D. There is a reasonable relationship between the need for fire capital facilities and the types of development on which the fee is imposed because new development increases demand for fire protection and emergency response capacity and requires additional or expanded capital facilities to maintain service levels.
E. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the Fire Development Impact Fee and the cost of the fire capital facilities attributable to new development because the Nexus Study allocates costs based on projected calls for service by development type and calculates fees that do not exceed new development’s proportionate share of the cost of fire capital facilities.
F. The Fire Development Impact Fee satisfies the essential nexus and rough proportionality requirements applicable to development impact fees.
SECTION 3. Amendment to Chapter 21.39. Sections 21.39.050 through
21.39.120 are hereby added to Chapter 21.39 of Title 21 of the Fountain Valley Municipal Code to read as follows:
21.39.050 Fire Development Impact Fee established.
A Fire Development Impact Fee is hereby established and imposed on new development within the City to fund fire protection capital facilities, apparatus, vehicles, and equipment necessary to serve growth, as more particularly described in the Fire Impact Fee Study and Fire Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan adopted by the City Council.
21.39.060 Purpose and use of fee.
The purpose of the Fire Development Impact Fee is to require new development to contribute its fair and proportionate share of the cost of fire protection capital facilities required to serve growth in the City. Fire Development Impact Fee revenues shall be used solely for the capital facilities and improvements identified in the Fire Impact Fee Study and Fire Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan including the construction of or debt service or lease-purchase payments associated with replacement of Fire Station No. 1.
21.39.070 Applicability.
A. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter or by state law, the Fire Development Impact Fee shall apply to all new residential and nonresidential development for which a building permit or other applicable development approval is issued on or after the effective date of the fee.
B. The fee shall apply to development categories identified in the fee schedule adopted by the City Council, including residential development by dwelling-unit size, senior or
assisted living facilities, hotel or motel development, commercial development, office or medical development, and industrial development.
C. No Fire Development Impact Fee shall be imposed on accessory dwelling units smaller than 750 square feet. For accessory dwelling units of 750 square feet or more, the fee shall be charged proportionately in accordance with state law.
21.39.080 Fee Schedule.
The Fire Development Impact Fee shall be imposed in the amounts set forth in the fee schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. The City Council may amend the fee schedule from time to time by resolution in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act and other applicable law.
21.39.090 Collection of Fee.
A. The Fire Development Impact Fee shall be collected at the time required by applicable state law.
B. For residential development, the fee shall be collected upon issuance of the first certificate of occupancy or first temporary certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first, unless state law provides otherwise.
C. For nonresidential development, the fee shall be collected prior to issuance of a building permit unless otherwise required by state law.
D. No building permit, certificate of occupancy, or temporary certificate of occupancy shall be issued unless the required Fire Development Impact Fee has been paid or other arrangements authorized by law have been approved by the City.
21.39.100 Deposit, accounting, and expenditure.
All Fire Development Impact Fee revenues shall be deposited into a separate capital facilities account and shall be accounted for, invested, and expended in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act, including Government Code section 66006. Fee revenues shall not be commingled with the General Fund except for temporary investment purposes and shall be expended only for the purposes for which the fee was collected.
21.39.110 Annual report and five-year findings.
The City shall prepare annual reports and make any required five-year findings for Fire Development Impact Fee revenues in accordance with Government Code sections 66001 and 66006 and Chapter 21.39 of this Code.
21.39.120 Administration; adjustments.
A. The City Manager or designee is authorized to administer the Fire Development Impact Fee program, interpret this chapter, establish administrative procedures,
determine applicable development categories, and take all actions necessary to implement this chapter consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act and other applicable law.
B. The City Council may amend the Fire Development Impact Fee, the fee schedule, or the Fire Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan from time to time by ordinance, resolution, or other legally appropriate action, consistent with applicable law.
C. The City Council may approve annual administrative adjustments to the Fire Development Impact Fee based on a construction cost index or other appropriate inflationary index, provided that any adjustment is consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act and does not exceed the maximum fee supported by the applicable nexus study or other substantial evidence.
SECTION 4. Effective Date of Ordinance; Effective Date of Fee.
This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. Pursuant to Government Code section 66017, the Fire Development Impact Fee established by this Ordinance shall not become effective until sixty (60) days after final action by the City Council adopting the fee.
SECTION 5. CEQA.
The City Council finds that adoption of this Ordinance is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), because it establishes a governmental funding mechanism and does not commit the City to any specific capital project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. Environmental review will be conducted separately for any individual capital improvement project funded in whole or in part with Fire Development Impact Fee revenues.
SECTION 6. Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more portions may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 7. Certification and Publication.
The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted in the manner required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ___ day of __________, 2026. _______________________________ Jim Cunneen, Mayor
ATTEST: ________________________________ Rick Miller, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________________ Harper & Burns LLP Attorneys for the City
EXHIBIT A
Fire Development Impact Fee Schedule
Development Type Unit Impact Fee per Unit
Residential <600 Sq. Ft. per Unit DU $812.22
Residential 600–800 Sq. Ft. per Unit DU $886.06
Residential >800–1,200 Sq. Ft. per Unit DU $959.90
Residential >1,200–1,800 Sq. Ft. per Unit DU $1,033.74
Residential >1,800–2,400 Sq. Ft. per Unit DU $1,107.58
Residential >2,400 Sq. Ft. per Unit DU $1,181.42
Senior/Assisted Living Bed $6,325.50
Hotel/Motel Room $1,009.13
Commercial KSF $2,121.63
Office/Medical KSF $507.02
Industrial KSF $88.61
DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross sq. ft. of gross leasable area; Room = guest room or suite; Bed = accommodation for one resident or patient.
City of Fountain Valley
City Council
Action Request
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Agenda Date: August 18, 2026 Subject: Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report – PFAS and Public Awareness: A Closer Look at Orange County Drinking Water
Three Year Strategic Goals:
Not applicable
Amended Staff Report:
Executive Summary:
Discussion:
Procurement:
Fiscal Review:
Public Notification:
Environmental Impact Review:
Attorney Review:
Alternatives:
Recommendation:
Staff is requesting that City Council approve the Mayor to send a response to the presiding judge regarding the Orange County Grand Jury report – PFAS and Public Awareness: A Closer Look at Orange County Drinking Water. This is the recommended action.
Cassandra Burkart Created/Initiated Approver
Scott Smith Approved Approver
Heather Campbell Approved Approver
Rick Miller Approved Approver
Ryan Smith Approved Approver
Colin Burns Approved Approver
Maggie Le Final Approval Approver
Attachments:
1. Final Staff Report - Grand Jury Response -MS - CS - CB 7-21
2. Attachment 1 - 2026 PFAS Grand Jury Report
3. Attachment 2- Final Mayor Letter - 7-21
CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY
CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST
To: Honorable Mayor and Agenda Date: August 18, 2026
Members of the City Council
SUBJECT: Approval to send a response to the Orange County Grand Jury regarding PFAS and Public Awareness: A Closer Look at Orange County Drinking Water Three-Year Strategic Goals
☐ Cultivate a welcoming culture and safe environment that makes our community “A Nice Place to Live.”
☐ Ensure long-term fiscal stability by evaluating processes, and attract and retain revenue producing businesses/opportunities.
☐ Attract and retain quality staff through best practices and trends ☐ Maintain, build, and modernize infrastructure to support growth and future needs of the City
☒ Not applicable
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Orange County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) released its 2025–2026 report, PFAS and Public Awareness: A Closer Look at Orange County Drinking Water, on June 9, 2026. This report aims to strengthen per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) reporting in annual Water Quality Reports (Consumer Confidence Reports) and expand public outreach by Orange County drinking water agencies. It identifies and describes PFAS levels detected by Orange County drinking water agencies, evaluates how local water systems have responded to PFAS regulatory requirements, and examines the progress of PFAS treatment facilities and implementation of public education programs. Based on the Grand Jury’s findings, the report recommends that Orange County drinking water agencies continue to monitor PFAS in drinking water sources, implement treatment when response levels are exceeded, and keep the public informed.
In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2025-2026 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by their findings and recommendations.
A response from the City of Fountain Valley has been requested with regard to Findings 2, 4, 6, and 8 and Recommendations 2, 4, and 5.
Staff is requesting approval to send a response to the Grand Jury.
DISCUSSION
On June 9, 2026, the Grand Jury released its 2025–2026 report, PFAS and Public Awareness: A Closer Look at Orange County Drinking Water. The purpose of the report is to strengthen PFAS reporting in annual Water Quality Reports (Consumer Confidence Reports) and expand public outreach by Orange
Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report – PFAS and Public Awareness: A Closer Look at Orange County Drinking Water
August 18, 2026
County drinking water agencies. This comprehensive investigation examined 31 community water systems operated by local cities and special districts that are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. It identifies and describes PFAS levels detected by Orange County drinking water agencies, evaluates how local water systems have responded to PFAS regulatory requirements, and examines the progress of PFAS treatment facilities and implementation of public education programs.
PFAS form a broad class of thousands of synthetic chemicals characterized by strong carbon-fluorine bonds that make them among the most durable compounds in organic chemistry, allowing them to persist in the environment for decades or longer. The chemical properties of these "forever chemicals" provide water, oil, and stain resistance, as well as heat stability. These properties led to their widespread use 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 are now detected globally in water, air, soil, wildlife, and human blood. Although the degree of risk varies by compound, scientific studies continue to show an association between PFAS exposure and harmful health effects in humans and animals.
The Grand Jury’s investigation into PFAS and public awareness included interviewing several Orange County governmental leaders and senior staff directly involved in managing drinking water quality, reviewing and analyzing published water quality reports and records from all Orange County water retailers, examining relevant news articles and publications, extensive internet research, and visiting several water management agencies to directly observe and assess drinking water processes.
Based on the results of their investigation, the Grand Jury’s report presents eight (8) principal findings and six (6) recommendations on how Orange County drinking water agencies can continue to monitor PFAS in drinking water sources, implement treatment when response levels are exceeded, and keep the public informed.
In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2025-2026 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by their findings and recommendations.
A response from the City of Fountain Valley has been requested regarding Findings 2, 4, 6, and 8 and Recommendations 2, 4, and 5.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The City of Fountain Valley has been working closely with the Orange County Water District (OCWD) to test its drinking water supply wells for PFAS under an order from the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) – Division of Drinking Water (DDW).
On April 10, 2024, the Director of Public Works sent a memo to Council notifying them that testing indicated the presence of perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) at 3.5 nanograms per liter (ng/L) in water produced by Well No. 10 on February 14, 2024, slightly exceeding the Notification Level of 3 ng/L.
On July 15, 2025, City Council conducted a public hearing regarding the 2025 Report on the City’s Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals (PHGs) and received and filed the document. The report indicated that perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) was detected in one well at levels between <2 and
2.1 parts per trillion (ppt). The levels detected were above the PHG of 1 ppt but below the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 4 ppt.
Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report – PFAS and Public Awareness: A Closer Look at Orange County Drinking Water
August 18, 2026
PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS AND MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS
On April 5, 2024, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) adopted PHGs for two PFAS: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and PFOS. PHGs are established by OEHHA and are set at the level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health, based on current risk assessment principles, practices, and methods. OEHHA establishes PHGs pursuant to HSC §116365(c) for contaminants with MCLs, and for those for which MCLs will be adopted. HSC §116365(a) requires that a contaminant's MCL be established at a level as close as possible to its PHG, with primary emphasis on protecting public health. In this way, PHGs serve as the basis for MCL development. In addition to the PHGs for PFOA and PFOS, the DDW has also requested that OEHHA evaluate whether PFAS can be grouped together for regulatory purposes or based on specific chemical characteristics. In May 2025, the DDW requested that OEHHA establish a PHG for PFHxS.
On April 10, 2024, the U.S. EPA announced the final National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR), establishing MCLs for six PFAS: PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) as contaminants with individual MCLs; and PFAS mixtures containing at least two or more of PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) using a Hazard Index (HI) MCL to account for the combined and co-occurring levels of these PFAS in drinking water. MCLs are the highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set as close to PHGs (or Maximum Contaminant Level Goals [MCLGs], the federal equivalent established by the U.S. EPA) as is technically and economically feasible. MCLs are enforceable standards.
The HI is a long-established approach that U.S. EPA regularly uses to understand health risk from a chemical mixture (i.e., exposure to multiple chemicals). The HI is made up of a sum of fractions. Each fraction compares the level of each PFAS measured in the water to the health-based water concentration.
The U.S. EPA also finalized health-based, non-enforceable MCLGs for these six PFAS. MCLGs are based solely on public health risk considerations. MCLGs are the level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety and are non-enforceable goals. None of the practical risk-management factors considered by the U.S.
EPA or the DDW when setting drinking water standards (MCLs) are considered when setting the MCLGs. These factors include analytical detection capability, available treatment technology, benefits, and costs. The MCLGs are not enforceable and are not required to be met by any public water system.
MCLGs are goals that set extremely small risk levels for contaminants in potable water. The risks are normally assessed where one person in a million would be at risk to a contaminant in potable water.
Determinations of health risk at these low levels are often theoretical and based on risk assessments made using assumptions and mathematical extrapolations.
Public Health
Goal
Abbreviation Federal MCL Federal MCLG
/Trade Name
Chemical Name
ng/L
(ppt)
Date
Issued
ng/L
(ppt)
Date
Issued
ng/L
(ppt)
Date
Issued
PFOA Perfluorooctanoic acid 0.007 April 5,
2024
4.0 April
2024
Zero April
2024
PFOS Perfluorooctanesulfonic
acid
1 April 5,
2024
4.0 April
2024
Zero April
2024
PFHxS Perfluorohexanesulfonic
acid
-- Requested 10 April
2024
10 April
2024
Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report – PFAS and Public Awareness: A Closer Look at Orange County Drinking Water
August 18, 2026
PFNA Perfluorononanoic acid -- -- 10 April
2024
10 April
2024
HFPO-DA
(GenX)
Hexafluoropropylene
oxide dimer acid
-- -- 10 April
2024
10 April
2024
PFBS Perfluorobutanesulfonic
acid
-- -- -- -- 2000 April
2024
Mixtures containing two or more of
PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS
-- -- 1
(unitless)
Hazard
Index
April
2024
1 (unitless)
Hazard
Index
April
2024
NOTIFICATION AND RESPONSE LEVELS
Notification levels (NLs) are non-regulatory, health-based advisory levels established for contaminants in drinking water for which MCLs have not been established. A response level (RL) is a health-based advisory level for a contaminant at which a water system should consider taking a water source out of service or providing treatment, if available. As of January 2020, water systems that receive a monitoring order and detect levels of PFAS substances that exceed the RL shall take a water source out of use, treat the water delivered, or provide public notification.
When chemicals are found at concentrations greater than their NL and/or RL, certain requirements and recommendations apply. Statutory requirements for public notification are contained in HSC §116455.
PFAS with NLs and RLs have additional requirements per HSC §116378. Below is a summary of PFAS NLs and RLs issued, requested, or proposed.
Abbreviation Chemical name Notification Level Response Level Date Issued / Status
PFOA Perfluorooctanoic acid 4.0 ng/L 10 ng/L October 29, 2025 PFOS Perfluorooctanesulfonic
acid
4.0 ng/L 40 ng/L October 29, 2025
PFBS Perfluorobutanesulfonic
acid
500 ng/L 5,000 ng/L March 5, 2021
PFHxS Perfluorohexanesulfonic
acid
3.0 ng/L 10 ng/L October 29, 2025
PFHxA Perfluorohexanoic acid 1.0 µg/L 10 µg/L October 29, 2025 PFHpA Perfluoroheptanoic acid -- -- Requested
To date, all PFAS testing for the City of Fountain Valley groundwater wells has remained under any required action levels for treatment and federal MCLs. The City will continue to monitor levels of PFAS in the potable water supply, although current levels are below the federal MCLs. While the PFHxS and PFOS levels required local governing body notification, they are well below state and federal limits for drinking water use. At this time, staff will continue to provide service to customers and closely monitor PFAS and other water quality measurements to ensure the health and safety of Fountain Valley
Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report – PFAS and Public Awareness: A Closer Look at Orange County Drinking Water
August 18, 2026
customers. There are several factors that led staff to this decision, with safety and water quality as the top considerations.
The City of Fountain Valley provides customers with reliable, high-quality drinking water that meets or exceeds all state and federal standards. Presently, 100 percent of Fountain Valley’s water supply comes from wells pumping water from the local underlying groundwater basin, which is managed by OCWD. Drinking water quality is of paramount importance to the City and OCWD. Staff will continue to update the Council about PFAS and related drinking water quality issues as new information emerges.
If PFAS levels in Fountain Valley were to ever approach RLs or MCLs, staff would meet with the City Council to discuss available options, including building a treatment facility through OCWD’s PFAS Treatment Program. OCWD’s Board of Directors implemented a PFAS treatment policy that enables the construction of treatment facilities to restore the impacted drinking water supply when sample results reach 80% of RL. OCWD's policy is to fund 100% of design and construction costs, with operation and maintenance costs for the water well treatment facility shared 50/50 with the City of Fountain Valley, should they be needed. In return, OCWD’s preference and offer are that if the City receives any settlements from PFAS manufacturers, Fountain Valley would provide the settlement funds to OCWD for PFAS remediation in any of the member agencies’ systems. OCWD has stated that if the City agrees to provide any settlement funds it receives to OCWD, OCWD will remediate Fountain Valley’s water system in the future if PFAS levels ever rise to a level requiring remediation. To date, OCWD and other affected water producers have invested over $600 million in capital costs to remove PFAS from the groundwater basin. OCWD and the Orange County Producer water systems have worked closely and collaboratively to develop this PFAS treatment policy and maintain PFAS agreements in support of the policy, resulting in the implementation of treatment throughout OCWD well in advance of much of the rest of the country.
OCWD and several other water agencies in the county have already pursued litigation separately against PFAS manufacturers to cover costs associated with addressing PFAS impacts. Settlements have been reached with several manufacturers, with some payments received and additional payments and settlements expected. The City has not received any settlements from the class action lawsuits at this time. Should that change in the future, staff will update the City Council and discuss entering into an agreement with OCWD.
FISCAL REVIEW
There is no fiscal impact.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Not applicable.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW
Not applicable.
ATTORNEY REVIEW
This does not require the Attorney for the City review or approval.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative No. 1: Approve the Mayor to send a response to the presiding judge regarding the Orange County Grand Jury report – PFAS and Public Awareness: A
Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report – PFAS and Public Awareness: A Closer Look at Orange County Drinking Water
August 18, 2026
Closer Look at Orange County Drinking Water. This is the recommended action.
Alternative No. 2: Do not approve and provide direction to staff regarding the Grand Jury report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is requesting that the City Council approve Alternative No. 1 or provide further direction to City staff.
Prepared by: Cassandra Burkart, Management Aide
Reviewed by: Mark Sprague, Field Services Manager
Approved by: Scott Smith, Director of Public Works
Fiscal review by: Ryan Smith, Finance Director
Approved by: Maggie Le, City Manager
Attachment:
1. Orange County Grand Jury Report
2. Mayor’s letter to Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
Attachment #1
This page intentionally left blank
PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026Page 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 Figure 12 - Highest PFAS Detections Among All OCWD Sources Listed on Each
PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
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 2025-2026Page 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
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
Industry -t
Hi ._J
r' >kw ,. 1 1m-.t11Jd\)·•
JI.
0 1 11
Lf ra:;lnfants
AffF
I
-
• !=l'lvironmenl
Potential major exposure pathways of PFAs·to humans..
Figure from Sunderland et.·al. (2019)
Contaminated drinking water has led to high levels of exposure to PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS2for 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 f•---
!r. ' C]:.:•" ! H,tnm,fttnEposure
Ill • \l->'>, •·
Figure 1 - Potential Major Exposure Pathways of PFAS to Humans 5 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 2025-2026Page 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. Pf AS 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
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
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
111½r
• 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 system.14 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. I 1 l 1.' , l
u ,., Fl 1I .JJ-, ll
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 ... ,. ... ,, u.., tJPage~9~dl {'
62 .
..-.J '- - u,
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
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.
Public Supply Wells
California's Groufl<.hvater live
..--
o1o
-
;r,-,=-
.u,sMg,los .-
0,..,-
.-,_ orFMvl :oSW.8tmW),o
,l'.........
l)We:il.
.,,,_ @ J
<"nnd,ftff'll'a,
-t;J.
0 ""'"""\ '
)•..,.._ .-- f
u"-"1
'-.
· -
c,rueo
"''""''
\" 'l \'I
\
1. Mllfff
\ 'hll,1
,
@
.."'
\
nTOff1nC:it-Oincn • .• ·• -
,,
lldfUds
.
7-
"•• 0 ......
... . .
•• -C\
• 'O(ON
I•
I
\
I
'
I .,
•
,
•,
............nn&...
,.,,,,s
Y1llt-1
.
'
,
?,Oh
,· -
".
P•tu \'Udt
Hlltr ·"""' ••• "-' • 1' n;T"'
.. ..,,•• • •• lf'i
•• ••• •• :. ••• \
:
•r,
·,·:
,wr>·
\
· ....
I
i
f
---
.,
tHoUw 1
u,i,wit
J
...
•,._,,ou:,.
.
--
....
,-H
- 0
S,h•IJ#IA
..._ tilth
f
--
.,., /.11•
-,.,
'/
◊ ..-- ,r J ,,, ' . ttffltOJr.,
.,.,. . \.
stit
• j
L ·tuJ.l(tto l •\
r-,
Clffo• • J, f
.\, I \1)
• \· rr:·,=--
,l", ,.i;,
,. !I j' t1
,/J,f
tl,
,,·, ,/
'-·-
A
..
t
,
f
.
,,
f
!.) • , ,t,1
)
,. ', r J O .'
•' I
1 10ml
10km
\ (
\"<-
f).
,,..... • .,,,,. :..=...
\ v,·.. ?"
..........,..,
'
·, --·/_.::: _ ::_} _,_
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.
tt.,
•Rlveriie
iCo-li;ty
'I
'.·t'
,,,_,.. ......
1!
)
::
,
.1
,
."
'
':
l, .I
fl t<''· .>.-✓ .,,
- -MM-
-.\ -t.."1
'
r V'...
-
,
-,
- \ ... '{·
f
'
\
'\
,.
·l.lirn>A;AITT,:f.lr
r.v,...wii>-
J\l,•f
,.
/'
'
. .
'
j
'
'-ill '\,
,
I /1.·r,·-t-ll'l'O,'l
•- ,·)
\
\,.
./
'
--IWi.i.
C-1- ""'fnll<!l,oc:,
• ' .
•vin-=ca,
-.Liia.;..µi..<t
,' ....
•'\.,
.
' --
:.""-.
1/(ti,
□
•m--«
JR<l.>:"!1',·
"',, focwo·sl!e.vn:e:. • -l4<o'.f•i;<•
••.-,. •, , _, . I -i,,..-,:14
·
.0,-=-
.. '
-
·,
I!
)..
:--....,.,...._ I
.,
s9·u"
..._..y / ·,-1
c::fM....n:.,,..
").(•
YV,l.',1-K&loi.·
---: 1(9_...,.-1,rr ·()(;WC)·
c:::::J·.
l,)u..•
PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026Page 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.
C'ityof e,u
City of Buena Park
Clty of foontaln Valley
O Clty of G,rdenGrove
(s Cityof Huntington ach
City ofla H•br.t
1 t
-- "'
c -------,
0 --
Cityof u Palma
Cityof Newpo<t Be>eh
CityofO<ange
Cityof SanClfmente
Clty of Seal Beach
(!) Oty ofTustln
City of Westminster
(i4 hit OnngeCOOntyWater Olltr1<t
• El Toro Wdter Olstrl<t
Cmer•ld BayService Ohtrl<t
f> Golden Stato Water Co.• OC
Irvine nu,Water Obtr1<t
fJ)
MWDOC
•
MWDOC Service Area
W'WOOCha ..............................,lNtWWl{.-y
s..o,-,.(., r,
...,_,, .......,...oan.1'_.......,............,..,
--..,,ardt,,....."1,Mi ..,...,,. ,-.Ml. ·-
CD liguN 8eichCoonty w,ter Oistrkt
fl:) Mua Witer Oistrk:t
Moollon Nigu•I W•ttt o;11r1<t
SantaMargaritaW•W Oiltri<t
f) Serrano Water o;nr1<t
1,,. SouthcuWater Olstrlct
4' Trabuco CanyonIVattt Ol,tr1<t
176) Yorba LindaW,ter District
@ OrangeCoonty Waterl);strkt
(Groondwattt Whol•wler)
PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
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," CALFIRE, accessed April 17, 2026, https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/pipeline-safety-and-cupatrire-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 fag 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 2025-2026Page 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 ControlAgency
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
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
Ct/rJ.Cl1
CJ,IJ-·CJ, UV
C,11rJ.Cl
1 Chlno-Corbon Canyon
10"V
\c
I
::;t
C
/
h
i n o R
PI
RD(Focllily
(Sin)
44mg,,J
CJ,t<HCJ,
_son1',moioo Creel<
c4mvd
•
Cl,fd_!?,
t tUV
UPnr:lo
..,Lake
Jurup1-lncll1n Hilla
<
Yucllp• BHumont
lmvd 1mQd
Orong• County
Forebay
Roch.,ge An•
,;0- ./ ,.
Rlvtraldt•Hkldtn Valley WtU1nda
:ilf!9l
Total contlguou1 flows to
the Santa Ana River• 181mgd
OtSlNFCCIJON
Cl/<1¥:l,•Uqudo,o,._._.,,,MINo-.,,,
UV•-tvJHA• Nodlllhftcto't
uvto
&No.2
!%"'lid
-°"'Vt-DIWN
SruAno,-,_,Jlal,.,.,_,R_,
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-contenUuploads/sarwqh-final-nwri-panel-report-2004.pdf. 33 Russ Detwiler, Reconstructing historical PFAS concentrations in groundwater using a reduced-order modeling framework.Alburquerque NM, lnterPore2025, May 20, 2025, accessed April 16, 2026, https://events.interpore.org/evenU56/contributions/7590/. 34 "PFAS Explained," EPA.
PFAS and Public Awareness Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
,,,
1=-
"'·,,.I
'"..;
'\.
c-4t,,,_
, ''\.. ✓ -..r.._1.,.
'\. .• '
...... r. '.
,,,-
,"-,<◄,,, u,.,
....
.... ...,...
\Ull"f-.W'
c..,,, tJllulldhSla._..,.Un>' 0 ta J.t t tJ
........,""'"""4('..........._ _, ... \il'--11
,._..._ ,NJIMJW-.rrt ... ,,_,
.#NSMHM I hi&I·'
:Ill
-
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 On the chart, the Orange County study site is labeled "CA." Orange County is the only California location included in the study.
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
Source: CDC
Figure 7 - CDC Multi-site Study Site Orange
County, CA
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 fag 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.
PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
Average PFAS Levels in Blo
·
od
"
•
PFOS
po,1\Doo<:-
•
-
e
.I
-··
I.I
..[. •
-
PFHxS ...i
' '
• • •
J.4
•
""'I
•
O.Ol -
,.,
1... -··
MAI-••
"
... ·I
:1
..
..
0 .
.-
,
1.1 ---
.......--...
--"""'
"'I
.................
PFOA
~bMchart• shaw ti•_. (o-r,olrlc-1PFAS //loodlev.lJfor-·"""'-"thea.tferen/ J/lldy.,,••,_NI>}..,,,,,,.,.,, lofUlliotlelle...i.. ll>ase·are .
c
..
o
_
-
,
·
.
·
.1110Ca,,
-
:
•
w
-
J
:I
I
• ,o --., 'ti ., .,
-"'-&$
PFNA
... ••-
--
o,-
&4Wed lo<tht-• ol11ge111d U-' lnlhe gene,_ USJ)Cl>Ul«,on. Gold bllrssh<wvadu/U ln lhe gtnt,_U.S. pop,Jlolion (2017-2020) ln CDC's NalioMI Htlti'.h llldHutr,;o,, Euninltlion5'1wy(HHAHESJ. Gtunl>Ms --la/IJ/vdy ilu oomt,;,ed.
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.
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 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/2025/08/0pen-House-Slides-508.pdf. 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
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 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
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
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-testinq/index.html. r
Most people In the UnitedStates have been exposed to some PFAS. People can be exposed to PFAS by touching, drinking, eating, or breathing In materials ""'
containing PFAS. PFAS may be present in:
Drinking Water
Drinking water
•
,_
contaminated by othc,
sou,ces of PFAS.
Waste Situ
Solland water at or near
landfills,disposalsites,
and hazardous waste
sites.
fireExtinguishing Foam
Used in t1alnlng and
erne,gency response
r Oil
Facilities
Chtome plating,
electronics, and certain
events jt airports and
firefighting training
r-5! I( al II
\..
,.
textile and paper
/
manufacturers that
fatililies.
I(
produce or use PFAS.
"\
y
III
Stain-or water repellent, orII Greas... resistant paper, Consumer Products Food Packaging
rertilizer from wastewater
Blosollds Food
non-stick products, paints, microwave popcorn bags, treatment plants used on sealants, and some
rsonalcare p,oducty
pizza boxes, and candy agricultural lands can affect
\..... wrappers. .,. , oundandswface water.
Fish caught from water
contaminated by PFASand
daityp1oducts f,om
'(vestock e•posed to PFASy
l
Very little of thePFAS in water can get into your body through your skin, so, showering, bathing, and washing dishes in water containing PFAS are unlikely to significantly Increase your risk.I
PFAS and Public Awareness Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
What are the Health Effects of Exposure?
Exposure to unsafe levels of PFONPFOS 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 fag 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 fag mar.pdf.
PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
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/abouVdrinking-water-standards-and-regulations-an-overview.html. /' @ ArePFAS safe?
Research isongoing to determine how exposure to different PFAS can lead to a variety of health effects. Studies have shown that exposure to certain levels of PFAS may lead to:
/
x
,/
[T]
'\/ ,/ ,/
Cancer Effects Weight Effects
Increased risk of lncre.ued
some canc.ers, d1ol8'terol levels
including proslale, and/or risk of
.::
Immune Effects
RedtKed ability of
the body's immune
system 10 fight
l
'
\.._ cancers. J\...., .,,,J\ ,
kidney, and le\licular obesity. Infections.
,.J
Developmental Reproductive Effects
Effects Oecrea1ed fertility or
low birth weight, increased high blood
accelerated puberty, pressure in pregnant
bone va, iatlons, or women.
behavioraclhang8'. \..., ,..,/
The more we learn about PFAS chemicals, the more we learn that certain PFAS can cause health risks even at very low levels. This is why anything we can do to reduce PFAS in water, soil, and air, can have a meaningful Impact on health. EPA is taking action to reduce PFAS in water and in the environment. You can also take action if \...you remain concerned about your own risk.
PFAS and Public Awareness Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
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 SOWA 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
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
EPAUCMR
Number of PFAS on
UCMR Contaminants List
Maximum PFAS Detection
Among allOCWD Sources
2012-2016 UCMR 3 6PFAS
Fiaure 20, Aooendix A 70 ng/L
2022-2026 UCMR 5 29 PFAS
Fiaure 21 AnnendixA 29 ng/L
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 DOW General Orders," SWRCB, accessed May 21, 2026, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking water/certlic/drinkingwater/pfas ddw general order/. 55 Ibid.
PFAS and Public Awareness Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
SWRCB Order
Number of PFAS on
OrderCCRDL
Selected
Monitoring Date
Range
Maximum PFAS Detection
Among All OCWD Sources
Listed on Order Exihibit A
2020-0003-DDW
18 PFAS
Fiaure 23 AooendixA
8/27/20 - 2/15/21 67.5 ng/L
2021-0003-DDW 18 PFAS
Fiaure 24 AnnendixA 2/16/21 -10/30/22 470 ng/L
2 2022-0001-DDW 25 PFAS
FiQure 25, Appendix A 10/31/22 - 4/24/24 169 ng/L
3 2025-0002-DDW 25 PFAS
FiQure 26, AooendixA 4/25/24 - 3/19/26
1 73.7 ng/L
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 Pf AS 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 OW 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.
PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
chemicals are found in drinking water at concentrations greater than their response levels, DOW recommends removal of a drinking water source from service.56 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. so Ibid.
PFAS and Public Awareness Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
Chemical Maximum Contaminant Level
Goal(MCLG)
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
PFOA 0 4.0 ppt
PFOS 0 4.0 ppt
PFNA 10 ppt l0ppt
PFHxS 10 ppt 10 ppt
HFPO-DA (GenX chemicals) 10 ppt 10 ppt
Mixture of two or more:
PFNA,PFHxS,HFPO-DA,and
PFBS
Hazard Index of 1 Hazard Index of 1
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLGI: The level of a contaminant In drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety and are non-enforceable public health goals.
Maximum Contaminant Level(MCLI:The highest level of a contaminant that isallowed In drinking water. MCls are set as close to MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment technology and taking cost Into consideration. MCls are enforceable standards.
pot: oartsper trillion
ttazara inaex IHIJ: 1ne ttazara 1noex 1s a 1ong-es..,u,1sneo approacn tnat t.l'A regu1ar1y uses to unoerstana nea1m ml< from a chemical mixture (I.e., exposure to multiple chemicals). The HI Ismade up of a sum of fractions. Each fraction comoares the level of each PFAS measured In the water to the health-based water concentration.
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, htlps://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 grg ccr 2011.pdf.
PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
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://pubIichealth.networkofcare.org/solano/CommunityResources/News/Article?articleld=124536.
PFAS and Public Awareness Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
OCWDlaboralory began Groundwater pumpingin
certifiedPFAS testing Orange County Basindeclines
OCWDbeganfinancial
planning lor PFAStreatment
U.S. EPAadopted PFAS
maximumcontaminantlevels
17 PFAS treatment
lacilitiesopened in 2024
Construction or PFAS
treatment racllitiesbegan
in 2020
6 PFAS trealment
lacilitiesopened in 2022
1 2018 I
1 1
2019
1 2020
1 2021
1 2022
I
1 20231
I I
2024 2025
4 PFAStreatment
facilitiesopenedin 2026
I
1 2026
Calilomia set drinking water
notificationle·1els ror PFAS
OCWDand waler
retailers initiated
PFASmonitoring
11PFAStreatment
lacililies opened in 2023
OCWD pursued PFAS-related
litigation andselllements
11 PFAS treatment
racilitiesopen In 2021
4 PFAS treatment
lacllitiesopened in 2025
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 Figure 15 - Map of Current and Future PFAS Treatment 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
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
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.
tr.· ..,,., I....
r
.ft
.Buth•
PI(
•4x
Jc::r· •.
•!: ·,..•,, 11 s',11n!o•n• • •
Lot Allmilot
.,
I-"---,,,-
e e
'•
e • •
GardtnGrove. ,r'
u!!IJ'n1!tr--:,;-
.I.. • ,,
'
,,{' •\-:::..,
- Fnt1in\. "
V1llty'
,. Sant
Co1t1Ut1a'
, • ttAiV:rTIOWi\1...-)
I
,:•,l O<WD - OCWO Ptodvction Wtlti
PfASSy\ttnl St1tus
e ,,,._,,,0-.r.1
.,.,. ......,-..-r,..... ,.Jefflll
'\:;I "J Uftt-t,,haIIO'\V."d'(ll-'-"-1
,,-,tao1..1M01-••••.....,•,u.1..,-
•'6d,r.""•-..-.,..--i,11
PFAS and Public Awareness Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
Source: OCWD data
Figure 16 - Approximate PFAS Capital Funding Sources
Figure 17 - Summary of PFAS Treatment FacilitiesFigure 17 Summary of PFAS Treatment Facilities 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.
Approximate PFAS Capital Funding Sources
(In MIiiions, January 2026)
Total Estimated Capital
S
,
B
6 $4l.2_S30.0
Costs= $570 million
• OCWDPAYGO
• PFAS Lrtigalion (received over 30 year period)
■ Emergng Contaminant Grants • Bipartisan
lnlraslnx:lure Law via SWRCB
• EPA WIFIA Loan
• FederalEarmark Granls
• CA Prop 1 lntegated Resources Watershed
Management Grant
• USSR nue XVI WIIN Ad Grant
PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
Community Water System Opening
Date Type Capacity Location Connections Wells
Total Cost
($Ml
Actual-to
Date($M)
Remaining
Budget($M)
Sep-2024 Ion Exchange 51,000 gaVmln
Nine (9)PFAS treatment faclUtles
at Linda Vista, Katella Ave.,Santa
Cruz, Energy Field,Brookhurst,
Willow Park, Downtown, Boysen
Park,andLa Palma
14 $117.1 $117.1 $0.0
Dec-2028 Ion Exchange 8,000gaVmln Wells48&63 2 $16.0 $0.8 $15.3 Dec-2028 Ion Exchange 8,000gaVmln Wells39&47 2 $16.0 $0.9 $15.1 Cityof Anaheim
Dec-2029 Ion Exchange T8D Well51
64,000
1 $7.0 $0.0 $7.0
Cityof Buena Park Jun-2026 Packer 2,200gaVmln
LindenWell-InstallPacker to
reduce flowfrom PFAS zone(s) In
the well- not treatment.
1 $0.6 $0.1 $0.6
Jun-2021 IonExchange 2,400gaVmln KimberlyWell1A 1 $5.3 $4.1 $1.3 Dec-2023
Granular
Activated
Carbon (GAC)
5,000gaVmln MainPlant 3A 1 $13.7 $13.7 $0.0
Dec-2026
Granular
Activated
Carbon (GACI
4,000gaVmln MainPlant Wells 5,6,7,8 4 $12.5 $2.6 $9.9
Jun-2027 IonExchange 4,400gaVmln KimberlyWell2 1 $10.9 $4.3 $6.6 CltyolFullerton
Dec-2029 IonExchange 1,600gaVmln
Suncllpse Well10• PlpeUne for
Treatment at Kimberly 2 Plant
Well15-NewWellSlteNeeded
32,000
2 $15.3 $0.0 $15.3
Jun-2023 IonExchanie 17,6002aVmln Wells21, 23,28,29,30,31 6 $24.3 $24.3 $0.0 Dec-2026 IonExchange 2,000gaVmln Well19 1 $6.6 $1.9 $4.7 Dec-2028 IonExchange 13,590 gaVmln Wells 22,26, and 27 3 $31.7 $1.6 $30.2 Cityof GardenGrove Dec-2030 IonExchange 2,000gaVmln Well26
34,300
1 $7.0 $0.0 $7.0
Dec-2029 JonExchange 3,000gaVmln Well3A 1 $8.0 $0.0 $8.0 City of HuntingtonBeach Dec-2030 IonExchange 3,000gaVmln Well& 1 $8.0 $0.0 $8.0 Se!>-2022 IonExchange 8,420 gaVmln Wells9, 19,23,24 4 $10.0 $9.9 $0.1 Apr-2026 IonExchange 7,940 gaVmln Wells20,21,22 3 $14.7 $14.7 $0.0 Apr-2026 IonExchange 3,200 gaVmln Well28 1 $5.0 $4.0 $1.0 Dec-2028 IonExchan2e 5,500 2aVmln Wells26,27 2 $13.0 $0.4 $12.7 Dec-2029 Ion Exchange 3,200 gaVmln Well26 1 $7.0 $0.1 $6.9 City of Orange
Dec-2029 Ion Exchange TBD Well29• New Well currentlyBeing DrlUedbvCltv
36,000
1 $6.0 $1.0 $5.0
May-2023 IonExchange 2,500 gaVmln Well40 1 $5.8 $5.8 $0.0 Sep-2026 IonExchange 2,500gaVmln Well38 1 $7.4 $7.4 $0.0 Dec-2026 IonExchange 2,000gaVmln Well31 1 $8.5 $6.8 $1.7 Apr-2027 IonExchange 3,600gaVmln Well27&28 2 $17.0 $8.7 $8.3 May-2027 Ion Exchange 9,200gaVmln Wells27,28,31,38,40at John Garthe Reservoir 5 $31.4 $0.0 $31.4
Cityof Santa Ana
Dec-2029 Ion Exchange 12,400gaVmln
Wells16,29,33,41, 43(fut) at
Walnut Reservoir
45,576
5 $25.0 $0.1 $24.9
May-2025 Ion Exchange 6,400gaVmln
MainStreet andProspect Avenue
to remove PFASfromfour (4) wells
InTustin
4 $32.7 $32.7 $0.0
Dec-2029 IonExchange 2,000gaVmln Edinger Well 1 $7.0 $0.0 $7.0 Cltyoflustln
Dec-2030 IonExchange 2,300gaVmln 17th st Wells(2 wells treatedl 14,600
2 $7.0 $0.0 $7.0
Dec-2030 IonExchange 2,500gaVmfn WM-3(NewWell) 1 $8.0 $0.0 $8.0 Cityof Westminster Dec-2030 IonExchange 2,500gaVmln WM-SC4 (NewWell) 1 $8.0 $0.0 $8.0 East Orange CountyWater
District Jun-2024 IonExchange 3,200gaVmln
Treatment for East and
VanderWelffWells 19,000 2 $8.9 $8.9 $0.0
Nov-2023 IonExchange 3,200gaVmln BradfordandFairhaven Plants 3 $4.4 $4.4 $0.0 Jul-2027 IonExchange 940gaVmln SherrillPlant 1 $3.1 $0.8 $2.4 Dec-2028 IonExchange 7,620 gaVmln LaJolla, FernPlants 3 $8.3 $0.5 $7.8 Dec-2028 IonExchange 7,620 gaVmln Clair, Beach, andDale Plants 4 $12.8 $0.9 $11.9 Dec-2030 IonExchange 2,500 gaVmln Lowden 1 $8.0 $0.0 $8.0 Golden State Water
Company
Dec-2030 Ion Exchange 2,500 gaVmln Orangewood
46,300
1 $8.0 $0.0 $8.0
Irvine RenchWater District Oct-2024 Ion Exchange 3,200gaVmln Orange Park AcresWellNo. 1 125,000 1 $7.2 $7.2 $0.0 Serrano WaterDistrict Feb-2022 Ion Exchange 3,200 gaVmln Wells3and s 5,659 2 $6.0 $6.0 $0.0 Yorba Linda Water District Dec-2021 Ion Exchange 13,200gaVmln Allten(10) Yorba Linda wells 11,786 10 $27.7 $27.7 $0.0 111.1,.,.,,., *M 1:11 n ...1. 1.,.rln u1111,.,...,. ,nn • nn, n '10" =a Source: Multiple OCWD and water retailer data
Figure 17 - Summary of PFAS Treatment Facilities
PFAS and Public Awareness Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$-
- r
FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25
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-managemenU.
PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
Average PFAS Impact to OCWD Service Area Residents
Over a 25 year period
Total Capital Costs
State & Fed Grants
Litigation Proceeds
$570,000,000
$152,000,000
$121,000,000
Net Capital Costs $297,000,000
!Amortized Debt Costs
Annual Debt Payment
4.50% Interest Rate
25 Years
$297,000,000 Amount
$20,029,391
Estimated Annual O&M Cost
Total Annual Cost
Total Monthly Cost
$22,000,000
$42,029,391
$3,502,449
OCWD Population from 19
Member Agencies
Monthly cost per person
2,469,000 persons
$1.42
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 - PFAS Monthly Cost to OCWD Service Area Residentsfigure 1Q PFAS Monthly Cost to OC'ND Service Area Residents 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
PFAS and Public Awareness Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
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
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
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
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
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
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
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
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
(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
Orange County Board of Supervisors
Findings:
Recommendations:
90 Day Response Required
F3
R3
Orange County Water District Board of Directors 90 Day Response Required Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F?, F8
Recommendations: R1,R2,R3,R5,R6
Orange County Health Care Agency
Findings:
Recommendations:
City of Anaheim
Findings:
Recommendations:
90 Day Response Requested
F3
R3
90 Day Response Required
F2, F4, F6, F8
R2,R4,R5
City of Brea
Findings:
Recommendations:
90 Day Response Required
F2, F6, F8
R4,R5
City of Buena Park
Findings:
Recommendations:
90 Day Response Required
F2, F4, F6, F8
R2,R4,R5
City of Fountain Valley
Findings:
Recommendations:
90 Day Response Required
F2, F4, F6, F8
R2,R4,R5
PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
City of Fullerton
Findings:
Recommendations:
90 Day Response Required
F2, F4,F6, F8
R2,R4,R5
City of Garden Grove
Findings:
Recommendations:
90 Day Response Required
F2, F4,F6, F8
R2,R4,R5
City of Huntington Beach
Findings:
Recommendations:
90 Day Response Required
F2, F4, F6, F8
R2,R4,R5
City of La Habra
Findings:
Recommendations:
90 Day Response Required
F2, F6, F8
R4,R5
City of La Palma
Findings:
Recommendations:
90 Day Response Required
F2, F4, F6, F8
R2,R4,R5
City of Newport Beach
Findings:
Recommendations:
90 Day Response Required
F2, F4, F6, F8
R2,R4,R5
City of Orange
Findings:
Recommendations:
90 Day Response Required
F2, F4, F6, F8
R2,R4,R5
PFAS and Public Awareness Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
[ \
City of San Clemente
Findings:
Recommendations:
90 Day Response Required
F2, F6, FB
R4,R5
City of Santa Ana
Findings:
Recommendations:
90 Day Response Required
F2, F4, F6, FB
R2,R4,R5
City of Seal Beach
Findings:
Recommendations:
90 Day Response Required
F2, F4, F6, FB
R2,R4,R5
City of Tustin
Findings:
Recommendations:
90 Day Response Required
F2, F4, F6, FB
R2,R4,R5
City of Westminster
Findings:
Recommendations:
90 Day Response Required
F2, F4, F6, FB
R2,R4,R5
East Orange County Water District
Findings:
Recommendations:
90 Day Response Required
F2, F4, F6, FB
R2,R4,R5
El Toro Water District
Findings:
Recommendations:
90 Day Response Required
F2, F6, FB
R4,R5
,
\[1
PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
Emerald Bay Service District
Findings:
Recommendations:
Golden State Water Company
Findings:
Recommendations:
Irvine Ranch Water District
Findings:
Recommendations:
Laguna Beach County Water District
Findings:
Recommendations:
Mesa Water District
Findings:
Recommendations:
Moulton Niguel Water District
Findings:
Recommendations:
Santa Margarita Water District
Findings:
Recommendations:
90 Day Response Required
F2, F6, F8
R4,R5
90 Day Response Required
F2, F4, F6, F8
R2,R4, R5
90 Day Response Required
F2, F4, F6, F8
R2,R4,R5
90 Day Response Required
F2, F6, F8
R4,R5
90 Day Response Required
F2, F4, F6, FB
R2,R4,R5
90 Day Response Required
F2, F6, F8
R4,R5
90 Day Response Required
F2, F6, F8
R4,R5
PFAS and Public Awareness Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
Serrano Water District
Findings:
Recommendations:
90 Day Response Required
F2, F4, F6,F8
R2,R4,R5
South Coast Water District
Findings:
Recommendations:
Trabuco Canyon Water District
Findings:
Recommendations:
Yorba Linda Water District
Findings:
Recommendations:
90 Day Response Required
F2, F6, F8
R4,R5
90 Day Response Required
F2, F6, F8
R4,R5
90 Day Response Required
F2, F4, F6, F8
R2,R4,R5
PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
Acronyms
ACFRS
ADONA
AFFF
AL
ATSDR
CCR
CCRDL
CDC
cws
DDW
DWR
Effluent
EPA
FDA
GenX
GWRS
Annual comprehensive financial reports
Ammonium 4 8-dioxa-3h-perfluorononanoate
Aqueous film forming foams used frequently at airports and military bases for firefighting and emergency response training activities Regulatory Action Level The concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements that a water system must follow
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Consumer Confidence Report
Consumer Confidence Report Detection Levels
United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Community Water System
Division of Drinking Water
Department of Water Resources
Liquid waste from industrial facilities
US Environmental Protection Agency
Food and Drug Administration
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.
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
MCLG
MRDL
MRDLG
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.
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.
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.
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
OCWD
0 & M
PAYGO
PDWS
pCi/L
Nephelometric turbidity units
Orange County Water District
Operations and Management
"Pay as you go"
Primary Drinking Water Standard MCLs, MRDLs and treatment techniques (TTs} for contaminants that affect health, along with their monitoring and reporting requirements
picoCuries per liter
PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
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
SOWA 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
UGI University of California, Irvine
PFAS and Public Awareness Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
UCMR
us
µmho/cm
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule
United States
Micromho per centimeter (equivalent to 1 microsiemens/cm)
PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
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
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/PJ:)WW/.
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/2025/08/0pen-House-Slides-508.pdf.
PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
Detwiler, Russ. "Reconstructing historical PFAS concentrations in groundwater using a reduced-order modeling framework." Alburquerque NM, lnterPore2025. 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 I 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/sarwgh-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-guality/pfas/.
Orange County Water District. "Sound financial management." Accessed April 8, 2026. https://www.ocwd.com/what-we-do/sound-financial-managernent/.
Pitcher Pouring [Cover page, top row, left image] - Pouring Water into a Glass - Refreshment and Hydration Concept on Wooden Table. 76812373 Stock Photo at Vecteezv. 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 I SpringWell, 2026
PFAS and Public Awareness Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
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.Iive.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 fag 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 fag 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 fag 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 fag 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-produc.
PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
University of California, Irvine. "UGI PFAS Health Study." Accessed May 12, 2026. https://sites.uci.edu/pfas/.
University of California, Irvine. "UGI PFAS Health Study, Frequently Asked Questions." Accessed May 12, 2026. https://sites.uci.edu/pfas/frequently-asked-questions/.
University of California, Irvine, Wen School of Population & Public Health. "The 'Forever Chemical' Detective." February 12, 2026. Accessed May 12, 2026. https://publichealth.uci.edu/2026/02/12/the-forever-chemical-detective/.
United States EPA. "Consumer Confidence Report Rule: A Quick Reference Guide." Accessed April 18, 2026. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014- 05/documents/guide qrg ccr 2011.pdf.
United States EPA. "Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO). Facility Search - Enforcement and Compliance Data." Accessed April 26, 2026. https://echo.epa.gov/facilities/facility-search.
United States EPA. "Learn About the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule." Accessed April 7, 2026. https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/learn-about-unregulatedcontaminant-monitoring-rule.
United States EPA. "Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)." Accessed April 18, 2026. https://www.epa.gov/pfas.
United States EPA. "Per- and PolyfluoroalkylSubstances (PFAS), Final PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation." Accessed May 12, 2026. https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas.
United States EPA. "PFAS Explained." Accessed March 11, 2026. https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-explained.
United States EPA. "Public Notification Rule."Accessed April 7, 2026. https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/public-notification-rule#rule-summary.
United States EPA. "Risk Management for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) under TSCA." Accessed May 21, 2026. https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managingchemicals-under-tsca/risk-management-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas.
United States EPA. "Summary of the Safe Drinking Water Act," describing statutory authority at 42 U.S.C. § 300f et seq., Accessed My 21, 2026, https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/summary-safe-drinking-water-act.
Zimmerman Janet, Santa Ana River [Cover page top row, center image], Water agencies pledge cooperation to help the Santa Ana River - Orange County Register, published September 20, 2014
PFAS and Public Awareness Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
Appendix A
Unregulated Contaminated Monitoring Rule {UCMR)
Contaminants Lists, PFAS Contaminants
Perfluorlnated Compounds:EPAMethod 537
perfluorooctanesulfonic
acid (PFOS) I 0.04
1763-23-1
perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFOA) I 0.02
335-67-1
perfluorononanoic acid
(PFNA) I 0.02
375-95-1
perfluorohexanesulfonic
acid (PFHxS) I 0.03
355-46-4
perfluoroheptanoic acid
(PFHpA) I 0.01
375-85-9
perfluorobutanesulfonic
acid (PFBS) I 0.09
375-73-5
Surfactant or emulsifier; used in fire-fighting foam, circuit board etching acids, alkaline cleaners, floor polish, and as a pesticide active ingredient for insect bait traps; U.S. manufacture of PFOS phased out in 2002; however, PFOS still generated incidentally Perfluorinated aliphatic carboxylic acid; used for its emulsifier and surfactant properties in or as fluoropolymers (such as Teflon), fire-fighting foams, cleaners, cosmetics, greases and lubricants, paints, polishes, adhesives and photographic films Manmade chemical; used in products to make them stain, grease, heat andwater resistant Manmade chemical; used in products to make them stain, grease, heat and water resistant Manmade chemical; used in products to make them stain, grease, heat and water resistant Manmade chemical; used in products to make them stain, grease, heat and water resistant
1. CASRN - Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number
2. MRL - Minimum Reporting Level
3. "Use or Environmental Spurce• further documented In UCMR 3 Contamlnants-lnlormatton Compendium. EPA 815-9-11-001. January 2012 Figure 20 - UCMR 3 Contaminants List, PFAS Contaminants
PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
t h d t
Contaminant CASRN1
25 PFAS: EPA Method 533
MRL
1 (µg/l)
Additional information
11-chloroelcosafluoro-3-oxaundecane-l-sulfonlc acid (llCI-PF30UdS) I 763051-92-9 I 0.005 lH,lH, 2H,_2H·prflu_!>rodecane sulfonlc acid.l!:_2FTS) I 39108-34-4 I 0.005 lH,lH,2H,2H-perfluorohexane sulfonlc acid (4:2FTS) I 757124-72-4 I 0.003 lH,lH,l_H,_2/i-perfluorooctane sulfonlc acid (6:2FTS) I 27619-97-2 I 0.005 4,8·dloxa-3H-perfluorononanolc acid (ADONA) 919005-14•4 0.003 PFAS f th ti are a group o syn e c
9-chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanonane-l-sulfonlc acid(9C1-PF30NS) 756426-58-1 0.002 chemicals used Ina wide range hexafluoropropvlene ox.Ide dimer acid (HFPO·DA)IGenX) 132S2·13·6 0.005 ofconsumer products and nonafluoro-3,6-dloxaheptanolc acid (NFDHA) 151772-58-6 0.02 Industrial appllcatlons perfluoro (2-ethoxyethane) sulfonlc acid (PFEESA) 113507-82·7 0.003 Including: non-stick cookware, oerfluoro-3-methoxvaropanolc acid (PFMPA) 377-73-1 0.004 water-repellent clothing, stalnperfluoro-4-methoxvbutanolc acid (PFMOA) 863090-89-S 0.003 resistant fabrics and carpets, perfluorobutanesulfonlc acid(PFOS) 375.73.5 0.003 cosmetics, firefighting foams, oerfluorobutanolc acid (PFBA) 375-22·4 0.005 electroplatlng,and products perfluorodecanotc acid (PFDA) 335.76·2 0_003 that resist grease, water, and perfluorododecanolc acid (PFDoA) 307-55-1 0.003 oll.PFASare foundIn theblood perfluoroheptanesulfonlc acid (PFHpS) 375-92-8 0.003 of people and animals and In wa er, a1r, 11s , an so11a
perfluoroheptanolc acid (PFHpA) 375-85-9 0.003 locatlons across the United perfluorohexanesulfonlc acid(PFHxSJ 355-46-4 0.003 States and the world. - ,,c acid (PFHxA) 307-24-4 0.003
115.95.1 I 0.004
:tanesulfonlc acid(PFOS 1163-21-1 I o.004
:tanolc acid (PFOA) 335-61-1 I o.004
intanesulfonlc acid (PFPeS) 2706-91-4 I o.004
tanolc acid (PFPe. 0.003
.,•...............erfluorooctanesulfonamldoacetlc acid NMeFOSAA 2355-31-9 0.006 See above for PFAS perfluorotetradecanolc acid (PFTA) 376-06-7 0.008 Information. 1erfluorotrldecanolc acid (PFTrDAI 72629-94-8 0.007
1. CASRN • Chemical Abstracts service Registry Number
2. MRL• Minimum Reporting Level
Figure 21 - UCMR 5 Contaminants List, PFAS Contaminants
PFAS and Public Awareness Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
State Water Resources Control Board PFAS General
Monitoring Orders, 2020-2025
SWRCB Order
Exhibit Title
Internet URL Web Address
2020 SWRCB General Order
DW 2020-0003-DDW
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopte
d_orders/drinking_water/2020/pfas_go_2020_0003_ddw/
pfas_go_2020_0003_ddw.pdf
Exhibit A - List of Sources Subject to
General Order No. DW 2020-0003-DDW
(for DDW Section 5),
https://wqts.com/wpcontenUuploads/2020/09/go_exhibit_a_section5.pdf 2021 SWRCB General Order
DW-2021-0001-DDW
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopte
d_orders/drinking_water/2021/pfas_go_2021_0001_ddw/
a5.pdf
Exhibit A - List of Sources Subject to
General Order No. OW 2021-0001-DDW
(For DOW Section 5)
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopte
d_orders/drinking_water/2021/pfas_go_2021_0001_ddw/
a5.pdf
2022 Amended General Order DW 2022-
0001-DDW
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/dri nkingwater/pfas_ddw_general_order/docs/amendedpfas-general-order-2022-final.pdf Exhibit A - List of Sources Subject to
General Order No. OW 2022-0001-DDW
(Amended)
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/dri nkingwater/pfas_ddw_general_order/docs/pfas_go_2022
-0001-DDW_ExhibitA.pdf
2025 SWRCB General Order
OW 2025-0002-DDW
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/dri nkingwater/pfas_ddw_general_order/docs/order-dw2025-0002-ddw-pfas-initial-monitoring.pdf Exhibit A - List of Sources Subject to
General Order DW 2025-0002-DDW
https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https% 3A%2F%2Fwww.waterboards.ca.gov%2Fdrinking_water
%2Fcertlic%2Fdrinkingwater%2Fpfas_ddw_general_ord
er%2Fdocs%2Forder-dw-2025-0002-ddw-exhibita.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK Figure 22 - SWRCB PFAS General Monitoring Orders Issued 2020 through 2025
PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
General Order No. OW 2020.0003-DDW
EXHIBITS
CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORT DETECTION LEVELS (CCRDL)
NOTES:
1. The CCRDL is based on a review of the reporting levels reported for monitoring conducted between August and December 2019- Specifically, the SWB calculated the CCRDL as the reporting level that was achievable in 90 percent of all negative result reported during that period. Results were rounded to the nearest whole number.
2. For HFPO-DA, the rounded CCRDL is lower than the 90th percentile of conveyed reporting levels based on consultation with the laboratory reporting the highest volume of results, and their statement that a reporting level of 4 ng/L (4 pp!) could readily be achieved.
State Water Resources Control Board General
Monitoring Orders PFAS Constituents Lists
Constituent CCRDL,
nn/L
1 PERFLUOROBUTANESULFONIC ACID (PFBS) 4
2 PERFLUORONONANOIC ACID (PFNA) 4
3 PERFLUORODECANOIC ACID (PFDA) 4
4 PERFLUOROTETRADECANOIC ACID (PFTA) 4
5 HEXAFLUOROPROPYLENE OXIDE DIMER ACID (HFPO-DA) 4
6 4,8-DIOXA-3H-PERFLUORONONANOIC ACID (ADONA) 2
7 PERFLUOROHEPTANOIC ACID (PFHpA) 4
8 N-ETHYL PERFLUOROOCTANESULFONAMIDOACETIC ACID 4
9 PERFLUdRODODECANOIC ACID (PFDoA) 4
10 PERFLUOROTRIDECANOIC ACID (PFTrDA) 4
11 9-CHLOROHEXADECAFLUORO-3-OXANONE-1-SULFONIC ACID 2
12 PERFLUOROOCTANE SULFONIC ACID (PFOS) 4
13 PERFLUOROHEXANE SULFONIC ACID (PFHxS) 4
14 N-METHYL PERFLUOROOCTANESULFONAMIDOACETIC ACID 4
15 PERFLUOROHEXANOIC ACID (PFHxA) 4
16 PERFLUOROUNDECANOIC ACID (PFUnA) 4
17 11-CHLOROEICOSAFLUORO-3-OXAUNDECANE-1-SULFONIC
ACID 2
18 PERFLUOROOCT ANOIC ACID (PFOA) 4
Figure 23 - SWRCB General Monitoring Order 2020-0003-DDW, PFAS Constituents
PFAS and Public Awareness Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
General Order No. OW 2021-0001-0DW
EXHIBIT 8
CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORT DETECTION LEVELS (CCRDL) and ADVISORY LEVELS CCRDL', Notification
Constituent Level,
nafl nail
.
Response
Level,
nail
-
Exedanco
Mothodology3
-
ACID
9 PERFLUORODODECANOIC ACID {PFDoA)
10 PERFLUOROTRIDECANOIC ACID (PFTrDA)
8 N-ETHYL PERFLUOROOCTANESULFONAMIDOACETIC
11 0-CHLOROHEXADECAFLUORO-3--OXANONE-1-SULFONIC
ACID
12 PERFLUOROOCTANE SULFONIC ACID (PFOS)
13 PERFLUOROHEXANE SIJLFONIC ACID (PFHxS)
4 4
4 2
ACID
15 PERFLUOROHEXANOIC ACID (PFHxA)
16 PERFLUOROUNDECANOIC ACID (PFUnA)
17 ·11-CHLOROEICOSAFLUORO--OXAUNDECANE-1-
SULFONIC ACID
18-PERFLUOROOCTANOIC ACID (PFOA)
4 4
.4
4 4
2 8.5 40 QRAA
14 N-METHYLPERFLUOROOCTANESULFONAMIDOACETIC
4 5.1 10 QRAA
1 PERFLUOROBUTANESULFONICACID (PFBS)' 4
2 PERFLUORONONANOI.GACID (PFNA) 4
3 PERFLUORODECANOICACID (PFDA) 4
4 PERFLUOROTETRADECANOIC ACID (PFTA) 4
5 HEXAFLUOROPROPYLENEOXIDEDIMER ACID (HFPQ.DA)2 4
6 4,8.0IO?(A•3H-PERFLUORONONANOIC A,CID (AOOj 2
7 PERFLUOROHEPTANOIC ACID (PFHpA) 4
Figure 24 - SWRCB General Monitoring Order 2021-0001-DDW, PFAS Constituents
PFAS and Public Awareness
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
Order DW-2022-0001-DDW (Amended)
Exhibit B• CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORT INFORMATION AND
NOTIFICATION AND RESPONSE LEVELS
T.1ble 1 - Consumer Confidence Report Detection Levels (CCRDL) - EPA Method 633 Constituent CCRDL
(ngfL)
U.S.EPA
MCL
(ng/L)
11-chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaundecane-·I-sulfonic acid (11CI-PF3OUdS) 2.0 - 1H,1H, 2H, 2H-perfluorodecane sulfonic acid (8:2FTS) 5.0 - 1H,1H, 2H, 2H-perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (4:2FTS) 2.0 - 1H,1H. 2H, 2H-perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (6:2FTS) 5.0 - 4,8-dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid (ADONA) 2.0 --
9-chlorohexadecanuoro-3-oxanonane-1-sulfonic acid (9CI-PF3ONS) 2.0 - hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) (Gen><) 2.0 10 nonafluoro-3,6-dioxaheptanoic acid (NFDHA) 2.0 -
perfluoro (2-elhoxyelhane) sulfonic acid (PFEESA) 2.0 - perfluoro-3-melhoxypropanoic acid (PFMPA) 2.0 -
perfluoro-4-methoxybutanolc acid (PFMBA) 2.0 -
pertluorobutanesultonlc acid (PFBS) 2.0 -
perfluorobulanolc acid (PFBA) 2.0 -
perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) 2.0 -
perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) 2.0 -
perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid (PFHpS) 2.0 -
perfluoroheplanolc acid (PFHpA) 2.0 -
pertluorohexanesulfonlc acid (PFHxS) 2.0 10
perfluorohexnoic acid (PFHxA) 2.0 -
perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 2.0 10
perfluorooctanesulfonlc acid (PFOS) 2.0 4.0
pertluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 2.0 4.0
perfluoropentanesulfonlc acid (PFPeS) 2.0 -
perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) 2.0 -
perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) 2.0 -
Figure 25 - SWRCB General Monitoring Order 2022-0001-DDW, PFAS Constituents
PFAS and Public Awareness Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
Order DW-2025-0002-DDW
Exhibit B • CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORT INFORMATION AND
NOTIFICATION AND RESPONSE LEVELS
Table 1 - Consumer Confidence Report Detection Levels (CCRDL) Constituent
CCRDL
(ng/L)
U.S.EPA
MCL
(ng/L)
11-chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaundecane-1-sulfonlc acid (11CI-PF3OUdS) 2.0 - 1H,1H, 2H, 2H-perfluorodecanesulfonlc acid(8:2FTS) 5.0 - 1H,1H, 2H, 2H-perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (4:2FTS) 2.0 - 1H,1H, 2H, 2H-perfluorooctanesulfonlc acid (6:2FTS) 5.0 - 4,8-dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid (ADONA) 2.0 -
9-chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanonane-1-sulfonlc acid (9CI-PF3ONS) 2.0 - hexafluoropropyleneoxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) (GenX) 2.0 10 nonalluoro-3,6-<lioxaheptanoic acid (NFDHA) 2.0 -
perfluoro (2-ethoxyethane)sulfonic acid (PFEESA) 2.0 -
perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid (PFMPA) 2.0 -
perfluoro-4-methoxybutanoic acid (PFMBA) 2.0 -
perfluorobutanesulfonlc acid (PFBS) 2.0 -
perfluorobutanoicacid(PFBA) 2.0 -
perfluorodecanolcacid (PFDA) 2.0 -
perfluorododecanolc acid (PFDoA) 2.0 -
perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid (PFHpS) 2.0 -
perfluoroheptanolcacid (PFHpA) 2.0 -
perfluorohexanesulfonlc acid (PFHxS) 2.0 10
perfluorohexanolc acid (PFHxA) 2.0 ..
perfluorononanolc acid (PFNA) 2.0 10
perfluorooctanesulfonlc acid (PFOS) 2.0 4.0
perfluorooctanolc acid (PFOA) 2.0 4.0
perfluoropentanesulfonlc acid (PFPeS) 2.0 --
perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) 2.0 -
perfluoroundecanolc acid (PFUnA) 2.0 -
n-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid (NEIFOSSA) 5.0 - n-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamldoacetlc acid (NMeFOSSA) 5.0 - perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTA) 2.0 -
perfluorotridecanolc acid (PFTrDA) 2.0 -
Figure 26 - SWRCB General Monitoring Order 2025-0002-DDW, PFAS Constituents
PFAS and Public Awareness
v
i I Ji. I U'· u . ,i: I!r l •••••- l . J b'
l. l!i'"i,
AppendixB
Eight Content Requirements of a CCR
► Item 1:Water System Information - Name/phone number of a contact person;information onpublic participationopportunities.
► Item 2:Source(s) of Water.
► Item 3:Definitions - Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL);MCL Goal(MCLG); Trealment Technique (TT);ActionLevel (AL);Maximum ResidualDisinfeclanl Level(MRDL); MRDL Goal(MRDLG). ► Item 4:Detected Contaminants -A table summarizlng reported concentrationsandrelevant MCLs and MCLGs or MRDLs andMRDLGs; known source of detected contaminants;healtheffects language. ► Item 5:Information onMonitoring for Cryptosporidlum,Radon, and Other Contaminants (if detected).
► Item 6:Compliance with OtherDrinkll\9 WaterRegulations (any violaUons andGround Water Rule [GWR) specialnotices).
► Item 7:Variances andExemptions (if applicable).
► Item 8:Required Educational Information- Explanation ofcontaminants indrinking water andbotUed water;information to vulnerable populations about Cryptosporld/um; statements onnitrate,arsenic,and lead.
Optional Information
CWSs arenot limited toprovidingonly therequired information intheir CCR. CWSs may want toInclude:
► Anexplanation(orincludeadiagramon the cwss treatment processes. ► Source water protection efforts and/or water conservation tips. ► Costs of making the water sale to drink.
► Astatement from themayor or general manager.
► Informationtoeducate customers about: Tasteand odor issues, affilialions withprogramssuchas the Partnershipfor Safe Waler,opportunities forpublic participation, etc.
Communication Tips
► Provide aconsistent message.Beas simple, truthful, and straightforwardaspossible.Avoidacronyms, initials, and jargon.
► Provide links touseful information resources.
► Limit wordiness -writeshort sentences andkeep yourparagraphs short. ► Assume that consumers willonlyread the tophallor thenotice or whatcanl>ereadin10seconds. ► DisplayImportant elements inboldand/or large type Inthetophallof thenotice. ► Oonot make your text size too small.
► Givea draft olyour CCR torelativesor friends whoarenot drinking water experts and ask themii It makes sense.Ask customers for theircomme,ntswhenyou publishthe CCR. ► Use graphics,photographs, maps, and drawings to illustrateyourmessage.Oo not distract fromyour mainmessage with graphics and/or pictures that donotcomplement yourmessage. ► Consider printing the CCRonrecycledpaper and takingother steps tomake the CCR 'environmentally friendly.'II youhope toget your customers involved inprotectingor conserving water, set a good example forthemtofollow.
► Use the CCR as an opportunity totellyour customers about allof the thingsthat you aredoing well.
Source: EPA
Figure 27 - EPA Eight Content Requirementsrofra ons□[-rr- 0lnf'der11:'8eort • I 1.( • rI,i , I I•' , Ll ·
• •, • IJ/.',h1I
,JJ\l i1u
,..:.; '--- I ' :-:JL u ' ,
6range County ran<! Jury 2025-2026
California Penal Code Sections §933 and §933.05
[NOTE: to reduce grandju1y requests for additional response infonnation, the grand jury has bolded those words in 933.05 which should be appropriately included in a response]
933 (a) Each grand jury shall submit to the presiding judge of the superior court a final report of its findings and recommendations that pertain to county govenm1ent matters during the fiscal or calendar year. Final reports on any appropriate subject may be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court at any time during the term of service of a grand jury. A final report may be submitted for comment to responsible officers, agencies, or departments, including the county board of supervisors, when applicable, upon finding of the presiding judge that the report is in compliance with this title. For 45 days after the end of the term, the foreperson and his or her designees shall, upon reasonable notice, be available to clarify the recommendations of the report.
(b) One copy of each final report, together with the responses thereto, found to be in compliance with this title shall be placed on file with the clerk of the court and remain on file in the office of the clerk. The clerk shall immediately forward a true copy of the report and the responses to the State Archivist who shall retain that report and all responses in perpetuity. (c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and eve1y 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 inforn1ation 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 jmy final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. (d) As used in this section "agency" includes a department. §933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jmy finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
( l) 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, \Vith a summaty 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 watTanted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
(c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. (d) A grandjmy may request a subject person or entity to come before the grandjmy for the purpose ofreading and discussing the findings of the grand jmy 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, detem1ines that such a meeting would be detrimental.
(f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the p011ion 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.
Request to Destroy Records
August 18, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY CITY
COUNCIL
COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST
Agenda Date: August 18, 2026
SUBJECT: Request to Destroy Police Department, Fire Department and Finance Department Records Three-Year Strategic Goals
□ Enhance the culture and environment of "A Nice Place to Live" □ Achieve fiscal stability by evaluating processes, and attract and retain revenue producing businesses/opportunities
□ Attract and retain quality staff through best practices and trends □ Maintain, build, and modernize infrastructure to support growth and future needs of the City
Not applicable
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Pursuant to Government Code Section 34090, the head of a City Department may destroy a City record that is no longer required with the approval of the City Council by Resolution and written consent of the Attorneys for the City.
DISCUSSION
The records sought to be destroyed by the Police Department, Fire Department, and Finance Department are attached to the Resolution authorizing their destruction. Pursuant to the City's Records Retention Schedule, the records are no longer required to be retained. Therefore, the Police Department, Fire Department, and Finance Department seek City Council authorization by Resolution and written approval from the City's Attorneys to destroy the records.
FISCAL REVIEW
There is no fiscal impact related to this item.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
This matter was noticed in compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act.
Request to Destroy Records
August 18, 2026
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW
Not applicable.
ATTORNEY REVIEW
The Attorneys for the City reviewed and concur with this Council Action Request.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative No.1: Authorize the City Clerk to destroy the Police Department, Fire Department, and Finance Department records are contained in the records destruction requests.
Alternative No. 2: Do not authorize the City Clerk to destroy the Police Department, Fire Department, and Finance Department records are contained in the records destruction requests. The records will be retained.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve Alternative 1: Authorize the City Clerk to destroy the Police Department, Fire Department, and Finance Department records contained in the records destruction requests.
Prepared by: Rick Miller, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Colin Burns, Attorneys for the City
Approved by: Maggie Le, City Manager
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY AUTHORIZING THE
DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN RECORDS
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 34090 authorizes the
destruction of City records upon compliance therewith; and WHEREAS, the records and documents sought to be destroyed pursuant to Government Code Section 34090 are not records affecting title to real property, court records, records required to be kept by statute, records less than two years old, minutes, ordinances, or resolutions of the City Council, or any board or commission; and WHEREAS, the Attorney for the City has given his consent to the destruction of said records, as required by law,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Fountain Valley does hereby resolve that the records requested in the attached records destruction requests may be destroyed.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of August, 2026, by the following vote:
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
Abstain:
ATTEST:
Rick Miller, City Clerk Jim Cunneen, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:
HARPER & BURNS LLP
____________________________
Colin Burns, Attorneys for the City
8/10/206
8/10/2026
8/10/2026
CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY
CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST
To: Honorable Mayor and Agenda Date: August 18, 2026
Members of the City Council
SUBJECT: Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Restricting Kratom Three-Year Strategic Goals
☒ Cultivate a welcoming culture and safe environment that makes our community “A Nice Place to Live.”
☐ Ensure long-term fiscal stability by evaluating processes, and attract and retain revenue producing businesses/opportunities.
☐ Attract and retain quality staff through best practices and trends. ☐ Maintain, build, plan for, and modernize infrastructure to support the growth and future needs of the City.
☐ Not applicable.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At its meeting on July 14, 2026, the City Council introduced for first reading an Ordinance Restricting Kratom. The Ordinance was approved during the first reading without amendment.
The Ordinance is now presented to the City Council for second reading and adoption.
DISCUSSION
Kratom in its natural form has been shown to provide some benefits, such as mild pain relief and support for individuals seeking to reduce dependence on opioids. However, synthetic and highly concentrated 7-OH products pose serious health risks. Medical experts have warned that concentrated 7-OH has been described as “legal morphine.” Its heightened potency, combined with inconsistent labeling, creates significant danger, particularly for youth and unsuspecting users who may not realize they are consuming synthetic 7-OH rather than natural kratom.
Several jurisdictions, both in the U.S. and abroad, have restricted or banned kratom sales. The neighboring city of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange have enacted ordinances to restrict the sale of kratom.
At its meeting on July 14, 2026, the City Council introduced for first reading an Ordinance Restricting Kratom. The Ordinance was approved during the first reading without amendment.
Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Restricting Kratom August 4, 2026
The Ordinance is now presented to the City Council for second reading and adoption.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Not applicable.
ATTORNEY REVIEW
The Attorney(s) for the City have prepared this staff report and proposed Ordinance.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
This item was properly agendized under the Ralph M. Brown Act.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Adopt the attached Ordinance Restricting Kratom.
Alternative 2: Do not adopt the attached Ordinance and continue the item for further consideration.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance Restricting Kratom.
Prepared by: Caroline Kublin, Attorney for the City
Reviewed by: Colin Burns, Attorney for the City
Approved By: Maggie Le, City Manager
Attachment No 1: July 14, 2026, Staff Report
Attachment No 2: Ordinance Restricting Kratom
CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY
CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST
To: Honorable Mayor and Agenda Date: July 14, 2026
Members of the City Council
SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE RESTRICTING KRATOM Three-Year Strategic Goals
☒ Cultivate a welcoming culture and safe environment that makes our community “A Nice Place to Live.”
☐ Ensure long-term fiscal stability by evaluating processes, and attract and retain revenue producing businesses/opportunities.
☐ Attract and retain quality staff through best practices and trends. ☐ Maintain, build, plan for, and modernize infrastructure to support the growth and future needs of the City.
☐ Not applicable.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Proposed for City Council Introduction-First Read is an Ordinance Restricting certain activities involving Kratom. The proposed Ordinance is modeled on the Ordinance adopted by the County of Orange.
DISCUSSION
Kratom in its natural form has been shown to provide some benefits, such as mild pain relief and support for individuals seeking to reduce dependence on opioids. However, synthetic and highly concentrated 7-OH products pose serious health risks. Medical experts have warned that concentrated 7-OH has been described as “legal morphine.” Its heightened potency, combined with inconsistent labeling, creates significant danger, particularly for youth and unsuspecting users who may not realize they are consuming synthetic 7-OH rather than natural kratom.
According to news reports, Hoag has treated more patients for kratom use this year than in the previous 30 years combined, detoxing as many patients from 7-OH as fentanyl. Several jurisdictions, both in the U.S. and abroad have restricted or banned kratom sales.
The neighboring city of Huntington Beach and County of Orange have enacted ordinances to restrict the sale of kratom.
Introduction of an Ordinance Restricting Kratom
July 14, 2026
By signing this ordinance for the City of Fountain Valley, it will put limits on the distribution of kratom, most notably: 1) the prohibition of sales of synthetic kratom product containing more than 2% of the potent compound 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH); 2) prohibition of the sale of kratom products to anyone under age 21; 3) that kratom packaging be child-resistant and not attractive to children; and 4) mandate online retailers use an age-verification system.
FISCAL REVIEW
There is no fiscal impact related to this item.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
This item was noticed as a public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW
Not applicable.
ATTORNEY REVIEW
The Attorney(s) for the City have prepared this staff report and the proposed Ordinance.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative No. 1:
Alternative No. 2:
RECOMMENDATION
Introduce and approve for Second Reading-Adoption, an
Ordinance restricting Kratom by adopting a new chapter section in the Fountain Valley Municipal Code § 8.65 SALE, DISTRIBUTION,
AND POSSESSION OF KRATOM RESTRICTED
Do not approve the attached Ordinance and, instead, wait until AB 1088 passes which is designed to regulate synthetic kratom and kratom products. However, there is no guarantee that this California Assembly Bill will pass. If passed, it will become law on January 1, 2027.
Staff is requesting City Council approval of Alternative No. 1 to adopt Local Ordinance as part of Fountain Valley Municipal Code with new chapter section: 8.65.
Prepared by: Caroline Kublin, Attorney for the City
Fiscal Review by: Ryan Smith, Finance Director
Attorney review by: Colin Burns, Attorney for the City
Approved by: Maggie Le, City Manager
Attachments:
1. Ordinance
Ordinance Restricting the Sale, Distribution, and Possession of Kratom Page 1 of 5 Council Meeting July 14, 2026
ORDINANCE NO. 2026-____
ORDINANCE RESTRICTING KRATOM
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY AMENDING THE FOUNTAIN
VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING NEW CHAPTER
8.65 RESTRICTING THE SALE, DISTRIBUTION, AND
POSSESSION OF KRATOM
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council to prohibit the sale, distribution, or possession of kratom and other products within the City of Fountain Valley that contain more than 2% of 7-hydroxymitragynine in the alkaloid fraction, recognizing the significant health risks associated with elevated concentrations of this alkaloid; and WHEREAS, kratom (Mitragyna speciosa) is a tropical tree native to Southeast Asia, and its leaves are often consumed in powdered or extract form for their stimulant and sedative effects; and
WHEREAS, the active compounds in kratom include mitragynine and 7- hydroxymitragynine. While mitragynine is present in higher concentrations, 7- hydroxymitragynine is more potent and is largely responsible for the stronger pain-relieving, sedative, and euphoric effects; and
WHEREAS, 7-hydroxymitragynine binds to opioid receptors in the brain and has been shown to have euphoric and mood-enhancing effects, particularly at higher doses, which can increase its appeal for recreational use; and
WHEREAS, 7-hydroxymitragynine is believed to be more potent than morphine in terms of pain relief. Research has shown that it binds to opioid receptors in the brain with greater affinity than morphine, making it significantly more powerful in relieving pain. This greater potency raises significant concerns about its safety profile, especially regarding the potential for addiction, overdose, and adverse physical and psychological effects, including nausea, vomiting, and potential psychosis. These risks are compounded when products contain higher concentrations of 7-hydroxymitragynine; and
WHEREAS, scientific research and health advisories have raised concerns over the safety of kratom products, particularly those with higher concentrations of 7- hydroxymitragynine, which may increase the potential for abuse and harm to public health; and WHEREAS, several cities in California have taken steps to regulate or ban kratom products, recognizing the need to protect public safety, especially among vulnerable populations.
For example, Newport Beach, San Diego, and Oceanside have all enacted a complete ban on the sale, distribution, and possession of all kratom products – irrespective of the concentration of 7- hydroxymitragynine content; and
Ordinance Restricting the Sale, Distribution, and Possession of Kratom Page 2 of 5 Council Meeting July 14, 2026
WHEREAS, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued several warning letters to various companies for illegally marketing products containing enhanced levels of 7- hydroxymitragynine, culminating in a formal request to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) on July 29, 2025, to place 7-hydroxymitragynine products on the controlled substance list; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is committed to safeguarding the health and well-being of its residents by ensuring that products available for sale do not pose undue health risks; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to restrict the sale and distribution of kratom and other products containing more than 2% of 7-hydroxymitragynine in the alkaloid fraction, thereby reducing potential risks to public health and safety.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Fountain Valley, California hereby ordains as follows:
Section 1. New Chapter 8.65 is added to the Fountain Valley Municipal Code to read as follows:
“Chapter 8.65 SALE, DISTRIBUTION, AND POSSESSION OF KRATOM
RESTRICTED
§ 8.65.010 Purpose and Intent.
§ 8.65.020 Definitions.
§ 8.65.030 Sale, distribution, and possession of kratom restricted. § 8.65.040 Violations and Penalties.
§ 8.65.050 Severability.
§ 8.65.010 Purpose and Intent.
This article is enacted pursuant to the City’s plenary police powers to protect public safety, health and welfare. The express purpose of this article is to protect public health and safety by regulating access to kratom and other products containing more than 2% of 7-hydroxymitragynine in the alkaloid fraction.
§ 8.65.020 Definitions.
For purposes of this article, the following definitions apply. (a) “Attractive to children” means any of the following:
(1) Use of images that are attractive to children, including, but not limited to, images of any of the following, except as part of required health warnings:
Ordinance Restricting the Sale, Distribution, and Possession of Kratom Page 3 of 5 Council Meeting July 14, 2026
(A) Cartoons, toys, or robots.
(B) Any real or fictional humans.
(C) Fictional animals or creatures.
(D) Fruits or vegetables, except when used to accurately describe ingredients or flavors contained in a product.
(2) Likeness to images, characters, or phrases that are popularly used to advertise to children.
(3) Imitation of candy packaging or labeling, or other packaging and labeling of cereals, sweets, chips, or other food products typically marketed to children. (4) The terms “candy” or “candies” or variants in spelling such as “kandy” or “kandee.”
(5) Brand names or close imitations of brand names of candies, cereals, sweets, chips, or other food products typically marketed to children. (6) Any other image or packaging that is easily confused with commercially available foods that do not contain kratom and are typically marketed to children. (7) Any other packaging used that is attractive to children considering all relevant facts and circumstances.
(b) “Kratom leaf” means the leaf of the kratom plant, also known as mitragyna speciosa, any form.
(c) “Kratom leaf extract” means the material obtained by extraction of kratom leaves by any means.
(d) “Kratom product” means a product consisting of any part of a leaf of the plant Mitragyna speciosa in fresh, dehydrated, or dried form; or a kratom extract, or any product that contains any kratom alkaloid or metabolite. (e) “Total kratom alkaloids” means the sum of mitragynine, speciociliatine, speciogynine, paynantheine, and 7-hydroxymitragynine in a kratom product. (f) “Synthesized” means an alkaloid or alkaloid derivative that has been created by chemical synthesis or biosynthetic means (including but not limited to; fermentation, recombinant techniques, yeast derived, enzymatic techniques), rather than traditional food preparation techniques such as heating or extracting. It also includes alkaloids that has been further exposed to chemicals or processes that would confer a structural change in the alkaloids contained within the extract.
§ 8.65.030 Sale, distribution, and possession of kratom restricted.
Ordinance Restricting the Sale, Distribution, and Possession of Kratom Page 4 of 5 Council Meeting July 14, 2026
(a) Except as otherwise authorized by law, an individual, business, or other entity shall not sell, attempt to sell, offer, provide, or distribute a kratom product to a person under 21 years of age.
(b) Except as otherwise authorized by law, an individual, business, or other entity shall not sell, attempt to sell, offer, provide, or distribute any product with a level of 7- hydroxymitragynine that is greater than 2 percent of the total alkaloids in the product. (c) Except as otherwise authorized by law, an individual, business, or other entity shall not sell, attempt to sell, offer, provide, or distribute a kratom product that is attractive to children.
(d) Any individual, business, or other entity that sells, attempts to sell, offers, provides, or distributes a kratom product shall conduct age-verification to ensure compliance with subdivision (a).
(e) No person or entity shall offer for sale any kratom product that contains or is adulterated with synthesized or semi-synthesized kratom alkaloids or kratom constituents.
§ 8.65.040 Violations and Penalties.
It is unlawful and a public nuisance for any person or entity to violate any provision of the Chapter.
Section 2. Severability.
If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this article is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed severable and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this article irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof and intends that the invalid portions should be severed, and the balance of the article be enforced.” Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption.
Ordinance Restricting the Sale, Distribution, and Possession of Kratom Page 5 of 5 Council Meeting July 14, 2026
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Fountain Valley at a regular meeting thereof held on July 14, 2026.
ATTEST:
______________________ _______________________
Jim Cunneen City Clerk
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
City Attorney
CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY
CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST
To: Honorable Mayor and Agenda Date: August 18, 2026
Members of the City Council
SUBJECT: Approve First Amendment to the Agreement with Temporary Staffing Professionals in an amount not to exceed $180,000 for Temporary Employee Staffing Services
Three-Year Strategic Goals
☐ Cultivate a welcoming culture and safe environment that makes our community “A Nice Place to Live.”
☐ Ensure long-term fiscal stability by evaluating processes, and attract and retain revenue producing businesses/opportunities.
☐ Attract and retain quality staff through best practices and trends. ☐ Maintain, build, plan for, and modernize infrastructure to support the growth and future needs of the City.
☒ Not applicable.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the November 19, 2024, meeting, the City Council approved an agreement with Temporary Staffing Professionals, Inc. for a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000 to provide temporary staffing services through June 30, 2027. These services support City operations by assisting departments with staffing vacancies and by providing temporary administrative, risk management, financial, human resources, information technology, and project-related support.
To ensure continuity of operations and maintain service levels across departments, staff recommends approval of an amendment to the agreement to increase the not-to-exceed amount by $180,000 for continued temporary staffing services through the June 30, 2027 agreement term.
DISCUSSION
Temporary Staffing Professionals, Inc. provides temporary staffing services to support the City of Fountain Valley’s operational needs during employee vacancies, leaves of absence, recruitment periods, and periods of increased workload or project demands. Services include information technology support, general administrative support, executive and senior-level administrative assistance, accounting and financial support, and risk management support.
Temporary Staffing Professionals
August 18, 2026
Staff has determined that increasing the agreement amount is in the City’s best interest to ensure continuity of services, maintain operational efficiency, and provide departments with the staffing resources necessary to meet ongoing service demands. • Temporary Staffing Professionals shall provide temporary workers with the skills required for the assignment.
The City reserves the right to end a temporary staff assignment if work performed is substandard, there is poor attendance, the assignment is completed, or other businessrelated reasons. Temporary Staffing Professionals shall remove any temporary worker from their assignment at the City's request and at the time requested by the City and provide a replacement temporary worker if requested by the City. • Temporary Staffing Professionals shall be responsible for all decisions concerning hiring, firing, discipline, payroll practices, and employee benefits, such as vacation, sick, and other leave benefits. Temporary workers provided by Temporary Staffing Professionals shall be considered employees of Temporary Staffing Professionals and shall in no sense be regarded as employees or agents of the City.
FISCAL REVIEW
City staff is requesting City Council approval of an amendment to the Agreement with Temporary Staffing Professionals for an amount not-to-exceed $180,000. The current adopted budget includes sufficient funding for this purchase. It will be expensed to the Professional Services accounts in the department in which the vacancy is being filled.
At this time, the City Clerk department has budgeted $55,000 for one (1) temporary worker to aid the risk management division. The Finance department has budgeted $125,000 for two (2) temporary workers – one (1) front counter worker for vacancy coverage during recruitment ($50,000), and one (1) temporary worker for the business license “pilot” program ($75,000).
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Not applicable.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW
Not applicable.
ATTORNEY REVIEW
Attorney for the City has reviewed this item.
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternative No. 1: Approve the first amendment to the agreement with Temporary Staffing Professionals in the amount not to exceed $180,000.
Alternative No. 2: Do not approve the first amendment, and do not move forward with a contract change order.
Temporary Staffing Professionals
August 18, 2026
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council approve Alternative No. 1.
Prepared by: Heather Campbell, Risk Manager
Reviewed by: Tania Knauerhaze, Human Resources Director Approved by: Rick Miller, City Clerk/Risk Administrator Attachment:
1. First Amendment to Agreement with Temporary Staffing Professionals
2. Agreement with Temporary Staffing Professionals
AMENDMENT NO. 1
CON - 1533
TEMPORARY STAFFING PROFESSIONALS, INC.
This FIRST AMENDMENT to CON-1533 is made and entered this 18th day of August 2026, by and between the City of Fountain Valley (hereinafter “CITY”), a municipal corporation, and Temporary Staffing Professionals, Inc. (hereinafter “CONSULTANT”).
Recitals
WHEREAS, CITY and CONSULTANT previously entered into CON-1533 dated November 19, 2024, for Temporary Staffing Services (“AGREEMENT”) by which AGREEMENT is fully incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the AGREEMENT was for a contract sum not-to-exceed amount of $300,000 for temporary staffing through June 30, 2027; and
WHEREAS, CITY has a need for additional temporary staffing that exceeds the budget allocation specified in AGREEMENT; and
WHEREAS, CITY and CONSULTANT desire to amend the contract to increase the notto-exceed amount by One Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars ($180,000.00), to a new TOTAL CONTRACT SUM not-to-exceed Four Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars ($480,000.00); and WHEREAS, CITY and CONSULTANT further desire to amend the billing rates as attached under Exhibit A-1.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. That Section 6, PAYMENT of the AGREEMENT is hereby amended to increase the not-to-exceed sum by One Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars ($180,000.00) for a TOTAL CONTRACT SUM not-to-exceed Four Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars ($480,000.00).
2. The billing rates set forth in the Proposal attached as Exhibit A to the AGREEMENT, are hereby amended and replaced with the revised billing rates attached hereto as Exhibit A-1. All other terms of the Proposal remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
3. Except as provided in this FIRST AMENDMENT, all other terms and conditions of the AGREEMENT shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this FIRST AMENDMENT, the date and year first above written.
ATTEST: CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY
________________________________ ________________________________________ Rick Miller, City Clerk Jim Cunneen, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONSULTANT:
HARPER & Burns LLP TEMPORARY STAFFING PROFESSIONALS
_______________________________ _______________________________________ Attorneys for the City By: Maria Lankenau
Chief Executive Officer
Attachment:
Exhibit A-1: updated billing rates
Maria Lankenau (Jul 27, 2026 12:34:13 CDT)
Temporary Staffing Professionals, Rate Sheet
Category: Information Technology
Position Hourly Bill Rate Range
Help Desk Specialist $42.78 $53.89
Help Desk Manager $78.89 $114.98
Desktop Support Analyst $52.49 $73.89
Software Engineer $95.98 $136.76
IT Support Technician $58.78 $73.42
IT Analyst $69.98 $102.49
Systems Administrator $82.57 $115.58
Applications Analyst $62.78 $97.38
Business Systems Analyst $62.77 $78.79
GIS Analyst $62.77 $78.79
Cybersecurity Analyst $92.48 $137.58
Network Engineer $69.98 $93.67
Network Administrator $77.68 $116.76
Data Analyst $62.77 $92.89
IT Manager $139.89 $165.87
Category: Accounting, Finance, Administrative, HR
Position Hourly Bill Rate Range
Administrative / Office Assistant $43.89 $52.67
Executive Assistant $61.27 $72.89
Administrative Analyst $56.78 $68.67
Department Assistant $44.98 $54.89
Office Specialist $45.78 $53.57
Accounts Payable / Accounts Receivable Clerk $49.98 $57.28 Accounting Clerk $47.25 $54.76
Accounting Technician $45.72 $51.98
Payroll Administrator $53.94 $72.89
Payroll Specialist $74.89 $83.78
Budget Analyst $61.29 $106.25
HR Clerk $45.54 $50.89
Recruitment Coordinator $47.25 $52.89
HR Technician $49.98 $56.84
HR Analyst $65.39 $99.79
HR Manager $100.38 $121.88
Benefits Coordinator $48.77 $54.98
Permit Technician $43.98 $47.89
Planning Assistant $47.76 $53.28
Code Enforcement Assistant $44.89 $49.97
Customer Service Representative $42.29 $46.89
Front Counter Representative $44.77 $48.78
EXHIBIT A-1
Records Clerk $41.98 $45.28
Fiscal Clerk $42.89 $46.77
File Clerk $40.78 $44.67
Staff Accountant $59.89 $64.98
Senior Accountant $70.89 $76.67
Accounting Manager $87.54 $122.69
Financial Analyst $69.89 $76.98
Billing Clerk $45.89 $51.58
TSP does not charge conversion fees if a temporary employee assigned through our firm applies through the City’s open recruitment process and is ultimately selected for direct employment. Temporary employees may transition to the City’s payroll at no additional cost to the City, regardless of assignment duration, provided the candidate successfully completes the City’s standard hiring and selection procedures.
CON-1533 - TSP Amendment
Final Audit Report 2026-07-27
Created: 2026-07-27
By: Heather Campbell ([email protected]) Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAbLLnJ6enEFAGjQStbE2RPfp0Ushe2XNC "CON-1533 - TSP Amendment" History
Document created by Heather Campbell ([email protected]) 2026-07-27 - 5:27:03 PM GMT
Document emailed to [email protected] for signature 2026-07-27 - 5:27:26 PM GMT
Email viewed by [email protected] 2026-07-27 - 5:33:39 PM GMT
Signer [email protected] entered name at signing as Maria Lankenau 2026-07-27 - 5:34:11 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Maria Lankenau ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2026-07-27 - 5:34:13 PM GMT - Time Source: server - Signature Appearance Selected: MOBILE_DRAW Agreement completed.
2026-07-27 - 5:34:13 PM GMT
CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY
CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST
To: Honorable Mayor and Agenda Date: August 18, 2026
Members of the City Council
SUBJECT: Approve Third Amendment to the Agreement with Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (LCW) to allocate an additional $600,000 for Specialized Legal Services for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $1,600,000
Three-Year Strategic Goals
☐ Cultivate a welcoming culture and safe environment that makes our community “A Nice Place to Live.”
☐ Ensure long-term fiscal stability by evaluating processes, and attract and retain revenue producing businesses/opportunities.
☐ Attract and retain quality staff through best practices and trends. ☐ Maintain, build, plan for, and modernize infrastructure to support the growth and future needs of the City.
☒ Not applicable.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (“LCW”) has provided specialized legal services relating to personnel matters to the City for many years, with the current contract approved by the City Council for the term July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2027. At the August 23, 2022 meeting, the City Council approved an agreement with Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (LCW) for a not-to-exceed amount of $500,000 to provide legal services through the term of the contract. These services support City operations by assisting Human Resources, Risk Management, and other departments with employee lawsuits, grievances, investigations, and liability claims.
At the December 17, 2024 meeting, City Council approved an amendment to this agreement, increasing the not-to-exceed amount of the contract to $1,000,000.
To ensure there are sufficient funds available through the term of this contract, staff recommends approval of an amendment for a not-to-exceed amount of $1,600,000 for continued legal services through the June 30, 2027, agreement term.
The City anticipates issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) later this fall to competitively procure a new agreement for HR-related legal and professional services. The RFP process will provide the City with an opportunity to evaluate qualified firms and establish a new agreement that meets the City's anticipated long-term needs.
Libert Cassidy Whitmore Amendment 3
August 18, 2026
Increasing the existing agreement at this time will provide continuity of services during the interim period and allow the City to complete the upcoming competitive procurement process without disruption to ongoing HR-related matters.
DISCUSSION
The City uses the services of LCW for HR-related consulting services, including labor negotiations, employee relations, grievances, disciplinary matters, as well as risk management-related matters including employee lawsuits.
The original $1,000,000 total contract amount was budgeted to support the Human Resources Department’s use of LCW’s legal services. In recent years, however, the City Clerk’s Department, including Risk Management, has also utilized the agreement for legal services related to lawsuits filed against the City. These matters have primarily involved employmentrelated claims, including wrongful termination, discrimination, retaliation, and other personnel matters requiring LCW’s specialized legal expertise. Although the City Clerk’s Department has budgeted sufficient funds to cover these services, the corresponding budgeted amounts were not incorporated into the agreement’s authorized contract maximum. As a result, an increase to the contract amount is necessary to align the agreement with the funds already budgeted and the City’s anticipated need for these services.
FISCAL REVIEW
City staff is requesting City Council approval of an amendment to the Agreement with Liebert Cassidy Whitmore for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $1,600,000. No additional appropriation is requested. The City Clerk’s Department has sufficient funds within the existing budget to support the increased contract amount.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Not applicable.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW
Not applicable.
ATTORNEY REVIEW
Attorney for the City has reviewed this item.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative No. 1: Approve Third Amendment to the Agreement with Leibert Cassidy Whitmore to allocate an additional $600,000 for Specialized Legal Services for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $1,600,000.
Alternative No. 2: Do not approve the third amendment and do not move forward with a contract change order.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends City Council approve Alternative No. 1.
Libert Cassidy Whitmore Amendment 3
August 18, 2026
Prepared by: Heather Campbell, Risk Manager
Reviewed by: Tania Knauerhaze, Human Resources Director Reviewed by: Rick Miller, City Clerk/Risk administrator Reviewed by: Ryan Smith, Finance Director
Approved by: Maggie Le, City Manager
Attachment:
1. Third Amendment to the Agreement with LCW
2. Agreement with LCW
3. First Amendment to the Agreement with LCW
4. Second Amendment to the Agreement with LCW
AMENDMENT NO. 3
CON - 1219
LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE
This THIRD AMENDMENT to CON-1219 is made and entered this 18th day of August 2026, by and between the City of Fountain Valley (hereinafter “CITY”), a municipal corporation, and Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, a professional corporation (hereinafter “CONSULTANT”).
Recitals
WHEREAS, CITY and CONSULTANT previously entered into CON-1219 dated July 1, 2022, for Legal Services (“AGREEMENT”) by which AGREEMENT is fully incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the AGREEMENT was for a contract sum not-to-exceed amount of $500,000 for legal services through June 30, 2027; and
WHEREAS, CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a FIRST Amendment to the Agreement, dated September 17, 2024, to adopt the updated fee schedule; and WHEREAS, CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a SECOND Amendment to the Agreement, dated August 17, 2025, increasing the TOTAL CONTRACT SUM to one million dollars ($1,000,000) and allowing for the option to renew the Agreement for one (1) additional year; and
WHEREAS, CITY and CONSULTANT further desire to amend the AGREEMENT by adding an additional Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000.00), increasing the total contract sum to One Million Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,600,000.00) and to update the billing rates set forth in Exhibit A to the Agreement with the revised rates set forth in Exhibit A-1.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. That Section 6, PAYMENT of the AGREEMENT is hereby amended to increase the not-to-exceed sum by Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000.00), increasing the total contract sum from One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) to One Million Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,600,000.00).
2. The billing rates set forth in the Proposal attached as Exhibit A to the AGREEMENT, are hereby amended and replaced with the revised billing rates attached hereto as Exhibit A-1, effective October 1, 2026.
3. Except as provided in this THIRD AMENDMENT, all other terms and conditions of the AGREEMENT shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this THIRD AMENDMENT, the date and year first above written.
ATTEST: CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY
________________________________ ________________________________________ Rick Miller, City Clerk Jim Cunneen, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONSULTANT:
HARPER & BURNS LLP LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE
_______________________________ _______________________________________ Attorneys for the City By: Melanie L. Chaney, Managing Partner
Melanie L. Chaney (Aug 12, 2026 14:04:20 PDT)
Melanie L. Chaney
FEE SCHEDULE
Partners $485.00
Senior Counsel $405.00 - $455.00
Associates $300.00 - $390.00
Labor Relations/Human Resources Consultant $330.00
Classification & Compensation Consultant $250.00
Paralegals $185.00
E-Discovery Specialists $200.00
Law Clerks $200.00 - $220.00
EXHIBIT A-1
Amendment 3 to CON 1219 - LCW
Final Audit Report 2026-08-12
Created: 2026-08-12
By: Heather Campbell ([email protected]) Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAux4w_y4mpuuFKcIJv2hc7NnfMmuidSfI "Amendment 3 to CON 1219 - LCW" History
Document created by Heather Campbell ([email protected]) 2026-08-12 - 7:08:01 PM GMT
Document emailed to Melanie Chaney ([email protected]) for signature 2026-08-12 - 7:08:20 PM GMT
Email viewed by Melanie Chaney ([email protected])
2026-08-12 - 8:35:57 PM GMT
Signer Melanie Chaney ([email protected]) entered name at signing as Melanie L. Chaney 2026-08-12 - 9:04:18 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Melanie L. Chaney ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2026-08-12 - 9:04:20 PM GMT - Time Source: server - Signature Appearance Selected: TYPE Agreement completed.
2026-08-12 - 9:04:20 PM GMT
CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY
CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO
THE FOUNTAIN VALLEY AGENCY FOR
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
AGENCY/HOUSING AUTHORITY
ACTION REQUEST
To: Honorable Mayor/Chair and Agenda Date: August 18, 2026 Members of the City Council
And Housing Authority
SUBJECT: Approval of Amendment #1 to Professional Legal Services Agreement between the City of Fountain Valley, Successor Agency to the Fountain Valley Agency for Community Development, the Fountain Valley Housing Authority, and Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth LLP
Three-Year Strategic Goals
☒ Cultivate a welcoming culture and safe environment that makes our community “A Nice Place to Live.”
☐ Ensure long-term fiscal stability by evaluating processes, and attract and retain revenue producing businesses/opportunities.
☐ Attract and retain quality staff through best practices and trends. ☐ Maintain, build, plan for, and modernize infrastructure to support the growth and future needs of the City.
☐ Not applicable.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City, Successor Agency, and Fountain Valley Housing Authority (FVHA) currently have a Contract (#1467) with the law firm of Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth (SYCR) (“AGREEMENT”) to provide special counsel legal and advisory services related to the Redevelopment Dissolution Act, affordable housing, and other public law matters.
SYCR provides the specialized legal services required for affordable housing and other general law matters, as and when requested by the City Manager and her designees, City Legal Counsel, Harper & Burns, and by the Council or the Board. The contract is valid from July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2027, at a total not-to-exceed cost of $400,000 which is disbursed on an as-needed basis.
This amendment increases the AGREEMENT’s not-to-exceed amount by $200,000 from $400,000 to $600,000. This increase corresponds to legal fees SYCR incurred negotiating Density Bonus Affordable Housing Agreements (“DBAHA”) as required by the City’s Inclusionary Ordinance (#1604).
Amendment #1 to Professional Legal Services Agreement with Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth
August 18, 2026
In 2023, City Council approved Ordinance #1604 which included the adoption of an Inclusionary Housing Program. The program requires that all new residential development projects of ten or more units rent or sell 15% of the units at an affordable housing cost. As part of the development entitlements, a DBAHA is required for each project to ensure that the units remain affordable for the 55-year rental affordability period as well as ensuring the city has additional protections to ensure continued compliance.
SYCR provides the specialized legal counsel required to draft and negotiate the DBAHAs. The DBAHA for each project is unique and requires input from staff, project developers, and the project developers’ legal team to ensure that all parties agree to the requirements and conditions within. Due to the extensive technical legal review required, project developers repay the city for the legal services cost that have been provided by SYCR.
The current SYCR Professional Legal Services contract expires on June 30, 2027. The City will be releasing an RFP for future legal services shortly. The extra funding requested will ensure that services are paid through this period.
The city has received reimbursement for DBAHA legal costs from the following developers:
Project Name Project Location Amount
Slater Investments/Jefferson 10201 Slater Ave $ 29,425
Euclid & Heil N/E corner Euclid and Heil $ 66,034
Boomers (Holland Group) 16800 Magnolia St $ 40,000
Our Lady of Guadalupe 17103 Magnolia St $ 10,745
Parkside FV 8550 Warner Ave $ 25,745
Total $171,949
The total amount in the table above has been paid from the SYCR AGREEMENT Con-1467 thereby reducing the available funds under the AGREEMENT. In addition, approximately $30,000. Is due to the City from the Holland Group under a Third-Party Agreement requiring them to cover all costs incurred during the entitlement process, including legal costs that are accrued as part of the entitlement process.
Staff is requesting the contract be increased by $200,000, comprised of the $171,949 in DBAHA legal services costs and approximately $30,000 in costs incurred on behalf of the Holland Group for a revised, not-to-exceed sum of $600,000.
FISCAL REVIEW
There is no fiscal impact at this time. The increase does not represent new City spending. It reflects expenditures that will be borne by developers in connection with the negotiation of Density Bonus Affordable Housing Agreements (“DBAHA”). It is anticipated that the current adopted budget includes sufficient funding for future payment of legal services on the SYCR contract.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Not applicable.
Amendment #1 to Professional Legal Services Agreement with Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth
August 18, 2026
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW
Not applicable.
ATTORNEY REVIEW
The Attorney for the City has reviewed and approved the Amendment.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative No.1: Approve Amendment No. 1 to Professional Legal Services Agreement (#1467) with Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth to increase the not-toexceed amount by $200,000, from $400,000 to $600,000.
Alternative No. 2: Decline to approve Amendment No. 1 and provide further direction.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is requesting City Council approval of Alternative No. 1 to approve Amendment No.1 to Professional Legal Services Agreement (#1467) with Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth to increase the not to exceed amount to $600,000.
Prepared by: Ashlyn Newman, Neighborhood Improvement Manager
Reviewed by: Omar Dadabhoy, Deputy City Manager/Community Development Director
Fiscal Review by: Ryan Smith, Finance Director
Attorney review by: Vanessa Lassooy, Attorney for the City
Approved by: Maggie Le, City Manager
Attachments:
1. Contract #1467-SYRC
2. Amendment #1 to Contract #1467-SYRC
Stradling
Celeste Stahl Brady
949 725 4141
[email protected]
August 6, 2024
Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth LLP
660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1600
Newport Beach, CA 92660-6422
949 725 4000
stradlinglaw.com
By Email: [email protected]; and [email protected] Omar Dadabhoy, Deputy City Manager and Community Development Director Ashlyn Newman, Neighborhood Improvement Manager
City of Fountain Valley
10200 Slater A venue
Fountain Valley, California 92708
Re: Proposal for Continued Engagement of Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauthfor Special Counsel Legal Services
Dear Omar and Ashlyn,
Thank you, Ashlyn, for the August 1 email requesting a scope of work to continue to provide special counsel legal services for the renewed engagement of Stradling Y occa Carlson & Rauth LLP ("Stradling" or "Firm") pursuant to a proposed Agreement for Professional Legal Services and the attached terms of retention. The proposed renewed, or new, contract will be considered at the September 2, 2024 regular meeting of the City Council and Housing Authority. This letter presents our proposal to the City of Fountain Valley, Fountain Valley Housing Authority, and Successor Agency to the Fountain Valley Agency for Community Development (together herein, "Fountain Valley") to provide special counsel legal services to Fountain Valley as and when requested by the City Manager and her designees, City Legal Counsel, Harper & Bums, and by the Council or Board. The re-engagement is proposed as a sole source request, with the renewed contract period from September 2, 2024 to June 30, 2027, with an estimated total of approximately $400,000.00 for the contract period to provide the special counsel legal services.
I genuinely appreciate Fountain Valley's confidence in me and the opportunity to continue to provide special counsel legal services on an "as needed" basis, in particular related to affordable housing matters.
As background, we believe Stradling is best qualified to continue to assist Fountain Valley because of our broad experience in affordable housing development, including new construction, acquisition/rehabilitation, ground leases, housing finance, eligibility and use of federal, state, county and other funding programs and sources, as well as establishing, implementing, monitoring and enforcing housing programs, and other housing-related legal issues. Stradling has assisted numerous public and private entities, including cities, counties, housing authorities, housing successors, successor agencies, regional authorities, non-profit and for-profit corporations, K-12 school districts, community colleges and universities, water, utility, sanitation and other special districts, and, prior to dissolution, redevelopment agencies, with me having extensive experience with a wide variety of 4853-9683-0 I 65v2/200348-0000
Attachment No. 1
Omar Dadabhoy and Ashlyn Newman
City of Fountain Valley
August 6, 2024
Page Two
affordable housing and economic development projects and programs. As noted, we respectfully defer to you, the City Manager and other depaiiment heads, as well as Harper & Burns, as the City's Legal Counsel, and importantly to the City Council and Board, as to what special counsel matters you request and direct us to provide to Fountain Valley.
As a proposed scope of work for the special counsel legal services, I would continue to assist Fountain Valley on affordable housing and other general public law matters, as and when requested.
In the past years, I have assisted with, and will continue to prepare, drafts of Affordable Housing Agreements, implementing loan documents, Regulatory Agreements, Density Bonus Housing Agreements, prepare resolutions, notices of public hearing, ordinances, statutory reports, review staff reports, and negotiate and prepare purchase and sale agreements, conduct title review, and coordinate with title and escrow officers. I will continue to assist the City's Legal Counsel, Harper & Burns, when requested, such as for acquisition, relocation, inclusionary housing, density bonus, public works, and public finance matters. Examples of the type of projects and scope of work that I have assisted Fountain Valley in the past several years include: (I) all phases of the Prado affordable rental housing development, including from the sale of the former Mt. Hope site to funding acquisition of the Prado site, through the tax credit process, construction, permanent financing, ongoing monitoring, and estoppels to lenders and equity investor, (ii) inclusionary housing ordinance and setting in-lieu fee, (iii) density bonus projects, such as Slater Investments, (iv) Our Lady of Guadalupe affordable housing extension project, (v) purchase and sale agreement for City acquisition of 17101 Bushard for the planned new fire station, (vi) MOU and funding for Central Cities Navigation Center (CCNC), including the Cooperation Agreement for a loan by the City to Housing Authority to fund the City's share of CCNC operations, (vii) monitoring and enforcement and proposed resyndication of Jasmine senior housing project, and (viii) consultation on CEQA, Housing Element, and related land use matters, and (ix) general advisory assistance for questions about affordable housing, Dissolution Law related to the Successor Agency, and other municipal law matters when requested.
I will continue to be the primary contact both for legal services and client administration, primarily for affordable housing matters. I, along with other Stradling attorneys, will be available to Fountain Valley as requested for legal services that may include economic and community development, litigation, public finance, dissolution/successor agency, and other legal matters. In the attachments enclosed with this letter, we present background about the Firm, my resume, compensation schedule, terms of retention, and other details to re-engage Stradling for special counsel legal services. If I can answer any questions or provide further information, please contact me at (949) 725-4141 or [email protected]. I am available to attend the September 2 meeting in person or to be available via zoom, as you may request. Thank you so kindly again.
Best regards,
artner
STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH LLP
Attachments
4853-9683-0 l 65v2/200348-0000
STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
GENERAL INFORMATION
Introduction
Stradling was formed by four attorneys in 1975 and has grown to approximately 115 attorneys, about 70 of whom are based in our Newport Beach office. Stradling handles matters in substantially all aspects of the law, except family law and criminal law. Our primary areas of specialization are (i) public law, public finance, development, including affordable housing and economic development through public/private partnerships, land use, and public law litigation, (ii) real estate, (iii) federal and state tax laws, (iv) litigation; (v) general corporate law, (vi) corporate securities, (vii) employment law, (viii) bankruptcy, and (ix) entertainment law. The Firm's website at http://www.stradlinglaw.com includes a complete listing of all attorneys and their areas of expertise and experience. The Firm's main office is located in Newport Beach, and we have offices in Sacramento, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Westlake, Santa Barbara, and San Diego, California, as well as in Denver, Colorado, Reno and Las Vegas, Nevada, Seattle, Washington, and Austin, Texas.
Stradling Public Law
At Stradling, thirty attorneys specialize in areas of public law and public finance. Our counsel philosophy focuses on technical expertise, collegial collaboration, and client understanding.
Our public law attorneys devote their time overwhelmingly to the representation of the interests of public and private clients relating to public law matters and to the supplying of legal services in connection with transactions, financings, litigation, and advisory services. We believe Stradling's size offers an advantage to our clients. First, the Firm has expertise in many areas outside of public law matters, such as real estate, corporate securities, employment law, business litigation, bankruptcy and entertainment law, which proves useful in analyzing all relevant issues for major projects.
Second, our size provides stability and assurance to the client that the Firm will be in practice to follow up on matters related to the services it renders.
Affordable Housing, Economic Development and Former Redevelopment Clients. For more than 35 years prior to dissolution in 2012, the Firm enjoyed an active practice representing redevelopment agencies in all phases of economic and community development and affordable housing, including negotiation and preparation of virtually all kinds of transaction documents (such as disposition and development agreements, owner participation agreements and affordable housing agreements) for affordable housing, market housing, mixed use development, along with retail, entertainment, auto, and other commercial, industrial, manufacturing projects, both new construction and rehabilitation, litigation and public finance matters (bond, disclosure or underwriter's counsel). Prior to the Supreme Court's decision that validated AB xl 26 (invalidated AB xl 27), Stradling's redevelopment clients included agencies in: Anaheim, Berkeley, Buena Park, Burbank, Calexico, California City, Ceres, Chula Vista, Claremont, Coronado, Costa Mesa, Cotati, Dinuba, El Cajon, El Centro, Escondido, Fontana, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Glendale, Glendora, Grand Ten-ace, Highland, Laguna Hills, La Habra, Lancaster, Lemoore, Lindsay, Loma Linda, Los Banos, Mission Viejo, Monrovia, Montclair, Moreno Valley, Oceanside, Ontario, Pico Rivera, Poway, Pmierville, Rialto, Ridgecrest, Ripon, Riverside (City), Riverside (County), Rohnert Park, San Bernardino (County), San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, Simi Valley, Soledad, South Gate, Tustin, Upland, Vista, and Yucaipa.
4853-9683-0165v2/200348-0000
Attachment to Letter to
Omar Dadabhoy and Ashlyn Newman
City of Fountain Valley
August 6, 2024
Page Two
Public Finance. Stradling is an acknowledged leader in all types of public financings, including general obligation bonds, multi-family housing bonds, lease revenue bonds, land secured bonds, pension obligation bonds, tax allocation bonds and post-dissolution refinancings, and for state, regional, local and special district public entities, including cities, counties, K 12 schools, chaiier schools, community colleges, universities, hospitals, community facilities districts, special districts, water and wastewater, sanitary sewer, energy, and other infrastructure and development financings. The Firm has extensive experience serving as bond counsel, disclosure counsel, and underwriter's counsel for public financings issued by state, regional, and local public entities as well as non-profit entities.
The Firm is a perennial leader in public finance in California, Colorado, Nevada and Washington.
For more than 10 years, the Firm has consistently been ranked among the top Bond Counsel and Disclosure Counsel firms in these states, and most years the Firm has been ranked among the top one or two, both in terms of dollar volume and number of transactions. Over the past five years, the Firm's California-based attorneys have completed more than 870 transactions as Bond Counsel to special districts, cities, counties, housing authorities, school districts, joint powers authorities and other public agencies, representing over $50.5 billion in principal amount of municipal securities.
In 2023 nationally, the Firm was ranked second (2nd) in Disclosure Counsel, acting in such capacity in 169 transactions totaling over $15.4 billion. In 2023 nationally, the Firm was ranked seventh (7th ) as Bond Counsel with 149 transactions totaling over $9.7 billion. The Firm's national rankings are quite impressive considering Stradling acts as Bond Counsel and Disclosure Counsel in just a handful of western states, whereas most of the Firm's competitors operate nationally. In 2023, according to Thomson Reuters, the Firm ranked second (2nd) in both California and Nevada, fourth (4th) in Washington, and fifth (5th) in Colorado as Bond Counsel based upon par amount of bonds issued; and, Stradling ranked first (Pt
) in California and Washington, second (2nd) in Nevada, and fourth ( 4
th) in Colorado as Disclosure Counsel.
We have prominent, accessible tax lawyers, led by Carol L. Lew, past-President of the National Association of Bond Lawyers. Stradling has never had any of its transactions deemed taxable by the IRS. We have never been a party to an IRS settlement agreement. We believe experience matters.
KEY PARTNER TO PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES TO FOUNTAIN VALLEY Celeste Stahl Brady is a partner and member of Stradling' s Public Law Department. Mrs. Brady's entire legal career has been devoted to public law, with particular experience in affordable housing and economic development. Celeste graduated with a J.D. from the University of San Diego School of Law; she holds a bachelor's degree in Public Administration with highest honors, Phi Kappa Phi, from San Diego State University. Prior to joining Stradling in 1986, Mrs. Brady received excellent municipal law training, in both advisory, transactional, and litigation practice areas, as a Deputy City Attorney with the cities of San Diego and Costa Mesa. She is a member of the League of California Cities, Attorney Development and Succession Committee (ADSC), a selected member of the "housing gurus", a CalCities ad hoc group that presents affordable housing webinars, and was the City Attorneys' Department appointment to the League Housing, Community & Economic 4853-9683-0165v2/200348-0000
Attachment to Letter to
Omar Dadabhoy and Ashlyn Newman
City of Fountain Valley
August 6, 2024
Page Three
Development policy committee for two years; member of the Brown Act committee, and a founding member of the technical committee on dissolution of redevelopment agencies and the housing and accounting subcommittees when the former CRA faced dissolution in 2011-2012. Prior to dissolution of redevelopment, Celeste was a member of the CRA Housing Committee, its relocation subcommittee, and a founding member of the CRA Brownfields and Fundraising committees.
Celeste Brady is an "AV"-rated attorney by Martindale Hubbell Law Directory1 and is a frequent guest speaker on affordable housing, economic and community development, land use and planning, Dissolution Law, and related public law topics.
As noted, prior to dissolution the Firm represented as general or special counsel more than 50 redevelopment agencies; Mrs. Brady served as counsel to many of those agencies and assisted other Stradling attorneys in affordable housing and other redevelopment matters. Celeste is now counsel to successor agencies and housing successors, and she continues extensive representation of housing authorities_, cities, and other public and private clients, in particular for affordable housing, economic development, land use, and entitlement matters. In connection with public-private partnerships (P3) for new development related to affordable housing, economic development, special financing, and CEQA matters, Mrs. Brady's experience includes negotiating and preparing affordable housing agreements, acquisition agreements, ground leases, development agreements, density bonus housing agreements, other leases, reciprocal easement agreements, license agreements, operations and maintenance agreements, property management agreements, supportive services agreements, disposition and development agreements, owner participation agreements and other types of agreements unique to large scale development and public projects.
In addition to Fountain Valley, Celeste Brady's public agency clients include the cities, housing authorities, and successor agencies in the cities of Anaheim, Garden Grove, Mission Viejo, Moreno Valley, South Gate, Tustin, Costa Mesa, Placentia, and La Habra. Mrs. Brady also serves as special counsel to several private clients, including Century Quality Management and Miracle Mile Properties. She has extensive experience in the areas of affordable housing, economic development, land use and entitlements, CEQA, Brownfields and related environmental issues, federal and state tax credit projects, Dissolution Law, commercial, retail, entertainment, hotel, industrial and mixed use developments, real property acquisition, relocation, eminent domain, land use, mobilehome/RV park closure, public works projects, transit-centric development, and administration and reporting of public and private entities.
As and if requested, Stradling may provide litigation special counsel services. Allison E. Burns is experienced in many areas of public law litigation including without limitation affordable housing, CEQA matters, eminent domain, land use, foreclosure, tax allocation challenges, business contract disputes, and civil rights challenges. Ms. Bums is a partner and the head of the Public Law Litigation Department; she also serves as City Attorney to the City of Lancaster and General Counsel to the Chino Basin Desalter Authority, Antelope Valley Transit Authority, Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District, Santiago Aqueduct Commission, San Juan Basin Authority, Mrs. Brady is an "AV"-rated, the highest rating conferred by Martindale-Hubbell, which is a registered certification mark of Reed Elsevier Properties, Inc. and used under its certification standards and policies. 4853-9683-0165v2/200348-0000
Attachment to Letter to
Omar Dadabhoy and Ashlyn Newman
City of Fountain Valley
August 6, 2024
Page Four
Santa Margarita/Dana Point Authority, Rosamond Community Services District, and Emerald Bay Services District. Allison has represented numerous public agencies and private clients in all aspects of affordable housing, land use, CEQA, CERCLA and RCRA litigation matters. Ms. Bums has successfully obtained favorable judgments and settlements on behalf of her clients in multiple civil trials and mediations in cases pending in Orange, Los Angeles, Kem, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura County Superior Courts and the United States District Courts for the Central District of California. She has successfully argued before the Second, Third, Fourth and Sixth District Courts of Appeal for the State of California, as well as the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Ms. Bums received her J.D. in 1998 from King Hall at the University of California at Davis, where she was Senior Articles Editor of the U.C. Davis Law Review and Articles Editor of the Journal of Juvenile Law and Policy. Ms. Bums served as a judicial extern to Justice Fred K. Morrison of the Third District Court of Appeal of the State of California and to the Honorable Garland E. Burrell of the United States District Court of the Eastern District of California.
Stradling' s approach to the practice of public law is based upon providing quality work and maintaining relationships. In keeping with that, we believe that we have a sound record of working collaboratively with elected and appointed officials, senior administrators, department heads, the city attorney, staffs, and consultants. We operate within the rule of law and seek to provide useful advisement and counselling and, where feasible, provide options in order to assist public agency clients in resolving issues and moving toward their objectives. Client references for Celeste Brady are included in this proposal. Additional references are available upon request. 4853-9683-0165v2/200348-0000
CELESTE STAHL BRADY1
EDUCATION
Legal University of San Diego, School of Law
San Diego, California J.D. 1980
Admitted to practice: State of California 1980
Southern District, Federal Court 1980
Undergraduate San Diego State University, San Diego, California 1977 B.S. Public Administration, highest honors Phi Kappa Phi, Mortar Board EXPERIENCE Stradling Y occa Carlson &Rauth
660 Newpmi Center Drive, Suite 1600
Newport Beach, California 92660
1986 to Present
Equity Partner
https://www.stradlinglaw.com/professionals/celeste-stahl-brady.html Office of the City Attorney, City of Costa Mesa
Costa Mesa, California 92626
Deputy City Attorney 1983 - 1986
Office of the City Attorney, City of San Diego
San Diego, California 92101
Deputy City Attorney 1980- 1983
Admin. Intern 1976-1977 and Law Clerk 1977-1980
Published Appellate Cases:
De Young v. City of San Diego, 147 Cal.App.3d 11 (1983) Common Cause v. Stirling, 147 Cal.App.3d 518 (1983)
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Member: American Bar Association
State and Local Government, Land Use, Planning, Zoning; Real Property & Trust Sections; Forum on Affordable Housing
State Bar of California, Public Law and Real Property Sections Orange County Bar Association
League of California Cities - Cal Cities
Attorney Development and Succession Committee 2020-present Subcommittees: Law School Outreach and Substantive Law
Housing Practicum Working Group 2023-present
Housing, Community & Econ. Dev. Policy Committee 2015, 2016 Brown Act Committee 2012-2014
Post-RDA Working Group 2011-2021
California Redevelopment Association (pre-dissolution of RDAs) AB xl 26 Implementation/Technical, Housing, Accounting Committees Affordable Housing Committee
Subcommittees: Legislation and Relocation
Fundraising Steering Committee, Founding Member
Brownfields Committee, Founding Member
Mrs. Brady is AV-rated Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory. Registered certification mark of Reed Elsevier Properties, Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedure standards and policies. 4853-9683-0 l 65v2/200348-0000
Celeste Stahl Brady
Pa ge [2
PROGRAM SPEAKER/PANELIST
Cal Cities Housing Practicum: Tax Credit and Housing Bond Projects 2024 Cal Cities Annual Conference: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing 2023 Cal Cities Housing Practicum: No Net Loss - Legislation and Caselaw 2023 Cal Cities: Under 10: ADSC Icebreaker for attorneys new to public law 2021-2024 UCI School of Law I Cal Cities Municipal Law Institute Symposium 2017 The Year of Housing? Affordable Housing and Beyond
Housing Authorities: Post-Redevelopment Realities
Orange County Redevelopment Dissolution Group, 2014-2019 Legislative Updates: Economic Development and Affordable Housing Client Workshops on Affordable Housing, Economic Development ( ongoing) Forum on Affordable Housing and Community Development Law, 2013 Careers in Affordable Housing and Community/Economic Development Law CalEDICRA
Dissolution Law Training Sessions, Webinars, Program Materials, FAQ February, March, May, September and October 2012
Urban Land Institute, Capital Markets Council, Dissolution Laws, 2012 California Redevelopment Association (CRA - prior to dissolution) Administering and Monitoring Affordable Housing Requirements, 2011 Tax Credit Projects -New and Evolving Perspectives, 2011 Case Studies: Housing Tax Credits - Anaheim/Lincoln Family Apts. 2010 Redevelopment Institute, 2006-2010
Financing Redevelopment
Critical Elements of the DDA
Legal Issues Symposium
Mortgage Foreclosure Crisis, 2008
Hot Topics in CEQA and Brownfields, 2005
Introduction to Redevelopment 2007-2008
What's a Redevelopment Agency? Powers of Redevelopment: Legal Issues Polanco Act: Distance Leaming and On-Site Brownfields Training, 2006 Plan Adoptions and Amendments, 2005
Environmental Oversight Agreements (EOA), 2004
Additional Panels for former CRA between 1989 to 2011
Orange County City Attorneys Association
Senate Bill 2 - Housing/Zoning for the Homeless, 2008
Redevelopment Hot Topics, 2005
Planning Directors Assn. Officials Forum, Intro. to Redevelopment, 2004, 2006, 2008 International Right of Way Association, Annual Relocation Conference, 2003 CREW (Commercial Real Estate Women) Conference, Subordination Issues, 2002 Univ. of California Irvine Extension, Public/Private Ventures, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1995 National Association Housing and Redevelopment Officers Linking Housing and Social Services, 1994, Affordable Housing, 1995 HONORS: Selected as finalist in the category Outstanding Women in Commercial Real Estate at the 2017 Annual SPIRE Awards (Superior Performance In Real Estate) by CREW-OC (Commercial Real Estate Women); CREW Judge of annual SPIRE Awards 2018, 2019. Celeste's most special honor is as a wife for 45 years, mom of their two sons and one daughter (who are all attorneys!), and grandma to three precious grandsons.
485 3-9683-0 l 65v2/200348-0000
REFERENCES FOR CELESTE BRADY
CITY OF ANAHEIM
Grace Ruiz-Stepter, City Director of Housing & Comm. Dev. (714) 765-4315 and Housing Authority Executive Director
Andy Nogal, Assistant Director (714) 765-4368
CITY OF COSTA MESA
Nate Robbins, Neighborhood Improvement Manager
CITY OF GARDEN GROVE
Lisa L. Kim, City Manager
Monica Covarrubias, Sr. Project Manager
Omar Sandoval, Esq.; City Attorney, Woodruff & Smart
CITY OF MISSION VIEJO
Dennis R. Wilberg, P.E., City Manager
Cheryl Dyas, CPA, Dir. Admin. Services
Elaine Lister, AICP, Dir. of Community Development
(newly appointed City Manager effective Sept. 2024)
William H. Curley, III, Esq., City Attorney
Harper & Bums
CITY OF MORENO VALLEY
Dena Heald, Deputy Compliance Director
Brian Mohan, Assistant City Manager
CITY OF SOUTH GATE
Robert Houston, City Manager
Arturo Cervantes, P.E., City Engineer/Public Works Dir.
Raul Salinas, Esq., City Attorney, Frost Brown & Todd
CITY OF TUSTIN
Jerry Craig, Housing/Econ Dev. Program Manager
David A. Kendig, Esq., City Attorney
Woodruff & Smart
CENTURY QUALITY MANAGEMENT
MIRACLE MILE PROPERTIES
Lionel Levy, Chief Operating Officer
4853-9683-0165v2/200348-0000
(714) 754-5274
(714) 741-5100
(714) 741-5788
(714) 415-1049
(949) 470-3051
(949) 470-3059
(949) 4 70-3029
(714) 771-7728
(951) 413-3063
(951) 413-3024
(323) 563-9543
(323) 563-9512
(323) 563-9538
(714) 573-3121
(714) 415-1083
(323) 937-1050
CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY
CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST
To: Honorable Mayor and Agenda Date: August 18, 2026
Members of the City Council
SUBJECT: Rehabilitation and Resurfacing of Newhope Street (from Edinger Avenue to Heil Avenue), Ward Street (from Apache River Avenue to Ellis Avenue), Ellis Avenue (from Brookhurst Street to Ward Street), and Slater Avenue (from Starfish Avenue to Ward Street), Project No. 25005.
1. Accept the bids and award a construction contract to Onyx Paving Company, Inc. for Project No. 25005, in the amount not-to-exceed $3,169,000;
2. Accept the proposal and authorize Staff to issue a Purchase Order to Onward Engineering’s On-Call contract for Construction Management and Inspection Services in the amount not-to-exceed $198,660;
3. Accept the proposal and authorize Staff to issue a Purchase Order to Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants’ On-Call contract for Materials Testing Services in the amount not-to-exceed $22,140.
Three-Year Strategic Goals
☒ Cultivate a welcoming culture and safe environment that makes our community “A Nice Place to Live.”
☐ Ensure long-term fiscal stability by evaluating processes, and attract and retain revenue producing businesses/opportunities.
☐ Attract and retain quality staff through best practices and trends. ☒ Maintain, build, plan for, and modernize infrastructure to support the growth and future needs of the City.
☐ Not applicable.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff recommends City Council accept the bids and award a construction contract to Onyx Paving Company, Inc. for the Rehabilitation and Resurfacing of Newhope Street (from Edinger Avenue to Heil Avenue), Ward Street (from Apache River Avenue to Ellis Avenue), Ellis Avenue (from Brookhurst Street to Ward Street), and Slater Avenue (from Starfish Avenue to Ward Street), Project No. 25005, in an amount not-to-exceed $3,169,000. Staff also recommends City Council approve the proposals and authorize staff to administratively issue Purchase Orders under Onward Engineering’s On-Call Contract for Construction Management and Inspection Services in an amount not-to-exceed $198,660 and a Purchase Order to Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants’ On-Call Contract for Materials Testing Services in the amount not-to-exceed $22,140.
Rehabilitation and Resurfacing of Newhope Street, Ward Street, Ellis Avenue and Slater Avenue, Project No. 25005
August 18, 2026
The Project consists of the rehabilitation and resurfacing of Newhope Street, from Edinger Avenue to Heil Avenue, Ward Street, from Apache River Avenue to Ellis Avenue, Ellis Avenue, from Brookhurst Street to Ward Street, and Slater Ave, from Starfish Avenue to Ward Street.
Improvements also include the reconstruction of sidewalks, curb ramps, and driveway approaches to achieve ADA compliance along all pedestrian pathways within the project limits.
Construction is anticipated to begin in Fall 2026 and be completed in Winter 2026/2027.
Funding for the Project is provided through RMRA (Gas Tax) Funds, Measure M Funds, General Fund (Measure HH Funds), and Enterprise Water and Sewer Funds. Sufficient funding for the Project is included in the adopted FY 2026/2027 Budget.
DISCUSSION
Through the City’s Pavement Management Program (PMP), Public Works staff identified Newhope Street (from Edinger Avenue to Heil Avenue), Ward Street (from Apache River Avenue to Ellis Avenue), Ellis Avenue (from Brookhurst Street to Ward Street), and Slater Ave (from Starfish Avenue to Ward Street) as priority corridors for roadway rehabilitation improvements. The proposed work includes the removal and reconstruction of deteriorated pavement sections, followed by the placement of a fiber-reinforced rubberized asphalt concrete overlay throughout the project limits. The use of fiber-reinforced rubberized asphalt concrete provides several long-term benefits, including enhanced skid resistance, reduced roadway noise, improved resistance to rutting, and increased pavement durability and service life. In addition to roadway rehabilitation, the Project includes the reconstruction of sidewalks, curb ramps, and driveway approaches to ensure ADA compliance along all pedestrian pathways within the project area.
Rehabilitation and Resurfacing of Newhope Street, Ward Street, Ellis Avenue and Slater Avenue, Project No. 25005
August 18, 2026
PROCUREMENT
On June 25, 2026, the City publicly advertised Request for Bid (RFB) No. 26-011 for the Rehabilitation and Resurfacing of Newhope Street, Ward Street, Ellis Avenue, and Slater Avenue.
On July 23, 2026, the City received nine (9) bids for the Project. Onyx Paving Company, Inc. was determined to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, submitting a bid in the amount of $3,169,000. The total bid amount is within the Project budget and considered competitively priced. Staff reviewed the bid and determined it to be in accordance with City requirements and purchasing policies.
Contractor Total Bid Amount
1. Onyx Paving Company, Inc.
2. Hardy & Harper, Inc.
3. R.J. Noble Company
4. All American Asphalt
5. Calmex Engineering, Inc.
6. Toro Enterprises, Inc.
7. Sequel Contractors, Inc.
8. Elegant Construction, Inc.
9. Excel Paving Company
Engineer’s Estimate:
$3,169,000.00
$3,340,000.00
$3,472,071.72
$3,518,112.00
$3,630,233.94
$3,708,336.70
$3,748,667.85
$3,797,989.50
$3,938,956.43
$4,000,000.00
Onyx Paving Company, Inc., has over 35 years of experience operating and completing projects throughout Southern California. Onyx Paving Company, Inc completed the City Quadrant D1 Residential Paving Project for the City in 2023 and was recently awarded the City Quadrant B4 Residential Paving Project in June 2026. Additionally, staff contacted references for several recently completed projects and received positive feedback regarding the contractor’s quality of workmanship, professionalism, and effective communication with agency staff and residents throughout construction activities.
On-Call Consultant Services
Due to project size and nature of the work, dedicated construction management, inspection and materials testing services will be required on this project to ensure timely responses, contract compliance, and proper Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) during construction activities. Therefore, Staff intends to utilize the City Council-approved On-Call consultants list to administratively issue a Purchase Orders for construction management, inspection and materials testing services that are needed for this project.
Construction Management and Inspection Services
City staff solicited and received proposals from Onward Engineering, TKE Engineering, Inc., Willdan Engineering, PSOMAS, and Interwest Consulting Group from the City’s On-Call consultant list for construction management and inspection services. Each proposal included
Rehabilitation and Resurfacing of Newhope Street, Ward Street, Ellis Avenue and Slater Avenue, Project No. 25005
August 18, 2026
a comprehensive scope of work for construction management and inspection services associated with the Project.
Onward Engineering submitted a proposal in the amount of $198,660; TKE Engineering, Inc. submitted a proposal in the amount of $210,975; Willdan Engineering submitted a proposal in the amount of $213,392; PSOMAS submitted a proposal in the amount of $225,000; and Interwest Consulting Group submitted a proposal in the amount of $245,410. While all firms submitted competitive and comparable hourly rates, staff recommend issuing a Purchase Order to Onward Engineering based on the firm’s extensive experience providing construction management and inspection services for large-scale pavement rehabilitation projects. In addition, Onward Engineering prepared the Project’s bid package, providing the firm with a unique familiarity with the Project that will support efficient project delivery and continuity throughout the construction phase.
Materials Testing Services
City staff solicited and received proposals from Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants and The Converse Professional Group from the City’s On-Call consultant list for materials testing services. Ninyo & Moore submitted a proposal in the amount of $22,140 and The Converse Professional Group submitted a proposal in the amount of $28,510.
Ninyo & Moore has successfully provided materials and soils testing services for numerous capital improvement projects for the City, including the City Quadrant E7 Residential Paving Project and the Rehabilitation and Resurfacing of Warner Avenue and Ellis Avenue Project.
Accordingly, staff recommend administratively issuing a Purchase Order to Ninyo & Moore in the amount not-to-exceed $22,140 for materials testing services.
FISCAL REVIEW
The adopted FY2026/2027 budget for Project No. 25005 is sufficient to fund this Project.
FY 2026/2027 Project No. 25005 Budget Allocation
Vendor/Item Amount
General Fund $1,500,000.00
Measure HH $170,000.00
RMRA (SB1) Funding $1,498,803.00
Measure M Funding $1,146,197.00
Water Fund $85,000.00
Sewer Fund $100,000.00
Total Budget $4,500,000.00
FY2026/2027 Project No. 25005 Construction Expenses
Vendor/Item Amount
Construction (Onyx Paving Company, Inc.) $3,169,000.00
10% Contingency $316,900.00
Construction Management and Inspection Services and
(Onward Engineering)
$198,660.00
Rehabilitation and Resurfacing of Newhope Street, Ward Street, Ellis Avenue and Slater Avenue, Project No. 25005
August 18, 2026
Materials Testing Services (Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical
and Environmental Sciences Consultants)
$22,140.00
Construction Design Services (Onward Engineering) $12,000.00 Project Plans and Bid Document Printing Costs $5,000.00 FY26/27 Total Project Construction Expenses $3,723,700.00 ^Note that, as in all of the City's Public Works contracts, the contract itself provides the Director of Public Works authority to issue change orders of up to 10% of the original contract amount. When the Council approves the contract, it approves this authority. Ten percent is generally considered within the normal range of changed conditions on a Public Works construction project and, by providing change order authority upfront, Council helps to reduce the possibility of delay damages that could be incurred when a contractor must stop work and wait for authorization to proceed.
FY2026/2027 Project No. 25005 Budget
Description Amount
Approved Project Budget Allocation $4,500,000.00
Project Costs ($3,723,700.00)
Remaining Project Budget $776,300.00
Construction Management and Inspection Services: Onward Engineering (CON 1545) Total On-Call Contract for Onward Engineering* $600,000.00 Construction Inspections Services for E7 Residential Paving Project ($68,880.00) Construction Management and Inspection Services – Rehabilitation and Resurfacing of Newhope Street, Ward Street, Ellis Avenue and Slater Avenue
($198,660.00)
Total Remaining in Contract $332,460.00
*Approved by City Council on February 18, 2025
Materials Testing Services: Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants (CON 1576)
Total On-Call Contract for Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants * $600,000.00
Materials Testing Services (City Quadrant E7) ($23,260.00) Materials Testing Services – Rehabilitation and Resurfacing of Newhope Street, Ward Street, Ellis Avenue and Slater Avenue
($22,140.00)
Total Remaining in Contract $554,600.00
*Approved by City Council on April 15, 2025
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Not applicable.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW
Not applicable.
Rehabilitation and Resurfacing of Newhope Street, Ward Street, Ellis Avenue and Slater Avenue, Project No. 25005
August 18, 2026
ATTORNEY REVIEW
The Attorney for the City has reviewed and approved Onyx Paving Company, Inc. contract for construction. The Attorney for the City has also reviewed the Onward Engineering contract from the City Council-approved Construction Management and Inspection consultant list approved on February 18, 2025, and the Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants contract from the City Council-approved Materials Testing Services consultant list approved on April 15, 2025.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative No. 1:
1. Accept the bids and award a construction contract to Onyx Paving Company, Inc. for Project No. 25005, in the amount not-to-exceed $3,169,000;
2. Accept the proposal and authorize Staff to issue a Purchase Order to Onward Engineering’s On-Call contract for Construction Management and Inspection Services in the amount not-to-exceed $198,660;
3. Accept the proposal and authorize Staff to issue a Purchase Order to Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants’ On-Call contract for Materials Testing Services in the amount not-to-exceed $22,140.
Alternative No. 2:
1. Reject all bids and do not award a construction contract to Onyx Paving Company, Inc. for Project No. 25005, in the amount not-to-exceed $3,169,000;
2. Do not authorize the proposal and authorize Staff to issue a Purchase Order to Onward Engineering’s On-Call contract for Construction Management and Inspection Services in the amount not-to-exceed $198,660;
3. Do not accept the proposal and authorize Staff to issue a Purchase Order to Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants’ OnCall contract for Materials Testing Services in the amount not-to-exceed $22,140.
This is not the recommended alternative as the bids received are competitive bids and the Contractor is a reputable contractor that has completed similar municipal projects throughout Southern California. Moving forward with this project will prevent further degradation of the City’s residential streets that, if not performed now, will cost considerably more in the future due to continued deterioration, rising fuel costs, and inflation.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend that the City Council:
1. Accept the bids and award a construction contract to Onyx Paving Company, Inc. for Project No. 25005, in the amount not-to-exceed $3,169,000;
2. Accept the proposal and authorize Staff to issue a Purchase Order to Onward Engineering’s On-Call contract for Construction Management and Inspection Services in the amount not-to-exceed $198,660;
Rehabilitation and Resurfacing of Newhope Street, Ward Street, Ellis Avenue and Slater Avenue, Project No. 25005
August 18, 2026
3. Accept the proposal and authorize Staff to issue a Purchase Order to Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants’ On-Call contract for Materials Testing Services in the amount not-to-exceed $22,140.
Prepared by: Ryan Damon, Engineering Associate
Recommended by: Kyle Knoke, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer
Reviewed by: Temo Galvez, P.E., Deputy Public Works Director / City Engineer Approved by: Scott Smith, P.E., Director of Public Works Fiscal Review by: Ryan Smith, Finance Director / City Treasurer Approved by: Maggie Le, City Manager
Attachment 1: Onyx Paving Company Inc. Contract
Attachment 2: Onward Engineering On-Call Construction Management and Inspection Services Proposal
Attachment 3: Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences On-Call Materials Testing Services Proposal
Attachment #1
Jessenia Penaloza, Assistant Engineer July 27th, 2026
Public Works Department
City of Fountain Valley
10200 Slater Avenue
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Subject: Proposal for Construction Management, Construction Insp ection, and Labor Comp liance Services for the Rehabilitation and Resurfacing Project (City Project No. 25005 / RFB #26-011)
Onward Engineering (OE) is pleased to submit our proposal to provide professional Construction Management (CM), Construction Inspection (CI), and Labor Compliance Review services for the City of Fountain Valley’s upcoming Rehabilitation and Resurfacing Project (Project No. 25005).
As the design engineering firm that prepared the complete plans and contract specifications for this exact project, Onward Engineering brings an unmatched level of technical familiarity, institutional knowledge, and design intent. Our team designed the pavement sections, traffic signal loop layouts, utility adjustments, and concrete improvements across all four project corridors. By selecting OE for construction management and inspection, the City ensures seamless project continuity, rapid resolution of field inquiries, and proactive quality control from day one.
Project Understanding & Scope Overview
The project encompasses roadway rehabilitation, resurfacing, and concrete infrastructure improvements over 100 working days across four primary arterial corridors within the City:
1. Newhope Street (Edinger Avenue to Heil Avenue)
2. Ward Street (Apache River Avenue to Ellis Avenue)
3. Ellis Avenue (Brookhurst Street to Ward Street)
4. Slater Avenue (Starfish Avenue to Ward Street)
Key Scope Elements Covered by Our Team:
• Pavement Rehabilitation Oversight: Monitoring 3” cold milling, placement of 1” fiber-reinforced asphalt concrete (FRAC) leveling courses, and 2” fiber-reinforced asphalt rubber hot mix (FR-ARHM) wearing surfaces. • Concrete & ADA Infrastructure: Inspection of PCC sidewalk, Type A-2 curb and gutter, commercial/residential driveway approaches, and ADA-compliant curb ramps featuring truncated domes. • Traffic Signals & Delineation: Verifying Type E 6-foot circular inductive detector loop installations, temporary/ permanent thermoplastic striping, pavement markings, and signage. • Utility Cover Adjustments: Ensuring accurate double-adjustments to grade for sewer manholes (City & OCSD standards), storm drain manholes, water valve covers, and groundwater monitoring wells. • Work Window & Community Coordination: Enforcing strict arterial lane closure windows (8:30 AM – 3:30/4:00 PM), Changeable Message Signs (CMS), 72-hour business/resident notifications, and temporary access easements. • Labor Compliance Audits: Conducting rigorous audits of contractor and subcontractor certified payroll records to guarantee 100% adherence to California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) prevailing wage regulations.
Technology Integration: Orange Vest Management Software To streamline project communication, enhance field transparency, and modernize data tracking, OE will utilize Orange Vest Technologies—our proprietary digital construction management and field reporting platform. Orange Vest enables real-time digital daily logging, instant cloud-based submittal and RFI tracking, daily photo documentation, and seamless quantity tracking against contractor pay applications to ensure complete financial and schedule control.
Proposed Staffing & Qualifications
To guarantee rigorous project oversight, clear agency communication, and seamless field execution, Onward Engineering has assigned a highly integrated, experienced team that brings direct hands-on experience managing Southern California public works projects.
Onward Engineering
300 S. Harbor Blvd., Suite 814
Anaheim, CA 92805
(714) 533.3050 | www.oe-eng.com
Cover Letter
Onward Engineering | Design Smarter. Build Better.
| 1 Request for Proposals, Rehabilitation and Resurfacing Project (City Project No. 25005 / RFB #26-011), for the City of Fountain Valley ATTACHMENT #2
Leading our construction management effort as Construction Manager is Delfino “Chino” Consunji, PE. A Registered Civil Engineer in California with over 39 years of public works design, construction management, and municipal administration experience, Chino brings authoritative executive leadership to the project. Having previously served as City Engineer and Public Works Director for multiple local agencies, including Brea, Norwalk, West Covina, and Downey, Chino has directed over 500 capital projects valued at more than $500M. His extensive background in arterial street rehabilitation, ARHM paving operations, inter-agency utility coordination, and contract enforcement ensures the City proactive leadership and immediate resolution of complex construction challenges.
Supporting Chino in daily project execution is Klein Marinescu, EIT, who will serve as Assistant Construction Manager.
Klein offers 7 years of combined civil engineering experience spanning public works design, permitting, and construction management. Completing our field team is Naeem Dulloo, CPII, who will serve as our dedicated daily Construction Inspector. Naeem is an APWA Certified Public Infrastructure Inspector with 8 years of specialized field inspection experience overseeing municipal roadway rehabilitation, AC/ARHM paving, underground utilities, and concrete ADA infrastructure. Naeem will be on-site full-time to oversee contractor operations, enforce strict WATCH manual traffic control and working hour windows, verify asphalt mix temperatures and compaction requirements, record precise field quantities, and produce real-time digital inspection logs complete with photo documentation via Orange Vest.
With our complete design familiarity with Project No. 25005, the executive leadership of Chino Consunji, PE, and the operational efficiency of the Orange Vest technology platform, Onward Engineering is uniquely equipped to deliver an efficient, high-quality project for the City of Fountain Valley. We are prepared to deploy our team immediately upon award to support your planned September 2026 kick-off. Please contact me at (714) 533-3050 or [email protected] if you have any questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
ONWARD ENGINEERING
Muhammad Ataya, Vice President
Cover Letter
| 2 Request for Proposals, Rehabilitation and Resurfacing Project (City Project No. 25005 / RFB #26-011), for the City of Fountain Valley Page 504 of 939
INSPECTOR
(dT)
$195.00
hourly
ASSISTANT
CM
$145.00
hourly
ONWARD ENGINEERING
INSPECTOR
(OT)
$175.00
hourly
OE
TOTAL
HOURS GRAND
CONSTRUCTION
Manager
$195.00
hourly
INSPECTOR
(ST)
$145.00
hourly
PHASE 1 PHASE 1
1 Construction Management 354 72 426 $79,470.00
1.1 Contructability Review 6 6 12 $2,040.00
1.2 Preliminary Field Walk 8 4 12 $2,140.00
1.3 Repond to RFIs 8 8 $1,560.00
1.4 Pre-construction Meeting 6 2 8 $1,460.00
1.5 Construction Management 300 60 360 $67,200.00
1.6 Labor Compliance 16 16 $3,120.00
1.7 Final Walkthrough 4 4 $780.00
1.8 Final Payment Recommendation 2 2 $390.00
1.9 Prepare and Deliver Project Files 4 4 $780.00
SUB-TOTAL 354 72 426 $79,470.00
PHASE 2 PHASE 2
2 Construction Inspection 822 822 $119,190.00
2.1 Contructability Review 6 6 $870.00
2.2 Preliminary Field Walk 8 8 $1,160.00
2.3 Pre-construction Meeting 2 2 $290.00
2.4 Construction Inspection 800 800 $116,000.00
2.5 Punchlist Prep 2 2 $290.00
2.6 Final Walkthrough 4 4 $580.00
SUB-TOTAL 822 822 $119,190.00
TOTAL HOURS AND COSTS 354 822 72 1248 $198,660.00
Fee Proposal
Onward Engineering | Design Smarter. Build Better.
Request for Proposals, Rehabilitation and Resurfacing Project (City Project No. 25005 / RFB #26-011), for the City of Fountain Valley | 3 fEE PROPOSAL
QUALIFICATIONS
• BS: Civil Engineering, University of the Philippines, 1986 • Certificates: Engineering Management for Construction, UCLA Extension, 1991; Building Construction & Management, AOTS Japan, 1990; Inland Navigation & Management, IFIT Belgium, 1989 • PE #57908: Professional Engineer, EXP: June 30, 2026
EXPERIENCE
Local Streets Rehabilitation Program Phase II (Asphalt Improvements) in Zone 3, Norwalk Chino was the Construction Manager on this project in the City of Norwalk. The limits were bound by the Union Pacific Railroad to the Northwest, the I-5 Freeway to the Northeast, Imperial Highway to the South, and Firestone Boulevard to Southwest. The project involved cold mill and ARHM overlay, application of slurry seal to the streets, full depth removal including removal and replacement of base material. The project also included installation of continental crosswalks, traffic signage and detector loop replacement. Incidental work involved replacement of traffic related items such as striping and pavement markings. Work was involved at 1 railroad crossing which required some added coordination.
Broadway and Manchester Avenue Rehabilitation Projects, Anaheim Chino was the Construction Manager for the City of Anaheim for the Broadway from Euclid Street to Harbor Boulevard and Manchester Avenue from South City Limit to Anaheim Boulevard Street Rehabilitation Projects. The project included rehabilitating approximately 7,000 linear feet (1.3 miles) of Broadway and 7,000 linear feet (1.3 miles) of Manchester Avenue. The project also included designing 27 curb ramps that were non-compliant and 76 driveways.
Arterial Street Improvement Project, Fountain Valley
Chino is the Construction Manager for the Arterial Street Improvement Project in the City of Fountain Valley. This project focuses on the rehabilitation of critical arterial roadways, enhancing safety and mobility for both residents and visitors. The project includes Ellis Avenue from Brookhurst Street to Ward Street, approximately 2,600 linear feet; Ward Street from Apache River Avenue to Ellis Avenue, approximately 1,140 linear feet; Newhope Street from Edinger Avenue to Heil Avenue, approximately 2,600 linear feet; and Slater Avenue from Brookhurst Street to Ward Street, approximately 2,600 linear feet. In total, the project covers approximately 8,940 linear feet of roadway improvements. The scope of work features a combination of a 2-inch grind with ARAM interlayer and ARHM overlay, including a leveling course, Type II slurry, and extensive concrete improvements. These enhancements includes sidewalk upgrades, ADA-compliant ramps, driveway reconstructions, and curb and gutter improvements, all designed to ensure long-lasting durability and significantly improves driving conditions on these vital thoroughfares.
FY 2023-24 Pavement Management Program Implementation Project, Glendale Chino served as the Construction Manager to the City of Glendale on the Fiscal Year 2023 to 2024 Pavement Management Program Implementation Project. The purpose of this project was to rehabilitate approximately 48,650 linear feet (9.2 miles) of street, a total of 60 streets in all. OE was tasked with providing designs for pavement resurfacing and reconstruction; curb, gutter and sidewalk repairs at 9 separate locations; a total of 124 ADA curb ramps and driveways construction; catch basin enhancements; bus stop improvements and relocations; sewer point repairs; tree well installation and tree planting; utility appurtenance adjustments and relocations; signing and striping; and surveying well monument installations and replacements. Additional work included sewer video inspection to identify sewer defects and preparing sanitary sewer plans for repairs that included point repairs, and sectional and full-length slip lining, along with Traffic Control plans. OE also acquired no-fee permits for ground distrubance work within the City’s right-of-way.
delfino “chino” consunji
Experience
40Years of
fields of expertise:
ROADWAY PAVEMENT ADA RAMP SIDEWALK WIDENING
resumes
Resume
| 4 Request for Proposals, Rehabilitation and Resurfacing Project (City Project No. 25005 / RFB #26-011), for the City of Fountain Valley Onward Engineering | Design Smarter. Build Better.
Construction manager
Residential Streets Rehabilitation Program, downey
As Public Works Director/City Engineer, Chino oversaw the implementation of the City’s Pavement Management Program (PMP) and 10-year residential streets rehabilitation program. To develop a comprehensive and cost-effective 10-year street improvement program, the City was divided into 10 areas or residential neighborhoods with each year corresponding to rehabilitating a particular area or neighborhood. As directed by the City Council, in order to expedite implementation of the 10-year rehabilitation program and significantly increase the City’s overall network pavement condition index or PCI, Chino worked with the City Manager, Finance Director, financial and municipal bond consultants, and Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) for the issuance and sale of $30 million in Measure M and Measure R Sales Tax Revenue Bonds that were used to fund these street improvements. The $30 million in bond proceeds were required to be expended with three years of bond issuance. Chino was responsible for preparing and sending out the Requests for Proposals (RFP) for the design of the 10 residential neighborhoods; administering the design contracts; overseeing the bid and contract award process and overseeing construction and inspection of these street improvement projects. These projects were completed way ahead of schedule. Over a period of 18 months, 600 residential streets or approximately 70 miles of asphalt pavement were rehabilitated with a total cost of $26.5 million.
Rehabilitation included reconstruction, overlay, cape seal and slurry seal of the existing asphalt pavement. These projects included removal and replacement of damaged and/or uplifted concrete sidewalks and curb and gutter and reconstruction of curb access ramps in accordance with current Americans with Disabilities (ADA) requirements.
FY2019/2020 Residential Streets Rehabilitation, downey
As Public Works Director/City Engineer, Chino oversaw the design, bid and contract award process, construction and inspection of this project. This project rehabilitated 35 residential streets or approximately 7 miles of existing asphalt pavement in the south half of the City with a total cost of $2.8 million. Rehabilitation included reconstruction and overlay of the existing asphalt pavement. This project also included removal and replacement of damaged and/or uplifted concrete sidewalks and curb and gutter and reconstruction of curb access ramps in accordance with current ADA standards. Funding for this project came from Measure R, Senate Bill 1, Vehicle Impact Fees and Developer Funds.
Residential Streets Rehabilitation Program, downey
As Public Works Director/City Engineer, Chino oversaw the implementation of the City’s Pavement Management Program (PMP) and 10-year residential streets rehabilitation program. To develop a comprehensive and costeffective 10-year street improvement program, the City was divided into 10 areas or residential neighborhoods with each year corresponding to rehabilitating a particular area or neighborhood. As directed by the City Council, in order to expedite implementation of the 10-year rehabilitation program and significantly increase the City’s overall network pavement condition index or PCI, Chino worked with the City Manager, Finance Director, financial and municipal bond consultants, and Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) for the issuance and sale of $30 million in Measure M and Measure R Sales Tax Revenue Bonds that were used to fund these street improvements. The $30 million in bond proceeds were required to be expended with three years of bond issuance. 3rd Street Pavement Rehabilitation, downey
As Public Works Director/City Engineer, Chino oversaw the design, bid and contract award process, construction and inspection of this project. This project reconstructed 1 mile of existing asphalt pavement on 3rd Street from Old River School Road to Paramount Boulevard. This project included replacement of damaged concrete sidewalks, curb and gutter, driveway approaches and reconstruction of curb access ramps to comply with current ADA requirements. The total cost of the project was $700,000 with funding coming from the $30 million Measure and Measure R Bond Proceeds.
FY2017-2018 Residential Streets Rehabilitation Program, west covina As part of the City’s efforts to significantly improve the overall street network pavement condition index or PCI, as Public Works Director/City Engineer, Chino administered and managed the design, bid and contract award process, construction and inspection of this project. This project rehabilitated the existing asphalt pavement on residential streets generally bounded by Grand Avenue to the east, Azusa Avenue to the west, East Garvey Avenue to the north and Cortez Street to the south. Rehabilitation included reconstruction, overlay, cape seal and slurry seal of the existing asphalt pavement. The project also removed and replaced damaged and/or uplifted concrete sidewalks and curb and gutter and constructed ADA-compliant curb access ramps. The total length of the project was approximately 6 miles and total project cost was $1.2 million with funding coming from Measure R and Senate Bill 1funds.
5th Street Pavement Rehabilitation, downey
As Public Works Director/City Engineer, Chino oversaw the design, bid and contract award process, construction and inspection of this project. This project reconstructed approximately 0.5 mile of existing asphalt pavement on 5th Street from Lakewood Boulevard to Brookshire Avenue. This project included replacement of damaged concrete sidewalks, curb and gutter, driveway approaches and reconstruction of curb access ramps to comply with current ADA requirements. The total cost of the project was $610,000 with funding coming from the $30 million Measure and Measure R Bond Proceeds.
Resume
| 5 Request for Proposals, Rehabilitation and Resurfacing Project (City Project No. 25005 / RFB #26-011), for the City of Fountain Valley Page 507 of 939 Assistant Construction Manager
Klein Marinescu
fields of expertise:
Experience Y
7 ears of
ROADWAY PAVEMENT ADA RAMP SIDEWALK WIDENING
QUALIFICATIONS
• B.S: Civil Engineering, California State University, Fullerton, 2023 • 7 years combined experience across Public Works, Construction, and Design Engineering • Software: AutoCAD Civil 3D, Excel, Word, Outlook, and Bluebeam • Skills: Strong organizational, analytical, and time management abilities • Proven experience supporting design, permitting, and construction operations in both public and private sectors • Certification: EIT Certificate, Passed FE Exam, January 2024
EXPERIENCE
Broadway and Manchester Avenue Rehabilitation Projects, Anaheim Klein served as the Project Engineer for the City of Anaheim for the Broadway from Euclid Street to Harbor Boulevard and Manchester Avenue from South City Limit to Anaheim Boulevard Street Rehabilitation Projects. The project included rehabilitating approximately 7,000 linear feet (1.3 miles) of Broadway and 7,000 linear feet (1.3 miles) of Manchester Avenue. The project also included designing 27 curb ramps that were non-compliant and 76 driveways.
Adams Avenue Active Transportation Improvements - MultiPurpose Trails, Costa Mesa Klein served as the Project Engineer for the City of Costa Mesa for the Adams Avenue Active Transportation Improvements – Multipurpose Trails Project. With 6,800 linear feet (1.3 miles) of Class I multipurpose trails along Adams Avenue, connecting the Santa Ana River bridge to Royal Palm Drive, the project benefited cyclists, pedestrians, and the broader community. The project required pavement rehabilitation; multipurpose trails construction; median modifications; approximately 16 ADA ramp and 9 driveway construction; streetlight relocation/traffic signal modifications at 4 separate intersections; landscaping and irrigation; utility appurtenance adjustments/relocations; signing and striping replacement; a topographic survey consisting of aerial photographs, centerlines, monuments, and property boundaries; a geotechnical study of subgrade soil and recommendations on pavement treatments and multipurpose trail construction; 29 utility potholes; and a complete CEQA/NEPA environmental assessment for an E-76 permit. OE utilized geo-referencing of the work site in a GIS map for data referencing and plan sheets.
Fairview Road Active Transportation Improvements – Adams Avenue to Fair Drive, Costa Mesa Klein served as the Project Engineer for the City of Costa Mesa on the Fairview Road Active Transportation Improvements – Adams Avenue to Fair Drive Project. The project includes the construction of 4,400 linear feet (0.8 miles) of Class IV bike lanes along Fairview Road between Adams Avenue and Fair Drive. The work entails pavement rehabilitation. Class IV bike lanes, traffic signal modifications, ADA curb ramps, median modifications, landscaping and irrigation.
CARMENITA REHABILITATION EXCELSIOR DRIVE TO ROSECRANS AVENUE, NORWALK Klein served as the Project Engineer for the City of Norwalk on the $3 million rehabilitation of Carmenita Road from Excelsior Drive to Rosecrans Avenue. Our team prepared 100% plans, specifications, and estimates, along with all construction documents needed for bidding and award. The work included asphalt reconstruction, curb and gutter repairs, and signing and striping enhancements to improve safety and traffic flow. We also managed environmental compliance (NEPA/CEQA), right-of-way certification, and federal authorization requirements, while supporting the City through bid review, construction engineering, and project closeout. This project highlights our ability to provide complete, compliant, and cost-conscious roadway design solutions.
Resume
| 6 Request for Proposals, Rehabilitation and Resurfacing Project (City Project No. 25005 / RFB #26-011), for the City of Fountain Valley Onward Engineering | Design Smarter. Build Better.
QUALIFICATIONS
• CPII: Certified Public Infrastructure Inspector (APWA) • DSA: Certified Masonry Special Inspector (Certification #6369) • ICC: Certified Special Inspector – Structural Masonry, Soils, Reinforced Concrete, Structural Steel & Bolting, Spray-Applied Fireproofing (#9004982)
• Expertise in Underground Utilities, Street Improvements, ADA Compliance, and Infrastructure Inspection • Proficient in California Building Standards Code, ASTM Standards, and Construction Plan Interpretation
EXPERIENCE
CDBG Bennett Avenue, Washington Avenue, Westridge Avenue, and Bender Avenue Water and Street Improvement, Glendora
Mr. Dulloo served as the Senior Public Works Inspector. The project included the installation of a new 8” Ductile Iron Pipe water main with all new water meter connections to existing homes in the area, as well as new fire hydrants and other appurtenances. In addition, the project included the removal and reconstruction of AC pavement, as well as PCC sidewalk, curb and gutter, cross gutters/spandrels, and ADA compliant curb ramps.
Zone 3 Improvement Project, El Monte
Mr. Dulloo served as the Senior Public Works Inspector. The City of El Monte required treatments to the streets in Zone 3 to increase the pavement quality to the full width of the street. His duties included inspection of all work, preparation of daily inspection reports, development of construction photo logs, assistance with progress payment processing, assistance with change order negotiations, verification of compliance with contract documents, verification of public safety compliance, and development of remedial work lists.
On-Call Inspection Services, Highland
Mr. Dulloo provided on-call inspection services for the City of Highland, including a wide range of private improvements related to housing tracts, commercial development projects, utility construction, and capital improvement projects (CIP). His responsibilities also included conducting permit inspections to ensure compliance with city standards and regulatory requirements.
CDBG Bender Avenue, Santa Fe Avenue, and Newburgh Street Area Water and Street Improvement Project, Glendora
Mr. Dulloo served as the Senior Public Works Inspector. The project included the installation of a new 8” PVC water main with all new water meter connections to existing homes as well as new fire hydrants and other appurtenances.
In addition, the project included the removal and reconstruction of AC pavement, as well as PCC sidewalk, curb and gutter, and ADA compliant curb ramps.
On-Call Inspection Services, Montclair
Mr. Dulloo provided on-call inspection services for the City of Montclair, including a wide range of private improvements related to housing tracts, commercial development projects, utility construction, and capital improvement projects (CIP). His responsibilities also included conducting permit inspections to ensure compliance with city standards and regulatory requirements.
ConstructION INSPECTOR
NAEEM DULLOO
fields of expertise:
E
8 xperience Years ofROADWAY PAVEMENT ADA RAMP WATER WIDENING Resume
| 7 Request for Proposals, Rehabilitation and Resurfacing Project (City Project No. 25005 / RFB #26-011), for the City of Fountain Valley Onward Engineering | Design Smarter. Build Better.
*For contract purposes, our legal name will remain "Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants."
SOCOTEC
475 Goddard, Suite 200, Irvine, California 92618 | p. 949.753.7070 www.socotec.us
July 20, 2026
Proposal No. 04IRV06-05593
Ms. Jessenia Penaloza
Public Works Department
City of Fountain Valley
10200 Slater Avenue
Fountain Valley, California 92708
Subject: Proposal for Materials Testing Services
The Rehabilitation and Resurfacing of: Newhope Street from Edinger Avenue to Heil Avenue, Ward Street from Apache River Avenue to Ellis Avenue, Ellis Avenue from Brookhurst Street to Ward Street, and Slater Avenue from Starfish Avenue to Ward Street. Project No. 25005
Fountain Valley, California
References: City of Fountain Valley, 2026, Request for Bid (RFB) RFB No. 26-011, The Rehabilitation and Resurfacing of: Newhope Street from Edinger Avenue to Heil Avenue, Ward Street from Apache River Avenue to Ellis Avenue, Ellis Avenue from Brookhurst Street to Ward Street, and Slater Avenue from Starfish Avenue to Ward Street. Project No. 25005, City of Fountain Valley, California, Project No. 25005 dated June 25.
City of Fountain Valley, 2026, Contract Specifications - General Provisions, Special Provisions and Construction Provisions, The Rehabilitation and Resurfacing of: Newhope Street from Edinger Avenue to Heil Avenue, Ward Street from Apache River Avenue to Ellis Avenue, Ellis Avenue from Brookhurst Street to Ward Street, and Slater Avenue from Starfish Avenue to Ward Street.
Project No. 25005, City of Fountain Valley, California, Project No. 25005, dated June.
Dear Ms. Penaloza:
SOCOTEC is pleased to submit this proposal to provide materials testing services during construction of the Rehabilitation and Resurfacing of Newhope Street from Edinger Avenue to Heil Avenue, Ward Street from Apache River Avenue to Ellis Avenue, Ellis Avenue from Brookhurst Street to Ward Street, and Slater Avenue from Starfish Avenue to Ward Street, Project No. 25005, located in the City of Fountain Valley, California. Based on our review of the referenced RFB and contract specifications we understand that the project will generally consist of roadway rehabilitation with an asphalt concrete (AC) leveling course and asphalt rubber hot mix (ARHM) wearing course on the aforementioned streets, as ATTACHMENT #3
SOCOTEC
Project No. 25005, Fountain Valley, California | 04IRV06-05593 | July 20, 2026 well as various remove and reconstruct concrete improvements. The project estimated quantities include 4,028 tons of AC, 8,057 tons of ARHM, 970 linear feet (LF) of curb and gutter, 12,360 square feet (SF) of sidewalk, 5,042 SF of driveway, and 14 curb ramps. Our scope of services is anticipated to include field observations, sampling and testing of ARHM, subgrade and concrete.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Based on our understanding of the proposed construction and our experience with similar projects, we propose to provide the following scope of services:
• Project coordination, management and technical support including review of the project plans and specifications, material submittals, and work scheduling. • Attendance at the pre-construction meeting and as-need field meetings. • Field technician services for observations, sampling, documentation and density testing with a nuclear gauge to determine relative compaction during subgrade preparation for concrete improvement areas.
• Field Technician (ACI) services for sampling and testing during concrete improvements including checking slump, temperature, and fabrication of test cylinders. • Field technician services for observation, sampling, testing and documentation during ARHM pavement placement, including sampling the complete mixture, checking temperatures, layer thickness, and density testing with the nuclear gauge to determine relative compaction. • Laboratory testing services including but not limited to: Hveem stability, unit weight, percent asphalt content with after extraction gradation on ARHM materials, proctor maximum density testing on subgrade materials and compressive strength on concrete. • Preparation of daily observation reports to include photos of the work and test data sheets to document items sampled and tested. Our documents will be made available to our client on a daily basis or provided as requested.
ASSUMPTIONS
Based on our experience with similar projects, the following assumptions have been made in the preparation of our scope of services:
• Our services will be scheduled and coordinated as requested by our client or the client's field representative.
• Our services are subject to State of California prevailing wage requirements. • The proposed field services will be performed during normal working hours (Monday through Friday, 7 AM to 5 PM).
SOCOTEC
Project No. 25005, Fountain Valley, California | 04IRV06-05593 | July 20, 2026 • Sampling and density testing on subgrade in concrete improvement areas will be performed to evaluate and spot check the Contractor's compaction efforts as requested by the project inspector. • Sampling and testing of concrete in concrete improvement areas will be performed to evaluate mix design properties and compressive strength periodically as requested by the project inspector. • The proposed field service hours and laboratory testing listed in the attached Table 1 are based on 6 days of ARHM placement in wearing course areas.
• The proposed field service hours and laboratory testing listed in the attached Table 1 are based on 3 days of subgrade sampling and density testing in concrete improvement areas. • The proposed field service hours and laboratory testing listed in the attached Table 1 are based 2 days of concrete sampling and testing in concrete improvement areas. • One ARHM mixture sample will be obtained every lot (500 tons) from the field and laboratory tested for asphalt content and after extraction gradation per the project special provisions - Section 302-
5.2.4 ARHM Mixes. One ARHM mixture sample will be obtained daily and laboratory tested for Hveem stability and unit weight.
FEE
We propose to provide materials testing services on a time-and-materials basis in accordance with the attached Schedule of Fees and Schedule of Fees for Laboratory Testing. Our estimated fee for the scope of services described herein are presented in the attached Table 1.
SOCOTEC appreciates the opportunity to submit this proposal and we look forward to working with you.
Respectfully submitted,
SOCOTEC
Randy L. Reichert
Project Manager
Garreth M. Saiki, PE, GE
Principal Engineer
RLR/GMS/co
Attachments: Table 1 – Breakdown of Estimated Fee
Schedule of Fees
Senior Field Technician and Geotechnical and Laboratory Assistant Subgrade - Sampling and Density Testing 12 hours @ 135.00 $ /hour 1,620.00 $ Concrete - Sampling and Testing 8 hours @ 135.00 $ /hour 1,080.00 $ ARHM- Observations, Sampling and Density Testing 60 hours @ 135.00 $ /hour 8,100.00 $ Sample Pick-up 4 hours @ 120.00 $ /hour 480.00 $
Subtotal 11,280.00 $
Subgrade Materials
Proctor Density, D1557, D698 3 tests @ 220.00 $ /test 660.00 $ Asphalt Rubber Hot Mix (ARHM) Materials
Extraction, % Asphalt Cont. w/ Gradation, D 2172, CT 382 16 tests @ 250.00 $ /test 4,000.00 $ Hveem Stability and Unit Weight, D 1560, CT 366 6 tests @ 225.00 $ /test 1,350.00 $ Concrete Materials
Compressive Strength, C39 8 tests @ $35.00 /test 280.00 $ Subtotal 6,290.00 $
Field Vehicle Usage 80 hours @ 15.00 $ /hour 1,200.00 $ Field Equipment Usage 80 hours @ 15.00 $ /hour 1,200.00 $ Subtotal 2,400.00 $
Principal Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist 1 hour @ 250.00 $ /hour 250.00 $ Project Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist 8 hours @ 210.00 $ /hour 1,680.00 $ Geotechnical/Environmental/Laboratory Assistant 2 hours @ 120.00 $ /hour 240.00 $ Subtotal 2,170.00 $
TOTAL ESTIMATED FEE 22,140.00 $
Table 1 - Breakdown of Estimated Fee
Project Coordindation, Management and Technical Support Reimbursables
Laboratory Testing
Field Services
SOCOTEC
Project No. 25005, Fountain Valley, California | 04IRV06-05593 | July 20, 2026 1
SOCOTEC
Project No. 25005, Fountain Valley, California | 04IRV06-05593 | July 20, 2026 Schedule of Fees
Hourly Charges for Personnel
Professional Staff
Principal Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist/Certified Industrial Hygienist ......................................... $ 250 Senior Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist .......................................................................................... $ 235 Senior Project Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist .............................................................................. $ 220 Project Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist ......................................................................................... $ 210 Senior Staff Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist.................................................................................. $ 200 Staff Engineer/Geologist/Environmental Scientist ............................................................................................. $ 180 GIS Analyst ....................................................................................................................................................... $ 160 Technical Illustrator/CAD Operator.................................................................................................................... $ 140 Field Staff
Certified Asbestos/Lead Technician .................................................................................................................. $ 220 Field Operations Manager................................................................................................................................. $ 150 Nondestructive Examination Technician (UT, MT, LP)...................................................................................... $ 145 Supervisory Technician ..................................................................................................................................... $ 140 Special Inspector (Concrete, Masonry, Structural Steel, Welding, and Fireproofing)........................................ $ 135 Senior Technician.............................................................................................................................................. $ 135 Technician......................................................................................................................................................... $ 130 Administrative Staff
Information Specialist ........................................................................................................................................ $ 120 Geotechnical/Environmental/Laboratory Assistant............................................................................................ $ 120 Data Processor.................................................................................................................................................. $ 95 Other Charges
Concrete Coring Equipment (includes technician) ....................................................................................... $ 190/hr Anchor Load Test Equipment (includes technician)..................................................................................... $ 190/hr GPR Equipment........................................................................................................................................... $ 180/hr Inclinometer ................................................................................................................................................. $ 100/hr Hand Auger Equipment................................................................................................................................ $ 80/hr Rebar Locator (Pachometer) ....................................................................................................................... $ 25/hr Vapor Emission Kit....................................................................................................................................... $ 65/kit Nuclear Density Gauge................................................................................................................................ $ 15/hr X-Ray Fluorescence .................................................................................................................................... $ 70/hr PID/FID........................................................................................................................................................ $ 25/hr Air Sampling Pump ...................................................................................................................................... $ 10/hr Field Vehicle ................................................................................................................................................ $ 15/hr Equipment $ 15/hr
Expert Witness Testimony ........................................................................................................................... $ 450/hr Direct Expenses............................................................................................................................. Cost plus 15 % Special equipment charges will be provided upon request.
Notes
Technicians and special inspectors, are charged at a 4-hour minimum, and 8-hour minimum for hours exceeding 4 hours. Overtime rates at 1.5 times the regular rates will be charged for work performed in excess of 8 hours in one day Monday through Friday and all day on Saturday. Rates at twice the regular rates will be charged for all work in excess of 12 hours in one day, all day Sunday and on holidays.
Our rates will be adjusted in conjunction with the increase in the Prevailing Wage Determination during the life of the project, as applicable.
The terms and conditions are included in the Work Authorization and Agreement form.