realtor.com Economic Research Hicks, Angelina. “San Juan Capistrano With Mandated Housing Numbers”. Voice of OC, August 26, 2025. San Juan Capistrano Grapples With Mandated Housing Numbers Johnson, Hans and Mejia, Marisol Cuellar and McGhee, Eric. “California’s Population”.

PPIC, January 2026. California's Population - Public Policy Institute of California Johnson, Nikie and Collins, Jeff. (2021, January 31). Report Card: California cities, counties failing again on affordable housing goals. The Orange County Register, online.

Report card: California cities, counties failing again on affordable housing goals – Orange County Register
Julia Gill and Schuetz, Jenny. “In California, statewide housing reforms brush against local resistance”. Brookings, June 28, 2023. In California, statewide housing reforms brush against local resistance | Brookings
LegalClarity California. “California Housing Element Law Explained”. Search LegalClarity, December 14, 2025. California Housing Element Law Explained – Legal Clarity
LegiScan LLC. “California Legislature | 2025-2026 | Regular Session”. LigiScan – Bringing People to the Process, 2025-2026. California Legislature | 2025-2026 | Regular Session | LegiScan
California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
Mazzella, Danielle M. “California Affordable Housing Needs Report 2025”. California Housing Partnership, 2025. CHP State Housing Needs Report McDonald, Cynthia. “Planning Commission Meeting Bombshell!”. Costa Mesa First, February 13. Planning Commission Bombshell: Housing Element Update Crisis in Costa Mesa
Metcalf, Ben. “Testimony to the Select Committee on Housing Construction Innovation”.

Terner Center for Housing Innovation – UC Berkeley, January 6, 2026. Testimony to the Select Committee on Housing Construction Innovation - Terner Center Newsom, Garvin. “Final Regional Housing Need Assessment”. State of California – Department of Housing and Community Development, October 15, 2019. Southern California COG Regional Housing Need Determination
OCCOC. “Press Release June 1, 2021”. Orange County Council of Governments, June 1, 2021. OCCOG Press Release HCD
OCCOG. “We lead Orange County’s subregional planning”. Orange County Council of Governments, accessed in January 2026. Orange County Council of Governments Orange County Community. “Orange County Community Indicators - 25th Anniversary Report”. Orange County Business Council, 2024-2025. 1-150.

CommnityIndicators24_digital.pdf
Osterberg, Annelise. “Best Practices for Allocating and Evaluating RHNA”. Goldman School of UC, Spring 2020. Best Practices for Allocating & Evaluating RHNA Press Release. “California State Auditor Releases Scathing Report on RNA Process, Report Finds Housing Goals are Not Supported by Evidence”. Voice of OC, April 8, 2022. California State Auditor Releases Scathing Report on RHNA Process, Report Finds Housing Goals are Not Supported by Evidence
SCAG. “About Us”. Southern California Association of Governments, accessed on January 14, 2026. About us | Southern California Association of Governments SCAG. “Regional Housing Needs Assessment”. Southern California Association of Governments, accessed in January 2026. Regional Housing Needs Assessment | Southern California Association of Governments
South Coast AQMD. “Frequently Asked CEQA Questions”. South Coast Air Quality Management District, accessed on May 14, 2026. South Coast Air Quality Management District - CEQA
Tilden, Michael S. “Regional Housing Needs Assessments”. Auditor of the State of California, March 17, 2022. Report 2021-125
California State Housing Mandates

The Editorial Board (2026, March 11). Editorial: Mission Viejo’s needless angst over apartments. The Orange County Register, online. Editorial: Mission Viejo’s needless angst over apartments – Orange County Register
Trachtman, Samuel. “Fixing California’s housing shortage requires new policy and new politics”. BESI – Berkeley Economy & Society Initiative, April 22, 2025. Fixing California’s housing shortage requires new policy and new politics - Berkeley Economy & Society Initiative
Uhler, Brian. “LAO Housing Publications”. Legislative Analyst’s Office – The California Legislature’s Nonpartisan Fiscal and Policy Advisor, accessed on May 14, 2026.

California Legislative Analyst's Office - California Housing United States Census Bureau. “Parent Directory”. United States Government, accessed in April 2026. Index of /programs-surveys/popest/tables Varian, Ethan. (2023, June 25). Nuclear option’? Supersized housing projects are planned for Bay Area’s wealthiest cities. Is one coming to your neighborhood? The Mercury News, online. Is a supersized housing project coming to your Bay Area neighborhood?
Ward, Jason M. and Schlake, Luke. “The High Cost of Producing Multifamily Housing in California”. Rand, April 2, 2025. The High Cost of Producing Multifamily Housing in California: Evidence and Policy Recommendations | RAND
2024 Advocates Guide. “Land Use Restrictions and Affordable Housing”. National Low Income Housing Coalition, accessed on May 14, 2026. National Low Income Housing Coalition - Land Use Restrictions and Affordable Housing California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026

APPENDIX
APPENDIX A: Major Housing Laws & What They Tried to Do81 Surplus Land Act (1968; strengthened by AB 1486 in 2019) Problem addressed: Local agencies often disposed of valuable public land without prioritizing affordable housing.

Solution: The Surplus Land Act requires local agencies to offer surplus sites to affordable housing developers first; AB 1486 (2019) expanded who must comply, added reporting, and created enforceable penalties. HCD now issues binding guidelines and may impose fines.

Role: A siting tool that converts public land near jobs/transit into affordable housing at scale (HCD reports thousands of units proposed/approved under SLA).

Housing Element Law & RHNA (1969; RHNA made mandatory by 1980 AB 2853; repeatedly strengthened)
Problem addressed: Cities historically under-planned for growth or zoned exclusionary, constraining supply across income levels.

Solution: Every city/county must adopt an 8-year Housing Element showing adequate, zoned sites to meet its RHNA allocation by income tier; HCD issues regional need determinations and certifies elements. Enforcement has tightened (HCD’s Housing Accountability Unit; fines; referrals to the AG).

Role: The spine of California housing policy—other laws (HAA, SB 35, SB 330, AFFH) enforce or operationalize these plans.

Density Bonus Law (1979; expanded often, incl. AB 1287 in 2023) Problem addressed: Mixed-income projects often do not pencil without zoning flexibility.

Solution: Grants extra units, incentives/waivers, and reduced parking in exchange for deed-restricted affordable homes; AB 1287 (2023) added a “stackable” bonus on top of the 50% base, enabling up to ~100% bonus with additional very-low/moderate units.

Role: A ubiquitous feasibility lever to deliver affordability in market-rate projects.

Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (1982; strengthened 2017–2019) Problem addressed: Cities used subjective discretion (e.g., “neighborhood character”) to deny otherwise compliant housing.

Solution: Limits denial, density reduction, or infeasible conditions for projects meeting objective standards, unless the city makes specific, evidence-based health/safety findings. 2017–2019 updates raised the burden of proof, added fees/attorney’s fees, and clarified “objective standards.” Role: A litigation-backed guardrail ensuring code-compliant housing moves forward—the State’s classic “anti-NIMBY” tool.

Redevelopment Agencies (RDAs): Termination and Loss of Local Affordable Housing Funds (2011–2012)
Problem addressed (pre-2012): RDAs used tax-increment financing with a 20% housing set-aside to fund affordable housing; the State later sought budget relief.

Solution: The Legislature passed ABx1 26 (2011); the California Supreme Court affirmed dissolution 81 Housing Statutes were summarized Microsoft Co-Pilot May 2025 version California State Housing Mandates

effective Feb 1, 2012, shifting property-tax increment, and creating successor agencies to wind down obligations.

Role: Ended a major local funding stream, increasing reliance on density bonus, public land, tax credits, and state programs.

SB 375 (2008) & SB 743 (2013; statewide VMT implementation 2020) Problem addressed: Sprawl drove VMT and GHGs; CEQA’s Level of Service (LOS) metric discouraged infill.

Solution: SB 375 requires Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) aligning land use and transportation to cut GHGs; SB 743 replaced LOS with VMT in CEQA, favoring infill and multimodal access, with statewide implementation by 2020.

Role: Climate + housing siting framework; housing near jobs/transit faces fewer CEQA hurdles than sprawl.

ADUs (2016–2025 waves): Legalizing “Gentle Density”
Problem addressed: Single-family-only rules and local barriers (parking, minimums) impeded backyard cottages/garage conversions near jobs.

Solution: Successive bills created 60-day ministerial approval, broad parking relief, and standardized rules; HCD’s 2025 ADU Handbook consolidates guidance and updates.

Role: A distributed, lower-cost production engine—large, scalable homeowner-led supply statewide.

HCD Law §16884.01 (2017): Establishes Housing Element Compliance Consequences and State Enforcement Authority
Problem addressed: For decades, many cities and counties failed to adopt or maintain HCD-compliant Housing Elements, resulting in chronic under-production of housing, exclusionary zoning practices, and resistance to RHNA obligations. Prior housing law lacked clear, enforceable consequences for noncompliance, allowing jurisdictions to delay, obstruct, or ignore housing planning requirements with minimal risk. This undermined statewide housing policy, fair housing objectives, and public accountability.

Solution: HCD Law §16884.01 clarifies and operationalizes the legal consequences of Housing Element non-compliance, explicitly linking failure to adopt or implement a compliant Housing Element to loss of local land-use discretion and enhanced state oversight. The law affirms HCD’s authority to make formal findings of noncompliance and triggers statutory remedies under related housing laws, including limits on down-zoning, exposure to the Housing Accountability Act, and eligibility for “builder’s remedy” projects when required conditions are met. It strengthens the enforceability of Housing Element Law by making compliance legally consequential rather than aspirational.

Role: A state enforcement backbone for California’s housing planning system, §16884.01 functions as a compliance-triggering provision that gives real effect to RHNA and Housing Element Law. It shifts housing policy from a negotiation-based model to a rule-of-law framework, ensuring that local governments that refuse to plan for housing face predictable, uniform consequences while compliant jurisdictions retain local control. The statute is central to California’s modern “Yes In My Backyard” enforcement regime.

SB 35 (2017): Streamlined Ministerial Approval
Problem addressed: Lengthy discretionary review and CEQA litigation stalled production, especially where jurisdictions lagged RHNA.

Solution: Creates a ministerial (CEQA-exempt) pathway in cities not meeting RHNA progress for qualifying infill projects that meet objective standards, affordability, and labor provisions; HCD issued binding guidelines.

California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
Role: A fast lane that translates zoning into approvals within 90–180 days; HCD publishes which jurisdictions are subject.

AB 686 (2018): Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Problem addressed: Persistent segregation and unequal access to opportunity despite fair-housing statutes.

Solution: Requires all public agencies to affirmatively further fair housing and adds new Housing Element duties (analysis of segregation, access to opportunity, displacement risk, equitable siting).

Role: Embeds civil-rights obligations into RHNA/Housing Elements, pushing lower-income housing into high-opportunity areas.

SB 330 (2019; extended by SB 8 to 2030): Housing Crisis Act Problem addressed: Moving goalposts (new subjective standards), downzoning, unlimited hearings, and loss of protected units increased entitlement risk.

Solution: Freezes new subjective design rules, caps hearings, creates preliminary application vesting, and requires replacement/relocation when protected units are impacted.

Role: Stabilizes entitlements, preserves capacity, and protects renters.

SB 9 (2021): Duplexes & Urban Lot Splits
Problem addressed: Large single-family parcels constrained capacity; owners lacked simple legal paths to add units.

Solution: Requires ministerial approval of up to two units on most single-family lots and allows urban lot splits (with guardrails). Implementation and litigation have been mixed, but SB 9 continues to operate statewide.

Role: Incremental densification in high-opportunity areas (uptake has been modest vs. ADUs).

SB 10 (2021): Local Rezoning for “Missing Middle” Housing Problem addressed: CEQA-exposed rezonings and voter-approved limits made modest upzoning slow and risky.

Solution: Voluntary tool letting cities zone up to 10 units/parcel on transit-rich or urban infill sites with the rezoning action itself exempt from CEQA; may override local initiative restrictions with a 2/3 council vote.

Role: A local-option upzoning mechanism; note it does not streamline the project approvals that follow.

AB 2011 (2022): Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act Problem addressed: Vast commercially-zoned land sat underused while housing faced discretionary review and CEQA.

Solution: Creates ministerial, CEQA-exempt approvals for qualifying multifamily on commercial corridors via two paths: 100% affordable or mixed-income meeting corridor, site, and labor standards. Effective July 1, 2023.

Role: A production-focused pathway converting retail/office/parking sites into housing statewide.

SB 6 (2022): Middle Class Housing Act (Companion to AB 2011) Problem addressed: Housing often not allowed on commercial parcels absent a rezoning.

Solution: Allows residential use in many commercial zones (by right as a permitted use) with labor standards; not ministerial/CEQA-exempt on its own (but can combine with other tools). Effective July 1, 2023.

Role: Opens more sites to housing when AB 2011 is not available.

California State Housing Mandates

AB 2097 (2022): Eliminating Parking Minimums Near Transit Problem addressed: Mandatory parking minimums near transit raised costs and reduced housing feasibility.

Solution: Prohibits minimum parking requirements for most projects within ½ mile of a major transit stop (with narrow exceptions); HCD issued a 2025 Technical Advisory for implementation.

Role: Lowers costs and removes a common barrier to infill housing.

SB 423 (2023): Extends & Expands SB 35 Through 2036
Problem addressed: SB 35’s 2026 sunset and exclusions (e.g., much of the Coastal Zone) limited reach; many cities still failed RHNA or lacked certified elements.

Solution: Extends SB 35 to 2036, applies streamlining to more jurisdictions and sites (incl. parts of the Coastal Zone), ties eligibility to Housing-Element compliance, and updates affordability/labor standards; allows DGS to administer on State-owned land.

Role: A statewide production accelerator, making the SB 35 fast lane broader and longer-lived.

SB 131 + AB 130 (2025): CEQA & Housing Streamlining (Budget Trailer Bills) Problem addressed: Infill housing still faced CEQA delays, litigation risk, and inconsistent timelines.

Solution: Establishes new CEQA exemptions for qualifying infill housing (e.g., up to 20 acres, or 5 acres for builder’s-remedy sites), streamlined review, and—via the broader package—a temporary freeze on code updates to improve predictability. Effective June 30, 2025.

Role: A modernized CEQA framework that complements HAA/SB 330/SB 35 to speed compliant housing.

Builder’s Remedy under HAA (codified/updated 2024–2025) Problem addressed: Some cities delayed or adopted non-compliant Housing Elements to preserve restrictive zoning.

Solution: AB 1893 (2024) and AB 1886 (2024) formalize and clarify the Builder’s Remedy: where a jurisdiction lacks a certified element, qualifying projects with required affordability may proceed (with new standards and protections effective Jan 1, 2025).

Role: A blunt enforcement backstop—if a city does not plan properly, it loses discretion to reject compliant affordable projects.

SB 79 (2025): Overrides Local Zoning to Enable Higher-Density Housing Near Transit Problem addressed: Local zoning caps on height and density near transit stops prevented production of transit-oriented housing even in regions with extensive rail and bus networks.

Solution: Preempts local zoning within ½ mile of qualifying transit stops to legalize multi-story multifamily housing, allowing substantially greater height and density. Creates a statewide TOD framework that can be combined with SB 35, SB 330, the Housing Accountability Act, and the State Density Bonus Law to streamline approvals at lower affordability thresholds.

Role: A land-use preemption tool establishing “as-of-right” higher density near transit so state streamlining laws (e.g., SB 35) can actually deliver buildable transit-oriented projects. It operationalizes California’s TOD objectives and supports pro-housing production goals.

AB 507 (2025): Establishes Adaptive Reuse as Use-by-Right With Streamlined Approval Problem addressed: High commercial vacancy rates and slow, discretionary local approval processes made it difficult to convert underutilized office/retail buildings into housing—despite acute statewide housing shortages.

California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
Solution: Declares adaptive reuse a use-by-right in all zones except non-residential industrial areas and provides ministerial, streamlined approval for eligible projects in existing buildings (generally <50 years old or meeting historic-preservation requirements). Requires income-restricted units (e.g., 8% very low + 5% extremely low, or 15% lower-income for rentals) and allows mixed-use conversions if ≥50% of floor area is residential. Waives parking for portions of buildings without existing on-site parking.

Role: A conversion-focused production tool enabling rapid, CEQA-bypassed adaptive reuse of commercial buildings into housing. Pairs with local incentive programs (e.g., tax-increment-funded Adaptive Reuse Investment Funds starting FY 26-27) to subsidize affordability and unlock large-scale urban reuse.

AB 648 (2025): Exempts Community College Housing from Local Zoning Problem addressed: Community college districts (CCDs) face severe barriers building student, faculty, and staff housing because local zoning ordinances—unlike UC/CSU—block or delay projects, worsening housing insecurity for the 2M+ community college students, over half of whom experience housing instability.

Solution: Exempts CCD-built student, faculty/staff, and university housing projects on CCD-owned or leased property from local city/county zoning regulations. Requires certain projects with faculty/staff units to include extremely low- and lower-income affordable units. Declares the exemption a matter of statewide concern applying to all cities, including charter cities.

Role: A state-level preemption tool enabling rapid production of student and workforce housing on community college land, eliminating local zoning barriers and aligning CCD authority with UC/CSU to address student homelessness and workforce affordability.

AB 1021 (2025): Expands and Streamlines Workforce Housing on School District Property Problem addressed: High housing costs prevent school districts from recruiting and retaining teachers and staff; thousands of acres of school-owned land remain underutilized due to zoning barriers, procedural hurdles, and limits on allowable uses.

Solution: Revises and expands the law deeming workforce housing an allowable use on any property owned by a local educational agency (LEA). Requires qualifying projects (≥10 units) to prioritize renting to school employees and the public under a set hierarchy, with a majority of units deed-restricted for lower- or moderate-income households. Applies Housing Accountability Act protections, enables density bonuses, and extends the program to 2036.

Role: A major workforce-housing production tool that cuts red tape, activates school district land for affordable educator housing, and strengthens school staffing stability—particularly in high-need communities where housing costs drive turnover.

AB 253 (2025): Creates a Private Pathway to Speed Up Residential Permit Plan-Checking Problem addressed: Local building departments often take more than 30 days to complete residential plan checks, creating permitting backlogs that slow housing production, increase project costs, and leave small-scale infill projects stalled.

Solution: Establishes the California Residential Private Permitting Review Act, requiring cities/counties to publish residential permit fee schedules and provide applicants with estimated plan-check timelines. If the estimated timeframe exceeds 30 business days (or if no determination is provided within 30 days), applicants may hire a licensed private professional (“private professional provider”) to perform the plan check. Applies to 1–10 unit projects ≤40 ft tall and allows private reviewers to certify compliance via affidavit.

California State Housing Mandates

Role: A post-entitlement acceleration tool that cuts through municipal bottlenecks by letting homeowners and builders use certified private reviewers, moving small-scale housing through permitting faster while maintaining local agency oversight.

AB 1308 (2025): Imposes an Inspection “Shot Clock” and Allows Private Inspectors Problem addressed: Unpredictable and months-long delays in final inspections—framing, electrical, plumbing, final occupancy sign-off—prevent newly built or renovated homes from being occupied, increasing holding costs and slowing the delivery of small-scale housing.

Solution: Requires local building departments to conduct inspections for 1–10-unit projects (≤40 ft) within 10 business days after receiving notice of completion. If the estimated inspection window exceeds 30 days—or no inspection occurs within 30 days—applicants may hire a licensed private professional inspector to complete the inspection and submit an affidavit attesting to code compliance. Also requires cities/counties to post residential permit fee schedules.

Role: A post-entitlement enforcement and delivery tool that ensures housing is not delayed at the final inspection stage. Speeds up occupancy, adds accountability to local inspection offices, and allows builders to default to vetted third-party inspectors when jurisdictions are too slow.

AB 712 (2025): Strengthens Enforcement of State Housing Laws Against Noncompliant Cities Problem addressed: Local agencies routinely delay, obstruct, or illegally deny housing projects despite state housing reform laws; enforcement is weak, costly for applicants, and slow, enabling jurisdictions to continue violating State Mandates without consequence.

Solution: Creates a robust enforcement framework requiring courts to award attorney’s fees and costs to prevailing housing applicants and to impose mandatory fines on violating local agencies. Extends statutes of limitation by 60 days when applicants issue a notice of intent to sue, and bars agencies from requiring applicants to indemnify them for litigation arising from the agency’s own violations. Defines “housing reform law” broadly to cover laws protecting housing applicants or limiting local discretion.

Role: A statewide compliance tool that finally gives housing applicants meaningful remedies—and gives local governments financial and legal consequences for ignoring state housing law, thereby enabling real enforcement of the State’s pro-housing framework.

SB 808 (2025): Fast-Tracks Judicial Review of Housing Permit Denials Problem addressed: Cities continue denying compliant housing projects, forcing applicants into a slow judicial review process where litigation delays—often lasting years—kill projects, escalate costs, or allow permits to expire.

Solution: Establishes an expedited writ-of-mandate process for housing permit denials. Requires:
• Local agencies to compile and certify the administrative record within 15 days. • Courts to set hearings within 45 days and issue decisions within 30 days of submission (or 75 days from filing, whichever comes first).
• Priority scheduling for appeals.

Allows the applicant, Attorney General, or HCD to file the petition; authorizes temporary judicial assignments to meet deadlines.

Role: A litigation-acceleration tool that prevents local agencies from using procedural delay to kill housing projects, ensuring that California housing laws have immediate, enforceable consequences.

Complements AB 712 by enforcing housing rights on the judicial side.

California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
SB 786 (2025): Clarifies Housing Element Law and Strengthens Court Remedies Against Noncompliant Cities
Problem addressed: Conflicts between General Plan elements, vague housing-element rules, and slow litigation processes create uncertainty for cities, courts, and developers—leading to delays, stalled rezoning, and litigation bottlenecks that block housing production.

Solution: Establishes clear hierarchy rules: when General Plan elements conflict—including quantified development standards—the most recently adopted, HCD-certified Housing Element controls. Tightens judicial timelines in Housing-Element challenges:
• Limits continuances to 60 days,
• Requires temporary relief whenever continuances occur, • Requires HCD to conduct substantial-compliance reviews when local jurisdictions miss required Housing-Element deadlines,
• Extends rezoning compliance timelines to 120 days and mandates sanctions if jurisdictions fail to comply.

Applies general-plan challenge rules to charter cities.

Role: A statewide governance-and-compliance tool ensuring that Housing Elements actually function as the controlling document, reducing litigation gamesmanship, and compelling jurisdictions to implement rezoning and Housing-Element obligations on enforceable timelines. Complements AB 712 and SB 808 as part of the Attorney General’s statewide enforcement strategy.

SB 340 (2025): Expands Emergency Shelter Requirements in Housing Elements Problem addressed: Emergency shelter planning requirements were outdated and limited, failing to reflect modern shelter models (e.g., navigation centers, recuperative care) and the full range of onsite supportive services needed for effective homelessness response.

Solution: Updates the definition of “emergency shelter” to require housing with supportive services (not minimal services) and requires Housing Elements to account for all onsite services consistent with written, objective standards. Imposes new obligations on cities/counties in shelter planning and broadens the Emergency Housing and Assistance Program definition.

Role: A homelessness-response modernization tool ensuring jurisdictions plan realistically for service-rich shelter models within their Housing Elements and zoning designations.

AB 610 (2025): Requires Disclosure of New Local Governmental Constraints in Housing Elements Problem addressed: Cities and counties were adopting new land-use constraints (fees, ordinances, zoning rules) during Housing-Element cycles without disclosure, undermining RHNA compliance and increasing barriers to housing production.

Solution: Requires a governmental constraints disclosure statement in each Housing Element (7th Cycle onward), identifying all new or amended constraints adopted since the last Housing Element. Prohibits adoption of new constraints unless they were disclosed and the jurisdiction has completed all required programs to remove past constraints (except when mandated by state/federal law). Applies to charter cities.

Role: A transparency and anti-backsliding tool ensuring local governments cannot quietly increase barriers to housing once RHNA obligations are set.

AB 670 (2025): Allows Converted Affordable Units to Count Toward RHNA Reporting Problem addressed: Cities lacked credit in their Annual Progress Reports (APRs) for preserving or converting multifamily buildings into long-term deed-restricted affordable housing, despite this being a major preservation strategy.

California State Housing Mandates

Solution: Expands APR reporting starting in 2027 to allow units converted to affordable housing—with 55-year covenants for low, very low, extremely low, or acutely low income households—to count toward a jurisdiction’s RHNA-creditable progress, if they meet specified criteria. Includes detailed new reporting requirements for demolitions, replacement units, and affordable conversions.

Role: A preservation-credit tool aligning RHNA reporting with long-term affordable housing conversion strategies, encouraging cities to preserve expiring-affordability stock.

AB 726 (2025): Allows Cities to Count Substantial Rehabilitation of Affordable Units in APRs Problem addressed: Deeply affordable older units (often 15+ years old) need major rehabilitation but cities receive zero RHNA/APR credit for investing in repairs—causing cities to prioritize new construction instead of preserving aging stock.

Solution: Allows jurisdictions to include substantially rehabilitated deed-restricted affordable units (≥15 years old, ≤45% AMI average affordability, ≥$60k local investment per unit) in APRs. These units cannot be counted toward eligibility for streamlining under SB 35. Updates references to the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation.

Role: A preservation-incentive tool enabling cities to earn APR credit for rehabilitating deeply affordable units, helping maintain long-term housing quality and prevent affordable-stock losses.

AB 1275 (2025): Extends RHNA Timelines and Aligns Housing Needs with Transportation Plans Problem addressed: Regional Housing Needs Determinations (RHND) were rushed due to tight timelines (2-year lead time), leading to disputes, insufficient data review, and disconnects between transportation planning and housing allocations.

Solution: Extends RHND timeline from 2 to 3 years before a Housing-Element update (with special rules for 2027–2029 cycles), requires earlier consultation between HCD and councils of governments (COGs), and mandates that RHNA methodology be informed by Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) patterns in regional transportation plans. Strengthens integration of job-housing balance, mobility patterns, and fair housing objectives.

Role: A regional-planning alignment tool ensuring RHNA allocations better reflect transportation, climate, and job-housing realities, improving the planning accuracy of future housing cycles.

SB 233 (2025): Requires Earlier State–Regional Consultation for RHNA Determinations Problem addressed: During prior RHNA cycles, HCD provided regional housing need numbers too late (26-month timeline), leaving councils of governments (COGs) and cities with insufficient time to plan, contributing to widespread late Housing-Element adoption.

Solution: Requires HCD to meet and consult with each COG at least 38 months before a Housing-Element revision (one year earlier than prior law), with special rules for the 7th Cycle. Ensures earlier agreement on RHNA assumptions, methodologies, and data inputs.

Role: A regional-planning coordination tool that expands the planning window for local governments, reducing delays, improving RHNA accuracy, and increasing likelihood of timely Housing-Element compliance.

AB 920 (2025): Requires Centralized Online Portals for Housing Permit Applications Problem addressed: Local permitting processes were opaque, slow, and inconsistent across cities; applicants could not easily track housing development permits, resulting in delays, confusion, and high administrative burdens.

Solution: Requires cities/counties with populations ≥150,000 to create a centralized online application portal for housing development projects, allowing electronic submissions and real-time status tracking.

California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
Jurisdictions may delay implementation until 2030 only if they begin procurement by 2028. Applies to charter cities.

Role: A statewide digital-permit modernization tool that increases transparency, reduces processing delays, and standardizes how applicants navigate housing approvals.

SB 358 (2025): Reduces Traffic Impact Fees for Transit-Oriented Housing Problem addressed: Traffic impact fees—often 20% of project cost—were applied using outdated auto-trip assumptions, inflating costs for infill and transit-oriented housing that generates fewer vehicle trips.

Solution: Reforms the Mitigation Fee Act to:
• Require at least 50% fee reductions for qualifying transit-oriented housing, • Update eligibility criteria (parking maximums, proximity to ≥3 amenities, transit-priority locations), • Require fee-denial findings to be supported by substantial evidence, • Remove outdated convenience-retail requirements and proportional-fee provisions.

Role: A cost-reduction and TOD-incentive tool that aligns traffic fees with actual impacts, supporting infill and climate-oriented housing production.

AB 752 (2025): Makes Child Daycare Centers in Multifamily Housing a Use-by-Right Problem addressed: Cities treated daycare centers co-located with multifamily housing as commercial uses—triggering zoning barriers, business license fees, CEQA review, and inconsistent local requirements, reducing childcare capacity near where families live.

Solution: Makes daycare centers co-located with multifamily housing or community amenities a residential use by right; prohibits business license fees; exempts such centers from CEQA; bars stricter standards on them than those applied to the co-located housing or amenity. Maintains all California licensing and safety requirements.

Role: A childcare-access and land-use integration tool that reduces barriers to collocated daycare centers, supporting housing-adjacent amenities and family-serving communities.

SB 415 (2025): Refines Statewide Warehouse & Logistics Development Standards (Not a housing production bill but affects land-use and zoning environments related to freight-adjacent communities.)
Problem addressed: AB 98 (2024) established statewide warehouse standards but included ambiguous definitions and inconsistent requirements, creating confusion for local governments, developers, and environmental-justice communities in logistics-heavy regions.

Solution: SB 415 clarifies key definitions (“logistics use development,” “sensitive receptor”), narrows exemptions, updates siting and truck-route standards, refines buffer requirements, and ensures 21st-century warehouses meet applicable sustainable-design standards at permit issuance. Also clarifies where warehouse concentration regions apply.

Role: A land-use-governance and environmental-mitigation tool improving clarity and enforceability of statewide logistics-facility regulations—reducing conflicts between freight operations, housing, and community health.

AB 98 (2024–2025): Establishes Statewide Design, Siting & Environmental Standards for Logistics Facilities
Problem addressed: Warehouse and logistics developments—especially in the Inland Empire—were producing severe air-quality, noise, traffic, and public-health impacts on nearby residential areas, schools, and other sensitive receptors, while local regulations were inconsistent or ineffective.

California State Housing Mandates

Solution: Creates California’s first statewide design, siting, and operational standards for logistics facilities, including:
• Mandatory buffers (500–900 feet) from sensitive receptors, • Truck-route and loading-bay orientation requirements, • Anti-idling measures and cold-storage plug-ins,
• Title 24–level building efficiency standards (solar, EV-readiness), • 2:1 replacement requirement for recently occupied affordable units demolished, • Applicability to large new facilities and expansions ≥20% of floor area.

Compliance required for applications submitted after Sept. 30, 2024, with most standards fully effective Jan. 1, 2026.

Role: A statewide environmental-mitigation and freight-land-use tool aimed at protecting communities while aligning logistics growth with sustainability and public-health goals. AB 98 is foundational to later cleanup legislation (SB 415).

AB 1007 (2025): Cuts Responsible-Agency Permit Deadlines in Half Problem addressed: Even after cities approved housing projects, state and regional “responsible agencies” (e.g., air districts, water boards) could take months to issue secondary permits, causing ballooning timelines and costs. Shot-clocks for these agencies (90 days) were much longer than those for lead agencies.

Solution: Amends the Permit Streamlining Act to require responsible agencies to approve/disapprove residential, mixed-use, supportive, or farmworker housing permits within 45 days of project approval or application completeness—cutting the prior 90-day deadline in half. Applies statewide, including charter cities.

Role: A permitting-acceleration tool ensuring faster post-entitlement approvals and reducing interagency delays that frequently stall housing construction.

AB 1050 (2025): Allows Removal of Private Covenants Blocking Housing on Commercial Properties
Problem addressed: Commercial parcels often have old CC&Rs and reciprocal easement agreements (REAs) that prohibit residential uses or limit density, preventing commercial-to-housing adaptive-reuse projects—even when allowed under State housing laws like AB 2011.

Solution: Expands existing restrictive-covenant-modification law (previously limited to affordable housing) to all qualifying housing developments located on commercial sites, allowing developers to:
• Invalidate covenants that restrict residential use, density, unit count, or occupancy, • Apply the process to REAs as well as CC&Rs,
• Record a Restrictive Covenant Modification Document after county counsel review.

Does not authorize projects inconsistent with state housing laws.

Role: A statewide barrier-removal tool enabling adaptive reuse of commercial corridors and shopping centers into housing by preempting private land-use restrictions.

SB 92 (2025): Closes Loopholes in the Density Bonus Law for Mixed-Use Projects Problem addressed: Developers exploited the Density Bonus Law to exceed commercial FAR and build oversized hotel-heavy or visitor-serving mixed-use projects with minimal housing (e.g., San Diego “Project Vela”).

Solution: Reforms Density Bonus Law by:
• Limiting commercial FAR increases under DBL to ≤2.5× base zoning, • Prohibiting incentives/waivers for transient lodging (hotels, motels, B&Bs) except residential hotels,
California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
• Requiring ≥2/3 of mixed-use square footage to be residential to qualify, • Maintaining full affordability thresholds for bonus eligibility.

Effective Jan. 1, 2026 (with grandfathering for pre-application projects).

Role: A guardrail tool ensuring Density Bonus Law is used to build actual housing—not oversized hotel or commercial space leveraged through affordable-unit “tokenism.” AB 87 (2025): Prevents Density Bonus Incentives for Hotel Components of Mixed-Use Projects Problem addressed: Developers were using DBL concessions (height, FAR, parking waivers) to benefit hotel components of mixed-use projects, diluting the State’s housing incentives and enabling visitor-serving developments that undermined local zoning.

Solution: Clarifies that DBL incentives may not be applied to hotel/motel/visitor-serving portions of a mixed-use project. Makes parallel conforming amendments to align with SB 92 if both bills are enacted.

Applies statewide, including charter cities.

Role: A housing-priority tool reinforcing that density bonuses are for residential production—not for hospitality or tourism development.

APPENDIX B: Orange County Housing Mandate Survey Questions Q1 What is your city’s 6th-cycle RHNA allocation, and does your Housing Element plan exceed that number? If so, by how much, and what factors influenced the decision to exceed the allocation? Q2 If the RHNA mandate were not in place, how would your housing plan differ? Would it still meet the demand for low-income housing?
Q3 What strategies has your city used to inform and engage residents about the state housing mandate? How do you measure the effectiveness of these outreach efforts? Q4 What are the implications of recent state legislation on R-1 single-family zoning for your city’s land-use policies and community character?
Q5 What are the most significant challenges your city faces in meeting RHNA requirements? In what ways has OCCOG supported your efforts to overcome these challenges? Q6 Do you anticipate achieving your approved Housing Element goals by the end of the 6th cycle in 2030? What factors will most influence your success or shortfall? Q7 What additional information would you like to provide us regarding this topic? APPENDIX C: Responsibilities
Responsibilities of OCCOG
Mission Statement:

The Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) convenes jurisdictions throughout Orange County to collaboratively address land use, housing, mobility, energy, air quality, and water issues, and to ensure that Orange County is effectively represented in regional and state decision-making. Through sound governance, impartial analysis, and regional coordination, OCCOG delivers value to its member agencies and the residents of Orange County.

Core Responsibilities:

1. Sub-Regional Planning and Coordination
a. Serves as Orange County’s official sub-regional planning organization within the six-county SCAG region.

California State Housing Mandates

b. Leads the preparation of required regional and sub-regional planning documents that allow Orange County jurisdictions to compete for state and federal funding. [occog.com], [occog.com]

2. Regional Representation and Advocacy
a. Ensures Orange County’s interests are represented in regional policy development by coordinating the county’s representation on the SCAG Regional Council and committees. b. Works to align countywide perspectives on policy issues affecting transportation, housing, sustainability, and infrastructure.

3. Housing, Transportation, and Sustainable Communities Planning a. Supports housing and transportation planning coordination, including RHNA-related activities and implementation discussions.
b. May serve as the lead agency for a sub-regional Sustainable Communities Strategy if Orange County elects to pursue one under SB 375, consistent with SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan.

4. Technical Analysis, Studies, and Data Support
a. Conducts countywide and sub-regional studies, prepares technical reports, and provides data-driven analysis to support policymaking by member agencies. b. Develops best-practice guidance (e.g., Complete Streets, mobility and infrastructure tools) for voluntary adoption by cities and the County.

5. Intergovernmental Collaboration and Consensus-Building a. Functions as a forum for cooperation among cities, the County, and special districts on issues of shared concern.
b. Facilitates coordination on funding strategies, infrastructure planning, and policy alignment without supplanting local land-use authority.82
Responsibilities of SCAG
Mission Statement
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) serves as the regional planning agency for Southern California, coordinating among local, regional, state, and federal partners to advance transportation, housing, land-use, and environmental planning that supports sustainable growth, economic vitality, social equity, and improved quality of life for the region’s diverse communities.

SCAG’s mission is to lead collaborative regional planning by developing and implementing integrated transportation, housing, and sustainability strategies; allocating regional housing needs; ensuring compliance with state and federal planning requirements; and providing data, technical assistance, and policy guidance to its member jurisdictions to address Southern California’s long-term growth challenges.83
Responsibilities of HCD
Mission Statement (Primary)
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) works to ensure safe, affordable, and sustainable housing opportunities for Californians by administering housing programs, 82 Orange County Council of Governments
83 Home | Southern California Association of Governments California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
shaping statewide housing policy, and enforcing housing laws to promote equity, environmental quality, and community stability across the state.

HCD’s mission is to lead and implement California’s housing policy by determining regional housing needs, reviewing and enforcing Housing Element compliance, administering state and federal housing funds, and holding local jurisdictions accountable for fulfilling their obligations under state housing law.84 84 California Department of Housing and Community Development 6650 Beach Boulevard | P.O. Box 5009 | Buena Park, CA | 90622-5009 | [714] 562-3611 BuenaPark.com July 14, 2026
Honorable Sheila F. Hanson
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California
Orange County Grand Jury
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
RE: City of Buena Park Response to Grand Jury Report – “California Housing Mandates:

The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods” Dear Judge Hanson:

The Buena Park City Council has reviewed the Orange County Grand Jury’s report entitled, “California Housing Mandates: The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods.” Below are the City of Buena Park’s responses to the aforementioned report:

FINDINGS:

F1 In recent years, the California Legislature has enacted an unusually large and burdensome volume of housing-related laws intended to strengthen compliance with State Housing Mandates.

Response: The City of Buena Park agrees with this finding. Not only has the amount of housing-related legislation adopted in recent years created an overly complicated and often conflicting housing legislative landscape, but most, if not all of the legislation have been unfunded mandates, which further burdens cities with shouldering the costs associated with implementing new legislation.

F2 Housing Mandates are implemented through a RHNA process that often lacks transparency and relies on complex methodologies that are difficult for local officials and the public to understand or meaningfully challenge.

Response: The City of Buena Park agrees with this finding. The City of Buena Park received a RHNA Allocation in the 6th Cycle Housing Element of 8,919 residential units, representing a 2,500% increase in housing units from the previous cycle.

The allocation methodology used to apportion these units was modified very late in the RHNA Allocation methodology adoption process and disproportionately impacted cities like Buena Park, who suddenly had to plan for the largest increase in housing units in its 73-year history.

OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Honorable Sheila F. Hanson
“California Housing Mandates: The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods”

6650 Beach Boulevard | P.O. Box 5009 | Buena Park, CA | 90622-5009 | [714] 562-3611 BuenaPark.com F4 Meaningful participation by Orange County cities in both OCCOG and SCAG meetings is critical to ensuring that local perspectives are represented during the development and implementation of Housing Mandates policies.

Response: The City of Buena Park partially agrees with this finding. While meaningful participation is an important component, recent housing legislation has largely been influenced by lobbyists and special interest groups without regard for local context.

F5 SCAG’s 6th Cycle RHNA assigned Orange County a questionable total of 183,861 housing units for the 2021–2029 planning period, with higher allocations concentrated in cities with major population and employment centers.

Response: The City of Buena Park agrees with this finding. Cities like Buena Park, which is not a city with major population and employment centers, especially compared to the cities of Anaheim and Santa Ana, were particularly overburdened.

F6 RHNA allocations are unrealistic and not attainable within the current planning cycle due to limited available land, built-out urban conditions, infrastructure constraints, environmental factors, and public health and safety requirements.

Response: The City of Buena Park agrees with this finding. Buena Park is a substantially built-out city which leaves very little vacant land for new residential construction.

The City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element identified a realistic capacity of only about 957 units from vacant and underutilized sites, entitled projects, and anticipated accessory dwelling units, against an allocation of 8,919 units, a shortfall of 7,962 units. Accommodating that shortfall required rezoning and Housing Incentive Overlays across more than 400 parcels and depends heavily on the redevelopment of existing commercial and residential uses, on infrastructure that was never sized for growth of this magnitude, and relying on market conditions that are outside of the City’s control.

F7 Residents in Orange County consistently express a desire for local planning decisions to reflect community priorities, including but not limited to neighborhood character, safety considerations, the environment and openspace preservation.

Response: The City of Buena Park agrees with this finding. Buena Park is a predominantly residential community whose established neighborhoods, parks, and Beach Boulevard Entertainment Corridor are defining features that the community consistently asks the City to preserve. Throughout the 6th Cycle Housing Element process, residents who participated in public workshops and hearings emphasized preserving neighborhood character, parks, and public safety while the City worked to meet its RHNA obligation. The scale and density of development required to be planned for to satisfy the City’s RHNA allocation was, in some cases, in direct contrast to community priorities.

Honorable Sheila F. Hanson
“California Housing Mandates: The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods”

6650 Beach Boulevard | P.O. Box 5009 | Buena Park, CA | 90622-5009 | [714] 562-3611 BuenaPark.com F8 California’s regulatory construction costs (i.e. permitting fees) present substantial challenges for private housing developers—particularly those delivering affordable units.

Response: The City of Buena Park disagrees with this finding. According to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), permit fees represent less than 10% of the total construction costs. Permit fees are charged on a ‘cost recovery’ basis, meaning the permit fee amount reflects the actual time and material costs to provide the services. The larger and more impactful costs associated with construction are land acquisition prices, materials, and labor costs, which represent a much larger percentage of the total construction costs.

F9 The cost of constructing a single affordable housing unit in California typically ranges from approximately $500,000 to $800,000 per unit when fully complying with current state regulations. New low-income housing is generally not financially feasible without public subsidy.

Response: The City of Buena Park agrees with this finding. This cost reality is evident in Buena Park, where high land-acquisition costs in a fully built-out city, prevailing wages, and material costs make new deed-restricted affordable housing financially infeasible without public subsidy at the state or local level. Of the City’s 8,919-unit allocation, 3,462 units are designated for lower-income households, yet the City has no dedicated local funding source capable of closing the financing gap on units at that scale. Without meaningful state and federal subsidies, production at any meaningful level of affordability is likely unachievable.

F10 Prior to their dissolution in 2012, redevelopment agencies served as a primary mechanism for cities and counties to finance affordable housing and related infrastructure. The loss of redevelopment has reduced cities’ ability to support construction of affordable units.

Response: The City of Buena Park agrees with this finding. Like most Orange County cities, Buena Park relied on its former redevelopment agency and the associated Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund as a primary local tool for financing affordable housing and supporting infrastructure. The statewide dissolution of redevelopment in 2012 eliminated the City’s most significant local funding mechanism for affordable housing, and no comparable state replacement has been provided. This loss directly constrains the City’s ability to deliver the 3,462 lower-income units required under its 6th Cycle allocation.

F11 Because public subsidy is limited and highly competitive, cities seeking to produce meaningful quantities of low-income housing must rely in part on private development incentives, often resulting in higher overall development densities and unit counts than the RHNA allocation.

Response: The City of Buena Park disagrees with this finding. Cities wishing to produce meaningful amounts of low-income housing can rely on a combination of tools, Honorable Sheila F. Hanson
“California Housing Mandates: The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods”

6650 Beach Boulevard | P.O. Box 5009 | Buena Park, CA | 90622-5009 | [714] 562-3611 BuenaPark.com including accessory dwelling units, inclusionary housing requirements, partnerships with non-profit, religious and fraternal organizations and and missiondriven affordable housing developers, and are not necessarily required to entitle densities or unit counts in excess of their RHNA allocation in order to do so. In Buena Park’s experience, the higher densities reflected in its rezoning and Housing Incentive Overlays were driven primarily by the size of the RHNA allocation itself rather than demand for higher density by residential developers. In fact, in many cases, developers are electing to utilize Density Bonus Law to qualify for concessions and waivers and rather than to maximize density.

F12 The 6th Cycle RHNA methodology included numerous technical inputs published by SCAG and HCD; however, these inputs were highly complex and difficult for cities to interpret or independently verify.

Response: The City of Buena Park agrees with this finding. Buena Park experienced this firsthand during the 6th Cycle. The data inputs and methodology underlying the City’s 8,919-unit assignment were difficult for staff to independently interpret or verify, and the methodology was modified late in the adoption process in a manner that substantially increased the City’s allocation. The complexity of these inputs, and the constraints on appeals implemented by SCAG, limited the City’s practical ability to meaningfully evaluate or challenge the RHNA allocation assigned to it.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

R7 OCCOG, all Orange County cities and the County of Orange should reassess the current dues structure, by September 30, 2026, to ensure that OCCOG has the resources necessary to effectively represent Orange County jurisdictions in SCAG processes, including RHNA methodology development and appeals. (F3, F15).

Response: Buena Park would support the reassessment of the current dues structure for OCCOG provided those changes in dues are tied to measurable and transparent improvements in services or effective representation.

R8 By December 31, 2026, the Orange County Board of Supervisors should partner with cities to evaluate countywide infrastructure capacity— including water, wastewater, flood control, transportation, and public-safety systems—and develop a coordinated regional plan capable of supporting the level of housing growth required under state law. (F6) Response: This recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented by the date recommended. Buena Park would be happy to participate in this effort. As a largely built-out city, Buena Park’s water, wastewater, drainage, and circulation systems were not designed to absorb residential growth on the scale contemplated by the 6th Cycle RHNA, and the City has a direct interest in a coordinated countywide assessment of this capacity. Buena Park would contribute local infrastructure data and planning staff to such an effort and Honorable Sheila F. Hanson
“California Housing Mandates: The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods”

6650 Beach Boulevard | P.O. Box 5009 | Buena Park, CA | 90622-5009 | [714] 562-3611 BuenaPark.com supports a regional approach that realistically aligns infrastructure investment with mandated housing growth.

R9 By September 30, 2026, the Orange County Board of Supervisors should strengthen its engagement with OCCOG and increase staff support to develop a shared, countywide database of potential housing sites and key development-feasibility factors. (F15)
Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted, and not reasonable as stated. This recommendation is directed primarily to the Orange County Board of Supervisors rather than to the City, which has limited ability to implement it. In addition, Buena Park already maintains a detailed, publicly available inventory of potential housing sites and development-feasibility factors in its Housing Element, which identifies more than 400 parcels with associated capacity assumptions. A separate countywide database would duplicate information that cities are already required to prepare and maintain.

R11 The County of Orange and each city should ensure consistent participation in SCAG and OCCOG committees by September 30, 2026, including the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), to strengthen regional representation during RHNA-methodology development. (F3, F4, F15).

Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted.

Buena Park already ensures regional representation through the designated technical representative and alternate described in its response to Recommendation R12, and the City participates in OCCOG and SCAG processes as staffing resources allow. A separate mandate guaranteeing consistent participation in every committee, including the Technical Advisory Committee, is not warranted for a city of Buena Park’s size and staffing, and would duplicate the continuity already achieved under R12.

R12 The County of Orange and each city should designate a single technical representative, by September 30, 2026, along with an alternate, for all RHNArelated SCAG and OCCOG committees to ensure continuity of participation and eliminate gaps in representation across multiple decision-making bodies. (F4)
Response: The City of Buena Park has already implemented this recommendation. The City has identified a technical representative and alternate to participate in OCCOG and SCAG Committees.

R14 By April 30, 2027, the County of Orange and each city should publish annual monitoring dashboards showing (a) entitlement pipeline conditions, (b) realistic site yield, (c) assembled funding sources for affordable units, and (d) conversion rates from planned capacity to issued permits and completed units, ensuring that County and city-determined capacity assumptions remain aligned with actual production. (F13).

Honorable Sheila F. Hanson
“California Housing Mandates: The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods”

6650 Beach Boulevard | P.O. Box 5009 | Buena Park, CA | 90622-5009 | [714] 562-3611 BuenaPark.com Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted, and not reasonable as stated. Buena Park already reports its entitlement pipeline, permitting activity, and housing production annually to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) through the Annual Progress Report required under Government Code section 65400, which is a public document. Preparing a separate annual dashboard containing the four specified categories of information would duplicate that mandated reporting and impose a significant administrative burden on the City’s limited planning staff without creating greater transparency. The City therefore does not find this recommendation warranted or reasonable as stated.

R15 By September 30, 2026, and ongoing, the County Board of Supervisors and all city councils should make a coordinated and sustained effort to educate their constituents about the RHNA process - its requirements, its impact on local planning and community character, and the role residents can play in shaping outcomes. Public education efforts should also include guidance on how community members can effectively engage with the California Legislature and advocate for more realistic, data-driven housing policies. (F1, F7).

Response: The City of Buena Park has already implemented this recommendation.

During the 6th Cycle Housing Element process, the City educated residents about the RHNA process and its local impacts through publicly noticed Planning Commission and City Council hearings, community workshops, and materials made available through the Community Development Department website. The City continues to provide residents with information on housing requirements and on opportunities to participate in regional and State housing-policy decisions. The City also continues to hold community meetings for large residential development projects.

R16 By December 31, 2026, all cities should look to enhance their relationships with not-for-profit affordable housing developers to increase the opportunity to develop more affordable housing. (F8, F10, F12).

Response: The City of Buena Park has already implemented this recommendation.

Through its 6th Cycle Housing Element, the City established Housing Incentive Overlays and rezoned sites specifically to facilitate affordable housing, and the City engages with non-profit and affordable housing developers to pursue development of deed-restricted units consistent with that framework. Recently, the City has worked with C&C Development for a 55-unit, 100% affordable project, Jamboree Housing for a 57-unit PSH housing development, National CORE for a 60-unit, 100% affordable senior housing development and Prosper Architects to convert an existing motel into an affordable, 100-unit SRO development. The City remains committed to strengthening these partnerships to expand affordable housing opportunities in Buena Park.

Honorable Sheila F. Hanson
“California Housing Mandates: The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods”

6650 Beach Boulevard | P.O. Box 5009 | Buena Park, CA | 90622-5009 | [714] 562-3611 BuenaPark.com Thank you for providing the City of Buena Park the opportunity to respond to this report.

Sincerely,
Aaron France
City Manager
cc: Buena Park City Council
Christopher G. Cardinale, City Attorney
August 25, 2026

CONSENT CALENDAR
Item No. 4F.

City Council Agenda Report
APPROVAL OF CITY RESPONSES TO 2025-2026 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT: "PFAS AND PUBLIC AWARENESS: A CLOSER LOOK AT ORANGE COUNTY DRINKING WATER"

PREPARED BY PRESENTED BY
Jessica Fewer, Senior Management Analyst Jessica Fewer, Senior Management Analyst

DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL CITY MANAGER APPROVAL
Eddie Fenton, Assistant City Manager/HR Director Aaron France, City Manager

RECOMMENDED ACTION
1) Approve the City's responses to the Orange County Grand Jury Report: "PFAS and Public Awareness: A Closer Look at Orange County Drinking Water."

PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL ACTION
None.

DISCUSSION
On June 9, 2026, the Orange County Grand Jury released a report entitled, "PFAS and Public Awareness: A Closer Look at Orange County Drinking Water" (Attachment 1). Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) form a broad class of thousands of synthetic chemicals characterized by strong carbon-fluorine bonds and are among the most durable compounds in organic chemistry. They are often referred to as "forever chemicals." The report identifies and describes PFAS levels detected by Orange County drinking water agencies and evaluates how these agencies have responded to recent PFAS regulatory requirements. It also provides findings and recommendations aimed at strengthening PFAS reporting in annual Water Quality Reports (Consumer Confidence Reports) and expanding public outreach by Orange County drinking water agencies.

The City of Buena Park is required to respond to specific findings and recommendations. Staff has drafted a response letter from the City (Attachment 2). With City Council approval, staff will remit this response to the Grand Jury by the September 7, 2026, deadline.

BUDGET IMPACT
There is no budget impact with the approval of this item.

Attachments
PFAS_and_Public_Awareness_A_Closer_Look_at_Orange_County_Drinking_Water.pdf PFAS Grand_Jury_Response_- JH Draft jf2 CC DRAFT.pdf
Fcalifornia stateting,4
PFAS and Public Awareness
A Closer Look at Orange County
Drinking Water
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026

This page intentionally left blank
PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 3 of 62

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 5 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 5 REASON FOR STUDY ................................................................................................... 8 METHOD OF STUDY ...................................................................................................... 8 INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 9 FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................... 35 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 36 COMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................... 37 REQUIRED RESPONSES ............................................................................................ 39 Acronyms ...................................................................................................................... 46 Glossary ........................................................................................................................ 50 Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 51 Appendix A .................................................................................................................... 55 Appendix B .................................................................................................................... 62

FIGURES
Figure 1 - Potential Major Exposure Pathways of PFAS to Humans ............................... 6 Figure 2 - Orange County Groundwater Public Supply Wells ........................................ 11 Figure 3 - Orange County Water District (OCWD) Service Area ................................... 12 Figure 4 - Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) Service Area ............ 13 Figure 5 - The PFAS Cycle ............................................................................................ 15 Figure 6 - Wastewater Treatment Discharges to the Santa Ana River .......................... 16 Figure 7 - CDC Multi-site Study Site Orange County, CA .............................................. 17 Figure 8 - Average PFAS Levels in Blood, CDC Multi-site Study Virtual Open House, July 2025 ....................................................................................................... 18 Figure 9 - How are people exposed to PFAS? .............................................................. 20 Figure 10 - Are PFAS Safe? .......................................................................................... 22 Figure 11 - Highest PFAS Detections Among All OCWD Sources During UCMR 3 and UCMR 5 Monitoring Cycles ......................................................................... 24 PFAS and Public Awareness

Figure 12 - Highest PFAS Detections Among All OCWD Sources Listed on Each SWRCB Monitoring Order Exhibit A ............................................................ 25 Figure 13 - PFAS Rule Enforceable Maximum Contaminant Levels and Maximum Contaminant Level Goals ............................................................................ 27 Figure 14 - Timeline of OCWD Response to PFAS in the Santa Ana River Basin ......... 29 Figure 15 - Map of Current and Future PFAS Treatment Locations .............................. 30 Figure 16 - Approximate PFAS Capital Funding Sources .............................................. 31 Figure 17 - Summary of PFAS Treatment Facilities ...................................................... 32 Figure 18 - OCWD Share of PFAS Treatment Facility Annual O&M Cost ..................... 33 Figure 19 - PFAS Monthly Cost to OCWD Service Area Residents .............................. 34 Figure 20 - UCMR 3 Contaminants List, PFAS Contaminants ...................................... 55 Figure 21 - UCMR 5 Contaminants List, PFAS Contaminants ...................................... 56 Figure 22 - SWRCB PFAS General Monitoring Orders Issued 2020 through 2025 ....... 57 Figure 23 - SWRCB General Monitoring Order 2020-0003-DDW, PFAS Constituents . 58 Figure 24 - SWRCB General Monitoring Order 2021-0001-DDW, PFAS Constituents . 59 Figure 25 - SWRCB General Monitoring Order 2022-0001-DDW, PFAS Constituents . 60 Figure 26 - SWRCB General Monitoring Order 2025-0002-DDW, PFAS Constituents . 61 Figure 27 - EPA Eight Content Requirements of a Consumer Confidence Report ........ 62 PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 5 of 62

SUMMARY
Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) form a broad class of thousands of synthetic chemicals characterized by strong carbon–fluorine bonds and are among the most durable compounds in organic chemistry. This bond strength makes PFAS highly resistant to breaking down, allowing them to persist in the environment for decades or longer. Because of this persistence, PFAS are often called “forever chemicals.” Various industries have used PFAS in consumer and commercial applications since the 1940s because their chemical properties provide water, oil, and stain resistance, as well as heat stability. These properties support applications across numerous sectors, including aerospace, automotive, textiles, firefighting foams, food packaging, electronics, and medical devices. As a result of their widespread use and persistence, PFAS now appear globally in water, air, soil, wildlife, and human blood.

Scientific studies continue to show associations between PFAS exposure and harmful health effects in humans and animals, although the degree of risk varies by compound.

In response, federal and state agencies, including the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), began accelerating regulatory actions in the 2010s to reduce PFAS exposure, enhance monitoring, and develop treatment and disposal methods.

This report identifies and describes PFAS levels detected by Orange County drinking water agencies. It evaluates how these agencies have responded to recent PFAS regulatory requirements. It also examines the progress of PFAS treatment facility planning and installation, along with implementation of public education programs related to PFAS in drinking water. This report’s findings and recommendations aim to strengthen PFAS reporting in annual Water Quality Reports (Consumer Confidence Reports) and expand public outreach by Orange County drinking water agencies.

BACKGROUND
PFAS are a large group of man-made "forever chemicals" produced since the 1940s, known for extreme persistence, environmental mobility, and bioaccumulation due to strong carbon-fluorine bonds.1 Used in water/stain-resistant coatings, firefighting foams, industrial processes, PFAS have contaminated soil, water, and air globally. 1 Elsie M. Sunderland, et al., “A review of the pathways of human exposure to poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) and present understanding of health effects,” Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, November 23, 2018, accessed March 16, 2026, https://sunderlandlab.org/assets/sunderland_jeseerev_2018wsi.pdf.

PFAS and Public Awareness

Contaminated drinking water has led to high levels of exposure to PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS2 for some populations residing near manufacturing facilities. Workers in facilities that make or use PFAS can be exposed to higher amounts of these chemicals and have higher levels in their blood.3 Infants may be exposed to PFAS through breastfeeding.4
Figure 1 - Potential Major Exposure Pathways of PFAS to Humans5 PFAS, especially PFOA and PFOS, have been detected in air, water, and soil in and around manufacturing facilities. However, these releases have been declining since companies began phasing out the production and use of several PFAS in the early 2000s.6 Due to their chemical structure, PFAS are very stable in the environment and are resistant to breaking down. Some PFAS are volatile and can be carried long distances through the air, which may lead to contamination of soils and groundwater far from the source of the PFAS emission.7
The four major sources of PFAS are: fire training/fire response sites, industrial sites, landfills, and wastewater treatment plants/biosolids. PFAS can get into drinking water when products containing them are used or spilled onto the ground or into lakes and rivers. Once in groundwater, PFAS are easily transported long distances and can 2 Kyle Steenland, Tony Fletcher, and David A. Savitz, “Epidemiologic Evidence on the Health Effects of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA),” National Library of Medicine, accessed May 12, 2026, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920088/.
3 Sunderland, “A review of the pathways of human exposure.” 4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 “Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) PFAS General," California State Water Resources Control Board, March 4, 2019, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/pfas/docs/pfas_general_faq.pdf.

PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 7 of 62
contaminate drinking wells. PFAS in the air can also end up in rivers and lakes used for drinking water.8
PFAS have been used extensively in surface coating and protectant formulations due to their unique ability to repel oil, grease, and water. Major applications have included protectants for paper and cardboard packaging products, carpets, leather products, and textiles that enhance water, grease, and soil repellency, and in firefighting foams. PFAS have also been used as processing aids in the manufacture of nonstick coatings on cookware. Common consumer products containing PFAS include Teflon, Gore-Tex and Scotchgard.9
Background Summary of PFAS and Its Effects
Source and Exposure: Primary sources include industrial sites, firefighting training, landfills, and wastewater treatment plants. They enter drinking water, food, and indoor dust, resulting in widespread human exposure.

Health and Environmental Impact: PFAS are associated with adverse effects, including cancer (i.e. testicular, kidney), developmental delays, liver damage, and high cholesterol. They do not break down easily, leading to "background" contamination even in remote areas.10
Regulation and Action: While major US manufacturing of certain PFAS ended around 2015, they remain in products and in the environment. The EPA has established Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for drinking water.11 "Forever Chemicals" Definition: Their chemical structure, featuring one of the strongest bonds in organic chemistry, makes them resistant to heat, water, and oil, thus earning them the nickname "forever chemicals.”12
In Orange County, PFAS have been detected in the Orange County Groundwater Basin, which provides 77% to 85% of the drinking water for north and central parts of the county. Local agencies have taken a proactive stance, shutting down dozens of impacted wells and building some of the nation's largest treatment facilities to ensure tap water meets safety standards.13
8 “PFAS background,” California State Water Resources Control Board, January 14, 2025, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/pfas/background.html
9 Ibid.
10 “PFAS Explained,” EPA, accessed March 11, 2026, https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-explained. 11 “Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), Final PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation,” Accessed May 12, 2026, https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas. 12 Ibid.
13 University of California, Irvine, “UCI PFAS Health Study, Frequently Asked Questions,” accessed May 12, 2026, https://sites.uci.edu/pfas/frequently-asked-questions/.

PFAS and Public Awareness

REASON FOR STUDY
Recent regulatory actions related to PFAS have created significant operational, financial, and communication challenges for drinking water agencies across California.

Orange County agencies face an intensifying timeline due to the region’s reliance on groundwater supplies, the presence of PFAS in local aquifers, and the need to comply with evolving state and federal standards. As regulatory and monitoring requirements expand, agencies must rapidly adapt their treatment strategies, capital planning, and public outreach efforts.

This study is necessary to provide a clear, up-to-date understanding of how Orange County drinking water agencies are responding to these new requirements. Evaluating the status of PFAS treatment planning and installation helps illustrate the extent of infrastructure readiness, the pace of implementation, and the challenges agencies encounter as they work to bring new systems online. At the same time, assessing the development and delivery of PFAS-related education programs offers insight into how effectively agencies are communicating risks, regulatory changes, and water quality information to the public.

By documenting current conditions and identifying gaps or emerging needs, the study supports informed decision-making among water providers, policymakers, and ratepayers. This work helps ensure that Orange County communities receive safe drinking water and that agencies are equipped to meet regulatory expectations while maintaining public trust.

METHOD OF STUDY
The Orange County Grand Jury investigated the PFAS in Orange County drinking water to provide a clear and accurate assessment. The Grand Jury based its study on a comprehensive review of multiple sources, including interviews, public records, field investigations, and relevant news articles. Multiple independent sources corroborated and validated all facts, findings, and recommendations presented in the report.  Interviewed several Orange County governmental leaders and senior staff directly involved in managing drinking water quality
 Reviewed and analyzed key documents related to the investigation, including:
o Published Water Quality reports from all Orange County water retailers o Records from all Orange County water agencies
 Examined news articles and publications relevant to the topic.  Conducted extensive internet research.

PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 9 of 62
 Performed field investigations in which Grand Jury members visited several water management agencies to directly observe and assess drinking water processes.

INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS
The 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury investigated the presence of PFAS in Orange County drinking water and the response of Orange County community water systems. Community water systems (CWS) are city, county, regulated utilities, regional water systems and even small water companies and districts where people live. Noncommunity water systems14 provide drinking water to the public at locations where people do not reside permanently. The investigation included evaluation of Orange County CWS compliance with federal and state PFAS monitoring and reporting requirements and the extent of the voluntary response to PFAS contamination. The Grand Jury also evaluated annual Consumer Confidence Reports, also called Annual Water Quality Reports, which are issued annually by CWS and distributed to their customers.

Orange County Drinking Water Systems
The Grand Jury investigation was limited to community water systems (CWS) operated by cities or special districts that are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act . 15 CWS are defined as public water systems that serve at least 15 service connections used by yearlong residents, or regularly serve at least 25 yearlong residents of the area served by the system.16 In Orange County, there are 31 such CWS that are operated by cities or special districts and that sell drinking water directly to customers on a retail basis. In this report, these Orange County CWS may be referred to as retail water districts or water retailers.

Drinking Water Sources
North and Central Orange County
Orange County is divided into two distinct areas when it comes to drinking water sources. There are 2.5 million residents of north and central Orange County, who receive about 85% of their drinking water supplies from the Orange County Groundwater Basin, and the remaining 15% of their water supplies are imported from 14 “California Code, Health and Safety Code - HSC § 116275,” FindLaw, accessed May 21,2026, https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/health-and-safety-code/hsc-sect-116275/. 15 “Summary of the Safe Drinking Water Act,” EPA, describing statutory authority at 42 U.S.C. § 300f et seq., accessed My 21, 2026, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-safe-drinking-water-act. 16 “California Code, Health and Safety Code - HSC § 116275,” FindLaw.

PFAS and Public Awareness

the State Water Project and Colorado River delivered by Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC).17
South Orange County
Approximately 600,000 residents of south Orange County rely primarily on imported water supplies delivered by MWDOC, and a few south County communities also have groundwater supplies from the San Juan Basin and surface water supplies from Irvine Lake (also referred to as the Santiago Reservoir).18
Public Supply Wells
According to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) as of November 2024,19 there were a total of 217 public supply wells for drinking water in Orange County. Of the 217 total wells, 211 were CWS wells and six were non-community water system wells. See Figure 2 for a Department of Water Resources map of Orange County groundwater public supply wells. This map illustrates the reliance of north and central Orange County on groundwater sources, and the reliance of south Orange County on imported water supplies.
17 “How water works in Orange County,” OCWD, accessed May 21, 2026, https://www.ocwd.com/learningcenter/how-water-works-in-oc/. 18 Ibid.
19 “California’s Groundwater Live: Well Infrastructure,” California Department of Water Resources, accessed April 13, 2026, https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/f2b252d15a0d4e49887ba94ac17cc4bb.

PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 11 of 62
Source: State of California, Department of Water Resources Figure 2 - Orange County Groundwater Public Supply Wells Orange County Water District
Orange County Water District (OCWD) manages the Orange County Groundwater Basin to ensure sustainable use through replenishment of groundwater and delivery of water supplies to its 19 member agencies. Some OCWD member agencies are also members of MWDOC.

PFAS and Public Awareness

Figure 3 - Orange County Water District (OCWD) Service Area Municipal Water District of Orange County
MWDOC is the wholesale water provider and resource planning agency that partners with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) to deliver imported water to its 27 member agencies.20 Some MWDOC member agencies are also members of OCWD.
20 “How water works in Orange County,” OCWD.

PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 13 of 62
Source: MWDOC
Figure 4 - Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) Service Area PFAS and the Health Effects of Exposure
What are PFAS?
PFAS are a large group of many thousands of manufactured chemicals that are resistant to heat, oil, and water. Among the many thousands of different PFAS, some have been more widely used and studied than others.21 PFAS have been used extensively in surface coating and protectant formulations due to their unique ability to reduce the surface tension of liquids, and their ability to repel oil, grease, water, and staining. Major applications have included use as processing aids in the manufacture of nonstick coatings on cookware, surface protectants for paper and cardboard such as disposable food packaging, microwave popcorn bags, pizza boxes, and candy wrappers. Other surface protectants include those used on furniture and carpets, 21 “PFAS Explained,” EPA.

PFAS and Public Awareness

leather products, outdoor gear, and textiles.22 PFAS are also one of the main components of aqueous film forming foams (AFFF) used frequently at airports and military bases for firefighting and emergency response training activities.23 It is important to note that PFAS-containing firefighting foams and other emergency response materials containing PFAS are no longer in use at Orange County airports and harbors.24
PFOA and PFOS are two types of PFAS of particular concern that are no longer manufactured or imported into the US. Trace amounts of PFOA and PFOS may still be contained in some imported goods and in other PFAS goods and materials that are still produced and used in the US.25 Under the PFOA Stewardship Program with the EPA, eight major PFAS producers have phased out PFOA and other PFAS substances from their emissions and products; however, manufacturers are replacing substances in the PFAS family with others such as GenX and ADONA.26
Understanding the PFAS Cycle: How PFAS Moves Through the Environment PFAS move through the environment in a repeating cycle through air, water, soil, products, animals, and humans. This is known as the PFAS cycle. This cycle can be described in four stages and is illustrated at Figure 5.27 Manufacturing and use. The PFAS cycle begins during manufacturing or everyday use of PFAS-containing consumer and industrial products. During manufacture and use, PFAS are released into the air, water, and soil. As more PFAS are manufactured and used, the more they accumulate because they are persistent and resistant to degradation.

Environmental spread. After PFAS are released to the environment, they move through wind, snowfall, rain, and runoff to soil and surface water, and infiltration to groundwater. Industrial sites and wastewater treatment plants are key entry points 22 “Our Current Understanding of the Human Health and Environmental Risks of PFAS,” EPA, Accessed May 21, 2026, https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-health-and-environmentalrisks-pfas. 23 Sunderland. “A review of the pathways of human exposure.” 24 “SB-1044 Compliance: Phasing Out PFAS in Class B Firefighting Foam,” CAL FIRE, accessed April 17, 2026, https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/pipeline-safety-and-cupa/fire-fighting-equipment-and-foampfas. 25 “PFAS – Frequently Asked Questions,” California State Water Resources Control Board Division of Water Quality (SWRCB), 5, [3] 3M Company, “Fluorochemical use, distribution and release overview.,” AR226-0550, 1999, updated March 19, 2020, accessed March 25, 2026, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/pfas/docs/master_pfas_faq_mar.pdf. 26 “Risk Management for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) under TSCA,” EPA, accessed May 21, 2026, https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/risk-management-andpolyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas. 27 “Understanding the PFAS Cycle,” EcoPulse, accessed April 13, 2026, https://www.ecopulsenow.com/insights/understanding-the-pfas-cycle.

PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 15 of 62
into the environment. PFAS are absorbed from the environment by plants and animals, and then move up the food chain.

Human exposure. Most people are exposed to PFAS through using PFAScontaminated products, drinking contaminated water, and eating contaminated food such as fish caught from water contaminated by PFAS, and dairy products from livestock exposed to PFAS.28 The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) estimated that in NHANES 2017–2018 data 98% of the US population had combined PFAS serum levels greater than 2 nanograms per milliliter.29
Re-entry. Even after disposal of PFAS products, PFAS can re-enter the environment through landfill leachate or runoff to soils, agricultural spreading of biosolids, and municipal wastewater treatment effluent discharges to surface water, resulting in PFAS cycling back into soil, animal feed crops, and water.

Source: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Figure 5 - The PFAS Cycle
What is the Source of PFAS in Orange County Groundwater? Wastewater treatment plants located along the Santa Ana River that discharge effluent to the Santa Ana River upstream of managed aquifer recharge operations are sources 28 “Risk Management for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) under TSCA,” EPA. 29 “National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. NHANES 2017-18 Overview,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), accessed April 16, 2026,
https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/continuousnhanes/default.aspx?BeginYear=2017.

PFAS and Public Awareness

of PFAS contamination for public water systems downstream of these wastewater treatment plants.30 The OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) actively manages and recharges the Orange County groundwater basin with surface water from the Santa Ana River, imported surface water, and purified recycled water from the GWRS. For much of the year, flow in the Santa Ana River consists predominantly of effluent from municipal wastewater treatment plants upstream from the Orange County groundwater basin.31 Figure 6 illustrates these upstream wastewater discharges to the Santa Ana River.32 PFAS has recently been measured in the Santa Ana River at concentrations consistent with wells surrounding the recharge facilities, suggesting that historic concentrations of PFAS in the Santa Ana River may be a primary input of PFAS in the Orange County groundwater basin.33
Figure 6 - Wastewater Treatment Discharges to the Santa Ana River How Much PFAS is Found in the General Population?
Because of their widespread use and their persistence in the environment, many PFAS are found in the blood of people and animals all over the world.34 CDC scientists have measured PFAS in the blood serum (the clear portion of blood) of 98% of participants 30 “Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), What are PFAS?” SWRCB, accessed May 21, 2026, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/pfas/. 31 “UCI PFAS Health Study,” University of California, Irvine, accessed May 12, 2026, https://sites.uci.edu/pfas/.
32 National Water Research Institute, Report of the Scientific Advisory Panel: Orange County Water District’s Santa Ana River Water Quality and Health Study, Fountain Valley, CA, 2004, accessed April 14, 2026, https://www.ocwd.com/wp-content/uploads/sarwqh-final-nwri-panel-report-2004.pdf. 33 Russ Detwiler, Reconstructing historical PFAS concentrations in groundwater using a reduced-order modeling framework. Alburquerque NM, InterPore2025, May 20, 2025, accessed April 16, 2026, https://events.interpore.org/event/56/contributions/7590/. 34 “PFAS Explained,” EPA.

PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 17 of 62
aged 12 years and older since 1999, indicating widespread exposure to PFAS in the US population.35
Researchers at the University of California, Irvine (UCI) are participating in the CDC Multi-site Study (MSS).36 The MSS provides information to communities about the health effects of exposure to PFAS. The UCI MSS site is the area in Orange County, shown at Figure 7.

At the July 2025 MSS update, the
UCI researchers shared results
showing average levels of certain
PFAS chemicals in the blood of
adults who participated at the
Orange County study site. They
compared Orange County results
with other study locations and with
national averages. For adults at the
Orange County site, the average
blood levels were estimated to be

2.4 for PFOS, 1.2 for PFOA, 1.3 for
PFHxS, and 0.27 for PFNA
(measured in nanograms per
milliliter, ng/L) These levels were
lower than the averages seen
across all study sites. In addition, all
of these levels, except PFHxS, were
lower than the average levels found
in the general U.S. population. See
Figure 8 for the UCI MSS chart of
Average PFAS Levels in Blood.
37 On the chart, the Orange County
study site is labeled “CA.” Orange
County is the only California
location included in the study.
35 “PFAS Frequently Asked Questions,” SWRCB, 5, [8] CDC, “National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals,” 2019, accessed April 23, 2026, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/pfas/docs/master_pfas_faq_mar.pdf. 36 “Multi-site Study,” CDC, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Per- and Polyfluoralkyl Substances (PFAS) and Your Health, accessed April 16, 2026, https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-studies/multi-site-study.html. 37 “PFAS Multi-site Study (MSS), Virtual Open House,” CDC, ATSDR, July 28, 2025, accessed April 16, 2026, https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/media/pdfs/2025/08/Open-House-Slides-508.pdf.

Source: CDC
Figure 7 - CDC Multi-site Study Site Orange
County, CA
PFAS and Public Awareness

Source: CDC
Figure 8 - Average PFAS Levels in Blood, CDC Multi-site Study Virtual Open House, July 2025
Because of the phasing out of certain PFAS compounds, serum levels of PFOA and PFOS in the general population of the US have decreased dramatically in recent years.

According to the CDC, blood levels of both PFOS and PFOA have steadily decreased in US residents since 1999-2000.38
The half-life of PFAS in the human body is defined as the time required for the PFAS concentrations in serum or plasma to fall by half from the starting concentration.39 Thirteen studies conducted mainly in Europe and the US involving both general populations and exposed workers resulted in half-life estimates for PFOA of 2.73 years (range: 1.48 to 5.1 years), 4.70 years for PFOS (range: 1.69 to 5.7 years), and 5.31 years for PFHxS (range: 2.84 to 8.5 years).40 Based on that information, with no additional exposure, it could be anticipated that PFAS may be cleared from the body after an average of five years. However, PFAS exposures continue in general 38 “Per- and Polyfluoralkyl Substances (PFAS) and Your Health, Fast Facts: PFAS in the U.S. Population,” CDC, ATSDR, https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/data-research/facts-stats/index.html. 39 Isabella Rosato, et al. “Estimation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) half-lives in human studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Environmental Research, Volume 242, February 1, 2024, 117743, accessed April 13, 2026,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935123025471. 40 Isabella Rosato, et al. “Estimation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) half-lives.” PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 19 of 62
populations primarily through food and water despite production phase outs and regulatory interventions.

How Are People Exposed to PFAS?
There is general agreement that dietary intake is the largest source of PFAS exposure rather than inhalation or dermal contact.41 Direct exposures due to use in products can be quickly phased out by production phaseouts but exposures driven by PFAS accumulation in the environment, food chains, and contamination of groundwater and drinking water persist because of the continuing PFAS cycle. Human exposures to PFOS and PFOA, the two PFAS that are of greatest regulatory concern, have been declining due to regulatory interventions while understanding of their adverse effects on human health has been rapidly advancing. At the same time, a proliferation of new PFASs has rapidly replaced PFOS and PFOA with shorter chain length PFASs and new chemicals that are difficult to detect using standard methods.42 Emerging evidence from animal experiments suggests some of these alternative PFASs can be equally hazardous.43
41 Sunderland, “A review of the pathways of human exposure,” 136. 42 Sunderland, “A review of the pathways of human exposure,” 132. 43 Ibid.

PFAS and Public Awareness

Source: EPA
Figure 9 - How are people exposed to PFAS?44
PFAS Exposure and Excretion
Exposure happens when a person breathes, eats, drinks, or touches a chemical and it enters their body. Excretion is the process whereby substances, like PFAS, leave the body. All PFAS can leave the body over time through urine, through menstrual blood or blood donation, or through breast milk. All of these factors could affect PFAS levels measured in blood.45 While PFAS blood test results can tell you the amount of certain PFAS in your blood, the test results will not provide information to pinpoint a health problem and will not predict future health outcomes. You can talk with your healthcare provider about the benefits and limitations of PFAS blood testing.46 44 “PFAS Explained,” EPA, 2, March 11, 2026, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-10/finalvirtual-pfas-explainer-508.pdf. 45 “Per- and Polyfluoralkyl Substances (PFAS) and Your Health, Preventing PFAS Exposure,” CDC, ATSDR, accessed April 16, 2026, https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/prevent-exposure/your-body.html. 46 “Per- and Polyfluoralkyl Substances (PFAS) and Your Health, Testing for PFAS,” CDC, ATSDR, accessed April 17, 2026, https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/blood-testing/index.html.

PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 21 of 62
What are the Health Effects of Exposure?
Exposure to unsafe levels of PFOA/PFOS may result in adverse health effects including developmental effects to fetuses during pregnancy, cancer, liver effects, immune effects, thyroid effects, and other effects such as cholesterol changes.47 Laboratory studies in animals who were exposed to PFAS found links between the chemicals and increased cholesterol, changes in the body’s hormones, alterations of the immunologic system, decreased fertility, increased risk of cancer (especially kidney and testicular), low birth weight, delayed puberty onset, and birth defects. Since humans and animals react differently to PFAS, not all effects observed in animals may occur in humans. Although many epidemiology studies have examined the potential of PFAS to result in adverse health effects, most of the studies are cross-sectional in design and do not establish causality. Based on several factors outlined in the report of PFAS by the CDC including the consistency of findings across studies, the available epidemiology studies suggest associations between PFAS exposure and several health outcomes in humans.48
47 “PFAS Frequently Asked Questions,” SWRCB, 5, [6] A. M. Calafat, L.-Y. Wong, Z. Kuklenyik, J. A. Reidy, and L. L. Needham, “Polyfluoroalkyl Chemicals in the US Population: Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003–2004 and Comparisons with NHANES 1999–2000,” Environ. Health Perspect., vol. 115, no. 11, pp. 1596 - 1602, Nov. 2007, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/pfas/docs/master_pfas_faq_mar.pdf. 48 “PFAS Frequently Asked Questions,” SWRCB, 8, [1] ATSDR, “Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls, Draft for Public Comment,” 2018, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/pfas/docs/master_pfas_faq_mar.pdf.

PFAS and Public Awareness

Source: EPA
Figure 10 - Are PFAS Safe?49
PFAS Regulatory Requirements
Public drinking water systems are required to follow certain regulations to ensure that the water they serve to their customers is safe to drink.50 In recent years, specific regulations have been issued to address PFAS contamination that require monitoring and taking actions when PFAS is detected in drinking water sources. The following sections present PFAS regulations in the order they were issued by the EPA and California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).

PFAS Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring refers to the collection and evaluation of data for contaminants that are suspected of being present in water. Samples are collected and analyzed according to EPA-approved laboratory methods. Monitoring results are reported to either the EPA or SWRCB. This data serves as a primary source of occurrence and exposure information used to develop regulatory decisions.

OCWD conducts all sampling and analyses and reporting of monitoring results to regulatory agencies on behalf of its member agencies. OCWD owns and operates its 49 “PFAS Explained,” EPA, 1, accessed March 11, 2026,
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-10/final-virtual-pfas-explainer-508.pdf. 50 “Drinking Water Standards and Regulations: An Overview,” CDC, accessed May 21, 2026, https://www.cdc.gov/drinking-water/about/drinking-water-standards-and-regulations-an-overview.html.

PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 23 of 62
own EPA-certified laboratory where it can use analytical methods approved by the EPA.

MWDOC member agencies conduct monitoring activities using either their own staff or contractors to collect samples, which are delivered to EPA-certified laboratories for analyses. Laboratories report the results of their analyses to each MWDOC water retailer, who then reports the results to either the EPA or SWRCB.

EPA Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule
EPA uses the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) to collect data every five years for no more than 30 priority contaminants that are suspected to be present in drinking water and do not have health-based standards set under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).51 The UCMR applies to all large public water systems (PWSs) serving greater than 10,000 people, all small PWSs serving between 3,300 and 10,000 people, and a representative sample of small PWSs serving fewer than 3,300 people.

EPA establishes the list of contaminants for each five-year UCMR cycle, considering an initial list of contaminants that are not regulated by the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, are known or anticipated to occur at PWSs, and may warrant regulation under the SDWA.52
The SDWA Public Notification Rule ensures that consumers will receive notice if there is a risk to public health from their drinking water. The Public Notification Rule requires that all PWSs notify their customers of the availability of UCMR results no later than 12- months after results are known. CWS are required to report UCMR results in their Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) when unregulated contaminants are detected. The annual drinking water quality report must include notice of availability of unregulated contaminant monitoring results, the average of the year’s results and the range of detections.53
The Grand Jury obtained UCMR monitoring data for all sampling and analyses conducted to fulfill UCMR requirements for its member agencies. The highest PFAS detections for all OCWD sources during the UCMR 3 and UCMR 5 monitoring cycles are shown at Figure 11.
51 “Summary of the Safe Drinking Water Act,” EPA.
52 “Learn About the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule,” EPA, accessed April 7, 2026, https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/learn-about-unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-rule. 53 “Public Notification Rule,” EPA, accessed April 7, 2026, https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/publicnotification-rule#rule-summary.

PFAS and Public Awareness

Source: Compiled from OCWD data
Figure 11 - Highest PFAS Detections Among All OCWD Sources During UCMR 3 and UCMR 5 Monitoring Cycles
California State Water Resources Control Board PFAS General Monitoring Orders Beginning in 2020, the SWRCB Division of Drinking Water, based on review of monitoring results from its 2019 PFAS monitoring orders, determined that it was necessary to expand monitoring to groundwater sources located within the vicinity of the PFAS detections. Several PFAS general monitoring orders were issued to PWSs 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2025 that included Orange County groundwater well locations.54 Each of the SWRCB PFAS monitoring orders included requirements for sample collection and laboratory analysis by specific dates, to be followed by monitoring conducted every calendar quarter thereafter.55 These PFAS monitoring orders established Consumer Confidence Report Detection Levels (CCRDL), and Notification and Response Levels for each PFAS chemical to be monitored. A list of the SWRCB PFAS monitoring orders and exhibits identifying groundwater sources required to be monitored are shown at Appendix A, as well as copies of the CCRDL for each monitoring order.

The Grand Jury obtained monitoring data for all sampling and analyses conducted to fulfill SWRCB monitoring order requirements for sources listed in the monitoring orders that are owned by their member agencies. The highest PFAS detections for all these OCWD sources are shown at Figure 12.

54 “PFAS DDW General Orders,” SWRCB, accessed May 21, 2026, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/pfas_ddw_general_order/. 55 Ibid.

EPA UCMR Number of PFAS on
UCMR Contaminants List
Maximum PFAS Detection
Among all OCWD Sources
2012-2016 UCMR 3 6 PFAS
Figure 20, Appendix A 70 ng/L
2022-2026 UCMR 5 29 PFAS
Figure 21, Appendix A 29 ng/L
PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 25 of 62
1OCWD monitoring data as of March 19, 2026
2Outlier result. Next maximum PFAS result 88 ng/L
3Outlier result. Next maximum PFAS result 73.7 ng/L
Source: Compiled from OCWD data
Figure 12 - Highest PFAS Detections Among All OCWD Sources Listed on Each SWRCB Monitoring Order Exhibit A
2025 SWRCB General Order DW 2025-0002-DDW
The 2025 SWRCB General Order, issued on December 12, 2025, adopted the initial monitoring requirements in the federal PFAS Rule for each California CWS and nontransient, non-community water system. The 2025 SWRCB Order allows previously acquired data to count toward initial monitoring if collected on or after January 1, 2019, and reported concentrations no greater than the respective MCL.56 The 2025 SWRCB General Order also included a list of Orange County groundwater sources showing that 151 of the 198 listed sources had completed initial monitoring as required by the federal PFAS Rule.57
PFAS Notification and Response Requirements
Notification and response levels are health-based advisory levels established by the SWRCB Division of Drinking Water (DDW) for chemicals in drinking water that do not have established MCLs.

When chemicals are found in drinking water at concentrations greater than their notification levels, PWSs are required by law to make specific notifications. When 56 “ORDER DW 2025-0002-DDW,” SWRCB, accessed May 21, 2026, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/pfas_ddw_general_order/docs/orderdw-2025-0002-ddw-pfas-initial-monitoring.pdf. 57 “Exhibit A – List of Sources and Required Monitoring Frequency,” SWRCB, accessed May 21, 2026, https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterboards.ca.gov%2Fdrinkin g_water%2Fcertlic%2Fdrinkingwater%2Fpfas_ddw_general_order%2Fdocs%2Forder-dw-2025-0002- ddw-exhibit-a.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK.

SWRCB Order Number of PFAS on
Order CCRDL
Selected
Monitoring Date
Range
Maximum PFAS Detection
Among All OCWD Sources
Listed on Order Exihibit A
2020-0003-DDW 18 PFAS
Figure 23, Appendix A 8/27/20 - 2/15/21 67.5 ng/L
2021-0003-DDW 18 PFAS
Figure 24, Appendix A 2/16/21 - 10/30/22 470 ng/L2
2022-0001-DDW 25 PFAS
Figure 25, Appendix A 10/31/22 - 4/24/24 169 ng/L3
2025-0002-DDW 25 PFAS
Figure 26, Appendix A 4/25/24 - 3/19/261

73.7 ng/L
PFAS and Public Awareness

chemicals are found in drinking water at concentrations greater than their response levels, DDW recommends removal of a drinking water source from service.58 PFAS notification and response levels specified in CCRDLs attached to SWRCB general monitoring orders remain in effect until MCLs are established and become effective. For example, MCLs for specific PFAS will become effective in 2029, and at that time will supersede notification and response levels specified the 2022 CCRDL.

PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
In April 2024 EPA announced the final National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for six PFAS (the federal PFAS Rule).59 The PFAS Rule applies to all CWS. The EPA expects that over many years this rule will prevent PFAS exposure in drinking for approximately 100 million people, prevent thousands of deaths, and reduce tens of thousands of serious PFAs-attributable illnesses.60
The PFAS Rule establishes initial monitoring and compliance monitoring requirements, and enforceable maximum contaminant levels (MCL) for six PFAS in drinking water.

Initial monitoring for six listed PFAS must be implemented beginning April 2024 and must be completed no later than April 26, 2027. Compliance monitoring requirements beginning April 26, 2027, will be either triennial, annual, or quarterly as determined by the SWRCB based on results of the initial monitoring.

Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) is the highest level of a contaminant allowed in drinking water. EPA has established legally enforceable MCLs of 4.0 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and PFOS, and 10.0 ppt for PFHxS, PFNA, and HFPO-DA (GenX chemicals). Figure 13 shows the MCLs and MCLG effective April 26, 2029.

Ensuring compliance with drinking water MCLs for the PFAS of most concern is the reason over $600 million (see Figure 17) is being spent to construct PFAS treatment facilities in Orange County.
58 “Drinking Water Notification Levels,” SWRCB, accessed May 21, 2026, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/NotificationLevels.html. 59 “Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), Final PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation,” EPA, accessed May 21, 2026, https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas. 60 Ibid.

PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 27 of 62
Source: EPA
Figure 13 - PFAS Rule Enforceable Maximum Contaminant Levels and Maximum Contaminant Level Goals61
In addition to ongoing compliance monitoring and MCLs, the PFAS Rule also includes additional requirements with future effective dates. Between April 2027 and April 2029, if monitoring shows that drinking water levels exceed MCLs, CWS must implement solutions that reduce these PFAS; results of initial monitoring must be included in the CCR; results of compliance monitoring must be included in the CCR; and public notification is required for monitoring and testing violations. Starting April 2029, CWS that have MCL violations must take action to reduce levels of these PFAS in their drinking water, and public notification is required for MCL violations.

Compliance with Regulatory Requirements
Consumer Confidence Reports
The Grand Jury reviewed the 2025 Consumer Confidence Reports (Water Quality Reports) issued by 31 water retailers serving Orange County. The CCR is to be delivered to all billing customers by July 1 of each year and must include specified information. All 31 water retailers complied with the eight content requirements specified by the EPA, shown in Appendix B.62 Seven of the 11 water retailers operating PFAS 61 “PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation, April 2024,” EPA, accessed May 12, 2026, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/pfas-npdwr_fact-sheet_general_4.9.24v1.pdf. 62 “Consumer Confidence Report Rule: A Quick Reference Guide,” EPA, accessed April 18, 2026, https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-05/documents/guide_qrg_ccr_2011.pdf.

PFAS and Public Awareness

treatment facilities in Orange County included a PFAS advisory section in their CCRs, while only 55 percent of the 31 water retailers included any PFAS advisory statement.

The Grand Jury found that the 31 Orange County water retailers reported either “not detected” results or concentrations below notification thresholds for the six PFAS listed in the EPA PFAS Rule on their 2025 CCRs. After PFAS treatment facilities became operational, OCWD member retailers operating these facilities consistently reported “not detected” results for the same six PFAS. The Grand Jury found that PFAS results from individual wells do not necessarily reflect the quality of water delivered to customers, as some tested wells were later placed into inactive status or destroyed. CCRs documented PFAS constituents exceeding notification levels as required and did not report “not detected” results for those constituents. Monitoring results and CCRs are available in the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS), California’s official database for tracking public water systems, drinking water quality monitoring, regulatory compliance, and enforcement.63
Notification and Response
As of 2020, drinking water retailers with PFAS detections above notification and response levels at wells without PFAS treatment facilities began to rely on imported water, or groundwater blended with imported water to deliver drinking water with PFAS concentrations below notification and response levels. As of 2021, multiple water retailers in Orange County shut down groundwater wells after PFAS concentrations at those wells exceeded established response levels.64
PFAS Rule Initial Monitoring
When the 2025 SWRCB General Order adopting the PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation was issued in December 2025, 76% of listed Orange County groundwater sources had already completed initial monitoring required to be completed by April 2027. Most of the remaining Orange County sources received credit for previously acquired data, leaving only 6% with all requirements to be completed by April 2027.

63 “Drinking Water Watch,” SWRCB, Division of Drinking Water, Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS), accessed April 26, 2026, https://sdwis.waterboards.ca.gov/PDWW/. 64 “Orange County launches first water plant to remove PFAS toxins,” Solano Public Health, accessed April 29, 2026,
https://publichealth.networkofcare.org/solano/CommunityResources/News/Article?articleId=124536.

PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 29 of 62
Proactive Response to PFAS Impacts
PFAS Impacts and OCWD Response
OCWD coordinated a regional response to PFAS contamination in partnership with its member agencies. These efforts focus on restoring the groundwater basin, which supplies up to 85 percent of the water used by approximately 2.5 million residents in north and central Orange County. A timeline of OCWD response to PFAS in the Orange County Groundwater Basin is shown in Figure 14. As PFAS-impacted groundwater wells began to be shut down in early 2020, public education became a critical component of community water systems’ response. OCWD dedicated resources to public outreach, including the development of informational web pages to inform the public about PFAS impacts and the measures being implemented to address them.65 Source: Compiled from multiple OCWD sources
Figure 14 - Timeline of OCWD Response to PFAS in the Santa Ana River Basin PFAS contamination has impacted more than 100 groundwater wells across 15 water retailers. As of this report, 53 wells have returned to service following construction of treatment facilities. Figure 15 shows a map of current and future PFAS treatment locations in Orange County.
65 “PFAS education center,” Orange County Water District, accessed April 8, 2026, https://www.ocwd.com/what-we-do/water-quality/pfas/.

PFAS and Public Awareness

Figure 15 - Map of Current and Future PFAS Treatment Locations PFAS Treatment Facilities and Capital Costs
Construction of PFAS treatment facilities began in 2020. OCWD executed the PFAS Treatment Facilities and Program Agreement, under which OCWD funds capital costs and shares operating and maintenance (O&M) costs with participating water retailers.

Figure 16 summarizes projected PFAS capital funding sources as of January 2026, including OCWD pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) revenue, state and federal grants, an EPA Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan, and litigation settlement proceeds. The Grand Jury commends OCWD for securing diversified funding sources to advance timely treatment facility construction.

PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 31 of 62
Source: OCWD data
Figure 16 - Approximate PFAS Capital Funding Sources
Figure 17 summarizes PFAS treatment facilities by water retailer, opening date, treatment technology, capacity, location, connections, number of wells, and capital costs. Facilities began entering service in mid-2021, starting with a treatment plant in Fullerton, with additional facilities becoming operational over time. Most facilities use ion exchange technology. Capital costs vary based on the number of affected wells, conveyance pipeline requirements, and treatment facility configuration.

OCWD is funding the reasonable costs of designing and constructing PFAS treatment facilities for its member water retailers. Each retailer could either have OCWD design and build the treatment facility or receive reimbursement for designing and constructing the treatment system independently. As of this report, 38 wells with PFAS treatment were built by OCWD and fifteen wells with PFAS treatment were designed and built by the water retailers.

Eighteen wells with PFAS treatment construction projects by OCWD have been completed on schedule. Ten wells with PFAS treatment projects, which were built by OCWD, were completed on schedule; however, OCWD experienced cost overruns due to specialized design requirements or owner-requested improvements. An additional 10 wells with PFAS treatment projects that were done by OCWD were completed late and over budget, primarily due to pandemic-related material delays, design complexity, owner-requested improvements, and utility coordination challenges.

PFAS and Public Awareness

Source: Multiple OCWD and water retailer data
Figure 17 - Summary of PFAS Treatment Facilities
Community Water System
Opening
Date Type Capacity Location Connections Wells
Total Cost
($M)
Actual-to
Date ($M)
Remaining
Budget ($M)
Sep-2024 Ion Exchange 51,000 gal/min
Nine (9) PFAS treatment facilities
at Linda Vista, Katella Ave., Santa
Cruz, Energy Field, Brookhurst,
Willow Park, Downtown, Boysen
Park, and La Palma
14 $117.1 $117.1 $0.0
Dec-2028 Ion Exchange 8,000 gal/min Wells 48 & 53 2 $16.0 $0.8 $15.3 Dec-2028 Ion Exchange 8,000 gal/min Wells 39 & 47 2 $16.0 $0.9 $15.1 Dec-2029 Ion Exchange TBD Well 51 1 $7.0 $0.0 $7.0
City of Buena Park Jun-2026 Packer 2,200 gal/min
Linden Well - Install Packer to
reduce flow from PFAS zone(s) in
the well - not treatment.
1 $0.6 $0.1 $0.6
Jun-2021 Ion Exchange 2,400 gal/min Kimberly Well 1A 1 $5.3 $4.1 $1.3 Dec-2023
Granular
Activated
Carbon (GAC)
5,000 gal/min Main Plant 3A 1 $13.7 $13.7 $0.0
Dec-2026
Granular
Activated
Carbon (GAC)
4,000 gal/min Main Plant Wells 5,6,7,8 4 $12.5 $2.6 $9.9 Jun-2027 Ion Exchange 4,400 gal/min Kimberly Well 2 1 $10.9 $4.3 $6.6 Dec-2029 Ion Exchange 1,600 gal/min
Sunclipse Well 10 - Pipeline for
Treatment at Kimberly 2 Plant
Well 15 - New Well Site Needed
2 $15.3 $0.0 $15.3
Jun-2023 Ion Exchange 17,600 gal/min Wells 21, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31 6 $24.3 $24.3 $0.0 Dec-2026 Ion Exchange 2,000 gal/min Well 19 1 $6.5 $1.9 $4.7 Dec-2028 Ion Exchange 13,590 gal/min Wells 22, 26, and 27 3 $31.7 $1.6 $30.2 Dec-2030 Ion Exchange 2,000 gal/min Well 25 1 $7.0 $0.0 $7.0 Dec-2029 Ion Exchange 3,000 gal/min Well 3A 1 $8.0 $0.0 $8.0 Dec-2030 Ion Exchange 3,000 gal/min Well 6 1 $8.0 $0.0 $8.0 Sep-2022 Ion Exchange 8,420 gal/min Wells 9, 19, 23, 24 4 $10.0 $9.9 $0.1 Apr-2026 Ion Exchange 7,940 gal/min Wells 20, 21, 22 3 $14.7 $14.7 $0.0 Apr-2026 Ion Exchange 3,200 gal/min Well 28 1 $5.0 $4.0 $1.0 Dec-2028 Ion Exchange 5,500 gal/min Wells 25, 27 2 $13.0 $0.4 $12.7 Dec-2029 Ion Exchange 3,200 gal/min Well 26 1 $7.0 $0.1 $6.9 Dec-2029 Ion Exchange TBD Well 29 - New Well Currently Being Drilled by City 1 $6.0 $1.0 $5.0
May-2023 Ion Exchange 2,500 gal/min Well 40 1 $5.8 $5.8 $0.0 Sep-2026 Ion Exchange 2,500 gal/min Well 38 1 $7.4 $7.4 $0.0 Dec-2026 Ion Exchange 2,000 gal/min Well 31 1 $8.5 $6.8 $1.7 Apr-2027 Ion Exchange 3,600 gal/min Well 27&28 2 $17.0 $8.7 $8.3 May-2027 Ion Exchange 9,200 gal/min Wells 27, 28, 31, 38, 40 at John Garthe Reservoir 5 $31.4 $0.0 $31.4
Dec-2029 Ion Exchange 12,400 gal/min Wells 16, 29, 33, 41, 43(fut) at Walnut Reservoir 5 $25.0 $0.1 $24.9
May-2025 Ion Exchange 6,400 gal/min
Main Street and Prospect Avenue
to remove PFAS from four (4) wells
in Tustin
4 $32.7 $32.7 $0.0
Dec-2029 Ion Exchange 2,000 gal/min Edinger Well 1 $7.0 $0.0 $7.0 Dec-2030 Ion Exchange 2,300 gal/min 17th St Wells (2 wells treated) 2 $7.0 $0.0 $7.0 Dec-2030 Ion Exchange 2,500 gal/min WM-3 (New Well) 1 $8.0 $0.0 $8.0 Dec-2030 Ion Exchange 2,500 gal/min WM-SC4 (New Well) 1 $8.0 $0.0 $8.0 East Orange County Water
District Jun-2024 Ion Exchange 3,200 gal/min Treatment for East and VanderWerff Wells 19,000 2 $8.9 $8.9 $0.0 Nov-2023 Ion Exchange 3,200 gal/min Bradford and Fairhaven Plants 3 $4.4 $4.4 $0.0 Jul-2027 Ion Exchange 940 gal/min Sherrill Plant 1 $3.1 $0.8 $2.4 Dec-2028 Ion Exchange 7,620 gal/min La Jolla, Fern Plants 3 $8.3 $0.5 $7.8 Dec-2028 Ion Exchange 7,620 gal/min Clair, Beach, and Dale Plants 4 $12.8 $0.9 $11.9 Dec-2030 Ion Exchange 2,500 gal/min Lowden 1 $8.0 $0.0 $8.0 Dec-2030 Ion Exchange 2,500 gal/min Orangewood 1 $8.0 $0.0 $8.0 Irvine Ranch Water District Oct-2024 Ion Exchange 3,200 gal/min Orange Park Acres Well No. 1 125,000 1 $7.2 $7.2 $0.0 Serrano Water District Feb-2022 Ion Exchange 3,200 gal/min Wells 3 and 5 5,659 2 $6.0 $6.0 $0.0 Yorba Linda Water District Dec-2021 Ion Exchange 13,200 gal/min All ten (10) Yorba Linda wells 11,786 10 $27.7 $27.7 $0.0 Note: $M = Dollars in Millions 106 $607.8 $318.9 $288.9 City of Anaheim
City of Tustin 14,500
64,000
City of Fullerton 32,000
Golden State Water
Company
City of Garden Grove 34,300
City of Orange
46,300
36,000
City of Santa Ana 45,576
City of Westminster
City of Huntington Beach
PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 33 of 62
Operations and Maintenance Costs
Under the PFAS Treatment Facilities and Program Agreement, OCWD reimburses 50 percent of eligible operations and maintenance (O&M) costs incurred by participating water agencies. Eligible O&M costs include treatment media replacement, power and chemical costs, routine maintenance, repairs, staffing, compliance monitoring, regulatory compliance activities, additional pumping, waste disposal, sewer costs, and other necessary system maintenance expenses.

Actual PFAS treatment expenses (see Figure 18), which can be found in Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports (ACFRs),66 varied primarily due to construction timing and the performance of ion exchange resin media. Specialized resins are a key element in PFAS treatment and help remove PFAS from water using electrostatics. Construction delays meant some treatment facilities were not operational as expected, resulting in lower O&M costs. In FY22 and FY23, initial resin media lasted longer than anticipated and reduced O&M costs. In contrast, FY25 experienced more resin changeouts than anticipated and higher O&M costs. Resin media life varies by treatment system and operating conditions, such as run time, cycling frequency, and production flow rates.

OCWD is updating resin performance assumptions and changeout frequency estimates to improve future O&M forecasts.

Source: OCWD
Figure 18 – OCWD’s Share of PFAS Treatment Facility Annual O&M Cost Program Status and Future Plans
The overall OCWD PFAS Treatment Systems Project currently includes 11 water retailers, with construction planned or underway for four additional retailers, expanding the program to 15. Fifty-three treatment systems are operational. Construction 66 “Sound financial management,” Orange County Water District, accessed April 8, 2026, https://www.ocwd.com/what-we-do/sound-financial-management/. $-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25
PFAS and Public Awareness

continues on 20 additional systems, with design work underway for 24 more. Here is a list of PFAS projects in design or under construction as of May 2026:
 Golden State Water Company Wells SLON and SORG are still in planning. Well SSYC is in design and is anticipated to start construction in Fiscal Year 26/27.  Tustin 17th Street Well is nearing the start of design.  Huntington Beach Well 3A, Anaheim Wells 39 and 47, Tustin Edinger Well are all in the design phase and are anticipated to start construction in Fiscal Year 26/27.  Buena Park Linden Well is currently in construction.

Figure 19 indicates the estimated average monthly cost of PFAS treatment to OCWD service area residents is $1.42 per person. OCWD anticipates continued design and construction activity over several years.

Source: OCWD
Figure 19 - PFAS Monthly Cost to OCWD Service Area Residents

Total Capital Costs $570,000,000
State & Fed Grants $152,000,000
Litigation Proceeds $121,000,000
Net Capital Costs $297,000,000
Amortized Debt Costs

4.50% Interest Rate
25 Years
$297,000,000 Amount
Annual Debt Payment $20,029,391
Estimated Annual O&M Cost $22,000,000
Total Annual Cost $42,029,391
Total Monthly Cost $3,502,449
OCWD Population from 19
Member Agencies 2,469,000 persons
Monthly cost per person $1.42
Average PFAS Impact to OCWD Service Area Residents
Over a 25 year period
PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 35 of 62

FINDINGS
In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2025-2026 Orange County 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 described herein, the 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at the following six principal findings:

F1 Commercial and industrial chemical manufacturers are a major source of PFAS contamination. Settlement litigation funds are available for community water systems to make claims.

F2 PFAS is widespread, and contamination has been detected in Orange County groundwater sources. Community water systems are required to report PFAS monitoring results in their annual Consumer Confidence Reports.

F3 PFAS exposure is associated with potential adverse human health effects.

F4 OCWD has taken a proactive leadership role in addressing PFAS in the Orange County Groundwater Basin, though PFAS treatment implementation varies across local cities and water districts.

F5 Groundwater supplies must either be treated to remove PFAS or must be replaced with imported water supplies that are significantly more expensive than groundwater. Over $500 million is being spent on construction, operations, and maintenance of PFAS treatment facilities in Orange County.

F6 Orange County drinking water meets or exceeds state and federal standards and is safe for consumption without additional home filtration.

F7 Research on newer PFAS compounds and long-term exposure effects is ongoing.

F8 There are limited online PFAS education and outreach programs among Orange County water retailers. Most retailers rely on OCWD for PFAS education and outreach. PFAS advisories were included in approximately 55% of the Orange County water retailers’ annual water quality reports in 2025.

PFAS and Public Awareness

RECOMMENDATIONS
In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2025-2026 Orange County 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 described herein, the 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:

R1 By September 30, 2026, Orange County Water District (OCWD), in coordination with state and federal agencies, should pursue cost recovery efforts against PFAS manufacturers to offset treatment, monitoring, and long-term remediation costs incurred by local water agencies and ratepayers. [F1, F5] R2 By July 1, 2029, OCWD and its member agencies should monitor PFAS in groundwater and surface water sources and promptly implement PFAS treatment when response levels are exceeded. [F2, F4]
R3 By September 30, 2026, OCWD, in collaboration with the Orange County Health Care Agency, should update public education and guidance continually as scientific understanding and regulatory standards evolve. [F3] R4 By July 1, 2029, all Orange County water retailers should consistently include a PFAS advisory, treatment facilities status, and compliance information in consumer confidence reports and on agency websites, using clear and understandable language for the public. [F2, F8]
R5 By September 30, 2026, OCWD and all Orange County water retailers should enhance coordinated public education efforts to reassure their customers about drinking water safety. [F6, F8]
R6 By September 30, 2026, OCWD should continuously monitor national and international PFAS research developments and incorporate new findings into future groundwater management, treatment planning, and regulatory compliance strategies. [F7]
PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 37 of 62

COMMENDATIONS
Many Orange County water agencies have demonstrated exceptional leadership in addressing PFAS through large-scale treatment investments, rigorous monitoring, and public communication. Together, these agencies serve more than two million residents and have implemented some of the most advanced PFAS treatment systems in the nation. The following commendations recognize high-impact programs and measurable achievements across the region.

Orange County Water District (OCWD)
OCWD has implemented the largest PFAS treatment program in the United States, designing and constructing treatment systems for over 100 impacted wells across 15 cities and retail water districts, improving water quality for approximately 1.5 million people. OCWD secured a $94M EPA Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan, $152M in state and federal grant funding, and $131M in PFAS manufacturers litigation settlement funds to support this effort, which includes the build-out of more than 30 PFAS treatment facilities.

The Grand Jury offers additional commendations to OCWD and its member agencies for their collaborative cost-sharing agreement. Under this arrangement, OCWD fully funds all PFAS facility design and construction capital expenditures. Ongoing operations and maintenance costs are then shared equally, with OCWD covering 50% and each participating water retailer contributing the remaining 50% for the PFAS treatment facilities they operate. This approach reflects progressive public-sector planning, demonstrating how agencies can work together to address complex and costly challenges. It also serves as a strong model for future government/private-sector cost-sharing agreements, illustrating how thoughtful collaboration can enhance efficiency and long-term public benefit.

Anaheim Water Utility
Anaheim has launched one of the largest municipal PFAS treatment programs in the country, a multi-phase, $150M effort to construct treatment systems at nine groundwater sites. The utility serves 64,000 metered customers, historically relying on groundwater for 80% of its supply. PFAS treatment systems for Wells 39 and 47 are among the first in a series of facilities designed to restore local production while meeting stringent state and federal standards.

PFAS and Public Awareness

Yorba Linda Water District (YLWD)
YLWD operates the J. Wayne Miller, Ph.D. Water Treatment Plant, recognized as the nation’s largest PFAS ion-exchange treatment facility. The plant serves approximately 80,000 customers and has delivered PFAS-free water for nearly three consecutive years. This facility allows YLWD to optimize its groundwater resources while proactively meeting evolving PFAS regulatory standards.

PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 39 of 62

RESPONSES
The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the Findings and Recommendations of this Grand Jury report:
§933
(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years.
§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, 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:

PFAS and Public Awareness

(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation, therefore.
(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 to their release.
(e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental.
(f) 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.
(Amended by Stats. 1997, Ch. 443, Sec. 5. Effective January 1, 1998.) Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933.05 are required from:

PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 41 of 62
Orange County Board of Supervisors 90 Day Response Required Findings: F3
Recommendations: R3
Orange County Water District Board of Directors 90 Day Response Required Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8
Recommendations: R1, R2, R3, R5, R6
Orange County Health Care Agency 90 Day Response Requested Findings: F3
Recommendations: R3
City of Anaheim 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F2, F4, F6, F8
Recommendations: R2, R4, R5
City of Brea 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F2, F6, F8
Recommendations: R4, R5
City of Buena Park 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F2, F4, F6, F8
Recommendations: R2, R4, R5
City of Fountain Valley 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F2, F4, F6, F8
Recommendations: R2, R4, R5

PFAS and Public Awareness

City of Fullerton 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F2, F4, F6, F8
Recommendations: R2, R4, R5
City of Garden Grove 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F2, F4, F6, F8
Recommendations: R2, R4, R5
City of Huntington Beach 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F2, F4, F6, F8
Recommendations: R2, R4, R5
City of La Habra 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F2, F6, F8
Recommendations: R4, R5
City of La Palma 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F2, F4, F6, F8
Recommendations: R2, R4, R5
City of Newport Beach 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F2, F4, F6, F8
Recommendations: R2, R4, R5
City of Orange 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F2, F4, F6, F8
Recommendations: R2, R4, R5

PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 43 of 62
City of San Clemente 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F2, F6, F8
Recommendations: R4, R5
City of Santa Ana 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F2, F4, F6, F8
Recommendations: R2, R4, R5
City of Seal Beach 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F2, F4, F6, F8
Recommendations: R2, R4, R5
City of Tustin 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F2, F4, F6, F8
Recommendations: R2, R4, R5
City of Westminster 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F2, F4, F6, F8
Recommendations: R2, R4, R5
East Orange County Water District 90 Day Response Required Findings: F2, F4, F6, F8
Recommendations: R2, R4, R5
El Toro Water District 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F2, F6, F8
Recommendations: R4, R5

PFAS and Public Awareness

Emerald Bay Service District 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F2, F6, F8
Recommendations: R4, R5
Golden State Water Company 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F2, F4, F6, F8
Recommendations: R2, R4, R5
Irvine Ranch Water District 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F2, F4, F6, F8
Recommendations: R2, R4, R5
Laguna Beach County Water District 90 Day Response Required Findings: F2, F6, F8
Recommendations: R4, R5
Mesa Water District 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F2, F4, F6, F8
Recommendations: R2, R4, R5
Moulton Niguel Water District 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F2, F6, F8
Recommendations: R4, R5
Santa Margarita Water District 90 Day Response Required Findings: F2, F6, F8
Recommendations: R4, R5

PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 45 of 62
Serrano Water District 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F2, F4, F6, F8
Recommendations: R2, R4, R5
South Coast Water District 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F2, F6, F8
Recommendations: R4, R5
Trabuco Canyon Water District 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F2, F6, F8
Recommendations: R4, R5
Yorba Linda Water District 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F2, F4, F6, F8
Recommendations: R2, R4, R5

PFAS and Public Awareness

Acronyms
ACFRS Annual comprehensive financial reports
ADONA Ammonium 4 8-dioxa-3h-perfluorononanoate
AFFF Aqueous film forming foams used frequently at airports and military bases for firefighting and emergency response training activities AL Regulatory Action Level The concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements that a water system must follow
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
CCR Consumer Confidence Report
CCRDL Consumer Confidence Report Detection Levels
CDC United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CWS Community Water System
DDW Division of Drinking Water
DWR Department of Water Resources
Effluent Liquid waste from industrial facilities
EPA US Environmental Protection Agency
FDA Food and Drug Administration
GenX Is a Chemours trademark name for a synthetic, short chain organofluorine chemical compound, the ammonium
salt of hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA). It can also be used more informally to refer to the group of related fluorochemicals that are used to produce GenX.

GWRS Ground water replacement system
HALF LIFE Time required for a quantity to reduce to half of its original value HFPO-DA Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid
MSS Multi site study
MCL Glossary of Terms Maximum Contaminant Level. The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. Primary MCLs are set as PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 47 of 62
close to the public health goals and maximum contaminant level goals as is economically and technologically feasible. Secondary MCLs are set to protect the odor, taste, and appearance of drinking water.

MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal. The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) sets maximum contaminant level goals.

MRDL Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level. The highest level of a disinfectant allowed in drinking water. There is convincing evidence that the addition of a disinfectant is necessary for control of microbial contaminants.

MRDLG Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal The level of a drinking water disinfectant below which there is no known or expected risk to health.

MRDLGs do not reflect the benefits of the use of disinfectants to control microbial contaminants.

MWD Metropolitan Water District
MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County
N/A Not applicable
ND Not detected
NHANES National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey NL California Notification Level Non-regulatory, health-based advisory levels established by the State Board for contaminants in drinking water for which an MCL has not been established
NR Not required to be tested; < = average is less than the detection limit for reporting purposes
NTU Nephelometric turbidity units
OCWD Orange County Water District
O & M Operations and Management
PAYGO “Pay as you go”
PDWS Primary Drinking Water Standard MCLs, MRDLs and treatment techniques (TTs) for contaminants that affect health, along with their monitoring and reporting requirements
pCi/L picoCuries per liter
PFAS and Public Awareness

PFAS RULE Establishes enforceable drinking water standards for six PFAS chemicals PFAS Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
PFBA Perfluoro Butanoic Acid
PFBS Perfluoro Butane Sulfonic Acid
PFHpA Perfluoro Heptanoic Acid
PFHxA Perfluoro Hexanoic Acid
PFHxS Perfluoro Hexane Sulfonic Acid
PFNA Perfluorononanoic acid
PFOA Perfluoro Octanoic Acid
PFOS Perfluoro Octane Sulfonic Acid
PFPeA Perfluoro Pentanoic Acid
PHG Public Health Goal The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) sets public health goals.

PPB Parts per billion
PPM Parts per million
PPT Parts per trillion
PQL Practical Quantitation Level
PWS Public water supply
RAA Highest Running Annual Average
SAR Santa Ana River
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
WIFIA Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
TT Treatment Technique. A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water
UCI University of California, Irvine
PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 49 of 62
UCMR Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule
US United States
µmho/cm Micromho per centimeter (equivalent to 1 microsiemens/cm)

PFAS and Public Awareness

Glossary
Cross Sectional Study Examines prevalence of a condition or characteristic at a single point in time across a population to identify patterns, associations, and risk factors
Ion Exchange Technology Process that removes/replaces dissolved ions in a solution using solid materials.

Non-Community Water Systems Public water systems at locations where people do not reside
Non-Transient Water Systems Public water systems that service at least 25 of the same people over six months of the year, but do not
live there

PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 51 of 62
Bibliography
California Department of Water Resources. “California’s Groundwater Live: Well Infrastructure.” Accessed April 13, 2026.
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/f2b252d15a0d4e49887ba94ac17cc4bb.

CAL FIRE. “SB-1044 Compliance: Phasing Out PFAS in Class B Firefighting Foam.” Accessed April 17, 2026. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/pipeline-safety-andcupa/fire-fighting-equipment-and-foam-pfas California Health and Safety Code Division 104 Part 12 Chapter 4 California Safe Drinking Water Act Section 116275. Accessed March 30, 2026. https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-hsc/division-104/part-12/chapter-4/article1/section-116275/.

California State Water Resources Control Board. “PFAS Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances.” Accessed April 18, 2026. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/pfas.

California State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water. Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS). “Drinking Water Watch.” Accessed April 26, 2026. https://sdwis.waterboards.ca.gov/PDWW/.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Drinking Water Standards and Regulations: An Overview,” Accessed May 21, 2026, https://www.cdc.gov/drinkingwater/about/drinking-water-standards-and-regulations-an-overview.html.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. NHANES 2017-18 Overview.” Accessed April 16, 2026. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/continuousnhanes/default.aspx?BeginYear=2017.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ATSDR. Per- and Polyfluoralkyl Substances (PFAS) and Your Health, “Fast Facts: PFAS in the U.S. Population,” Accessed April 16, 2026, https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/data-research/facts-stats/index.html.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ATSDR. Per- and Polyfluoralkyl Substances (PFAS) and Your Health. “Multi-site Study.” Accessed April 16, 2026. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-studies/multi-site-study.html.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ATSDR. Per- and Polyfluoralkyl Substances (PFAS) and Your Health. “Preventing PFAS Exposure.” Accessed April 16, 2026. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/prevent-exposure/your-body.html.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ATSDR. Per- and Polyfluoralkyl Substances (PFAS) and Your Health. “Testing for PFAS.” Accessed April 17, 2026. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/blood-testing/index.html.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ATSDR. “PFAS Multi-site Study (MSS) Virtual Open House.” July 28, 2025.
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/media/pdfs/2025/08/Open-House-Slides-508.pdf.

PFAS and Public Awareness

Detwiler, Russ. “Reconstructing historical PFAS concentrations in groundwater using a reduced-order modeling framework.” Alburquerque NM, InterPore2025. May 20, 2025.

Accessed April 16, 2026. https://events.interpore.org/event/56/contributions/7590/.

EcoPulse. “Understanding the PFAS Cycle.” Accessed April 13, 2026. https://www.ecopulsenow.com/insights/understanding-the-pfas-cycle.

Happy Family [Cover page, top row, right image of family] – Happy Family Enjoying Fresh Water Together at Home. Concept drink of clear water. Stock Photo | Adobe Stock
Lab Glass [Cover page, middle row, right image of chemical lab glass] - Blue laboratory Images - Free Download on Magnific (formerly Freepik), 2026 National Water Research Institute. Report of the Scientific Advisory Panel: Orange County Water District’s Santa Ana River Water Quality and Health Study. Fountain Valley, CA, 2004. Accessed April 14, 2026. https://www.ocwd.com/wpcontent/uploads/sarwqh-final-nwri-panel-report-2004.pdf.

Orange County Grand Jury (2025 – 2026). [Cover page, bottom row image of Yorba Linda Water District PFAS Treatment Facility]. Photograph. August 27, 2025.

Unpublished internal documentation.

Orange County Water District. “How water works in Orange County.” Accessed May 21, 2026. https://www.ocwd.com/learning-center/how-water-works-in-oc/.

Orange County Water District. “PFAS education center.” Accessed April 8, 2026. https://www.ocwd.com/what-we-do/water-quality/pfas/.

Orange County Water District. “Sound financial management.” Accessed April 8, 2026. https://www.ocwd.com/what-we-do/sound-financial-management/.

Pitcher Pouring [Cover page, top row, left image] - Pouring Water into a Glass - Refreshment and Hydration Concept on Wooden Table. 76812373 Stock Photo at Vecteezy, 2026
Rosato, Isabelle, et al. “Estimation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) halflives in human studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” Environmental Research. Volume 242. 1 February 2024, 117743. Accessed April 13, 2026. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935123025471?via%3Dihub.

Solano Public Health. “Orange County launches first water plant to remove PFAS toxins.” Accessed April 29, 2026. Orange County launches first water plant to remove PFAS toxins.

Steenland, Kyle, Fletcher, Tony, and Savitz, David A. “Epidemiologic Evidence on the Health Effects of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA).” National Library of Medicine.

Accessed May 12, 2026. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920088/.

Stricklin Tommy, Magnifying Glass [Cover page middle row, left image of magnifying glass] – What Is TDS in Drinking Water? Levels, Testing & Solutions | SpringWell, 2026 PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 53 of 62
Sunderland, Elsie M, et al. “A review of the pathways of human exposure to poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) and present understanding of health effects.” Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology. 3 November 2018. Accessed March 16, 2026. https://sunderlandlab.org/assets/sunderland_jeseerev_2018wsi.pdf.

SWRCB. “Drinking Water Notification Levels.” Accessed May 21, 2026. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/NotificationLevels.h tml.

SWRCB. “Exhibit A – List of Sources and Required Monitoring Frequency.” Accessed May 21, 2026.
https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterboards. ca.gov%2Fdrinking_water%2Fcertlic%2Fdrinkingwater%2Fpfas_ddw_general_order%2 Fdocs%2Forder-dw-2025-0002-ddw-exhibit-a.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK.

SWRCB. “ORDER DW 2025-0002-DDW.” Accessed May 21, 2026. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/pfas_ddw_general _order/docs/order-dw-2025-0002-ddw-pfas-initial-monitoring.pdf.

SWRCB. “PFAS - Frequently Asked Questions,” 5. [3] 3M Company, “Fluorochemical use, distribution and release overview.,” AR226-0550, 1999. updated March 19, 2020.

Accessed March 25, 2026.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/pfas/docs/master_pfas_faq_mar.pdf.

SWRCB. “PFAS - Frequently Asked Questions.” 5. [6] A. M. Calafat, L.-Y. Wong, Z.

Kuklenyik, J. A. Reidy, and L. L. Needham, “Polyfluoroalkyl Chemicals in the US Population: Data from the National Health and Nutriti Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003–2004 and Comparisons with NHANES 1999–2000,” Environ. Health Perspect., vol. 115, no. 11, pp. 1596– 1602, Nov. 2007.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/pfas/docs/master_pfas_faq_mar.pdf.

SWRCB. “PFAS - Frequently Asked Questions,” 5. [8] CDC, “National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals,” 2019. Accessed April 23, 2026. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/pfas/docs/master_pfas_faq_mar.pdf.

SWRCB, “PFAS - Frequently Asked Questions.” 8. [1] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), “Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls, Draft for Public Comment,” 2018. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/pfas/docs/master_pfas_faq_mar.pdf.

SWRCB. “PFAS DDW General Orders.” Accessed May 21, 2026. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/pfas_ddw_general _order/.

SWRCB. “Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), What are PFAS?” Accessed May 21, 2026. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/pfas/.

Temkin, Alexis and Subramaniam, Varun. “’Forever chemicals’ contaminate nearly 40% of non-organic California-grown produce.” Environmental Working Group. Accessed April 6, 2026. https://www.ewg.org/research/forever-chemicals-contaminate-nearly-40- non-organic-california-grown-produce.

PFAS and Public Awareness