La Palma City Council
August 4, 2026

Wildfires Hit Home

Defensible Space Requirements and the New Ember-Resistant Zone 0 The State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection is responsible for the existing defensible space regulations37 for buildings or structures located in the SRA or in Very High FHSZ in the LRA. If you have a home or building in the SRA or in the Very High FHSZ in the LRA, you are responsible for ensuring that your property complies with defensible space requirements to protect structures from wildfire. The Board of Forestry and Fire Protection webpages include an illustration of existing Defensible Space Zones 0, 1, and 2 (Figure 5), and links to Zones 0, 1, and 2 resources.38 Figure 5 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Defensible Zones 0, 1, and 2 It is important to note that “ember-resistant Zone 0” does not mean all vegetation, including trees, within 0-5 feet must be removed. New ember-resistant Zone 0 37 California Public Resources Code Division 4 - Forests, Forestry and Range and Forage Lands Part 2 - Protection of Forest, Range and Forage Lands Chapter 3 - Mountainous, Forest-, Brush- and GrassCovered Lands Section 4291. https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-prc/division-4/part-2/chapter3/section-4291/. Accessed January 14, 2026. 38 State of California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. https://bof.fire.ca.gov/projects-andprograms/defensible-space-zones-0-1-and-2. Accessed January 14, 2026.

Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 19 of 74
vegetation options will be finalized later in 2026. The next public workshop meeting is scheduled for April 23, 2026. New ember-resistant Zone 0 requirements enhance existing defensible space requirements in High and Very High FHSZs in the LRA to create an ember-resistant zone within 0 to 5 feet of a building. 39 Compliance with existing or enhanced defensible space requirements addresses home ignition potential and reduces home ignitability. Reducing the ignitability of enough homes can break the WUI fire chain of events and help more homes escape destruction or survive undamaged.

AB38 Defensible Space Compliance Documentation and Disclosure AB38 became effective in 2021, requiring sellers of property located in a High or Very High FHSZ to provide buyers with documentation stating the property complies with state defensible space requirements or local vegetation management ordinances, as applicable. The law provides that if documentation demonstrating compliance cannot be obtained by the close of escrow, a written agreement may be executed showing that the buyer agrees to obtain documentation of compliance within one year of the close of escrow. 40
The law also requires a Defensible Space Disclosure be provided by sellers of property located in a High or Very High FHSZ to buyers of homes constructed before January 1, 2010. The Disclosure must include specified information and a copy of a final inspection report, or information on where the report may be obtained. A sample Defensible Space Disclosure notice is reproduced at Appendix D.

California Homeowners Insurance Crisis
Devastating property losses and casualties resulting from numerous wildfires in California WUI areas and other natural disasters beginning in 2018 have precipitated a continuing homeowners insurance crisis. Beginning in 2022 and 2023, insurers began dramatically raising California homeowners fire insurance premiums in what were considered wildfire risk areas, and some insurers began to stop issuing policies in highrisk areas or withdraw from the California homeowners’ insurance market altogether.

Like many homeowners throughout the state that are severely impacted by the insurance crisis, many Orange County homeowners are also impacted. 39 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. Summary of October 2025 Draft Zone 0 Regulation Language. https://34c031f8-c9fd-4018-8c5a-4159cdff6b0d-cdn-endpoint.azureedge.net/-/media/bof-website/projectsand-programs/defensible-space-zones-0-1-2/october-zone-0-summary-and-ruleplead.pdf?rev=927f9551dc7b4f15b8263671cca15ef2&hash=F80F2C5451370BB3C855E38CCCC516D4.

Accessed February 17, 2025.
40 Assembly Bill 38, Wood. Fire safety: low-cost retrofits: regional capacity review: wildfire mitigation.

Approved October 2, 2019. California-2019-AB38-Chaptered

Wildfires Hit Home

Actions have been taken by the state legislature and the CDI during the last three years to strengthen the property insurance market, increase insurer commitments to write more policies in wildfire-distressed areas, and provide a framework to support homeowners in securing premium reductions from insurers when they take specific actions to reduce their community- and property-level wildfire risk.41 Despite these actions, many homeowners remain vulnerable to dramatic policy premium increases, nonrenewal, or the inability to secure traditional insurance coverage.

A recent New York Times article42 cites a 2023 California Association of Realtors survey wherein “nearly 7 percent of realtors surveyed…said that they had deals fall out of escrow that year because buyers couldn’t find adequate, affordable coverage.” As further cited in the article: “The percentage of realtors reporting that they had deals fall through for lack of insurance has more than doubled since 2023, to 16.6 percent.” Unabated Growth of the California FAIR Plan
The continuing statewide insurance crisis is further demonstrated by the unabated growth in California FAIR Plan residential insurance policies. The FAIR Plan provides basic fire insurance coverage for
eligible high-risk properties when
such coverage is demonstrated by
the applicant to be unavailable in
the traditional insurance market.43
FAIR Plan coverage is limited,
relatively expensive, and is the
insurer of last resort for these
properties. During the period from
September 2023 to September
2025, the number of FAIR Plan
residential dwelling policies in
force (PIF) increased from
320,581 to 625,033 as shown at
41 California Department of Insurance. Sustainable Insurance Strategy. https://ains.assembly.ca.gov/system/files/2023-12/insurance-commissioner-ricardo-lara-californiasustainable-insurance-strategy-presentation-to-assembly-insurance-committee-12-13-2023.pdf. Accessed January 29, 2026.
42 New York Times.California Promised Insurance Relief, But Delivered Loopholes. November 1, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/01/us/los-angeles-california-fire-insurance-regulations.html. Accessed March 25, 2026.
43 The California FAIR Plan. https://www.cfpnet.com/. Accessed March 25, 2026.

Figure 6 Total FAIR Plan Dwelling and Commercial Policies Have Increased, September 2023 to September 2025

Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 21 of 74
Figure 6.44 FAIR Plan data for Orange County residential policies in 2022 is shown in Appendix E.

The FAIR Plan is a syndicated fire insurance pool comprised of all insurers licensed to conduct property and casualty business in California. The FAIR Plan was established by statute45 in August 1968 as an insurance placement facility and all licensed property/casualty insurers that write basic property insurance are required to be members of the FAIR Plan. The FAIR Plan issues policies on behalf of its member companies, and each member company participates in the profits, losses, and expenses of the FAIR Plan in direct proportion to its market share of business written in the state. The FAIR Plan is not a state agency or public entity; it does not receive public or taxpayer funding. As the total number of FAIR Plan policies continues to grow unabated, so does the financial strain on the overall FAIR Plan fire insurance pool.

Insurance Relief for Homeowners: Safer from Wildfires
Insurance Regulation
The first of the wildfire safety regulatory incentives was the Safer from Wildfires regulation enacted in fall 2022.46 Safer from Wildfires requires insurers to offer premium discounts based, in part, on mandatory factors including community-level wildfire risk mitigation designations and property-level wildfire risk mitigation efforts. Every action taken under Safer from Wildfires qualifies applicants and policyholders for insurance discounts.

Safer from Wildfires: Community-Level Wildfire Risk Mitigation There are two examples of community-level wildfire risk mitigation designations listed in the Safer from Wildfire regulation: 1) Fire Risk Reduction Community Listing47 approved by the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, and 2) Firewise USA Site Designation48 approved by the National Fire Protection Association. Other examples of communitylevel wildfire risk mitigation designations include local Fire Safe Council supported by the California Fire Safe Council, Community Wildfire Protection Plan supported by the 44 Key Statistics & Data. The California FAIR Plan. https://www.cfpnet.com/key-statistics-data/. Accessed March 25, 2026.
45 California Insurance Code sections 10090 et seq. https://law.justia.com/codes/california/codeins/division-2/part-1/chapter-9/section-10090/. Accessed April 21, 2026. 46 California Code of Regulations, Title 10, Section 2644.9 47 Fire Risk Reduction Community listed by the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 4290.1. https://bof.fire.ca.gov/projects-and-programs/fire-risk-reductioncommunity-list. Accessed February 10, 2026. 48 Firewise USA program managed by National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). https://www.nfpa.org/Education-and-Research/Wildfire/Firewise-USA. Accessed April 21, 2026.

Wildfires Hit Home

U.S. Fire Administration, and the Wildfire Prepared Neighborhood™ Pilot Program49 being launched by the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS).

Safer from Wildfires: Property-Level Wildfire Risk Mitigation Safer from Wildfires also requires insurers to offer premium discounts based, in part, on the reduced wildfire risk resulting from each and every property-level wildfire risk mitigation action. These individual property-level wildfire risk mitigation efforts include measures addressing the immediate surroundings of a building and building hardening.

The IBHS offers homeowner guidance based on its research,50 and a property-level Wildfire Prepared Home™ designation51 that recognizes mitigation measures addressing both immediate surroundings and home hardening.

Safer from Wildfires: Property-Level Measures Addressing Immediate Surroundings - Defensible Space
The following measures are specified in Safer from Wildfires to address the immediate surroundings of a building. Each of these actions qualifies for insurance discount:
a. Clearing of vegetation and debris from under decks
b. Clearing of vegetation, debris, mulch, stored combustible materials, and any and all movable combustible objects from the area within five (5) feet of the building c. Use of only noncombustible materials in any improvements to the property, including fences and gates situated within five (5) feet of the building d. Removal or absence of combustible structures, including sheds and other outbuildings, from the area within thirty (30) feet of the building or as much of such area as is under the control of the applicant or policyholder e. Whether the property upon which the building is situated complies with state or local defensible space requirements, as applicable
Safer from Wildfires: Property-Level Building Hardening Measures The following building hardening measures are specified in Safer from Wildfires. Each of these actions qualifies for insurance discount:
a. Class-A fire rated roof
b. Enclosed eaves
49 Institute for Business & Home Safety. Wildfire Prepared Neighborhood Pilot Program. https://wildfireprepared.org/wildfire-prepared-neighborhood-pilot-program/. Accessed March 19, 2026. 50 IBHS Research. Wildland Fire Embers and Flames: Home Mitigations That Matter. April 2023. https://ibhs1.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/Home-Mitigations-that-Matter-FINAL.pdf.

Accessed February 10, 2026.
51 Institute for Business & Home Safety. Wildfire Prepared Home: Take Proven Steps to Reduce Your Risk. https://wildfireprepared.org/. Accessed March 19, 2026.

Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 23 of 74
c. Fire-resistant vents
d. Multipane windows, including dual pane windows, or functional shutters, which when closed, cover the entire window and do not have openings e. At least six (6) inches of noncombustible vertical clearance at the bottom of the exterior surface of the building, measured from the ground up Safer from Wildfires: Optional Factors
The Safer from Wildfires regulation also incorporates other optional factors that are substantially related to risk of wildfire loss. These optional factors may include, but are not limited to: fuel, slope, access, aspect, structural characteristics, wind, and other community-level or property-level mitigation efforts, or designations as recommended by a state or local fire safety agency or organization as reducing wildfire risk.

Reducing Wildfire and Insurance Risk: AB888 The
California Safe Homes Grant Program
AB888 established the California Safe Homes Grant Program in October 2025 to be developed and administered by the Department of Insurance for the purpose of achieving the following goals:
(1) Reducing local and statewide wildfire losses
(2) Improving insurability and resilience of vulnerable communities (3) Home hardening of insurable properties to mitigate wildfire risk and enable consumers to get access to insurance premium incentives offered by insurance companies and in alignment with the department’s rules.

Eligible California Safe Home Grant Program applicants include qualifying individuals and qualifying cities, counties, and special districts. For individuals, grant funds may be awarded if the following criteria are met:
(1) The property of the applicant is covered by an admitted insurer or the California FAIR Plan
(2) The property of the applicant is in a ZIP Code that overlaps with a High or Very High FHSZ.
(3) The income of the applicant is no higher than the low-income limit for the county in which they reside

Wildfires Hit Home

As of January 1, 2026, the Department of Insurance was developing the grant application portal and planned to begin accepting California Safe Homes Grant applications in spring 2026.52
Our Shared Responsibilities
Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA)
OCFA serves all unincorporated areas of Orange County and its 23 Orange County member cities. The OCFA Board of Directors is made up of elected officials from the County and its member cities. The 11 Orange County cities that are not served by OCFA have their own city fire departments, i.e., their own fire service agencies having jurisdiction. The list of OCFA member cities and other Orange County fire service agencies is included at Appendix F.

OCFA education and outreach programs are comprehensive. Online materials and event scheduling is accessible at their website. and a staff of seven community education specialists and a community education supervisor are available to coordinate and attend events. The Wildfire Preparedness53 webpages cover multiple topic areas including:
 Ready, Set, Go!
 Home Assessment
 Defensible Space Disclosure
Inspection
 Pest Control (tree pests
management)
 Immediate Zone
 FHSZ Maps
 Insurance
 Contractors (specializing in
wildfire preparedness)
OCFA takes a systematic approach to mitigating risk through its Community Risk Reduction Department (formerly Fire Prevention). OCFA Community Risk Reduction (CRR) staff identifies community risks, collaborates with developers, agencies, and residents to build and maintain safe communities.54 In addition to the extensive Wildland Preparedness webpages, the CRR department webpages include a section on Wildland & Vegetation with specific information for homeowners in wildland interface areas. The CRR department supports homeowners’ risk reduction efforts by providing an online 52 CalMatters. California homeowners could qualify for grants for new roofs and fire safety. January 1, 2026. https://calmatters.org/economy/2026/01/california-safe-homes-grants/. Accessed February 17, 2026.
53 Orange County Fire Authority. Wildfire Preparedness. https://ocfa.org/ready-set-go/. Accessed February 24, 2026.
54 Orange County Fire Authority. About Us. Departments. https://ocfa.org/aboutus/departments/community-risk-reduction/. Accessed February 24, 2026.

Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 25 of 74
home assessment tool55 that covers the basics of both home hardening and defensible space principles. The online assessment tool guides the homeowner through a series of questions and ends with the opportunity to receive an emailed report providing recommendations for fire mitigation strategies. Before beginning the online questionnaire, homeowners are given the option to request an in-person home assessment with an OCFA Fire Prevention Specialist.

Fire Hazard Severity Zone Survey Results - Local Governments and Fire Service Agencies
This investigation included a survey of Orange County cities to gather information about their efforts to reduce risk of wildfire in WUI areas and their outreach programs for homeowners. The Grand Jury invited 34 Orange County cities to respond to the survey and received 28 responses. Of these 28 responses, 20 were from various city departments, and eight were from city fire departments.

The Orange County cities that responded to the survey reported having from zero to 100% of their city land area within Moderate, High, or Very-High FHSZs. Reported land areas may not match each individual city’s FHSZ map. A summary of the survey results for city area reported in FHSZs are shown at Figure 7:

55 Orange County Fire Authority. Home Assessment Tool. https://ocfa.org/ready-set-go/homeassessment/. Accessed February 24, 2026.

Wildfires Hit Home

City Area Reported in
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
% of
Responding
Cities
# of
Responding
Cities
No area in FHSZ 21% 6
Some area in FHSZ (not quantified) 14% 4
2% to 25% in FHSZ 25% 7
26% to 50% in FHSZ 18% 5
51% to 75% in FHSZ 11% 3
76% to 100% in FHSZ 11% 3
Figure 7 City Area Reported in Fire Hazard Severity Zones 11 of 28 responding cities reported having achieved or have applications pending approval for community-level wildfire risk mitigation designations. Achievement of community-level wildfire risk mitigation designations is a significant way local governments, local fire departments, unincorporated areas, and special districts can reduce wildfire and insurance risk for their residents. A summary of the survey results for cities that have achieved or applied for community-level wildfire risk mitigation designation are shown at Figure 8.
21%
14%
25%
18%
11%
11%
City Area Reported in Fire Hazard Severity Zones
No area in FHSZ Some area in FHSZ (not quantified)
2% to 25% in FHSZ 26% to 50% in FHSZ
51% to 75% in FHSZ 76% to 100% in FHSZ

Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 27 of 74
Achieved, Applied for, or Plan to Apply
for a Community-Level Wildfire Risk
Mitigation Designations
% of
Responding
Cities
# of
Responding
Cities
Yes 39% 11
No 61% 17
In progress 0% 0
Figure 8 Cities Reporting Achieved, Applied for, or Plan to Apply for a Community-Level Wildfire Risk Mitigation Designation
16 of 28 responding cities reported having an outreach program that provides information and guidance to property owners on wildfire risk mitigation measures and grant programs. A summary of the survey results on cities reporting whether they have these outreach programs in place are shown at Figure 9. These outreach programs are needed to help homeowners achieve awareness and ability to plan and take actions required to reduce individual and community wildfire and insurance risk. 39%
61%
0%
Cities That Have Achieved, Applied for, or Plan to
Apply for a Community-level Wildfire Risk
Mitigation Designation
Yes No In progress

Wildfires Hit Home

Outreach Program to Provide Information
and Guidance to Property Owners on
Wildfire Risk Mitigation Measures and
Grants
% of
Responding
Cities
# of
Responding
Cities
Yes 57% 16
No 29% 8
In progress 14% 4
Figure 9 Cities Reporting Outreach Program to Provide Information and Guidance to Property Owners on Wildfire Risk Mitigation Measures and/or Grants
11 of the 16 cities reported having their own outreach programs, are Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) member cities, and referred to one or more of OCFA’s comprehensive programs and resources (see Figure 10). While OCFA member cities’ use of OCFA outreach programs and resources is efficient and beneficial to their residents, the availability of a direct local contact at the city who is knowledgeable and can provide even a minimum of information and guidance on wildfire mitigation resources would help remove barriers to homeowners’ actions to reduce wildfire risk. 29% 57%
14%
Cities That Have an Outreach Program to Provide
Information and Guidance to Property Owners on
Wildfire Risk Mitigation Measures and/or Grants
Yes No In progress

Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 29 of 74
Outreach Program Refers to Orange
County Fire Authority Programs and
Resources
% of
Responding
Cities
# of
Responding
Cities
Yes 55% 11
No 45% 9
Figure 10 Cities Reporting Their Outreach Program Refers to Orange County Fire Authority Outreach Programs and Resources
Orange County Homeowners Associations Play an Important Role According to the California Community Managers Association, there are 4,927 homeowners associations (HOA) in Orange County, and 82% of Orange County residents live in HOAs.56 These HOAs communicate directly with their residents, and thus have the ability to mobilize people and resources to effectively achieve and maintain community-level wildfire risk mitigation designations and reduce their residents’ homeowner insurance premiums.

HOAs are the local contact for their residents, and through their architectural and landscape standards can effectively communicate information on home hardening and defensible space requirements. HOAs often host community leaders and local fire service agencies for fire prevention workshops and other outreach events for HOA residents. Their local contact function can also provide information and organize opportunities to volunteer and support local fire prevention overall through activities such as Citizens Brigade57 and Bike Brigade.58 These HOA-hosted workshops, outreach 56 California Association of Community Managers. Estimated number of residents living in HOAs based on average of 2010-2014 Census reports of 3.04 persons per household. www.cacm.org. 57 Weathered: After the LA Firestorm. PBS, KCET, 2026.
58Ellis, Rebecca. Los Angeles Times. January 10, 2026. Topanga Canyon felt abandoned. So residents are banding together to fight fire. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-01-10/topanga-canyonfelt-abandoned-so-residents-are-banding-together-to-fight-fire. Accessed March 6, 2026. 55%
45%
Cities With an Outreach Program That Refers
To OCFA Programs and Resources
Yes No

Wildfires Hit Home

events, and local contact functions are effective means to help homeowners achieve awareness and ability to plan and take actions necessary to reduce wildfire and insurance risk.

HOAs often have significant responsibility for large open space areas of Orange County that can total hundreds of acres of fuel modification zones. The HOAs’ collaborative role with local fire service agencies in managing these fuel modification zones is as important as their role with HOA residents in the shared responsibilities for wildfire and insurance risk reduction.

Homeowners are Responsible for Reducing Home Ignition Potential Fire science research has demonstrated that ignition-resistant homes can survive wildfire without firefighter protection.59 Where there are enough ignition-resistant homes, the WUI fire chain of events can be broken to prevent fire disasters, and these homes can escape destruction or survive undamaged. Taking the actions necessary to make homes ignition resistant to windborne embers is the responsibility of homeowners. The role of the homeowner is critical in the shared responsibilities for reducing wildfire and insurance risk in WUI areas.

Homeowners need support from local governments and fire service agencies to achieve the awareness and ability to plan and take actions necessary to make homes ignition resistant. This support is most effectively delivered through local outreach programs; effective communications in outreach programs have been found to be the more local, personalized efforts such as one-on-one consultation with fire experts, townhall events, small workshops, tours, and demonstrations.60 For example, provision of in-person or online home assessments that result in written recommendations to homeowners for specific wildfire risk mitigation actions. Documentation of the recommended actions taken can then be presented to homeowners’ insurers for the insurance discounts required by Safer from Wildfires.

Safer from Wildfires home hardening and defensible space measures protect homes and communities, save homeowners, local governments, and fire authorities as well as insurance companies from catastrophic loss while also providing discounts for homeowners’ insurance premiums.

Reducing wildfire risk in the wildland-urban interface helps ensure that insurance coverage remains accessible. California’s wildfire and insurance crisis demands coordinated action from local governments and fire authorities, communities, and homeowners to reduce risk of wildfire.
59 Cohen, The Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Problem, 23. 60 Gammanco, The Return of Conflagration, 34.

Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 31 of 74

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 “Wildfires Hit Home” the 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at the following six findings:

F1 More frequent and severe wildfires driven by increasingly hotter, drier, and windier conditions in the Orange County wildland-urban interface are escalating impacts on financial and non-financial resources. Among the financial costs are dramatic increases in homeowners’ insurance premiums, nonrenewals, and inabilities to obtain insurance.

F2 Actions that address conditions in the home ignition zone to significantly reduce ignition potential can prevent a community wildland-urban interface fire disaster or suburban conflagration.

F3 Expanded engagement with the community to raise awareness and provide support regarding home hardening and defensible space will increase effectiveness of wildfire risk mitigation and insurance risk reduction efforts.

F4 Achievement of community-level and property-level wildfire risk mitigation designations (such as Firewise USA Site, Fire Risk Reduction Community or Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety certification) lessens wildfire risk and helps reduce insurance premium costs.

F5 All county residents should be made aware that Safer from Wildfire regulation requires insurers to provide discounts to homeowners and communities that implement home hardening and defensible space measures regardless of whether a property is located within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

F6 AB888, California Safe Homes Grant Program, provides financial assistance to eligible homeowners, cities, counties, and special districts for home hardening and defensible space measures. Applying for and using these grant funds will reduce wildfire losses and improve insurability and resilience of vulnerable communities.

Wildfires Hit Home

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 December 31, 2026, the Orange County Board of Supervisors should plan to host a county-wide annual wildfire prevention fair for the County and all cities and fire service agencies, including Orange County Fire Authority, to showcase respective wildfire outreach programs, and for the first annual wildfire prevention fair to be scheduled no later than December 31, 2027. [F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6]
R2 By December 31, 2026, cities and fire service agencies, including Orange County Fire Authority should commit to participation in a county-wide annual wildfire prevention fair planned by the Orange County Board of Supervisors to showcase wildfire prevention outreach programs. [F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6]
R3 By December 31, 2026, cities, unincorporated areas, special districts, and fire service agencies in High and Very-High Fire Hazard Severity Zones should initiate planning activities to achieve community-level wildfire risk mitigation designations and/or establish a local Fire Safe Council within one year. [F4, F5, F6]
R4 By December 31, 2026, to ensure city residents are engaged and aware of wildfire risk reduction resources, OCFA member and non-member cities should provide information, develop their own outreach program, and establish a direct contact person(s) for their residents. This is in addition to whatever referrals or references made to OCFA outreach programs. [F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6]

Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 33 of 74

COMMENDATIONS
Yorba Linda Water District
The 2025-26 Orange County Grand Jury extends its special thanks to the Yorba Linda Water District (YLWD) for providing two tours of its facilities, including their non-portable Heli-Hydrants™. The YLWD with foresight and planning installed three Heli-Hydrant™ facilities. One of the tanks was the first
to be installed in Southern California.

These innovative tanks enable fire
department helicopters to access water
more quickly and efficiently, improving
helicopter firefighting capabilities in
areas where wildland vegetation and
human development intersect, such as
in the Yorba Linda service area.

Newport Beach Fire Department
The 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury acknowledges and recognizes the Newport Beach Fire Department for their outstanding and continuing efforts to lead the Southern California region in dedication and adherence to the highest level of fire protection and safety. They are a role model for other cities in Orange County and elsewhere. In 2024, the Insurance Services Office honored Newport Beach Fire Department as a Top Tier Class 1 fire agency through its Public Protection Classification Program Newport Beach Fire Department shares the Top Tier Class 1 designation with only about 1% of the top fire departments nationwide.

The Grand Jury particularly commends Newport Beach Fire Prevention leadership, who generously dedicated time and expertise to share insights from their extensive knowledge of fire science.

Source: 2025-2026 Grand Jury

Wildfires Hit Home

REQUIRED RESPONSES
California Penal Code Section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g., District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected County official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors.

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:

Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 35 of 74
(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:
(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.

The Orange County Grand Jury requires the following responses:

Orange County Board of Supervisors 90 Day Response Required Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R1, R2, R3

Wildfires Hit Home

Orange County Fire Authority Board of Directors 90 Day Response Required Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3
City of Aliso Viejo 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of Anaheim 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of Brea 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of Buena Park 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of Costa Mesa 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R4
City of Cypress 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R4

Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 37 of 74
City of Dana Point 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R4
City of Fountain Valley 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R4
City of Fullerton 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R4
City of Garden Grove 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R4
City of Huntington Beach 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R4
City of Irvine 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of La Habra 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4

Wildfires Hit Home

City of La Palma 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R4
City of Laguna Beach 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of Laguna Hills 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of Laguna Niguel 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of Laguna Woods 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of Lake Forest 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of Los Alamitos 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R4

Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 39 of 74
City of Mission Viejo 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of Newport Beach 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of Orange 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of Placentia 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R4
City of Rancho Santa Margarita 90 Day Response Required Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of San Clemente 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of San Juan Capistrano 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4

Wildfires Hit Home

City of Santa Ana 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of Seal Beach 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R4
City of Stanton 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R4
City of Tustin 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of Villa Park 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of Westminster 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R4
City of Yorba Linda 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4

Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 41 of 74
Acronyms
AB Assembly Bill
B Brush
BCR Benefit Cost Ratio
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CAL OES California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services CC Contract Counties
CDI California Department of Insurance
CRR Community Risk Reduction
CWUIC California Wildland-Urban Interface Code
FAIR Fair Access to Insurance Requirement
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHDS Fire Hardening and Defensible Space
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
G Grass
HOA Homeowners Association
IBHS Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety®
IWUIC International Wildland-Urban Interface Code
LRA Local Responsibility Area
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
OCFA Orange County Fire Authority
P&C Property and Casualty
PIF Policies in Force
SB Senate Bill
SRA State Responsibility Area
USDA United States Department of Agriculture

Wildfires Hit Home

USFS United States Forest Service
WRAP Wildfire Risk Reduction and Asset Protection
WUI Wildland-Urban Interface
YLWD Yorba Linda Water District

Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 43 of 74
Glossary
Aspect Compass direction that a slope or terrain surface faces, influencing sunlight exposure, temperature, and vegetation.

Catastrophic loss A sudden, severe, and often, widespread event resulting in extreme financial, loss of life, or permanent injury.

Class-A roof Highest fire resistance classification for a roof assembly, signifying its effectiveness against severe fire exposure.

Conflagration A particularly large and destructive fire; in the built environment, this may describe a fire that spreads via structure to structure.

Defensible space Buffer zone created and managed between buildings and surrounding wildland area to protect buildings from embers, flames, or heat, slow or stop wildfire spread, and help ensure safety of firefighters.

Ember Small piece of burning or glowing fragment from a fire.

Ember-resistant Refers to features that reduce the risk of ignition from embers.

Ember spot ignition Refers to one of the principal ways homes can ignite during extreme WUI fires, by embers directly on a house.

Firebrands Refers to airborne embers; pieces of burning wood.

Firewise USA Program administered by NFPA® and co-sponsored by the USDA Forest Service and the National Association of State Foresters.

Fuel modification zone Designated area where vegetation is managed to reduce wildfire risk for protection of homes and communities.

Fuel reduction Management of vegetation to reduce risk of wildfires.

Heli-Hydrant™ Patented rapid-fill water tank system for helicopter firefighting operations.

Home hardening Utilizing building materials, construction methods and maintenance practices to increase resistance to ignition from fire exposure.

Home ignition potential Susceptibility of a home and its immediate surroundings within 100 feet (thirty meters) to ignite during a wildfire.

Home ignition zone A home and its immediate surroundings within 100 feet (thirty meters).

Wildfires Hit Home

Ignition Process leading to the onset of a sustained combustion reaction; “start of a fire.”
Ignition-resistant Refers to materials and construction methods designed to resist ignition or sustained flaming combustion; difficult to catch fire when exposed to direct flame or heat.

Wildland fuels Burnable plant materials that can act as fuel during wildfires, including grasses, shrubs, trees, dead leaves, and fallen pine needles.

Zone 0 Ember-resistant defensible space within the first five feet around a structure, required for properties in State Responsibility Area or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in the Local Responsibility Area.

Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 45 of 74
Bibliography
2025 California Wildland-Urban Interface Code, Title 24, Part 7, 2024 IWUIC Amended, Effective Date: Jan 01, 2026. Accessed January 22, 2026. https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAWUIC2025P2.
2025 California Wildland-Urban Interface Code, Title 24, Part 7, 2024 IWUIC Amended, Effective Date: Jan 01, 2026. Accessed January 22, 2026. https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAWUIC2025P2/chapter-6-fire-protectionrequirements.

Artemis. “Golden Bear Re Ltd. (Series 2026-1).” Artemis Deal Directory. Accessed February 1, 2026. https://www.artemis.bm/deal-directory/golden-bear-re-ltd-series-2026- 1/.

Austin, Troy, et al. “A Spatial Analysis of Structure Loss and Survival Resulting from the 2018 Camp Fire in Paradise, California.” Frames Resource Catalog. February 19, 2020.

Accessed November 25, 2025. https://www.frames.gov/catalog/60818 Becker, Jo. “California Promised Insurance Relief, But Delivered Loopholes.” New York Times. November 1, 2025. Accessed November 25, 2025.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/01/us/los-angeles-california-fire-insuranceregulations.html CAL FIRE. Office of the State Fire Marshal. Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area>Phase 4>Orange> https://calfire.app.box.com/s/wahuw9ny7cgn89xpxh7092ur50r1pwvj/folder/3126694582 15 CAL FIRE. Top 20 Deadliest California Wildfires. Accessed October 9, 2025. https://34c031f8-c9fd-4018-8c5a-4159cdff6b0d-cdn-endpoint.azureedge.net/- /media/calfire-website/our-impact/fire-statistics/top-20-deadliest-cawildfires.pdf?rev=0d4612ff0cb447fb827fa0ac6c309d3d&hash=34718653A215C315C5E 3CB5BB6A4E550
CAL FIRE. Top 20 Most Destructive California Wildfires. Accessed October 9, 2025. https://34c031f8-c9fd-4018-8c5a-4159cdff6b0d-cdn-endpoint.azureedge.net/- /media/calfire-website/our-impact/fire-statistics/top-20-destructive-cawildfires.pdf?rev=737a1073f76947b4a3bfb960b19f44c7&hash=7CA02D30D9BF46A32 D5D98BD108BA26A
California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Risk Reduction Community List.

Accessed February 16, 2026. https://bof.fire.ca.gov/projects-and-programs/fire-riskreduction-community-list.

Wildfires Hit Home

California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 1280.
https://regulations.justia.com/states/california/title-14/division-1-5/chapter-7/subchapter3/article-1/section-1280/ California Department of Insurance – Wildfire Risk Reduction Regulations California Department of Insurance. CAL FIRE hazard maps do not affect insurance rates or availability. Accessed February 1, 2026. https://www.insurance.ca.gov/0400- news/0102-alerts/2025/CAL-FIRE-hazard-maps-do-not-affect-insu.cfm The California FAIR Plan. https://www.cfpnet.com/
California Government Code 51175-89. https://law.justia.com/codes/california/codegov/title-5/division-1/part-1/chapter-6-8/section-51175/ California Insurance Code § 2644.9
California Insurance Code sections 10090 et seq.
https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-ins/division-2/part-1/chapter-9/section10090/ California Public Resources Code 4201-4204.
https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-prc/division-4/part-2/chapter-1/article-9/ California Public Resources Code Division 4 - Forests, Forestry and Range and Forage Lands Part 2 - Protection of Forest, Range and Forage Lands Chapter 3 - Mountainous, Forest-, Brush- and Grass-Covered Lands Section 4291. Accessed January 14, 2026. https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-prc/division-4/part-2/chapter-3/section4291/.

California’s Sustainable Insurance Strategy. Accessed January 22, 2026. https://boe.ca.gov/meetings/pdf/2024/202402-CA-Insurance-Martinez.pdf.

Center for Critical Urban and Environmental Studies. University of California, Santa Cruz. Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Research for Resilience: Addressing California’s Climate, Conservation & Housing Crises. Accessed November 25, 2025. https://criticalurbanenvironments.ucsc.edu/projects/wildland-urban-interface-wuiresearch-for-resilience/.

Cohen, Jack. The Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Problem: A Consequence of the Fire Exclusion Paradigm. Forest History Today. Fall 2008: 20-26.

Copley, Michael. “California Fire Victims Say Fighting with Insurance Companies Has Delayed Rebuilding.” NPR News, January 13, 2026. https://www.kanw.org/nprnews/2026-01-13/california-fire-victims-say-fighting-with-insurance-companies-hasdelayed-rebuilding.

Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 47 of 74
Edelson, Josh. [Cover page lower left image of a home survives Palisades Fire].

Photograph. Agence France-Presse / Getty Images. Accessed March 25, 2026.

Edelson, Josh. [Cover page lower right image of a home burns in Paradise, California during the Camp Fire]. Photograph. “In Camp Fire, Newer Houses Were Much Less Damaged Accessed.” The Sacramento Bee. April 11, 2019. Accessed March 25, 2026. https://www.kqed.org/science/1940012/newer-houses-much-less-damaged-in-camp-fire Executive Order N-13-23. https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/9.21.23- Homeowners-Insurance-EO.pdf
Executive Order N-18-25. Accessed January 13, 2026. https://www.gov.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2025/02/2025-2-6.Urban-Conflagration-EO-ATTESTED.pdf.

Fallon, Patrick T. [A House a hill with fire and smoke]. Photograph. Agence FrancePresse / Getty Images. Accessed March 25, 2026.

Firewise USA program managed by National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). https://www.nfpa.org/Education-and-Research/Wildfire/Firewise-USA Hall, Alex – Journal of Environmental Research, September 8, 2015.

Gammanco, Ian M., et al. The Return of Conflagration in Our Built Environment.

Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety. September 2023. Accessed March 20, 2026. https://ibhs.org/wpcontent/uploads/Suburban_Wildfire_Conflagration_WhitePaper.pdf.

Hayrikian, Mashall A.. Engineering and Environmental Implications of the LA wildfires:

Eaton and Palisades Fire. Marshall Geoscience – Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory Services. http://www.marshallgeo.com/geotechnical-engineering/engineering-andenvironmental-implications-of-la-wildfires-eaton-palisades-fires/.

Instagram. [Cover page upper left image of Wildland-Urban Interface at Rancho Mission Viejo]. Photograph. Accessed March 25, 2026.
https://www.instagram.com/popular/rancho-mission-viejo-ca/.

Instagram. [Rancho Mission Viejo.com]. Photograph. Accessed March 25, 2026. https://www.instagram.com/p/CsmLvqlMqm2/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igshid=M zRlODBiNWFlZA%3D%3D.

IBHS Research. Wildland Fire Embers and Flames: Home Mitigations That Matter. April 2023. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://ibhs1.wpenginepowered.com/wpcontent/uploads/Home-Mitigations-that-Matter-FINAL.pdf.

Wildfires Hit Home

Institute for Business & Home Safety. Wildfire Prepared Neighborhood Pilot Program.

Accessed March 19, 2026. https://wildfireprepared.org/wildfire-prepared-neighborhoodpilot-program/.

Jacobo, Julia and Ginger Zee, Ginger. A perfect storm of weather and climate conditions led to the severity of the California fires, ABC News, Accessed January 8, 2026, http://www.abcnews.com/US/perfect-storm-weather-climate-conditions-severitycalifornia-fires/story?id=117468072 Kasler, Dale and Reese, Phillip. “In Camp Fire, Newer Houses Were Much Less Damaged.” The Sacramento Bee. April 11, 2019, updated January 9, 2024. Accessed March 4, 2026. https://www.kqed.org/science/1940012/newer-%D8%8Cuses-muchless-damaged-in-camp-fire.

McChrystal Group. After-Action Review of Alert Notification Systems and Evacuation Policies for the Eaton and Palisades Fires. Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, September 25, 2025. https://lacounty.gov/2025/09/25/la-county-releases-after-actionreview-of-alert-notification-systems-and-evacuation-policies-for-the-eaton-andpalisades-fires/.

Miller, Rebecca. “Residents Reducing Wildfire Risks: Findings from the NFPA® Firewise® Sites of Excellence Pilot, 2019-2020,” May 2022. NFPA® Firewise USA®:

Residents Reducing Wildfire Risks. https://www.nfpa.org/education-andresearch/wildfire/firewise-usa/firewise-sites-of-excellence National Institute of Building Science. “Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves.” 2019. https://nibs.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/NIBS_MMC_MitigationSaves_2019-1.pdf Orange County Fire Authority. Resource Library. Accessed March 8, 2026. https://ocfa.org/documents/.

Orange County Grand Jury (2025 – 2026). [OCFA helicopter approaching Yorba Linda Water District Heli-Hydrant™]. Photograph, January 27, 2026. Unpublished internal documentation.

Orange County Grand Jury (2025 – 2026). [Cover page upper right image of Orange County Fire Authority helicopter water drop]. Photograph, January 27, 2026.

Unpublished internal documentation.

Polacek, Andy. 2018. “Catastrophe Bonds: A Primer and Retrospective.” Chicago Fed Letter, no. 405. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/chicago-fed-letter/2018/405.

Rojanasakul, Jira, & Brown, Claire. “America’s Home Insurance Affordability Crunch:

See What’s Happening Near You.” New York Times. November 19, 2025. Accessed

Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 49 of 74
November 25, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/11/19/climate/homeinsurance-premiums-costs-usa.html?smid=nytcore-android-share San Diego County Grand Jury. “Fire Country: Forging a United Defense in the Backcountry,” SanDiegoCounty.gov. May 15, 2025.
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/grandjury/reports/2024-2025/firecountry/Fire-%20Final%20Filed%20Version.pdf Senate Bill 504. Accessed January 14, 2026.
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB504/id/3018449.

State of California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. Accessed January 14, 2026. https://bof.fire.ca.gov/projects-and-programs/defensible-space-zones-0-1-and-2.

The California FAIR Plan. Key Statistics & Data. Accessed March 8, 2026. https://www.cfpnet.com/key-statistics-data/
Thompson, Andrea. How the Ferocious Santa Ana Winds are Fueling the Palisades Fire. Scientific American. Accessed January 7, 2026. http://www.scientificamerican.com United Policyholders – WRAP Resource Center and Safer from Wildfires Initiative U.S. Fire Administration. What is the WUI? Accessed November 25, 2025. https://www.usfa.fema.gov/wui/what-is-the-wui/
Weathered: After the LA Firestorm. Directed by Trip Jennings. Presented by Maiya May.

PBS, 2026. 56 min.

Wildland-Urban Interface. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Accessed January 12, 2026. https://research.fs.usda.gov/nrs/fire/wui.

Yufang, Jin, et al. Identification of two distinct fire regimes in Southern California:
implications for economic impact and future change. Environmental Research Letters, Volume 1, Number 9. IOP Science, September 8, 2015. Accessed January 9, 2026. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094005. “ZIP Codes in Orange County, California.” Felt.com. Accessed November 11,2025. https://felt.com/map/ZIP-Codes-in-Orange-County-CaliforniaGX3e19BKrS5uwCICY3r5gFD?loc=33.6408,-117.7804,9z.

Wildfires Hit Home

Appendix A
CAL FIRE Wildfire Data

Source: CalFire Redbook Data
Figure 11 Top 20 Deadliest California Wildfires

Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 51 of 74
Source: CalFire Redbook Data
Figure 12 Top 20 Most Destructive California Wildfires

Wildfires Hit Home

Figure 13 Large Fires 300 Acres and Greater - State and Contract Counties Direct Protection Area Figure 14 Orange County Wildfires by Size

Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 53 of 74
Appendix B
Safer from Wildfires Flyer
Figure 15 Safer from Wildfires Flyer, Page 1

Wildfires Hit Home

Figure 16 Safer from Wildfires Flyer, Page 2

Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 55 of 74
Appendix C
Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map of Orange County
Figure 17 Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map of Orange County

Wildfires Hit Home

Appendix D
Figure 18 Fire Hardening and Defensible Space Disclosure, Page 1

Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 57 of 74
Figure 19 Fire Hardening and Defensible Space Disclosure, Page 2

Wildfires Hit Home

Appendix E
California Department of Insurance Data
Figure 20 California Property and Casualty Insurance Company Homeowners Premium and Loss

Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 59 of 74
Note: P. O. Boxes are excluded from this list. Data is for calendar year 2022 and includes homeowners (excluding condominium), mobile home, dwelling fire owner- and tenant-occupied insuring structures with four or less units.

Source: California Department of Insurance
Figure 21 FAIR Plan Data for Orange County Zip Codes 90620 - 92679

Wildfires Hit Home

Note: P. O. Boxes are excluded from this list. Data is for calendar year 2022 and includes homeowners (excluding condominium), mobile home, dwelling fire owner- and tenant-occupied insuring structures with four or less units.

Source: California Department of Insurance
Figure 22 FAIR Plan Data for Orange County Zip Codes 92680 – 92899

Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 61 of 74
Appendix F
OCFA and Covered Cities
Figure 23 Orange County Fire Authority Covered Cities

Wildfires Hit Home

Figure 24 Orange County Fire Jurisdictions

Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 63 of 74
Appendix G
Ready, Set, Go!, Zone 0 At-A-Glance and Links
Figure 25 Ready, Set Go! Flyer for Immediate Zone

Wildfires Hit Home

Figure 26 Ready, Set, Go! Flyer on Defensible Space

Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 65 of 74
Figure 27 Ready, Set, Go! Flyer for Home Hardening, Page 1

Wildfires Hit Home

Figure 28 Ready, Set, Go! Flyer for Home Hardening, Page 2

Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 67 of 74
Figure 29 Ready, Set, Go! Flyer on Vegetation Management

Wildfires Hit Home

Figure 30 Ready, Set, Go! On Be Ember Aware

Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 69 of 74
Figure 31 Ready, Set, Go! Flyer on Home Assessment

Wildfires Hit Home

Figure 32 Ready, Set, Go! Flyer on Wildfire Home Risk Assessment, Page 1

Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 71 of 74
Figure 33 Ready, Set, Go! Flyer on Wildfire Home Risk Assessment, Page 2

Wildfires Hit Home

Figure 34 Zone 0 At-A-Glance, Page 1

Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 73 of 74
Figure 35 Zone 0 At-A-Glance, Page 2

Wildfires Hit Home

Links
Immediate Zone
https://storageocfaprod001.blob.core.windows.net/blobocfaprod01/2025/12/ImmediateZone-2025.pdf Defensible Space
https://storageocfaprod001.blob.core.windows.net/blobocfaprod01/2025/03/OCFA-RSGDefensible-Space-1-1.pdf Home Hardening
https://storageocfaprod001.blob.core.windows.net/blobocfaprod01/2025/12/HomeHardening-2025.pdf Vegetation Management
https://storageocfaprod001.blob.core.windows.net/blobocfaprod01/2026/01/OCFA-RSGVegetation-Management.pdf Be Amber Aware
https://storageocfaprod001.blob.core.windows.net/blobocfaprod01/2025/07/OCFA-RSGBe-Ember-Aware-688b04d7e4fb9.pdf Home Assessment
https://storageocfaprod001.blob.core.windows.net/blobocfaprod01/2025/12/HomeAssessment-2025.pdf Wildfire Home Risk Assessment
https://storageocfaprod001.blob.core.windows.net/blobocfaprod01/2025/07/OCFA-RSGHome-Assessment-Form-688b05b09d57e.pdf Zone 0 At-A-Glance
https://34c031f8-c9fd-4018-8c5a-4159cdff6b0d-cdn-endpoint.azureedge.net/- /media/calfire-website/prepare/zone-0-at-a-glance.pdf

O R A N G E C O U N T Y F I R E A U T H O R I T Y
P. O. Box 57115, Irvine, CA 92619-7115 • 1 Fire Authority Road, Irvine, CA 92602-0125 TJ McGovern, Interim Fire Chief (714) 573-6000 www.ocfa.org July 1, 2026
The Honorable Sheila F. Hanson
Presiding Judge
Orange County Superior Court
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Honorable Sheila F. Hanson:

The Orange County Fire Authority Board of Directors reviewed the Grand Jury report entitled “Wildfires Hit Home” during its June 25, 2026, Board of Directors meeting. At that same meeting, the OCFA Board also reviewed and authorized this formal response from our agency.

On behalf of the firefighters and professional staff of the OCFA, I want to extend our sincere gratitude for the time and effort the Grand Jury has dedicated to the residents of Orange County and wildfire safety throughout our region.

If I may be of service in the clarification of this response, please let me know.

Sincerely,
T.J. McGovern
Interim Fire Chief
CC: Orange County Grand Jury
Serving the Cities of: Aliso Viejo • Buena Park • Cypress • Dana Point • Garden Grove • Irvine • Laguna Hills • Laguna Niguel • Laguna Woods • Lake Forest • La Palma • Los Alamitos • Mission Viejo • Rancho Santa Margarita •San Clemente • San Juan Capistrano • Santa Ana • Seal Beach • Stanton • Tustin • Villa Park • Westminster • Yorba Linda • and Unincorporated Areas of Orange County

RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS AND SMOKE ALARMS SAVE LIVES

OCFA Grand Jury Response “Wildfires Hit Home”
Orange County Fire Authority, July 1, 2026 Page 2
Page Reserved for Board Minutes Reflecting Formal Action

OCFA Grand Jury Response “Wildfires Hit Home”
Orange County Fire Authority, July 1, 2026 Page 3
Background and History of Wildfires in California
Over the past decade, the OCFA and its leadership have clearly and consistently articulated and acted upon three main, interconnected themes regarding wildfires in the West:
1) The days of a traditional “fire season” have been replaced by a year-round, never-ending threat of wildfires. Megafires, once an anomaly, are now a regular occurrence, and to paraphrase an evidence-based assertion by UCI researchers at the beginning of the decade: Each new year of the 21st century threatens to be yet another record-breaker of wildfire damage in California. 2) Of all our wildland firefighting tools, none are more valuable than the measures we use to prevent wildfires and the damage they cause. Indeed, from home hardening and defensible space to fire prevention education and risk reduction resources, the best wildland firefighting begins with prevention, education, and resilience.
3) Wildfires are no longer solely a fire service problem; they are an “all of us problem,” and they can only be mitigated by all of us working together.

These same three themes emanate from “Wildfires Hit Home,” and we are proud to share responses that illustrate our continuous commitment to better engage and educate all stakeholders to prevent wildfires and the destruction they cause.

RESPONSES TO GRAND JURY FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS:

F1. More frequent and severe wildfires driven by increasingly hotter, drier, and windier conditions in the Orange County wildland-urban interface are escalating impacts on financial and non-financial resources. Among the financial costs are dramatic increases in homeowners’ insurance premiums, nonrenewals, and inabilities to obtain insurance.

OCFA agrees in part and disagrees in part with this finding. While the OCFA agrees that more frequent and severe wildfires are occurring in our region, the OCFA lacks specific analysis, tracking, and regulation of homeowners' insurance premiums to agree or disagree with that portion of this finding.

F2. Actions that address conditions in the home ignition zone to significantly reduce ignition potential can prevent a community wildland-urban interface fire disaster or suburban conflagration.

OCFA agrees with the finding. OCFA aligns with wildland-urban interface (WUI) science, which is directly supported by fire behavior research from many reputable agencies, including CAL FIRE, the Office of the State Fire Marshal, and the National Fire Protection Association. This widely accepted datadriven evidence proves that addressing the home ignition zone is one of the most effective strategies to prevent fire disasters. Through proactive OCFA Community Risk Reduction initiatives and through home assessments, OCFA consistently educates the public in this arena.

F3. Expanded engagement with the community to raise awareness and provide support regarding home hardening and defensible space will increase effectiveness of wildfire risk mitigation and insurance risk reduction efforts.

OCFA agrees with the finding. Community engagement and education remains a core component of OCFA’s current risk mitigation strategy, as evidenced by fully implemented and ever-expanding

OCFA Grand Jury Response “Wildfires Hit Home”
Orange County Fire Authority, July 1, 2026 Page 4
comprehensive public education, property assessment, and home hardening support initiatives that actively address the intent of this finding.

F4. Achievement of community-level and property-level wildfire risk mitigation designations (such as Firewise USA Site, Fire Risk Reduction Community or Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety certification) lessens wildfire risk and helps reduce insurance premium costs.

OCFA partially agrees with the finding. While the OCFA agrees that community- and property-level designations lessen localized wildfire risk (which is why the agency assists communities with the home assessments and safety verifications required to earn Firewise USA and Fire Risk Reduction Community status), we lack sufficient information or expertise to evaluate the impact of such measures on private insurance premium costs.

F5. All county residents should be made aware that Safer from Wildfire regulation requires insurers to provide discounts to homeowners and communities that implement home hardening and defensible space measures regardless of whether a property is located within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

OCFA agrees in part and disagrees in part with this finding. While the OCFA agrees that home hardening and defensible space significantly increase a structure’s protection from wildfire, OCFA lacks the specific analysis, tracking, and regulation of homeowners' insurance premiums to agree or disagree with that portion of this finding. However, the OCFA agrees with the finding’s suggestion that county residents should be made aware of any benefits that may be available to homeowners and/or communities that implement home hardening and defensible space measures. To that end, the OCFA will develop a notification program regarding this item.

F6. AB 888, California Safe Homes Grant Program, provides financial assistance to eligible homeowners, cities, counties, and special districts for home hardening and defensible space measures.

Applying for and using these grant funds will reduce wildfire losses and improve insurability and resilience of vulnerable communities.

OCFA partially agrees with the finding. The OCFA wholly agrees that utilizing state grant funds under the California Safe Homes Grant Program (AB 888) significantly reduces localized wildfire losses and boosts structural resilience. However, OCFA lacks sufficient information or expertise to evaluate the impact of such measures on private market insurability.

RESPONSES TO GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS:

R1. By December 31, 2026, the Orange County Board of Supervisors should plan to host a county-wide annual wildfire prevention fair for the County and all cities and fire service agencies, including Orange County Fire Authority, to showcase respective wildfire outreach programs, and for the first annual wildfire prevention fair to be scheduled no later than December 31, 2027.

This recommendation requires further analysis. As an independent fire service agency, the OCFA does not possess the jurisdictional authority to mandate or host a County-level event on behalf of the Board of Supervisors. However, if the Orange County Board of Supervisors chooses to establish and host this annual wildfire prevention fair, OCFA will fully cooperate by providing staff, educational assets, and promotional support to showcase our regional wildfire outreach and home hardening programs.

OCFA Grand Jury Response “Wildfires Hit Home”
Orange County Fire Authority, July 1, 2026 Page 5
R2. By December 31, 2026, cities and fire service agencies, including Orange County Fire Authority should commit to participation in a county-wide annual wildfire prevention fair planned by the Orange County Board of Supervisors to showcase wildfire prevention outreach programs.

This recommendation requires further analysis. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be in the future, contingent upon the County of Orange electing to plan the event. As stated above, if the County elects to move forward with R1 and R2, OCFA intends to participate and showcase its regional wildfire prevention outreach programs. Already, the OCFA hosts an annual Open House at its headquarters and annual Station Open Houses across the county, all of which are open to the public and showcase wildfire prevention resources and programs.

R3. – By December 31, 2026, cities, unincorporated areas, special districts, and fire service agencies in High and Very-High Fire Hazard Severity Zones should initiate planning activities to achieve community-level wildfire risk mitigation designations and/or establish a local Fire Safe Council within one year.

This recommendation has been implemented. The OCFA, in partnership with its member cities, is currently and actively executing the objectives put forth in this recommendation.

R4. By December 31, 2026, to ensure city residents are engaged and aware of wildfire risk reduction resources, OCFA member and non-member cities should provide information, develop their own outreach program, and establish a direct contact person(s) for their residents. This is in addition to whatever referrals or references made to OCFA outreach programs.

This recommendation requires further analysis. The recommendation cannot be implemented directly by the OCFA because it is directed at independent municipal governments rather than our agency.

However, the OCFA currently works with its member agencies to ensure they are fully equipped to engage and educate residents through public education, localized risk reduction data, and technical wildfire safety guidance.

7822 Walker Street, La Palma, CA 90623-1771
www.lapalmaca.gov ● PHONE 714 690 3300
August 4, 2026
The Honorable Sheila F. Hanson
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Orange County
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
RE: RESPONSE TO ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT, WILDFIRES HIT HOME Dear Presiding Judge Hanson:

The City of La Palma has reviewed the Orange County Grand Jury Report, Wildfires Hit Home.

In compliance with the California Penal Code sections 933.05(a) and (b), the City was requested and is responding to each of the findings and recommendations directed to the City in this report. Each finding and recommendation is listed below, followed by the City’s response, which was approved by the La Palma City Council on August 4, 2026.

The Grand Jury Report outlined six findings, all of which applied to La Palma:
• F1. More frequent and severe wildfires driven by increasingly hotter, drier, and windier conditions in the Orange County wildland-urban interface are escalating impacts on financial and non-financial resources. Among the financial costs are dramatic increases in homeowners’ insurance premiums, nonrenewals, and inabilities to obtain insurance.

Response: The City of La Palma partially agrees with this finding and concurs with the response provided by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) in its July 1, 2026 letter. OCFA acknowledges that there are “more frequent and severe wildfires” in Orange County but “lacks specific analysis, tracking, and regulation of homeowners’ insurance premiums to agree or disagree” with this finding.

OCFA serves as the lead agency for fire-related issues on behalf of the City of La Palma, and the City relies on OCFA’s expertise and analysis. • F2. Actions that address conditions in the home ignition zone to significantly reduce ignition potential can prevent a community wildland-urban interface fire disaster or suburban conflagration.

Response: The City of La Palma agrees with this finding. The City’s response is based on the response provided by OCFA on July 1, 2026 and does not have any additional comments.
• F3. Expanded engagement with the community to raise awareness and provide support regarding home hardening and defensible space will increase effectiveness of wildfire risk mitigation and insurance risk reduction efforts.

The Honorable Sheila F. Hanson
Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report, Wildfires Hit Home August 4, 2026

2 Response: The City of La Palma agrees with this finding. The City’s response is based on the response provided by OCFA on July 1, 2026 and does not have any additional comments.
• F4. Achievement of community-level and property-level wildfire risk mitigation designations (such as Firewise USA Site, Fire Risk Reduction Community or Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety certification) lessens wildfire risk and helps reduce insurance premium costs.

Response: The City of La Palma partially agrees with this finding and concurs with the response provided by the OCFA in its July 1, 2026 letter. OCFA serves as the lead agency for fire-related issues on behalf of the City of La Palma, and the City relies on OCFA’s expertise and analysis.
• F5. All county residents should be made aware that Safer from Wildfire regulation requires insurers to provide discounts to homeowners and communities that implement home hardening and defensible space measures regardless of whether a property is located within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

Response: The City of La Palma partially agrees with this finding and concurs with the response provided by the OCFA in its July 1, 2026 letter. OCFA serves as the lead agency for fire-related issues on behalf of the City of La Palma, and the City relies on OCFA’s expertise and analysis.
• F6. AB 888, California Safe Homes Grant Program, provides financial assistance to eligible homeowners, cities, counties, and special districts for home hardening and defensible space measures. Applying for and using these grant funds will reduce wildfire losses and improve insurability and resilience of vulnerable communities.

Response: The City of La Palma partially agrees with this finding and concurs with the response provided by the OCFA in its July 1, 2026 letter. OCFA serves as the lead agency for fire-related issues on behalf of the City of La Palma, and the City relies on OCFA’s expertise and analysis.

The Grand Jury Report also outlined four recommendations, two of which applied to La Palma. • R2. By December 31, 2026, cities and fire service agencies, including Orange County Fire Authority should commit to participation in a county-wide annual wildfire prevention fair planned by the Orange County Board of Supervisors to showcase wildfire prevention outreach programs.

Response: This recommendation will be implemented upon coordination by the Orange County Board of Supervisors. The City of La Palma is willing to participate in an annual event, as staffing and resources allow.

The Honorable Sheila F. Hanson
Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report, Wildfires Hit Home August 4, 2026

3 • R4. By December 31, 2026, to ensure city residents are engaged and aware of wildfire risk reduction resources, OCFA member and non-member cities should provide information, develop their own outreach program, and establish a direct contact person(s) for their residents. This is in addition to whatever referrals or references made to OCFA outreach programs.

Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because the City of La Palma is not in a wildfire zone. However, the City proactively and regularly communicates with residents about OCFA resources for fire-related programs and fire prevention and safety.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Grand Jury Report. Should you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Peter Kim, City Manager, at (714) 690-3334 or via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
NITESH P. PATEL
Mayor
City of La Palma
NPP:pk
cc: La Palma City Council
Orange County Grand Jury
Peter L. Kim, City Manager

Agenda Item No. 6 August 4, 2026 | 1
City of La Palma
Agenda Item No. 6
MEETING DATE: August 4, 2026
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Peter L. Kim, City Manager
AGENDA TITLE: Response to the 2025-26 Orange County Grand Jury Report:

California Housing Mandates, The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Authorize the Mayor to sign a response letter to the 2025-26 Grand Jury Report, California Housing Mandates, The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods, and authorize submittal to the Orange County Grand Jury.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:

On May 27, 2026, the Orange County Grand Jury released its 2025-26 Grand Jury Report, California Housing Mandates, The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods. According to the Orange County Grand Jury, the purpose of the report was to evaluate both the intended and unintended consequences of housing mandates as they are applied within Orange County.

Additionally, the report attempts to identify where state requirements may conflict with local capacity and community needs, and assess how recent legislative changes have shifted the balance between the state and local governments. Furthermore, the report seeks to establish a strategic framework for influencing future housing allocations within the Southern California Association of Governments by strengthening the role and effectiveness of the Orange County Council of Governments as the state prepares for the 7th Cycle (2029-2037). A complete copy of the report is attached and includes background, the reason and method for study, investigation and analysis, conclusion, findings, and recommendations.

In compliance with California Penal Code sections 933.05(a) and (b), the City was requested to prepare responses to each of the findings and recommendations directed to the City in this report.

The Grand Jury Report outlined 22 findings and 20 recommendations. 11 findings and eight recommendations applied to the City of La Palma. Staff has reviewed the Grand Jury Report, and attached is a draft response as required by state law for City Council consideration.

Pursuant to California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the City's response to the Grand Jury Report is due by August 27, 2026.

Agenda Item No. 6 August 4, 2026 | 2
FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact related to the City's response to the Orange County Grand Jury.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Orange County Grand Jury Report, California Housing Mandates, The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods

2. Draft Response Letter

California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026

California State Housing Mandates

This page left intentionally blank!

California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026

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

California State Housing Mandates

Responsibilities of SCAG .............................................................................................................. 66 Responsibilities of HCD................................................................................................................ 66

California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

In practice, Housing Mandates alone do not build homes.

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

For example:

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

Penal Code §933.05.
(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding; in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of

California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
(c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decisionmaking authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

segregation, and balances disproportionate household income distributions across jurisdictions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

Applies general-plan challenge rules to charter cities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does not authorize projects inconsistent with state housing laws.

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

Applies statewide, including charter cities.

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

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

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

Core Responsibilities:

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

HCD’s mission is to lead and implement California’s housing policy by determining regional housing needs, reviewing and enforcing Housing Element compliance, administering state and federal housing funds, and holding local jurisdictions accountable for fulfilling their obligations under state housing law.84 84 California Department of Housing and Community Development

7822 Walker Street, La Palma, CA 90623-1771
www.lapalmaca.gov ● PHONE 714 690 3300
August 4, 2026
The Honorable Sheila F. Hanson
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Orange County
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
RE: RESPONSE TO ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT, CALIFORNIA HOUSING

MANDATES, THE UNINTENDED RESHAPING OF ORANGE COUNTY NEIGHBORHOODS Dear Presiding Judge Hanson:

The City of La Palma has reviewed the Orange County Grand Jury Report, California Housing Mandates, The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods. In compliance with the California Penal Code sections 933.05(a) and (b), the City was requested and is responding to each of the findings and recommendations directed to the City in this report. Each finding and recommendation is listed below, followed by the City’s response, which was approved by the La Palma City Council on August 4, 2026.

The Grand Jury Report outlined 22 findings, 11 of which applied to La Palma:
• F1. In recent years, the California Legislature has enacted an unusually large and burdensome volume of housing-related laws intended to strengthen compliance with State Housing Mandates.

Response: The City of La Palma agrees with this finding. • F2. Housing Mandates are implemented through a RHNA process that often lacks transparency and relies on complex methodologies that are difficult for local officials and the public to understand or meaningfully challenge.

Response: The City of La Palma agrees with this finding. • F4. Meaningful participation by Orange County cities in both OCCOG and SCAG meetings is critical to ensuring that local perspectives are represented during the development and implementation of Housing Mandates policies.

Response: The City of La Palma agrees with this finding. • F5. SCAG’s 6th Cycle RHNA assigned Orange County a questionable total of 183,861 housing units for the 2021-2029 planning period, with higher allocations concentrated in cities with major population and employment centers.

Response: The City of La Palma agrees with this finding.

The Honorable Sheila F. Hanson
Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report, California Housing Mandates, The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods
August 4, 2026

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

Response: The City of La Palma agrees with this finding. • F7. Residents in Orange County consistently express a desire for local planning decisions to reflect community priorities, including but not limited to neighborhood character, safety considerations, the environment and open-space preservation.

Response: The City of La Palma agrees with this finding. • F8. California’s regulatory construction costs (i.e. permitting fees) present substantial challenges for private housing developers – particularly those delivering affordable units.

Response: The City of La Palma partially disagrees with this finding. The City’s fees are set at or below the cost of providing services as allowed by law. • F9. The cost of constructing a single affordable housing unit in California typically ranges from approximately $500,000 to $800,000 per unit when fully complying with current state regulations. New low-income housing is generally not financially feasible without public subsidy.

Response: The City of La Palma agrees with this finding. • F10. Prior to their dissolution in 2012, redevelopment agencies served as a primary mechanism for cities and counties to finance affordable housing and related infrastructure. The loss of redevelopment has reduced cities’ ability to support construction of affordable units.

Response: The City of La Palma agrees with this finding. • F11. Because public subsidy is limited and highly competitive, cities seeking to produce meaningful quantities of low-income housing must rely in part on private development incentives, often resulting in higher overall development densities and unit counts than the RHNA allocation.

Response: The City of La Palma agrees with this finding. • F12. The 6th Cycle RHNA methodology included numerous technical inputs published by SCAG and HCD; however, these inputs were highly complex and difficult for cities to interpret or independently verify.

Response: The City of La Palma agrees with this finding.

The Honorable Sheila F. Hanson
Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report, California Housing Mandates, The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods
August 4, 2026

The Grand Jury Report also outlined 20 recommendations, eight of which applied to La Palma. • R7. OCCOG, all Orange County cities and the County of Orange should reassess the current dues structure, by September 30, 2026, to ensure that OCCOG has the resources necessary to effectively represent Orange County jurisdictions in SCAG processes, including RHNA methodology development and appeals.

Response: This recommendation will not be implemented, but the City of La Palma is open to conversations regarding the current dues structure. The City is not aware of whether OCCOG will be able to evaluate the current dues structure by September 30, 2026. The City is committed to partnering with Orange County cities and the County of Orange to strengthen OCCOG’s ability to represent Orange County effectively in SCAG processes, subject to available resources and further regional discussion.
• R8. By December 31, 2026, the Orange County Board of Supervisors should partner with cities to evaluate countywide infrastructure capacity–including water, wastewater, flood control, transportation, and public-safety systems–and develop a coordinated regional plan capable of supporting the level of housing growth required under state law.

Response: This recommendation will not be implemented unless the Orange County Board of Supervisors decides to move forward. However, the City of La Palma supports the concept of a coordinated regional infrastructure evaluation and would participate, as staffing and resources allow. • R9. By September 30, 2026, the Orange County Board of Supervisors should strengthen its engagement with OCCOG and increase staff support to develop a shared, countywide database of potential housing sites and key development-feasibility factors.

Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not within the City of La Palma’s control. The City of La Palma does support regional tools that reduce duplicative work for individual jurisdictions. • R11. The County of Orange and each city should ensure consistent participation in SCAG and OCCOG committees by September 30, 2026, including the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), to strengthen regional representation during RHNAmethodology development.

Response: This recommendation has been implemented. The City of La Palma actively participates in both SCAG and OCCOG committees. • R12. The County of Orange and each city should designate a single technical representative, by September 30, 2026, along with an alternate, for all RHNA-related SCAG and OCCOG committees to ensure continuity of participation and eliminate gaps in representation across multiple decision-making bodies.

The Honorable Sheila F. Hanson
Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report, California Housing Mandates, The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods
August 4, 2026

Response: This recommendation has been implemented. The City has a designated representative serving on SCAG and OCCOG committees. • R14. By April 30, 2027, the County of Orange and each city should publish annual monitoring dashboards showing (a) entitlement pipeline conditions, (b) realistic site yield, (c) assembled funding sources for affordable units, and (d) conversion rates from planned capacity to issued permits and completed units, ensuring that County and citydetermined capacity assumptions remain aligned with actual production.

Response: This recommendation will not be implemented. As required by the State of California, the City of La Palma submits an annual report on the City’s progress in implementing its certified General Plan Housing Element, which includes information outlined in the recommendation. The City supports the goal of improving transparency around housing production and realistic development capacity. To the extent additional reporting or dashboard information is requested in the future, the City would welcome a coordinated approach that provides clear guidance, standardized reporting tools, and technical support to help small cities participate without creating duplicative or overly burdensome reporting obligations.
• R15. By September 30, 2026, and ongoing, the County Board of Supervisors and all city councils should make a coordinated and sustained effort to educate their constituents about the RHNA process – its requirements, its impact on local planning and community character, and the role residents can play in shaping outcomes. Public education efforts should also include guidance on how community members can effectively engage with the California Legislature and advocate for more realistic, data-driven housing policies.

Response: This recommendation has been implemented as the City of La Palma continues to communicate with our residents about housing matters through Council Meetings, our electronic newsletter, The Visionary, and on social media.

Educational efforts regarding the RHNA process will continue, especially as we approach the 7th Cycle.
• R16. By December 31, 2026, all cities should look to enhance their relationships with not-for-profit affordable housing developers to increase the opportunity to develop more affordable housing.

Response: This recommendation has been implemented through the City of La Palma’s Housing Element programs. The City is open to collaborating with the entire stakeholder community to enhance affordable housing options in Orange County, subject to available staffing, resources, and site opportunities.

The Honorable Sheila F. Hanson
Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report, California Housing Mandates, The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods
August 4, 2026

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Grand Jury Report. Should you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Peter Kim, City Manager at (714) 690-3334 or via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
NITESH P. PATEL
Mayor
City of La Palma
NPP:pk
cc: La Palma City Council
Orange County Grand Jury
Peter L. Kim, City Manager

Agenda Item No. 7 August 4, 2026 | 1
City of La Palma
Agenda Item No. 7
MEETING DATE: August 4, 2026
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBMITTED BY: Peter L. Kim, City Manager
AGENDA TITLE: Cooperation Agreement with the County of Orange for the Community Development Block Grant Program
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Cooperation Agreement with the County of Orange related to the Community Development Block Grant Program.

SUMMARY:

In February 2026, the City received a request from the County of Orange and informally confirmed its intent to continue participation in the Urban County Program under its Cooperation Agreement with the County of Orange. In late June, the City received an official request from the County of Orange to formalize its participation in the Urban County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program for the period from July 1, 2027, to June 30, 2029. The CDBG program assists smaller cities in administering CDBG and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds received through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The City has participated in the Urban County Program since 1981. To continue participating in the program, the City must execute the Cooperation Agreement with the County of Orange.

BACKGROUND:

The CDBG Program provides federal funds to the County of Orange and to cities with populations under 50,000 for community development and housing assistance activities. Funds are transferred from HUD to the County annually for use by participating agencies. These funds are typically obtained through competitive grant applications submitted to the County. When grants are awarded, the County assists cities in managing projects and preparing required reports to HUD. CDBG and HOME funds can support community development and housing assistance activities. If the City were to pursue CDBG grant funding, the Urban County Program would be the most effective approach.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no cost to participate in the Urban County CDBG Program with the County of Orange.

Agenda Item No. 7 August 4, 2026 | 2
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Amendment Seven - Urban County Program Cooperation Agreement

2. Original Cooperation Agreement

3. Amendments One through Six

AMENDMENT SEVEN TO

COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
AND

CITY OF LA PALMA
This Amendment Number SEVEN (hereinafter “Amendment SEVEN”) is made and entered into by the County of Orange, a political subdivision of the State of California, (“COUNTY”) and CITY OF LA PALMA, a municipal corporation, (“CITY”), UEI number UU8GVBB2MKX5 which are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” or collectively referred to as “Parties”, and is effective as of July 1, 2027, hereinafter referred to as “EFFECTIVE DATE”.

WHEREAS, COUNTY and CITY executed that certain COOPERATION AGREEMENT “Small-City” (hereinafter, as amended, “Original Agreement” or “Agreement”) for commencement July 1, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Original Agreement was amended by Amendment ONE, effective as of July 16, 2008; and
WHEREAS, the Original Agreement was amended by Amendment TWO, effective as of July 1, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Original Agreement was amended by Amendment THREE, effective as of July 1, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the Original Agreement was amended by Amendment FOUR, effective as of July 1, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the Original Agreement was amended by Amendment FIVE, effective as of July 1, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the Original Agreement was amended by Amendment SIX, effective as of July 1, 2024; and
WHEREAS, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Notice CPD-26-08 allows “automatic” renewals for one successive three year Urban County qualification period provided that COUNTY sends a letter to CITY notifying it that the Original Agreement will be renewed unless CITY notifies COUNTY that it wishes to terminate the agreement and a copy of such a letter is provided to HUD; and WHEREAS, COUNTY sent CITY a letter notifying CITY of such renewal on June 26, 2026; and
WHEREAS, CITY did not advise COUNTY that it wished to terminate the Original Agreement with County; and

WHEREAS, the CITY’s City Manager and the COUNTY’s Director of Orange County Community Resources have been duly authorized by their City Council and Board of Supervisors, respectively, to execute this Amendment SEVEN; and

WHEREAS, the Parties agree to further amend the Original Agreement at this time in the manner set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree as follows:

I. Modifications to the Original Agreement

1. Section 2 of the Original Agreement is amended in its entirety as follows:
“COUNTY shall have the authority to carry out activities, which will be funded from annual Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”), Home Investment Partnership (“HOME”) and Emergency Solutions Grant (“ESG”) Program funds appropriated for Fiscal Years 2027-2028, 2028-2029 and 2029-2030 and from any program income generated from the expenditure of such funds.”

2. Section 9 of the Original Agreement is amended and shall read as amended in its entirety as follows:
“This Agreement shall cover the three-year program period for Fiscal Years 2027-2028, 2028-2029 and 2029-2030, respectively of CDBG, HOME and ESG programs, including any subsequent Supplemental sources (Paragraph 23 of the Agreement). In no event shall this agreement be terminated by either Party before June 30, 2030, except as allowed in legislation enacted by the U.S. Congress for termination or withdrawal from the Urban County Program and as permitted by HUD.

This Agreement remains in effect until the CDBG (and, where applicable, HOME and ESG) funds and program income received (with respect to activities carried out during the three-year qualification period, and any successive qualification periods under agreements that provide for automatic renewal) are expended and the funded activities completed, and the COUNTY and CITY cannot terminate or withdraw from this Agreement while it remains in effect.”

3. Section 10 shall be added to Agreement to read:

“In accordance with HUD Notice CPD 26-08, this Agreement will renew automatically for participation in one successive three-year Urban County qualification period (July 1, 2030 to June 30, 2033) unless COUNTY or CITY provides written notice that it elects not to participate in a new qualification period. A copy of the termination notice must be sent to HUD Field Office by the date specified on the HUD Exchange Urban Counties website.

COUNTY shall notify CITY in writing of its right not to participate any longer

than the date specified in HUD’s Urban County Qualification Notice for the next qualification period. A copy of the County’s notification must be sent to the HUD field office by the date specified on the HUD Exchange Urban Counties website.”

4. Section 11 of the Original Agreement is amended to read:
“CITY and COUNTY agree to adopt amendment(s) to this Agreement as may be required by HUD to meet any new Urban County Qualification requirement(s) when applicable and to submit such amendments to HUD.

The COUNTY will notify CITY of its right to terminate its participation in the program based on the adoption of any such amendment. If either CITY or COUNTY refuses to adopt any such amendment, and to submit such amendment to HUD, this Agreement will be voided for such qualification period.”

5. Section 14 of the Original Agreement is amended to add subsection (d) as follows:
“d. This Agreement covers the following formula funding programs administered by HUD: CDBG, HOME, and ESG, and CITY may receive a formula allocation under the HOME and ESG Programs only through the COUNTY. This does not preclude the COUNTY or the CITY from applying for HOME or ESG funds from the State, if the State allows.”

6. Section 24 of the Original Agreement is amended to read:
“CITY may void this Agreement only if it submits to COUNTY on or before June 2027 the notification from HUD that CITY has qualified as a “Metropolitan City” or an “Entitlement City” prior to the completion of the re-qualification process for Fiscal Years 2027-2028, 2028-2029, and 2029- 2030. Upon such notification by HUD, CITY also must submit to COUNTY and HUD written notification of its decision to either remain in the Urban County Program as a “Metropolitan City” or become an “Entitlement City” as a separate entity. If this Agreement is not voided, then CITY must participate in COUNTY’s Urban County for the entire three-year qualification period (FYs 2027/2028 through 2029/2030).”
II. Additional Agreements
The terms of the Additional Agreements in the Original Agreement are hereby amended as follows:

1. The COUNTY and the CITY agree to cooperate to undertake, or assist in undertaking, essential community development and housing assistance activities in and for the benefit of the CITY, as approved and authorized between the Parties in the CDBG agreements, including the Consolidated Plan.

2. The CITY understands and agrees that it may not apply for grants under the State CDBG Program for the fiscal years during the period in which the CITY participates in the COUNTY’s CDBG Program. The COUNTY agrees that the CDBG funds that the CITY is entitled to will be utilized to benefit the CITY.

3. The COUNTY and the CITY shall take all actions necessary to assure compliance with the COUNTY’S certification under section 104(b) of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and that the grant will be conducted and administered in conformity with:
a. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 1;
b. The Fair Housing Act, and the implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 100, and will comply with the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing including the obligations set forth in 24 CFR 91.225(a) and 5.105(a); and
c. Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and the implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 6, which incorporates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 8, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1974 and the implementing regulations at 28 CFR Part 35, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and the implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 146, Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, Uniform Relocation and Real Property Policies Act of 1970 and the implementing regulations at 49 CFR Part 24, Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 and the implementing
regulations at 24 CFR Part 425, and all other applicable laws and regulations. The Parties agree that no urban county funding will be used for activities in, or in support of, any cooperating unit of general local government that does not affirmatively further fair housing within its own jurisdiction or that impedes the COUNTY’S actions to comply with the COUNTY’S fair housing certification. The Parties acknowledge and agree that noncompliance by a unit of general local government included in an urban county may constitute
noncompliance by the grantee (i.e., the urban 14 county) that can, in turn, provide cause for funding sanctions or other remedial actions by the Department.

4. The CITY, COUNTY, and all other applicable units of general local government, may not sell, trade, or otherwise transfer all or any portion of such funds to another such metropolitan city, urban county, unit of general local government, or Indian tribe, or insular area that directly or indirectly receives CDBG funds in exchange for any other funds, credits or nonFederal considerations, but must use such funds for activities eligible under

Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended.

5. All other provisions of the Original Agreement, as amended, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference, to the extent they are not inconsistent with this Amendment SEVEN, remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY has caused this Amendment SEVEN to be executed by its City Manager and attested by its City Clerk; COUNTY has caused this Amendment SEVEN to be executed by the Director of the Orange County Community Resources; each having been duly authorized by the CITY Council and the COUNTY Board of Supervisors, respectively.

ATTEST:

City of La Palma, a municipal
Corporation in the State of California

By: By:

Name: Peter L. Kim Name: Norma I. Alley
Title: City Manager Title: City Clerk
Date: Date:

COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political
subdivision of the State of California
By:

Dylan Wright, Director
Orange County Community Resources
Date:

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

ORIGINAL AGREEMENT, AS AMENDED, APPROVED AS TO FORM AND REQUIRED COUNTY COUNSEL OPINION STATEMENT:

The terms and provisions of the Original Agreement, including this Amendment SEVEN, are fully authorized under State and local law and the Agreement provides full legal authority for the County to undertake, or assist in undertaking, essential community development and housing assistance activities within the CITY’s jurisdiction.

Office of the County Counsel
Deputy County Counsel Dated

Exhibit A
Original Cooperation Agreement and Amendment Numbers ONE through SIX

AMENDMENT THREE TO

COOPERATION AGREEM ENT BETWEEN

THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
AND

CITY OF LA PALMA
This Amendment Number THREE (hereinafter "Amendment THREE") is made and entered into bythe County of Orange, a political subdivision of the State of California, ("County") and CITY OF LA PALMA, a municipal corporation, ("City"), which are sometimes indívidually referred to as "Party" or collectively referred to as "Parties", and is effective as of July 1, 2015, hereinafter referred to as"EFFECTIVE DATE".

WHEREAS, County and City executed that cerEain COOPERATION AGREEMENT "Small-City" (hereinafter "Original Agreement" or t'Agreement") for commencement July 1, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Original Agreement was amended by Amendment One, effective as of July 16, 2008; and
WHEREAS, the Original Agreement was amended by Amendment TWO, effective as of July I 20t2; and
WHEREAS, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") Notice CPD-L4-07 allows "automatic" renewals for up to three years provided that County sends a letter to City notifying it that the Oríginal Agreement will be renewed unless City notifies County that it wishes to terminate the agreement and a copy of such a letter is provided to HUD;
WHEREAS, County sent City a letter notifying City of such renewal on February 25, 2OL4;
WHEREAS, City did not advise County that it wished to terminate the Original Agreement with County;
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to further amend the Original Agreement at this time in the manner set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree to the following modifications to the Original Agreement:

1. Section 2 of the Original Agreement is amended in its entirety as follows:

COUNTY shall have the authority to carry out activities, which will be funded from annual Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home Investment Paftnership (HOME) and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Program funds appropriated for Federal Fiscal Years 20L5-20L6,2Ot6-20L7 Page I of4

I
,
and 20L7-2OLB and from any program income generated from the expenditure of such funds.

2. Section 6 of the Original Agreement shall be amended to add subsection (c.) as follows:
c, A policy to undertake or assist in undertaking, community renewal and lower-income housing assistance activities.

3. Section 9 of the Original Agreement shall read as amended in its entirety as follows:

This Agreement shall cover Fiscal Years 20L5-2OL6,2OL6-2017 and 20L7- 2018, respectively of CDBG, HOME and ESG program applications, including any subsequent Supplemental sources (Paragraph 23 of the Agreement).

In no event shall this agreement be terminated by either party before June 30, 2018, except as allowed in legislation enacted by the U.S. Congress for termination or withdrawal from the Urban County Program and as permitted by HUD.

4. Section 10 shall be added to Agreement to read:

In accordance with HUD Notice CPD L4-O7, and subsequent CPD Notices, this Agreement will be automatically extended for an additional three (3) year period (July L, 2018 to June 30, 202L) unless COUNTY or CITY provides written notice that it elects not to participate in a new qualification period. COUNTY shall notify CITY in writing of its right not to participate any longer than the date specified in HUD's Urban County Qualification Notice for the next qualification period.

5. Section 11. Of the original Agreement is amended to read "CITY and COUNTY agree to adopt amendments (s) to this agreement as may be required by HUD to meet any new Urban County Qualification requirement(s) subsequent to June 30, 2Ot7. The COUNTY will notify CITY of its right to terminate íts participation in the program based on the adoption of any such amendment. If either CITY or COUNTY refuses to adopt any such amendment, this automatic renewal provision herein will be void"

6. Section 24. Is amended to read "City may void this agreement only if it submits to County on or before June 2014 the notification from HUD that City has qualified as a "Metropolitan City" or an "Entitlement City" prior to the completion of the re-qualification process for Fiscal Years 2015-16, 2016-20|7, and 20I7-2OL8. Upon such notification by HUD, CITY also must submit to COUNTY and HUD written notification of its decision to either remain in the Urban County Program as a "Metropolitan City" or become an "Entitlement City" as a separate entity.

Page2 of4

1 7. All other provisions of the Original Agreement, as amended, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference, to the extent they are not inconsistent with this Agreement, remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY has caused this Amendment THREE to be executed by its City Manager and attested by its City Clerk; COUNTY has caused this Amendment THREE to be executed by the Director of the Orange County Community Resources; each having been duly authorized by the CITY Council and the COUNTY Board of Su pervisors, respectively.
.l
)
CITY OF LA PALMA a municipal
Corporation in the State of California
Steve Shan
Mayor
Date: lune 3, 2OL4
ATTEST:

Laurie A. Murray, C
City Clerk
Date: June .2014
COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political
subdi the State of California
\ù
By:

Steve Franks, Director
Orang
Date:
e Cou Com Resources
Page3 of4

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////l////

ORIGINAL FORM CONTRACT
APPROVED AS TO FORM and REQUIRED COUNTY COUNSEL STATEMENT:
"The terms and provisions of the agreement are fully authorized under State and local law and the agreement provides full legal authority for the County." By: County Counsel Date: s/3/2014

AMENDMENT FOUR TO

COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
AND

CTTY OF LA PALMA
This Amendment Number FOUR (hereinafter "Amendment FOUR") is made and entered into bythe County of Orange, a political subdívision of the State of California, ("COUNTY") and CITY OF LA PALMA, a municipal corporatíon, ("CITY"), DUNS Number 094128535 which are sometimes individually referred to as "Party" or collectively referred to as "Parties", and is effective as of July 1, 20L8, hereinafter referred to as "EFFECTIVE DATE".
wHEREAS, COUNTY and CITY executed rhat certaín COOPEMTION AGREEMENT "Small-City" (hereinafter "Origínal Agreement" or "Agreement") for commencement July 1, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Original Agreement was amended by Amendment ONE, effectíve as of July 16, 2008; and
WHEREAS, the Original Agreement was amended by Amendment TWO, effective as of July L 2OI2; and
WHEREAS, the Original Agreement was amended by Amendment THREE, effective as of July 1, 2015; and
WHEREAS, U.S. Depaftment of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") Notíce CPD-14-07 allows "automatic" renewals for up to three years provided that COUNTY sends a letter to CITY notifying it that the Original Agreement wíll be renewed unless CITY notifíes COUNTY that it wishes to terminate the agreement and a copy of such a letter is provided to HUD; and
WHEREAS, COUNTY sent CITY a letter notifying CITY of such renewal on February 2,20t7; and
WHEREAS, CITY did not advise COUNTY that it wished to termínate the Original Agreement with County; and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to fufther amend the Original Agreement at this time in the manner set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Pafties hereby agree to the followíng modifications to the Oríginal Agreement:

1. Section 2 of the Criginal Agreement is amended in its entirety as follows:

Page I of4

"COUNTY shall have the authority to carry out activities, which will be funded from annual Cornmunity Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home Investment Partnership (HOME) and Emergency SolutÍons Grant (ESG) Program funds appropriated for Federal Fiscal Years 2018-2019 ,20t9-202Q and 2020-202L and from any program income generated from the expenditure of such fr,tnds."

2. Section 6 of the'Origínal Agreement shall be amended to add subsection (c.) as folfows:
"c. A policy to undertake or assist in undertaking, community renewal and lower-íncome housing assistance activities."
3, Section 9 of the Original Agreement shall read as amended in its entirety as follows:

This Agreement shall cover Fiscal Years 2018-2019, 2019-2A20 and 2020- 202L, respectively of CDBG, HOME and ESG program applications, including any subsequent Supplemental sources (Paragraph 23 of the Agreement).

In no event shall thÍs agreement be terminated by either Party before June 30,2021-, except as allowed in legislation enacted by the U.S. Congress for termination or withdrawal from the Urban County Program and as permitted by HUD.

4. Section 10 shall be added to Agreement to read:
"In accordance with HUD Notice CPD L4-07, and subsequent CPD Notices, this Agreement will be automatÍcally extended for an additional 3 (three) year períod (July L,202L to June 3Q,2024) unless COUNTY or CITY provides written notice that ít elects not to parlicípate in a new qualification period. COUNTY shall notify CITY in writing of its ríght not to participate any longer than the date specified in HUD's Urban County Qualification Notice for the next qualification period."

5. Section 11. Of the Original Agreement is amended to read:
"CITY and COUNW agree to adopt amendments (s) to this Agreement as may be required by HUD to meet any new Urban County Qualification requirement(s) subsequent to June 30, 2020. The COUNTY will notify CITY of its right to terminate its participation in the program based on the adoption of any such amendment. If eÍther CITY or COUNTY refuses to adopt any such amendment, this automatic renewal provision herein will be voÍd."
6, Section 24.Is amended to read:
"CITY may void this Agreement only if it submits to COUNry on or before June 2OL7 the notification from HUD that CITY has qualifíed as a "Metropolitan City" or an "Entitlement City" prior to the completion of the

re-qual¡fícation process for Fiscal Years 2018-19, 2QL9-2020, and 2A20' 2021,. Upon such notificatÍon by HUD, CITY also must submit to COUNIÏY and HUD wrÍtten notification of its decÍsíon to either remain in the Urban County Program as a "Metropolitan City" or become an "Entitlement City" as a separate entity."

7. AII other provisÍons of the Original Agreement, as amended, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference, to the extent they are not ínconsistent wíth this Agreement, remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

IN WITÍ\¡ESS WHEREOF, CITY has caused thís Amendment FOUR to be executed by its City Manager and attested by its City Clerk; COUNTY has caused this Amendment FOUR to be executed by the Director of the Orange County Community Resources; each having been duly authorized by the CITY Council and the COUNTY Board of Supervisors, respectively.

ATTEST:

City of La Palma a munícipal
Corp orati nrn e oi Caf ifornia
e: Laurie A. Murray Name berly n
Title: City Manager Title: Deputy City Clerk
Date May 16,2017 Date r Mav 16.2017
COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political
subd íon fth California
By:

Dylan right, Director
Orange County Community Resources
Date: 14lt -17-