Laguna Beach City Council
July 21, 2026

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 9 9 of 230
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 10 10 of 230
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
11 11 of 230
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.
12 12 of 230
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
13 13 of 230
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.
14 14 of 230
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 15 15 of 230
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 16 16 of 230
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 17 17 of 230
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
18 18 of 230
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 19 19 of 230
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
20 20 of 230
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 21 21 of 230
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 22 22 of 230
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
23 23 of 230
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
24 24 of 230
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
25 25 of 230
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 26 26 of 230
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 27 27 of 230
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
28 28 of 230
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 29 29 of 230
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
30 30 of 230
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 31 31 of 230
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 32 32 of 230
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. 33 33 of 230
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 34 34 of 230
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
35 35 of 230
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.
36 36 of 230
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.
37 37 of 230
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. 38 38 of 230
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) 39 39 of 230
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)
40 40 of 230
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)
41 41 of 230
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)
42 42 of 230
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 43 43 of 230
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
44 44 of 230
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
45 45 of 230
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
46 46 of 230
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
47 47 of 230
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 48 48 of 230
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 49 49 of 230
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. 50 50 of 230
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.
51 51 of 230
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 52 52 of 230
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 53 53 of 230
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 54 54 of 230
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
55 55 of 230
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
56 56 of 230
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 57 57 of 230
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 58 58 of 230
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.
59 59 of 230
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. 60 60 of 230
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.
61 61 of 230
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.
62 62 of 230
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. 63 63 of 230
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.
64 64 of 230
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. 65 65 of 230
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. 66 66 of 230
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,
67 67 of 230
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.
68 68 of 230
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 69 69 of 230
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 70 70 of 230
1 July __, 2026
Honorable Sheila F. Hanson, Presiding Judge
Superior Court of California, County of Orange
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, California 92701
Re: City of Laguna Beach Response to 2025–2026 Orange County Grand Jury Report, California Housing Mandates, The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods
Dear Judge Hanson,
At the July 21, 2026 Laguna Beach City Council meeting, the City Council reviewed the 2025– 2026 Orange County Grand Jury report entitled California Housing Mandates, The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods (“Report”). In the Report, the Grand Jury required the City of Laguna Beach to respond to Findings F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, and F12 (“Findings”), and to Recommendations R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, and R16 (“Recommendations”). (See Report, p. 44.)
Pursuant to California Penal Code sections 933(c) and 933.05 (a) and (b), I hereby submit the attached responses to the Findings and Recommendations on behalf of myself and my City Council colleagues.

If you or any members of the Grand Jury have questions about our response, please contact Belinda Deines, Principal Planner, at (949) 497-0314 or [email protected].

Respectfully submitted,
Mark Orgill
Mayor, City of Laguna Beach
Attachment 2
71 71 of 230
2 CC: Orange County Grand Jury
700 Civic Center West
Santa Ana, California
72 72 of 230
3 Responses to Findings
Finding F1: In recent years, the [State of] California [(“State” or “California”)] Legislature has enacted an unusually large and burdensome volume of housing-related laws intended to strengthen compliance with State Housing Mandates.1
Response: The City of Laguna Beach generally agrees that the City has experienced a substantial increase in the number, complexity, and frequency of State housing laws aƯecting local land use, zoning, ministerial approvals, Housing Element implementation, the attendant application of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and related issues. As a result of some of these housing laws (such as SB 9 and the ADU statutes), the City has had to expend significant staƯ time, legal resources, and funds in both regularly amending its Municipal Code and Local Certified Coastal Program (“Certified LCP”) to comply with certain housing laws and processing a high volume of housing applications that require technical expertise, involve opposing lawyers, tight deadlines, the potential for deemed approvals, and may create impacts on the environment and coastal resources for which the City’s control has been limited.

Uniquely in Laguna Beach, almost the entire City sits within the coastal zone and is thus subject to the California Coastal Act (“Coastal Act”), creating significant added complexity to the application of the State housing laws as they intersect with the Coastal Act.

The City is obligated to comply with both sets of laws, which include competing standards and objectives. Unique to Laguna Beach, the City’s Certified LCP—which is how the City implements its compliance with the Coastal Act—is comprised of, inter alia, the entire Zoning Code, much of the General Plan, and several specific plans. Accordingly, whenever any of these documents require amendment due to a State housing law, it is a significantly more complex process for the City than other jurisdictions as it is not a mere amendment to a local land use document but instead requires engagement with, and various iterations and ultimate approval by, the California Coastal Commission of an amendment to the Certified LCP.

Thus, while the City recognizes the value of addressing housing aƯordability and housing supply, the volume and pace of legislative change have created substantial implementation challenges and demand on its resources, particularly due to its location within the Coastal Zone.
1 The term “State Housing Mandates” (or “Housing Mandates”) is not defined in the Report. However, for purposes of this response, we generally interpret it to mean laws approved by the California Legislature and signed by the Governor that relate to the planning for, accommodation of, or approval of housing within a local agency’s jurisdiction.
73 73 of 230
4 Finding F2: Housing Mandates are implemented through a [Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”)] process that often lacks transparency and relies on complex methodologies that are diƯicult for local oƯicials and the public to understand or meaningfully challenge.

Response: The City of Laguna Beach partially agrees with this finding. On the one hand, the RHNA process involves a defined methodology established through State law and implemented by State and regional agencies, including the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) and the Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”), using multiple technical inputs such as demographic projections, employment data, housing need determinations, and policy objectives. The use of a formula and defined inputs are seemingly transparent. On the other hand, the methodology is complex and diƯicult to review without technical expertise and further, due to being formula driven, does not adequately account for unique local conditions that create meaningful disparity in the ability for diƯerent local agencies to plan for housing at the same rate.

The City also recognizes that the RHNA process includes formal procedures for public review, comment, and appeal at various stages. While these procedures provide opportunities for participation, the technical nature and timing of the process may limit the ability of some stakeholders to engage eƯectively or to meaningfully appeal.

Finding F4: Meaningful participation by Orange County cities in both [Orange County Council of Governments (“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 Laguna Beach agrees with this finding. Participation in OCCOG, SCAG, and discussions with State representatives is important to help ensure that Laguna Beach’s local conditions—including the City’s Coastal Act obligations and wildfire considerations—are considered in regional planning discussions.

The City supports early engagement in the 7th Cycle RHNA process. While the City recognizes that the RHNA process is governed by State law and regional methodologies, it also acknowledges that local jurisdictions face challenges when allocations fail to reflect unique local constraints and conditions that may make the allocations unattainable.

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.
74 74 of 230
5 Response: The City of Laguna Beach partially agrees with this finding. The City agrees that SCAG’s 6th Cycle RHNA assigned Orange County 183,861 housing units for the 2021– 2029 planning period, and that the allocation process resulted in significant housing planning obligations across the County. The City also acknowledges that, to the extent higher allocations were concentrated in jurisdictions with major population and employment centers, that approach may be consistent with accepted planning principles, including reducing vehicle miles traveled, supporting access to jobs and services, encouraging housing near existing or planned transit, and promoting more eƯicient use of existing infrastructure. On January 7, 2020, the Laguna Beach City Council adopted Resolution No.

20.002, opposing the RHNA methodology approved by SCAG for the 6th Cycle Housing Element and requested HCD intervention.

However, as to the Grand Jury’s characterization of Orange County’s total allocation as “questionable,” the City cannot independently verify whether the 183,861-unit allocation was appropriate, excessive, or inadequate for the 6th Housing Element Cycle. The City recognizes that California continues to face a significant housing shortage, that housing supply constraints contribute to aƯordability challenges, and that state and regional housing policy has increasingly focused on increasing housing capacity in response to long-term housing underproduction. At the same time, the City supports greater transparency, clearer methodology, and more robust opportunities for local review and input in future RHNA cycles, including consideration of local infrastructure, public safety, environmental, coastal, and market-feasibility constraints.

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

Response: The City of Laguna Beach partially agrees with this finding and partially disagrees. As applied to Laguna Beach, the City agrees that the construction of RHNA units during the current planning cycle is highly challenging for the City due to limited vacant land availability, built-out conditions, infrastructure constraints, environmental and coastal resource considerations, wildfire and evacuation issues, and public safety requirements.

The City also notes that the potentially greatest factor constraining development of aƯordable units in Laguna Beach is land value, construction costs (particularly where prevailing wage is triggered by certain housing laws), financing limitations and subsidy availability, and overall market feasibility. For these reasons, the City therefore agrees that actual production of all allocated units during the current cycle may be diƯicult or unrealistic under conditions.
75 75 of 230
6 However, the City disagrees to the extent the finding suggests that Laguna Beach cannot realistically comply with its legal obligations under Housing Element Law. RHNA obligations generally require cities to plan for and accommodate housing capacity through the Housing Element, zoning, programs, and related implementation measures. They do not require the City itself to construct the assigned units. Actual housing production depends on factors that are not fully within the City’s control. The City has an HCD-certified Housing Element and can continue to implement its Housing Element programs and comply with applicable State law. Accordingly, while the City agrees that actual housing production may be highly challenging, the City disagrees that compliance with its Housing Element planning obligations is unrealistic or unattainable.

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 Laguna Beach generally agrees with this finding as applied to Laguna Beach, but notes that the finding does not fully reflect the range of community priorities expressed by City residents.

The City agrees that many Laguna Beach residents have consistently expressed strong interest in local planning decisions that protect neighborhood character, public safety, environmental quality, coastal resources, open space, wildfire safety, evacuation capacity, infrastructure reliability, and the City’s unique community identity. The City further agrees that local community priorities should be meaningfully considered in housing policy and land use planning, while recognizing that state law increasingly limits local discretion in certain areas.

At the same time, the City notes that many Laguna Beach residents also support the production of aƯordable and workforce housing, particularly for the benefit of employees who serve the Laguna Beach community but are often unable to live in or near the City.

Because Laguna Beach has limited access points from surrounding communities, long employee commutes can contribute to traƯic, parking demand, greenhouse gas emissions, and other local impacts. The City therefore believes that community priorities are not limited to preservation of existing neighborhood conditions, but also include expanding housing opportunities, supporting the local workforce, and making housing available at a broader range of income levels where feasible and consistent with applicable law.

Finding F8: California’s regulatory construction costs, i.e., permitting fees, present substantial challenges for private housing developers—particularly those delivering aƯordable units.
76 76 of 230
7 Response: The City of Laguna Beach partially agrees with this finding and partially disagrees. As it relates to Laguna Beach, the City agrees that regulatory compliance costs and overall development costs present substantial challenges for housing development, particularly aƯordable housing development. AƯordable housing units can significantly aƯect project economics because they are subject to income and rent restrictions and often require tax credits, grants, local funding, land contributions, density incentives, or other subsidies to be financially feasible. In addition, certain state housing laws and funding programs may trigger prevailing wage or other labor requirements, which can substantially increase construction costs.

The City partially disagrees, however, to the extent the finding characterizes “regulatory construction costs” as synonymous with permitting fees or suggests that local permitting fees alone are a primary cause of housing infeasibility. Permitting and impact fees are only one component of overall development cost, and their impact varies significantly by jurisdiction, project type, site conditions, and development program. As applied to Laguna Beach specifically, the City understands its permitting and impact fees to be generally lower than those of many surrounding jurisdictions. The City has also been willing, where legally permissible and appropriate, to consider fee reductions or waivers for projects that provide substantial community benefits.

The City supports continued review of its development-related fees to ensure they are reasonable, legally compliant, and not unnecessarily burdensome. At the same time, the City must retain the ability to recover the reasonable costs of providing planning, building, public works, public safety, and related municipal services, because unrecovered development processing costs are otherwise borne by the City’s General Fund and taxpayers.

Finding F9: The cost of constructing a single aƯordable 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 Laguna Beach agrees that aƯordable housing development is often not financially feasible without public subsidy, land write-downs or donations, tax credits, grants, or other financial assistance. The City also agrees that aƯordable housing development is aƯected by many of the same cost pressures that aƯect housing construction generally, including land acquisition, labor and materials, financing, insurance, environmental review, building code compliance, utility improvements, infrastructure needs, regulatory compliance, and project delays. These challenges can be particularly significant 77 77 of 230
8 for aƯordable housing projects because income and rent restrictions limit project revenue and often make some form of subsidy or financial assistance necessary for the project to be financially feasible.

However, the City cannot independently verify that the stated $500,000 to $800,000 per-unit range applies to aƯordable housing projects statewide, in Orange County, or in Laguna Beach. Per-unit costs vary significantly based on land acquisition costs, site conditions, project size and type, parking requirements, labor requirements, financing structure, environmental constraints, infrastructure needs, and market conditions.

Accordingly, the City agrees with the finding to the extent it recognizes that aƯordable housing development is often financially infeasible without subsidy or other assistance, but does not take a position on the accuracy or general applicability of the specific per-unit cost range stated in the finding.

Finding F10: Prior to their dissolution in 2012, redevelopment agencies served as a primary mechanism for cities and counties to finance aƯordable housing and related infrastructure.

The loss of redevelopment has reduced cities’ ability to support construction of aƯordable units.

Response: The City of Laguna Beach generally agrees with this finding with respect to the financing of aƯordable housing and related infrastructure. Redevelopment agencies historically provided cities with an important tool to finance aƯordable housing, infrastructure, and community revitalization. The dissolution of redevelopment agencies reduced local funding capacity and removed an important local financing mechanism that many jurisdictions previously used to support aƯordable housing production and related improvements. The City agrees that the loss of redevelopment has made it more diƯicult for local agencies to financially support aƯordable housing and related infrastructure improvements.

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 Laguna Beach partially agrees with this finding and partially disagrees. The City agrees that public subsidies for aƯordable housing are limited, competitive, and insuƯicient to meet the overall need for aƯordable housing. The City also agrees that private development incentives—such as the incentives, concessions, waivers, reduced parking requirements, and density increases available under the State Density Bonus Law, as well as certain ministerial approval pathways—may be important tools to 78 78 of 230
9 encourage aƯordable housing production. These incentives can result in projects with greater density, height, massing, development intensity, or changes to the built environment than would otherwise be permitted under local zoning.

However, the City does not agree that local agencies “must” rely on private development incentives in all circumstances, or that such incentives necessarily result in overall development densities or unit counts that exceed the RHNA allocation. Whether such incentives result in higher density or additional units depends on the specific project, site conditions, applicable State law, market feasibility, and other regulatory constraints. In Laguna Beach, for example, development feasibility and project design may also be aƯected by, inter alia, coastal resource considerations, Fire Code requirements, and topography.

The City further notes that RHNA is a planning obligation, not a development cap or production mandate. State housing laws may allow individual projects to exceed otherwise applicable local development standards, but the City is not aware that local agencies generally produce housing units in excess of their RHNA allocations as a result of those laws.

Finally, local agencies do not directly produce most private housing units and cannot compel private property owners to develop housing. Accordingly, while the City agrees that private development incentives can be an important aƯordable housing tool, the City partially disagrees with the finding to the extent it suggests that such incentives are always required or that they generally result in housing production beyond RHNA allocations.

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

Response: The City of Laguna Beach partially agrees with this finding. The City agrees that the 6th Cycle RHNA methodology included numerous technical inputs published by SCAG and HCD, including regional housing need determinations, demographic and household projections, employment data, transportation-related factors, and other policy and planning considerations. To that extent, the process included published methodology documents and data sources that provided a level of transparency regarding the factors used in developing RHNA allocations.

However, the City also agrees that the methodology was highly technical and diƯicult for local jurisdictions to interpret, evaluate, or independently verify without specialized expertise. Although the use of formulas and defined inputs may provide transparency in one sense, the complexity of the methodology, the number of assumptions involved, and the timing of public review can make it diƯicult for cities and members of the public to determine whether the resulting allocations adequately account for unique local conditions. For 79 79 of 230
10 Laguna Beach, those conditions include Coastal Act obligations, limited vacant land, builtout conditions, wildfire and evacuation considerations, infrastructure constraints, environmental and coastal resource considerations, and public safety requirements.

The City supports greater transparency, earlier release of data, clearer documentation of assumptions, and more meaningful opportunities for local review, public participation, and appeal in future RHNA cycles. These improvements would assist cities in understanding, explaining, and responding to proposed allocations, while also helping ensure that regional housing planning remains data-driven and appropriately responsive to local constraints.
80 80 of 230
11 Responses to Recommendations
Recommendation 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 eƯectively represent Orange County jurisdictions in SCAG processes, including RHNA methodology development and appeals.

Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented by September 30, 2026. The City supports evaluating OCCOG’s dues structure and resources to help ensure that Orange County jurisdictions are eƯectively represented in SCAG processes, including the development of RHNA methodology and any applicable appeal processes. The City intends to participate in OCCOG discussions and to review any proposed dues adjustments. Any increase in City dues or other financial commitment would be evaluated through the City’s normal budget process or brought to the City Council for consideration, as appropriate.

Recommendation 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: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will generally be implemented in the future to the extent within the City’s control. This recommendation is directed primarily to the Orange County Board of Supervisors because it calls for a countywide infrastructure evaluation and coordinated regional plan. To the extent the County initiates such an eƯort, the City will participate, as appropriate and to the extent feasible, with the County, OCCOG, and other regional partners. The City’s participation would include providing available public information regarding Laguna Beach infrastructure, public safety, transportation, evacuation, and planning constraints, subject to staƯing capacity, data availability, budgetary considerations, and applicable legal limitations.

Recommendation R9: By September 30, 2026, the Orange County Board of Supervisors should strengthen its engagement with OCCOG and increase staƯ support to develop a shared, countywide database of potential housing sites and key development-feasibility factors.

Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future to the extent within the City’s control. This recommendation is directed primarily to the Orange County Board of Supervisors because it calls for the creation 81 81 of 230
12 and maintenance of a shared countywide database. The City cannot independently create or maintain such a countywide database. However, to the extent the County initiates such an eƯort, the City will participate to the extent feasible by identifying appropriate staƯ contacts and providing available public information regarding Laguna Beach’s Housing Element sites, zoning, site constraints, and housing production status.

The City also believes that any such database would be most useful if it tracks not only potential housing sites and development-feasibility factors, but also entitled, permitted, constructed, and deed-restricted aƯordable housing units, so that regional agencies and local jurisdictions can better evaluate both planned capacity and actual housing availability.

Recommendation 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, to strengthen regional representation during RHNAmethodology development.

Response: The recommendation has not yet been fully implemented, but will be implemented by September 30, 2026. The City supports consistent participation in OCCOG and SCAG processes, particularly as the 7th Cycle RHNA methodology develops. The City currently participates in regional planning eƯorts when matters are relevant to Laguna Beach or otherwise warrant City involvement. The City will identify appropriate staƯ for RHNArelated OCCOG and SCAG meetings, including the Technical Advisory Committee, where appropriate, and will participate, as appropriate, based on the City’s priorities.

Recommendation R12: The County of Orange and each city should designate a single technical representative, by September 30, 2026, along with an alternate, for all RHNArelated SCAG and OCCOG committees to ensure continuity of participation and eliminate gaps in representation across multiple decision-making bodies.

Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented by September 30, 2026, subject to the City’s staƯing limitations and on an informal basis. City management will administratively designate a primary technical representative for RHNA-related SCAG and OCCOG matters. The designated representative will be responsible for monitoring relevant RHNA-related meetings, coordinating internally as needed, and providing updates to City leadership regarding significant regional housing methodology issues. While a single representative is intended to promote continuity, the representative may appoint alternates, as needed. Such designations may be updated by City management as appropriate.
82 82 of 230
13 Recommendation 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 aƯordable 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.

Response: The recommendation will not be implemented as stated because it is not warranted or reasonable for the City to undertake and monitor a separate dashboard when the City already provides housing-related information through annual reporting and other means. The City supports public transparency regarding Housing Element implementation and housing-related matters. However, the City already prepares and submits housingrelated reporting required by State law, including annual Housing Element progress reports, and provides housing-related information through public staƯ reports, public meetings, City webpages, permit records, and other available sources.

The City also notes that some of the requested metrics, including “realistic site yield” and “assembled funding sources,” may be diƯicult to track or verify on a dashboard because they can depend on private property owner decisions, market conditions, project-specific financing, and related third party considerations. Accordingly, while the City agrees with the transparency goals underlying this recommendation, the City does not believe that creating and maintaining a separate monitoring dashboard is warranted or reasonable at this time.

The City will continue to satisfy applicable state reporting requirements and provide housingrelated information to the public through existing legally required and publicly available processes.

Recommendation R15: By September 30, 2026, and ongoing, the County Board of Supervisors and all city councils should make a coordinated and sustained eƯort 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 eƯorts should also include guidance on how community members can eƯectively engage with the California Legislature and advocate for more realistic, data-driven housing policies.

Response: The recommendation has already been implemented and will continue to be implemented on an ongoing basis. The City has provided public information regarding the Housing Element, RHNA allocation, housing sites, State law requirements, and proposed housing projects.

The City agrees that public education should continue, particularly as the 7th Cycle RHNA process begins. The City will continue to use public meetings, staƯ reports, podcasts, 83 83 of 230
14 City webpages, community outreach materials, and other appropriate communication tools to explain RHNA requirements, Housing Element implementation, local planning impacts, and opportunities for residents to participate in local, regional, and state housing policy discussions.

To the extent appropriate, the City will also continue to provide information regarding opportunities for community members to engage with regional and State decision-makers on housing policy issues, including the development of RHNA methodology and other State housing laws aƯecting local planning.

Recommendation R16: By December 31, 2026, all cities should look to enhance their relationships with not-for-profit aƯordable housing developers to increase the opportunity to develop more aƯordable housing.

Response: The recommendation has already been implemented and will continue to be implemented on an ongoing basis. The City supports coordination with nonprofit aƯordable housing developers and other aƯordable housing partners, including those for which it already has a relationship. As previously noted, aƯordable housing development in Laguna Beach is challenging due to land costs, limited available sites, topography, coastal constraints, infrastructure considerations, and funding limitations.

The City will continue to consider opportunities to coordinate with nonprofit aƯordable housing developers where feasible and appropriate, including in connection with Housing Element implementation and potential aƯordable housing opportunities. However, any specific project, funding commitment, land use approval, partnership agreement, or allocation of City resources would require separate review and approval in accordance with applicable law and the City’s normal decision-making processes. 84 84 of 230
85 of 230
86 of 230
87 of 230
88 of 230
89 of 230

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:

July 21, 2026

CONSENT
8 SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR DOWNTOWN (ZONE 4)

STREET OVERLAY AND WALKWAY IMPROVEMENTS
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Award and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with CT&T Concrete Paving, Inc., in the amount of $621,041.94 for the C2217 – Downtown (Zone 4) Street Overlay and Walkway Improvements;

2. Authorize the City Manager to approve project-related expenses and construction change-orders for unforeseen circumstances in an amount not to exceed $58,950; and

3. Find that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c).

SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
This report recommends that the City Council award a construction contract to CT&T Concrete Paving, Inc. in the amount of $621,041.94 for the C2217 – Downtown (Zone 4) Street Overlay and Walkway Improvements Project. The scope includes clearing and grubbing, sawcut, removal and reconstruction of pavement, grind and overlay, removal and replacement of AC berms and curbs, replacement of traffic loops, slurry seal, painting of pavement striping and markings, utility adjustments, implementing temporary traffic control, and other miscellaneous improvements as required.

The total estimated project cost is $679,991.94, which is within the combined approved budget of $680,000.

The project has been reviewed under CEQA and is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301(c) of the CEQA Guidelines.

Staff completed a public bid process for the project in accordance with California Public Contract Code requirements. On May 28, 2026, six (6) bids were received. The following is a summary of the bids sorted by bid amount:

Table of Bid Results
Bidder Total Bid Amount

1. Tri-County Sandblasting $29,750.00

2. CT&T Concrete Paving, Inc. $621,041.94

3. [email protected] $658,070.80

4. PALP $699,426.00

5. All American Asphalt $739,293.85

6. Carter Enterprises Group, Inc. $888,000.00
Following the bid evaluation, staff determined that the apparent low bidder, Tri-County Sandblasting, did not include pricing for several bid items required by the Bid Documents. Because the bid did not include 1 of 245
AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR DOWNTOWN (ZONE 4) STREET OVERLAY

AND WALKWAY IMPROVEMENTS
July 21, 2026

all required pricing, it was determined to be non-responsive and therefore could not be considered for award.

Staff subsequently evaluated the second lowest bid submitted by CT&T Concrete Paving, Inc. and determined that the firm is properly licensed, qualified, and responsible, and that its bid is responsive to the requirements of the Bid Documents. Accordingly, staff recommends that the City Council award the construction contract to CT&T Concrete Paving, Inc. in the amount of $621,041.94.

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
With the low bid amount of $621,041.94 and contingency costs for unforeseen conditions estimated not to exceed $58,950, the total project cost is estimated at $679,991.94. With total available funding of $680,000 for the Downtown (Zone 4) Street Overlay and Walkway Improvements Project, sufficient funding is available in the adopted budget for the recommended action.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15301(c), for repairs and maintenance to existing facilities involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Project Location Map (Pg. 3)

2. Professional Services Agreement for CT&T Concrete Paving, Inc. (Pgs. 4-15) Submitted By: .

Mark McAvoy
Approved: .David A Kiff
Mark McAvoy, Director of Public
Works & Utilities
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:

Tran Tran, Assistant City Engineer Thomas Perez, City Engineer 2 of 245

PROJECT LOCATION MAP
Attachment 1
3 3 of 245
D-1

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
FOR

CONSTRUCTION OF
DOWNTOWN (ZONE 4) STREET OVERLAY AND WALKWAY

IMPROVEMENTS
(CIP C2217)

CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
THIS Agreement, made and entered into this day of ,2026, by and between CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "CITY" and CT&T Concrete Paving, Inc., Contractor's License No. 875627, hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR,"
WITNESSETH:

That the CITY and the CONTRACTOR, for the consideration hereinafter stated, mutually agree as follows:

1. The complete Agreement includes all of the contract documents, which are incorporated herein by this reference, to wit: Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Bid Form and Proposal to the City of Laguna Beach, Standard Provisions, General Provisions, Special Provisions, Drawings, Plans, Performance Bond, Labor and Material Bond, Certificate of Insurance, this Agreement and all modifications and amendments thereto. The Agreement documents are complementary, and that which is required by one shall be as binding as if required by all. In the event of any discrepancy among Agreement documents, precedence shall be determined as specified in Section 2-5.2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction.

2. In the performance of the services under the Agreement, CONTRACTOR shall be, and is, an independent contractor, and is not an agent or employee of the CITY. The CITY shall not in any way or for any purpose become, or be deemed to be, a partner of CONTRACTOR in its business or otherwise, or a joint venturer, or a member of any joint enterprise with CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees of the CITY. The CONTRACTOR has and shall retain the right to exercise full control and supervision of the services, and full control over the employment, direction, compensation and discharge of all persons assisting CONTRACTOR in the performance of required services. CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible and hold the CITY harmless for all matters relating to the payment of CONTRACTOR’s employees, including compliance with Social Security, withholding and all other regulations governing such matters. Neither CONTRACTOR nor any of CONTRACTOR’s employees shall, at any time, or in any way, be entitled to any sick leave, vacation, retirement or other fringe benefits from the CITY; and neither the CITY nor any of its employees shall be paid by the CITY at the rate of time and one-half for working in excess of forty hours in any one week or more than eight hours in any one day. Neither CONTRACTOR Attachment 2
4 4 of 245
D-2
nor any of CONTRACTOR’s employees shall be included in the competitive service, have any property right to any position, or any of the rights an employee may have in the event of termination of this Agreement.

3. CONTRACTOR shall perform everything required to be performed, shall provide and furnish all the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and transportation services required for the following work of improvements: ZONE 4 STREET OVERLAY AND WALKWAY IMPROVEMENTS (CIP 2217), all in accordance with bidders proposal dated May 28, 2026, and the Agreement documents.

4. CONTRACTOR agrees to perform all the said work and furnish all the said materials at its own cost and expense, such as are set forth in the specifications to be furnished by the CITY, necessary to construct and complete in a good workmanlike and substantial manner and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer of the CITY, the work hereinafter set forth in accordance with the plans and the specifications therefor adopted by the CITY and as prepared by the CITY.

In compliance with Public Contracts Code, Chapter 4, Section 12169 and Section 12213, CITY requires the CONTRACTOR to provide, prior to final payment by CITY, a certification in writing of the minimum, or the exact, percentage of recycled content in the products used in the performance of the work of improvement.

5. CITY agrees to pay and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept in full payment for this work of improvement above agreed to be performed, the stipulated sum of Six Hundred Twenty-One Thousand Forty-One Dollars and Ninety-Four Cents ($621,041.94).

CITY agrees to make monthly payments and final payment in accordance with the method set forth in the specifications and other Agreement documents.

CONTRACTOR acknowledges and agrees that if this Agreement involves a project specified in Section 9203 of the California Public Contract Code with a Contract price that exceeds five thousand dollars ($5,000), City will withhold five percent (5%) of the Contract price until the Notice of Completion is issued and recorded.

6. CONTRACTOR agrees to commence construction of the work provided for herein within Ten (10) working days after the date of Notice to Proceed, and to continue in a diligent and workmanlike manner without interruption, and to complete the construction thereof within Forty (40) consecutive working days from the date of Notice to Proceed.

7. Time is of the essence of this Agreement, and it is agreed that it would be impracticable or extremely difficult to ascertain the extent of actual loss or damage, which the CITY will sustain by reason of any delay in the performance of this Agreement. It is, therefore, agreed that CONTRACTOR will pay as liquidated damages to the CITY the following sum: Two Thousand Dollars ($ 2,000.00) for each day's delay beyond the time herein prescribed for finishing work. If liquidated damages are not paid, as designated by the CITY, the CITY may deduct the amount thereof from any money due or that may become due the CONTRACTOR under this agreement in addition to any other remedy available to CITY. The CONTRACTOR 5 5 of 245
D-3
shall not be assessed liquidated damages for any delay caused by the failure of a public utility to relocate or remove an existing utility required for the performance of this Agreement so long as such failure is not caused by CONTRACTOR’S breach of its obligations hereunder.

8. CONTRACTOR shall pay, and will require all of its subcontractors to pay, all employees on said work a salary or wage at least equal to the prevailing salary or wage established for such work as set forth in the wage determinations and wage standards applicable to this work, a copy of which is on file in the Public Works office. Travel and subsistence pay shall be paid in accordance with Labor Code Section 1773.8. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1771.1, no subcontractor may be listed on a bid proposal for any work related to the Project unless registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). Furthermore, Contractor is hereby notified that no subcontractor may be awarded a contract for any work related to the Project unless registered with the DIR. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1771.4, Contractor is hereby notified that the Project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the DIR. Contractor will maintain and will require all subcontractors to maintain valid and current DIR Public Works Contractor registration during the term of this Construction Services Agreement. Contractor shall notify the City in writing immediately, and in no case more than twenty-four (24) hours, after receiving any information that Contractor’s or any of its subcontractor’s DIR registration status has been suspended, revoked, expired, or otherwise changed.

9. CONTRACTOR will forfeit to the CITY, as a penalty, Two Hundred Dollars ($200) for each calendar day or portion thereof for each worker paid (either by him or any subcontractors under him) less than the prevailing rate described above on the work provided for in this Agreement, all in accordance with Section 1775 of the Labor Code of the State of California.

10. In the performance of this Agreement, not more than eight (8) hours shall constitute a day's work and not more than forty (40) hours constitute any one calendar week, and the CONTRACTOR will not require more than eight (8) hours of labor in a day or more than forty (40) hours of labor in a week from any person employed by CONTRACTOR hereunder, except as provided in the Labor Code of the State of California. CONTRACTOR will conform to Article 3, Chapter 1, Part 7 (Sections 1810, et. seq.) of the Labor Code of the State of California, and it is agreed that the CONTRACTOR will forfeit to the CITY as a penalty the sum of Two Hundred Dollars ($200) for each worker employed in the execution of this Contract by the CONTRACTOR or any subcontractor for each calendar day or calendar week during which any worker is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) and forty (40) hours, respectively, in violation of said article.

11. CONTRACTOR, by executing this Agreement, hereby certifies: "I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for Workers’ Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this AGREEMENT."
CONTRACTOR further agrees to require all subcontractors to carry Workers’ Compensation Insurance as required by the Labor Code of the State of California. 6 6 of 245
D-4

12. CONTRACTOR will, prior to the execution of this Agreement, furnish two bonds approved by the CITY, one in the amount of One Hundred Percent (100%) of the Contract price, to guarantee the faithful performance of the work, and one in the amount of One Hundred Percent (100%) of the Contract price to guarantee payment of all claims for labor and materials furnished. This Agreement shall not become effective until such bonds are supplied to and approved by the CITY.

13. If any action or arbitration is filed by either party to enforce or determine rights under this Agreement or any other Agreement document, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys' fees in addition to any other relief stated by the Court or arbitrator.

14. CONTRACTOR certifies that each and every one of its employees, and every employee of its subcontractors, is not “ineligible” as the term is defined in Labor Code section 1777.1.

15. In entering into this Agreement, the Contractor or subcontractor to supply goods, services or materials pursuant to this Agreement offers and agrees to assign to the City all rights, title and interest in and to all causes of action it may have under section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C.

Sec. 15) or under the Cartwright Act (Chapter 2 (commencing with section 16700) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professional Code), arising from purchases of goods, services or materials pursuant to the Contract or subcontracts. This assignment shall be made and become effective at the time CITY tenders final payment to CONTRACTOR, without further acknowledgment by the parties.

16. CONTRACTOR acknowledges and agrees that if this Agreement involves a dollar amount greater than or a number of working days greater than that specified in Labor Code Section 1777.5, then the provisions of Labor Code Section 1777.5 govern this Agreement. It shall be CONTRACTOR’S responsibility to become fully acquainted and ensure compliance with Labor Code Section 1777.5 for all apprenticable occupations.

17. CONTRACTOR acknowledges the importance of child and family support obligations and shall fully comply with all applicable state and federal laws relating to child and family support enforcement, including but not limited to disclosure of information and compliance with earnings assignment orders, as provided in Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 5200) of Part 5 of Division 9 of the Family Code. CONTRACTOR further acknowledges that, to the best of its knowledge, it has fully complied with the earnings assignment order of all employees and has provided the names of all new employees to the New Hire Registry maintained by the Employment Development Department.
7 7 of 245
D-5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Contractor, the City Manager and City Clerk of the City have executed this AGREEMENT pursuant to the City Council action of the day and year first above written.

Signature:

Name: Jose Carvajal
Title: President and Secretary
Company: CT&T Concrete Paving, Inc.

ATTEST:
_________________________
Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
A Municipal Corporation
Dave Kiff, City Manager
8 8 of 245
D-6

CORPORATE CERTIFICATE
I, , certify that I am
the of the corporation named as CONTRACTOR
in the foregoing Agreement; that , who signed said
Contract on behalf of the CONTRACTOR was then the of
said corporation; and that said Agreement was duly signed for and in behalf of said corporation by authority of its governing body and is within the scope of its corporate powers.

(Corporate Seal)
9 9 of 245
D-7

FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That
WHEREAS, the City Council of the CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, has awarded to , hereinafter designated as "Principal," an Agreement for ZONE 4 STREET OVERLAY AND WALKWAY IMPROVEMENTS (CIP C2217), in the City of Laguna Beach, in accordance with the plans and specifications and other contract documents therefor; and
WHEREAS, said Principal is required under the terms of said Agreement to furnish a bond for the faithful performance of said Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Principal, and ,
organized and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of , and licensed to transact surety business in the State of California, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, hereinafter called the "Obligee," in the penal sum of Dollars ($ ), lawful
money of the United State of America, for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators and successors, jointly and severally and firmly by these presents.

THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH that if the above-bounden Principal, its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns shall in all things stand to and abide by, and well and truly keep and perform the covenants, conditions and agreements in said Agreement, and any alteration thereof made as therein provided, on its part to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified, and in all respects according to their true intent and meaning, and shall indemnify and save harmless the Obligee, its officers and agents, as therein stipulated, this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force and virtue. And, the said Surety, for value received, hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Agreement, or to the work to be performed thereunder, or the specifications accompanying the same, shall in any wise affect its obligation on this bond, and it does thereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alternation or addition to the terms of the Agreement, or to the work or to the specifications, and said Surety agrees that in case the CITY must call on this bond, Surety will pay CITY reasonable attorneys' fees and administrative costs incurred by the CITY related to the termination of the CONTRACTOR and securing the CITY’S rights hereunder. 10 10 of 245
D-8
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two (2) identical counterparts of this instrument, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed an original thereof, have been duly executed by the Principal and Surety above named, on the day of , 20___.

Signature:

Name:

Title:
(Surety Seal) Company:

ADDRESS & TELEPHONE NUMBER

OF LOCAL BOND COMPANY
REPRESENTATIVE:

(Address - Local Representative)

(Telephone Number - Local Representative)

PRINCIPAL
(Principal Seal)

(Attach Acknowledgments for By
Surety and Principal)
Attorney-in-Fact
11 11 of 245
D-9

LABOR AND MATERIAL BOND
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That
WHEREAS, the City Council of the CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH has awarded to , hereinafter designated as "Principal," an Agreement for ZONE 4 STREET OVERLAY AND WALKWAY IMPROVEMENTS (CIP C2217), in the City of Laguna Beach, in accordance with the plans and specifications, and other contract documents therefor; and
WHEREAS, said Principal is required to furnish a bond in connection with said Agreement providing that if said Principal or any of its subcontractors shall fail to pay for any materials, provisions, provender or other supplies, or teams used in, upon, for or about the performance of the work contracted to be done, or for any work or labor done thereon of any kind, or for amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Surety on this bond will pay the same to the extent hereinafter set forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Principal, and ,
organized and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of , and licensed to transact business in the State of California, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH in the penal sum of Dollars ($
), lawful money of the United States of America, for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is such that if said Principal, its subcontractors, heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, shall fail to pay for any materials, provisions, provender or other supplies or teams used in, upon, for or about the performance of the work contracted to be done, or for any work or labor thereon of any kind, or for amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Act as required by the provisions of Sections 4200-4208, inclusive, of the Government Code, then said Surety will pay the same in or to an amount not exceeding the amount hereinabove set forth, and also will pay, in case suit is brought upon this bond, such reasonable attorneys' fees as shall be fixed by the Court, awarded and taxed as in the above-mentioned statute provided.

This bond shall inure to the benefit of any and all persons, companies and corporations entitled to file claims under Section 1192.1 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, so as to give a right to action to them or their assigns in any suit brought upon this bond, and the said Surety, for value received, hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of the Agreement, or the work to be performed thereunder, or the specifications accompanying the same, shall in any wise affect its obligation on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alternation or addition to the terms of the Agreement, or to the work, or to the specifications, and said Surety agrees that in case the CITY must call on this bond, Surety will pay CITY reasonable attorneys' fees and administrative costs incurred by the CITY related to the termination of the CONTRACTOR and securing the CITY’S rights hereunder. 12 12 of 245
D-10
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two (2) identical counterparts of this instrument, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed an original thereof, have been duly executed by the Principal and Surety above named on the day of , 20___.

Signature:

Name:

Title:
(Surety Seal) Company:

ADDRESS & TELEPHONE NUMBER

OF LOCAL BOND COMPANY
REPRESENTATIVE:

(Address - Local Representative)

(Tel. Number - Local Representative)

PRINCIPAL
(Principal Seal)

(Attach Acknowledgments for By
Surety and Principal)
Attorney-in-Fact
13 13 of 245
D-11

SAMPLE CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE AND ENDORSEMENT
Description of Contract:

Type of Insurance: General Liability, Automobile Liability, Excess Liability, Workers’ Compensation
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the following numbered policies have been issued by the below-stated company in conformance with the limits and requirements as set forth in the General Provisions (Section "C").

NOTE: CONTRACTOR MUST PROVIDE WRITTEN CONFIRMATION

NAMING THE CITY AS ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER
CONTRACTOR’S INSURANCE POLICIES, AS WELL AS

PROVIDING CERTIFICATES ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY
(ACCORD FORM OR SIMILAR) EVIDENCING AMOUNTS OF
INSURANCE COVERAGE HELD.

The insurance company is required to give at least thirty (30) days written notice by registered mail to the City of Laguna Beach prior to any material change or cancellation of said policy or policies. Said policies shall remain in force and effect for one year after completion of, and Citys acceptance of the work performed pursuant to the contract.

TYPE

EFFECTIVE
POLICY NO'S.

EXPIRATION

DATE DATE AMOUNT

GENERAL

LIABILITY

AUTOMOBILE

LIABILITY
EXCESS

LIABILITY

WORKER'S

COMPENSATION
Note: If Workers’ Compensation Insurance is provided by a different agency, a form must be provided showing this coverage.
14 14 of 245
D-12
ENDORSEMENT:

As additional insured under these policies, this insurance shall cover and apply to the City of Laguna Beach and its representatives and consultants, and each of its officers, and agents, only while acting in their capacity as such, and only as respects operations of the original named insured, its subcontractors, agents and employees in the performance of the above-referenced Contract; Provided, however, that if the loss or damage is ultimately determined to be the proximate result of the sole negligence of one or more of the aforesaid additional named insured, this insurance shall not apply to said party.

This endorsement shall not operate to increase the Company's total limits of liability hereunder. The insurance company hereby waives its rights of subrogation against the additional named insureds.

Named Insured Insurance Company
Street Number Street Number
City and State City and State
By
Authorized Representative
Attach Acknowledgment

ACCORD (OR SIMILAR) FORM AND ANY OTHER FORM EVIDENCING

REQUIRED INSURANCE COVERAGE, SUCH AS FOR WORKERS

COMPENSATION INSURANCE, MUST ALSO BE ATTACHED, AS
INDICATED ABOVE.
15 15 of 245

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:

July 21, 2026

CONSENT
9 SUBJECT: APPROVE AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE PURCHASING

AGREEMENT WITH THE LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES AND A PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH LIFE-ASSIST, INC. FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL

SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with the League of Oregon Cities, enabling the City to participate in the National Purchasing Partners Government (NPPGov) cooperative purchasing program;

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a Master Purchase Agreement with Life-Assist, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $63,000 per fiscal year, commencing upon execution and continuing through January 19, 2030, with authority for the City Manager to approve up to one (1) additional one-year extensions through January 19, 2031, provided the underlying League of Oregon Cities Master Price Agreement No. PS25830, or any renewal, extension, replacement, or successor cooperative purchasing contract, remains active and available for use by the City, and subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney; and

3. Find that approval of the Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing Agreement is not a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it is an administrative activity that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
The Fire Department routinely purchases emergency medical supplies, pharmaceuticals, patient care equipment, and other medical products necessary to support emergency medical response operations. These supplies are essential for maintaining adequate inventory levels, ensuring operational readiness, and providing high-quality emergency medical care to the community.

To improve procurement efficiency and leverage competitively solicited pricing, staff recommends utilizing the National Purchasing Partners Government (NPPGov) cooperative purchasing program. The League of Oregon Cities (LOC), acting as the Lead Contracting Agency, competitively solicited Request for Proposal No. 2535 and awarded Master Price Agreement No. PS25830 to Life-Assist, Inc. for medical products, pharmaceuticals, monitors, life support equipment, training products, software, and related services. The agreement extends its pricing, terms, and conditions to participating public agencies through execution of an Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing Agreement (IGA).

Execution of the IGA will authorize the City to access competitively solicited cooperative purchasing contracts available through NPPGov. Staff also recommends entering into a Master Purchase Agreement with Life-Assist, Inc., which will incorporate the pricing available under the cooperative contract while utilizing the City's standard contractual terms and conditions. 1 of 278

APPROVE AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT WITH THE LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES AND A PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH LIFEASSIST, INC. FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT July 21, 2026

DISCUSSION
The proposed Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing Agreement establishes the City's participation in the League of Oregon Cities/NPPGov cooperative purchasing program. Participation is voluntary and does not obligate the City to purchase any goods or services. Rather, it provides the City with an additional procurement method that allows purchases through competitively awarded contracts without conducting separate solicitations for qualifying procurements. Each participating agency remains solely responsible for its own purchasing decisions, purchase orders, inspections, invoicing, payments, and contract administration.

Following execution of the IGA, the City will enter into a Purchase Agreement with Life-Assist, Inc. LifeAssist is a national supplier of emergency medical products and equipment serving fire departments, emergency medical service providers, hospitals, and other public safety agencies. Through the League of Oregon Cities' competitive solicitation, Life-Assist provides discounted pricing for a broad range of emergency medical products, including medical supplies, pharmaceuticals, monitors, defibrillators, diagnostic equipment, life support equipment, training products, and operational supplies. Most medical product categories are offered at a 31 percent discount from list price, while training products and capital equipment are offered at a 15 percent discount from list price.

Laguna Beach Purchasing System Ordinance, Section 2.30.050(c), authorizes the City to purchase against contracts awarded by another public agency, master agreement, or cooperative agreement where the source contract is current, the vendor and scope are consistent with the award, and use is in the City's best interest.

The League of Oregon Cities/NPPGov Cooperative Purchasing Program, Contract No. PS25830, was competitively solicited by the League of Oregon Cities in May of 2025, seven (7) responses were received; Life-Assist, Inc. was awarded the contract. Staff confirmed with the League of Oregon Cities that the contract is currently active and expires on January 19, 2030. Pricing was reviewed and determined to be fair and reasonable based on the cooperative contract discount structure.

The proposed Purchase Agreement authorizes purchases of up to $63,000 per fiscal year and establishes a contractual framework for future purchases as operational needs arise. The agreement will commence upon execution and continue through January 19, 2030, with the City Manager authorized to approve up to one additional one-year extension through January 19, 2031, provided the underlying cooperative purchasing contract remains active and available for use by the City.

Utilizing this cooperative purchasing program will streamline procurement, reduce administrative costs, eliminate the need for separate competitive solicitations for qualifying purchases, and provide the City with access to nationally negotiated pricing while maintaining compliance with the City's purchasing policies and applicable procurement requirements.

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
2 of 278

APPROVE AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT WITH THE LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES AND A PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH LIFEASSIST, INC. FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT July 21, 2026

The proposed Purchase Agreement authorizes purchases of emergency medical supplies, pharmaceuticals, equipment, and related products in an amount not to exceed $63,000 per fiscal year. Funding for purchases made under the agreement is included in the Fire Department's annually budgeted Paramedic Supplies operating account.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Approval of the proposed Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing Agreement and Purchase Agreement is not a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because the actions authorize procurement mechanisms and contractual arrangements only and will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Any future project requiring environmental review will be evaluated separately, as appropriate.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing Agreement (Pgs. 4-8)

2. Proposed Purchase Agreement between the City of Laguna Beach and Life-Assist, Inc. (Pgs. 9-33) Submitted By:
. Approved: .David A Kiff
Niko King, Fire Chief Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:

Kirsten Gallacher, Senior Administrative
Analyst
Andrew Hill, Deputy Fire Chief
3 of 278
League of Oregon Cities IGA V1.0
Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing Agreement
This Intergovernmental Agreement (Agreement) is by and between the Contracting Safety GPO, First Responder GPO, Law Enforcement GPO, Education GPO and EMS GPO that agree to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The Lead Contracting WHEREAS, upon completion of a formal competitive solicitation and selection process, the Lead Contracting Agency has entered into Master Price Agreements with one or more Vendors to provide goods and services, often based on national sales volume projections; WHEREAS, NPPGov provides group purchasing, marketing and administrative support for governmental entities. marketing and administrative services are free to its membership, which includes participating public entities and nonprofit institutions throughout North America.

WHEREAS, NPPGov has instituted a cooperative purchasing program under which member Participating Agencies may reciprocally utilize competitively solicited Master Price Agreements awarded by the Lead Contracting Agency; WHEREAS, the Master Price Agreements provide that all qualified government members of NPPGov may purchase goods and services on the same terms, conditions and pricing as the Lead Contracting Agency, subject to applicable local and state laws of the Participating Agencies;
WHEREAS, the parties agree to comply with the requirements of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act as may be applicable to the local and state laws of the Participating Agencies;
WHEREAS, the parties desire to conserve and leverage resources, and to improve the efficiency and economy of the procurement process while reducing solicitation and procurement costs;
WHEREAS, the parties are authorized and eligible to contract with governmental bodies and Vendors to perform governmental functions and services, including the purchase of goods and services; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to contract with Vendors under the terms of the Master Price Agreements;
4 Attachment 1
4 of 278
League of Oregon Cities IGA V1.0
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

ARTICLE 1: LEGAL AUTHORITY
Each party represents and warrants that it is eligible to participate in this Agreement because it is a local government created and operated to provide one or more governmental functions and possesses adequate legal authority to enter into this Agreement.

ARTICLE 2: APPLICABLE LAWS
The procurement of goods and services subject to this Agreement shall be conducted in accordance with and subject to the relevant statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations Competitive Solicitations are intended to
meet the public contracting requirements of the Lead Contracting Agency and may not be It is the
responsibility of each party to ensure it has met all applicable solicitation and procurement requirements. Participating Agencies are urged to seek independent review by their legal counsel to ensure compliance with all local and state solicitation requirements.

ARTICLE 3: USE OF BID, PROPOSAL OR PRICE AGREEMENT
a. A is defined as the Lead Contracting Agency or any
Participating Agency that desires to purchase from the Master Price Agreements awarded by the Lead Contracting Agency.
b. Each procuring party shall be solely responsible for their own purchase of goods and services under this Agreement. A non-procuring party shall not be liable in any fashion for any violation of law or contract by a procuring party, and the procuring party shall hold non-procuring parties and all unrelated procuring parties harmless from any liability that may arise from action or inaction of the procuring party.
c. The procuring party shall not use this agreement as a method for obtaining additional concessions or reduced prices for similar goods and services outside the scope of the Master Price Agreement.
d. The exercise of any rights or remedies by the procuring party shall be the exclusive obligation of such procuring party.
e. The cooperative use of bids, proposals or price agreements obtained by a party to this Agreement shall be in accordance with the terms and conditions of the bid, proposal or price agreement, except as modified where otherwise allowed or required by applicable law, and does not relieve the party of its other solicitation requirements under state law or local policies. 5 5 of 278
League of Oregon Cities IGA V1.0
ARTICLE 4: PAYMENT OBLIGATIONS
The procuring party will make timely payments to Vendors for goods and services received in accordance with the terms and conditions of the procurement. Payment for goods and services, inspections and acceptance of goods and services ordered by the procuring party shall be the exclusive obligation of such procuring party. Disputes between procuring party and Vendor shall be resolved in accordance with the law and venue rules of the state of the procuring party.

ARTICLE 5: COMMENCEMENT DATE
ARTICLE 6: TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement shall remain in effect until terminated by a party giving 30 days written ARTICLE 7: ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement and any attachments, as provided herein, constitute the complete Agreement between the parties hereto, and supersede any and all oral and written agreements between the parties relating to matters herein.

ARTICLE 8: CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS
This Agreement may be amended only by a written amendment executed by all parties, except that any alterations, additions, or deletions of this Agreement which are required by changes in Federal and State law or regulations are automatically incorporated into this Agreement without written amendment hereto and shall become effective on the date designated by such law or regulation.

ARTICLE 9: SEVERABILITY
All parties agree that should any provision of this Agreement be determined to be invalid or unenforceable, such determination shall not affect any other term of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect.

THIS INSTRUMENT HAS BEEN EXECUTED IN TWO OR MORE ORIGINALS BY ENDORSEMENT AND AS APPLICABLE. ONCE EXECUTED, IT

IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF EACH PARTY TO FILE THIS AGREEMENT WITH THE PROPER AGENCY IF REQUIRED BY LOCAL OR STATE LAW.
6 6 of 278
League of Oregon Cities IGA V1.0

LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES

ENDORSEMENT AND AUTHORIZATION
set forth in the enclosed Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing Agreement regulating use of the Master Price Agreements and purchase of goods and services that from time to time are made available by the League of Oregon Cities to Participating Agencies locally, regionally, and nationally through NPPGov. Copies of Master Price Agreements and any amendments thereto made available by the League of Oregon Cities will be provided to Participating Agencies and NPPGov to facilitate use by Participating Agencies.

The undersigned understands that the purchase of goods and services under the provisions of the Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing Agreement is at the absolute discretion of the Participating Agencies.

The undersigned affirms that he/she is an agent of the League of Oregon Cities and is duly authorized to sign this League of Oregon Cities Endorsement and Authorization.

Date: January 19, 2026
BY: Patricia M. Mulvihill
ITS: Executive Director
League of Oregon Cities Contact Information:

Contact Person: Kevin Toon
Address: 1201 Court St NE #200, Salem, OR 97301
Telephone No.: 503-588-6550
Email: [email protected]
7 7 of 278
League of Oregon Cities IGA V1.0

PARTICIPATING AGENCY

ENDORSEMENT AND AUTHORIZATION
The undersigned acknowledges, on behalf of
that he/she has read and agrees to the general terms and conditions set forth in the enclosed Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing Agreement regulating use of the Master Price Agreements and purchase of goods and services that from time to time are made available by the Lead Contracting Agency to Participating Agencies locally, regionally, and nationally through NPPGov.

The undersigned further acknowledges that the purchase of goods and services under the provisions of the Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing Agreement is at the absolute discretion of the Participating Agency and that neither the Lead Contracting Agency nor NPPGov shall be held liable for any costs or damages incurred by or as a result of the actions of the Vendor or any other Participating Agency. Upon award of contract, the Vendor shall deal directly with the Participating Agency concerning the placement of orders, disputes, invoicing and payment.

The undersigned affirms that he/she is an agent of and is duly authorized to sign this Participating Agency Endorsement and Authorization.

Date:

BY:

ITS:

Participating Agency Contact Information:

Contact Person:

Address:

Telephone No.:

Email:
8 8 of 278
-1-

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT REGARDING

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT
This Cooperative Agreement for __________________ (“Agreement”) is entered into as of the __ day of _____, 2026, by and between the City of Laguna Beach, a Municipal Corporation (“City”) and Life-Assist, Inc., (“Life-Assist”) a California corporation, effective from January 19, 2026 and continues in effect through January 19, 2030 with an automatic extension for a one (1) year period; provided that the Lead Contracting Agency and/or the Vendor may opt to decline extension, based on the League of Oregon Cities Master Price Agreement No. PS25830 for Medical Products, Monitors, Software, Data Transmission, and Related Services awarded through Request for Proposal No. 2535. City and Contractor are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties” in this Agreement

RECITALS
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2026, the League of Oregon Cities (the “LOC”) entered into a contract with Life-Assist, designated as Contract No. PS25830, toprovide emergency medical supplies, pharmaceuticals, equipment, and related products (the “LOC Contract”); and WHEREAS, the LOC Contract allows the provisions and pricing of the LOC Contract to be extended to other California local or state governmental entities; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest of the City to obtain emergency medical supplies, pharmaceuticals, equipment, and related products to ensure the efficient operation of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City, therefore, desires to utilize the emergency medical supplies, pharmaceuticals, equipment, and related products to ensure efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and continuity in addressing the City’s needs; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.30.050(c) of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code, the City is exempt from customary bidding procedures if the underlying purchase was based on the bidding efforts of another public agency; and
WHEREAS, LIFE-ASSIST has the experience, equipment, manpower, general ability, and resources as well as the necessary qualifications to provide the emergency medical supplies, pharmaceuticals, equipment, and related products;and
WHEREAS, for greater economy and efficiency and to benefit its citizens, the City wishes to contract with LIFE-ASSIST to provide the City with those services as set forth in the LOC Contract on the same terms and conditions set forth therein pursuant to this Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter contained, the Parties hereto agree as follows:

1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are a part of this Agreement.

2. Exhibits. The LOC Contract is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement. In interpreting this Agreement and resolving any ambiguities, the main body of this Agreement takes precedence over the LOC Contract. 9 Attachment 2
9 of 278

3. Terms. For purposes of this Agreement, the following terms and references within the LOC Contract will be adjusted as outlined below:

A. “League of Oregon Cities” to “City of Laguna Beach”
B. “Purchasing Agent” to “City Manager”
C. “Board of Supervisors” to “City Council”
D. “Counsel” to “City Attorney”

4. Scope of Work. LIFE-ASSIST will provide the services and perform all other contractual responsibilities that LIFE-ASSIST assumes toward the City under the LOC Contract in accordance with the terms of the LOC Contract and this Agreement. City will perform its contractual responsibilities towards LIFE-ASSIST in accordance with the LOC Contract and this Agreement.

5. Compensation. City agrees to pay Contractor in accordance with the pricing, discounts, and terms established under the LOC Contract. The total amount payable under this Agreement, including any authorized extensions, shall not exceed Three Hundred Fifteen Thousand dollars ($315,000) during the initial three (3) year term and any authorized extensions. Purchases shall be made on an as-needed basis through individual purchase orders issued by the City.

6. Term. This Agreement shall take effect upon execution of this agreement and shall continue through January 19, 2030, unless earlier terminated in accordance with this Agreement.

Provided that LOC Contract No. PS25830, or any renewal, extension, replacement, or successor cooperative purchasing contract for substantially the same goods and services, remains active and available for use by the City, the City Manager may approve up to one (1) additional extensions of this Agreement, provided that the cumulative term of the Agreement shall not extend beyond January 19, 2031.

Any extension shall be subject to the continued availability of the applicable cooperative purchasing contract and compliance with Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 2.30 and applicable City purchasing policies.

Under no circumstances shall this Agreement remain in effect beyond the expiration or termination of the applicable cooperative purchasing contract unless another valid cooperative purchasing contract is available and approved for use by the City.

7. General.

A. Terms and Conditions of the LOC Contract. Except as otherwise adjusted herein, all other terms and conditions of the LOC Contract, including all insurance, warranties, and indemnities, remain in full force and effect.

B. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including all Exhibits, constitutes the entire agreement of the Parties regarding the subject matter of the Agreement and supersedes all previous agreements, proposals, and understandings, whether written or oral, relating to this subject matter. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, and shall have the same legal force and effect as if the Parties had executed it as a single document. The Parties may sign in writing, or by electronic signature, including by email. An electronic signature, or a facsimile copy or computer image, such as a PDF image, of a signature, shall be treated as and shall have the same effect as an original signature. In addition, an electronic 10 10 of 278
signature, a true and correct facsimile copy or computer image of this Agreement shall be treated as and shall have the same effect as an original signed copy of this document. This Agreement may be amended or modified only by a written instrument signed by authorized representatives of both Parties.

8. Authority to Execute Contract. The person(s) executing this Agreement on behalf of the Parties hereto warrant that (i) such Party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of said Party, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, such Party is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) the entering into this Agreement does not violate any provision of any other Agreement to which said party is bound.

9. Notices. Unless otherwise provided herein, any notices required to be given under the Agreement shall be in writing with copies as directed herein and shall be personally delivered, or delivered by United States mail, prepaid, certified, return receipt requested, or by reputable document delivery service that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery. Notices personally delivered or delivered by a mail document delivery service shall be effective upon receipt. Any notice given by mail shall be deemed to have been given when deposited in the United States mails certified and postage prepaid, addressed to the party to be served as follows:

LIFE-ASSIST:

Life-Assist, Inc
11277 Sunrise Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95742
ATTN: Andy Selby
Email: [email protected]
City’s Project Manager:

City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Attn: Deputy Fire Chief, Andrew Hill
[email protected]
Changes in the address to be used for receipt of notices shall be effected in accordance with this Section.
[SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]
11 11 of 278

SIGNATURE PAGE FOR CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Agreement as of the date first written above.

CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
Approved By:

Dave Kiff
City Manager
Approved as to Form:
___________________________________
City Attorney
Attested By:

Ann Marie McKay
City Clerk
LIFE-ASSIST, INC.

Approved By:

Signature

Name

Title
Attested By:

Signature

Name

Title
12 12 of 278
-5-
EXHIBIT “1”
LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES CONTRACT NO. PS25830
LIFE-ASSIST, INC.

DATED JANUARY 19, 2026
[ATTACHED]
13 13 of 278
Contract Number: PS25830

LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES

MASTER PRICE AGREEMENT
by and between the LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES, an Oregon public corporation under ORS Chapter 190 Life-Assist, Inc.

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Vendor is in the business of selling certain Medical Products, Monitors, Software, Data Transmission, and Related Services, as further described herein; and WHEREAS, the Vendor desires to sell and the Purchaser desires to purchase certain products and related services all upon and subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein; and WHEREAS, through a solicitation for Medical Products, Monitors, Software, Data Transmission, and Related Services the Vendor was awarded the opportunity to complete a Master Price Agreement with the LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES as a result of its response to Request for Proposal No. 2535 for Medical Products, Monitors, Software, Data Transmission, and Related Services; and WHEREAS, the LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES asserts that the solicitation and Request for Proposal meet Oregon public contracting requirements (ORS 279, 279A, 279B and 279C et. seq.); and WHEREAS, Purchaser and Vendor desire to extend the terms of this Master Price Agreement to benefit other qualified government members of National Purchasing Partners, LLC dba Public Safety GPO, dba First Responder GPO, dba Law Enforcement GPO and dba NPPGov; NOW, THEREFORE, Vendor and Purchaser, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:

ARTICLE 1 CERTAIN DEFINITIONS

1.1 Agreement and Attachments A-G attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, including 2535

1.2 , tribal, and local laws, statutes,
ordinances, codes, rules, regulations, standards, orders and other governmental requirements of any kind.

1.3 required by the Federal Social Security Act and all amendments thereto and/or any other applicable federal, state, tribal or local law.

1.4 may prescribe from time to time.
14 14 of 278
Contract Number: PS25830
2 1.5
hereunder as identified and described on Attachment A hereto and incorporated herein, as may be updated from time to time by Vendor to reflect products and/or services offered by Vendor generally to its customers.

1.6 Purchaser to Vendor via mail, courier, overnight delivery service, email, fax and/or other mode of transmission as Purchaser and Vendor may from time to time agree.

1.7 respect of, and measured by, the wages of its employees (or subcontractors) as required by any applicable federal, state or local unemployment insurance law or regulation.

1.8 and administrative support for governmental entities wi participating public entities across North America.

1.9 governmental entity that issued the Request for Proposal and awarded this resulting Master Price Agreement.

1.10 has agreed to extend the terms of this Master Price Agreement pursuant to Article 2.6 and Attachment C under the terms of this Agreement.

1.11 applicable.

ARTICLE 2 AGREEMENT TO SELL

2.1 Vendor hereby agrees to sell to Purchaser such Products and Services as Purchaser may order from time to time by Purchase Order, all in accordance with and subject to the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement. Purchaser agrees to purchase those Products and Services ordered by Purchaser by Purchase Order in accordance with and subject to the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement.

2.2 Vendor may add additional products and services to the contract provided that any additions reasonably fall within the intent of the original RFP specifications. Pricing on additions shall be equivalent to the percentage discount for other similar products. Vendor may provide a web-link with current product listings, which may be updated periodically, as allowed by the terms of the resulting Master Price Agreement.

Vendor may replace or add product lines to an existing contract if the line is replacing or supplementing products on contract, is equal or superior to the original products offered, is discounted in a similar or to a greater degree, and if the products meet the requirements of the solicitation. No products may be added to avoid competitive procurement requirements. LOC may reject any additions without cause.

2.3 All Purchase Orders issued by Purchaser to Vendor for Products during the term (as hereinafter defined) of this Agreement are subject to the provisions of this Agreement as though fully set forth in such Purchase Order. The Vendor retains authority to negotiate above and beyond the terms of this Agreement to meet the Purchaser or Vendor contract requirements.
15 15 of 278
Contract Number: PS25830
3 2.4 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, the Lead Contracting Agency shall have no obligation to order or purchase any Products and Services hereunder and the placement of any Purchase Order shall be in the sole discretion of the Participating Agencies. This Agreement is not exclusive. Vendor expressly acknowledges and agrees that Purchaser may purchase at its sole discretion, Products and Services that are identical or similar to the Products and Services described in this Agreement from any third party.

2.5 In case of any conflict or inconsistency between any of the Contract Documents, the documents shall prevail and apply in the following order of priority:
(i) This Agreement;
(ii) The RFP;
(iii)

2.6 Extension of contract terms to Participating Agencies:

2.6.1 Vendor agrees to extend the same terms, covenants and conditions available to Purchaser under this Agreement to Participating Agencies, that have executed an Intergovernmental Cooperative in accordance with Attachment C. Each Participating Agency will be exclusively responsible for and deal directly with Vendor on matters relating to ordering, delivery, inspection, acceptance, invoicing, and payment for Products and Services in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement as if it were between them under and in accordance with the laws of the State in which the Participating Agency exists.

Pursuant to the IGA, the Lead Contracting Agency shall not incur any liability as a result of the access and utilization of this Agreement by other Participating Agencies.

2.6.2 This Solicitation meets the public contracting requirements of the Lead Contracting Agency and urged to seek independent review by their legal counsel to ensure compliance with all local, tribal, and state solicitation requirements.

2.6.3 Vendor acknowledges execution of the Vendor Administration Fee Agreement, Contract Number VA25830, with NPPGov, pursuant to the terms of the RFP.

2.7 Oregon Public Agencies are prohibited from use of Products and Services offered under this Agreement that are already provided by qualified nonprofit agencies for disabled individuals as listed on the -.855.

See www.OregonRehabilitation.org/qrf for more information. Vendor shall not sell products and services identified on the Procurement List (e.g., reconditioned toner cartridges) to Purchaser or Participating Agencies within the state of Oregon.

ARTICLE 3 TERM AND TERMINATION

3.1 The initial contract term shall be for four (4) calendar years from the Effective Date of this four (4) year term, this Agreement shall
automatically extend for a
Contracting Agency and/or the Vendor may opt to decline extension of the MPA by providing notification in writing at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the annual automatic extension anniversary of the Initial Term. 16 16 of 278
Contract Number: PS25830
4 3.2 Either Vendor or the Lead Contracting Agency may terminate this Agreement by written notice to the other party if the other Party breaches any of its obligations hereunder and fails to remedy the breach within thirty (30) days after receiving written notice of such breach from the non-breaching party.

ARTICLE 4 PRICING, INVOICES, PAYMENT AND DELIVERY

4.1 Purchaser shall pay Vendor for all Products and Services ordered and delivered in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement at the pricing specified for each such Product and Service on Attachment A, including shipping. Unless Attachment A expressly provides otherwise, the pricing schedule set forth on Attachment A hereto shall remain fixed for the Initial Term of this Agreement; provided that manufacturer pricing is not guaranteed and may be adjusted based on the next manufacturer price increase.

Pricing contained in Attachment A shall be extended to all NPPGov, Public Safety GPO, First Responder GPO and Law Enforcement GPO members upon execution of the IGA.

4.2 Vendor shall submit original invoices to Purchaser in form and substance and format reasonably itemization of amounts for Products and Services purchased during the applicable invoice period and any other information reasonably requested by Purchaser, and must otherwise comply with the provisions of this Agreement. Invoices shall be addressed as directed by Purchaser.

4.3 Unless otherwise specified, Purchaser is responsible for any and all applicable sales taxes.

E) shall specify any and all other taxes and duties of any kind which Purchaser is required to pay with respect to the sale of Products and Services covered by this Agreement and all charges for packing, packaging and loading.

4.4 Except as specifically set forth on Attachments A and G, Purchaser shall not be responsible for any additional costs or expenses of any nature incurred by Vendor in connection with the Products and Services, including without limitation travel expenses, clerical or administrative personnel, long distance telep

4.5 Price reductions or discount increases may be offered at any time during the contract term and shall become effective upon notice of acceptance from Purchaser.

4.6 Notwithstanding any other agreement of the Parties as to the payment of shipping/delivery costs, and subject to Attachments A, E, and G herein, Vendor shall offer delivery and/or shipping costs prepaid FOB Destination. If there are handling fees, these also shall be included in the pricing.

4.7 Unless otherwise directed by Purchaser for expedited orders, Vendor shall utilize such common carrier for the delivery of Products and Services as Vendor may select; provided, however, that for expedited orders Vendor shall obtain delivery services hereunder at rates and terms not less favorable than those paid by Vendor for its own account or for the account of any other similarly situated customer of Vendor.

4.8 Vendor shall have the risk of loss of or damage to any Products until delivery to Purchaser.

Purchaser shall have the risk of loss of or damage to the Products after delivery to Purchaser. Title to Products shall not transfer until the Products have been delivered to and accepted by Purchaser at ARTICLE 5 INSURANCE

5.1 During the term of this Agreement, Vendor shall maintain at its own cost and expense (and shall cause any subcontractor to maintain) insurance policies providing insurance of the kind and in the amounts 17 17 of 278
Contract Number: PS25830
5 generally carried by reasonably prudent manufacturers in the industry, with one or more reputable insurance companies licensed to do business in Oregon and any other state or jurisdiction where Products and Services are sold hereunder. Such certificates of insurance shall be made available to the Lead Contracting Agency

REQUIREMENT AND FAILURE TO MEET THIS REQUIREMENT WILL RESULT IN CANCELLATION OF THIS MASTER PRICE AGREEMENT.

5.2 All insurance required herein shall be maintained in full force and effect until all work or service required to be performed under the terms of this Agreement is satisfactorily completed and formally accepted.

Any failure to comply with the claim reporting provisions of the insurance policies or any breach of an insurance policy warranty shall not affect coverage afforded under the insurance policies to protect the Lead Contracting Agency. The insurance policies may provide coverage that contains deductibles or self-insured retentions. Such deductible and/or self-insured retentions shall not be applicable with respect to the coverage provided to the Lead Contracting Agency under such policies. Vendor shall be solely responsible for the deductible and/or self-insured retention and the Lead Contracting Agency, at its option, may require Vendor to secure payment of such deductibles or self-insured retentions by a surety bond or an irrevocable and unconditional letter of credit.

5.3 waives all rights against the Lead Contracting
Agency and its agents, officers, directors and employees for recovery of damages to the extent these ty
insurance obtained by Vendor pursuant to this Agreement.

5.4 Insurance required herein shall not be permitted to expire, be canceled, or materially changed without thirty days (30 days) prior written notice to the Lead Contracting Agency.

5.5 Vendor waives and must require (by endorsement or otherwise) all its insurers to waive subrogation rights against Purchaser and other additional insureds for losses paid under the insurance policies required by this Agreement. The waiver must apply to all deductibles and/or self-insured retentions applicable to the necessary insurance that the Vendor maintains.

ARTICLE 6 INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS

6.1 Vendor agrees that it shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless Lead Contracting Agency, its respective officials, directors, employees, members
against any and all damages, claims, losses, expenses, costs, obligations and liabilities (including, without emnitees to the extent of,
or arising out of, (i) any breach of any covenant, representation or warranty made by Vendor in this Agreement, (ii) any failure by Vendor to perform or fulfill any of its obligations, covenants or agreements set forth in this Agreement, (iii) the negligence or intentional misconduct of Vendor, any subcontractor of Vendor, or any of their respective employees or agents, (iv) any failure of Vendor, its subcontractors, or their respective employees to comply with any Applicable Law, (v) any litigation, proceeding or claim by any third party relating in any way to the obligations of Vendor und this Agreement, (vi) any Employee Taxes or Unemployment Insurance, or (vii) any claim alleging that the trade
secret or other intellectual property interest. Such obligation to indemnify shall not apply where the damage, claim, loss, expense, cost, obligation or liability is due to the breach of this Agreement by, or negligence or willful misconduct of, Lead Contracting Agency or its officials, directors, employees, agents or contractors.

The amount and type of insurance coverage requirements set forth herein will in no way be construed as 18 18 of 278
Contract Number: PS25830
6 limiting the scope of the indemnity in this paragraph. The indemnity obligations of Vendor under this Article shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement for two years.

6.2 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: IN NO EVENT SHALL EITHER PARTY BE LIABLE FOR ANY

SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES IN CONNECTION

WITH OR ARISING OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR

INJURIES TO PERSONS OR TO PROPERTY OR LOSS OF PROFITS OR LOSS OF FUTURE BUSINESS

OR REPUTATION, WHETHER BASED ON TORT OR BREACH OF CONTRACT OR OTHER BASIS, EVEN IF IT HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

6.3 The same terms, conditions and pricing of this Agreement may be extended to government members of National Purchasing Partners, LLC. In the event the terms of this Agreement are extended to other government members, each government member (procuring party) shall be solely responsible for the ordering of Products and Services under this Agreement. A non-procuring party shall not be liable in any fashion for any violation by a procuring party, and the procuring party shall hold nonprocuring parties or unrelated purchasing parties harmless from any liability that may arise from action or inaction of the procuring party.

ARTICLE 7 WARRANTIES
well as those warranties provided under Attachment B herein.

ARTICLE 8 - INSPECTION AND REJECTION

8.1 Purchaser shall have the right to inspect and test Products at any time prior to shipment, and reasonable time after delivery shall be deemed accepted by Purchaser. The payment for Products shall in no way impair the right of Purchaser to reject nonconforming Products, or to avail itself of any other remedies to which it may be entitled.

8.2 If any of the Products are found at any time to be defective in material or workmanship, damaged, or otherwise not in conformity with the requirements of this Agreement or any applicable Purchase Order, as its exclusive remedy, Purchaser may at i
either to (i) return any damaged, non-conforming or defective Products to Vendor for correction or replacement, or (ii) require Vendor to inspect the Products and remove or replace damaged, non-conforming or defective Products with conforming Products. If Purchaser elects option (ii) in the preceding sentence and Vendor fails promptly to make the necessary inspection, removal and replacement, Purchaser, at its option, may inspect the Products and Vendor shall bear the cost thereof. Payment by Purchaser of any invoice shall not constitute acceptance of the Products covered by such invoice, and acceptance by Purchaser shall not relieve Vendor of its warranties or other obligations under this Agreement.

8.3 The provisions of this Article shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.

ARTICLE 9 SUBSTITUTIONS
Except as otherwise permitted hereunder, Vendor may not make any substitutions of Products, or any portion thereof, of any kind without the prior written consent of Purchaser.

ARTICLE 10 - COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
19 19 of 278
Contract Number: PS25830
7 10.1
maintain in full force during the term of this Agreement, all licenses, permits, approvals, authorizations, registrations and certificates, if any, required by Applicable Laws in connection with the performance of its licenses, permits, approvals, authorizations, registrations and certificates.

10.2 Purchaser has taken all required governmental action to authorize its execution of this Agreement or performance of its obligations hereunder.

10.3 When a Participating Agency procures Products and Services under this Agreement using United States federal funds, including but not limited to federal grants or FEMA funding, the procurement shall be subject to the terms and conditions set forth in Attachment D Requirements for Procurements Utilizing Federal Funds and Grants, which is incorporated herein by reference. The Vendor shall comply with all applicable federal laws, regulations, and requirements outlined in Attachment D, including but not limited to those specified in 2 C.F.R. § 200, as amended, and any Attachment D pertain exclusively to the United States federal government.

10.4 When a Participating Agency
federal funds, Vendor shall comply with the provisions set forth in Attachment D Provisions for Non-United States Federal Entity Procurements Under United States Federal Awards or Other Awards, which is incorporated herein by reference.

ARTICLE 11 PUBLICITY / CONFIDENTIALITY

11.1 No news releases, public announcements, advertising materials, or confirmation of same, concerning any part of this Agreement or any Purchase Order issued hereunder shall be issued or made without the prior written approval of the Parties. Neither Party shall in any advertising, sales materials or in any other way use any of the names or logos of the other Party without the prior written approval of the other Party.

11.2 Any knowledge or information which Vendor or any of its affiliates shall have disclosed or may hereafter disclose to Purchaser, and which in any way relates to the Products and Services covered by this Agreement shall not, unless otherwise designated by Vendor, be deemed to be confidential or proprietary information, and shall be acquired by Purchaser, free from any restrictions, as part of the consideration for this Agreement.

ARTICLE 12 - RIGHT TO AUDIT
retained by Purchaser, may at any time upon prior reasonable notice to Vendor, during normal business hours, audit the books, records and accounts of Vendor to the extent that such books, records and accounts pertain to sale of any Products and Services hereunder or otherwise relate to the performance of this Agreement by Vendor. Vendor shall maintain all such books, records and accounts for a period of at least Agreement for a period of three (3) years after the date of such expiration or termination.

ARTICLE 13 - REMEDIES
20 20 of 278
Contract Number: PS25830
8 Except as otherwise provided herein, any right or remedy of Vendor or Purchaser set forth in this Agreement shall not be exclusive, and, in addition thereto, Vendor and Purchaser shall have all rights and remedies under Applicable Law, including without limitation, equitable relief. The provisions of this Article shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.

ARTICLE 14 - RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES
Vendor is an independent contractor and is not an agent, servant, employee, legal representative, partner or joint venture of Purchaser. Nothing herein shall be deemed or construed as creating a joint venture or partnership between Vendor and Purchaser. Neither Party has the power or authority to bind or commit the other.

ARTICLE 15 - NOTICES
All notices required or permitted to be given or made in this Agreement shall be in writing. Such notice(s) shall be deemed to be duly given or made if delivered by hand, by certified or registered mail or by nationally recognized overnight courier to the address specified below:

If to Lead Contracting Agency:

LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES
1201 Court St. NE
Suite 200
Salem OR 97301
ATTN: Kevin Toon
Email: [email protected]
If to Vendor:

Life-Assist, Inc
11277 Sunrise Park Drive Rancho Cordova, CA 95742
ATTN: Andy Selby
Email: [email protected]
Either Party may change its notice address by giving the other Party written notice of such change in the manner specified above.

ARTICLE 16 - FORCE MAJEURE
non-performance of any obligation contained herein shall be excused to the extent such failure or nonperformance is caused by force majeure. For purposes cause or agency preventing performance of an obligation which is beyond the reasonable control of either Party hereto, including without limitation, fire, flood, sabotage, shipwreck, embargo, strike, explosion, labor trouble, accident, riot, acts of governmental authority (including, without limitation, acts based on laws or regulations now in existence as well as those enacted in the future), acts of nature, and delays or failure in obtaining raw materials, supplies or transportation. A Party affected by force majeure shall promptly provide notice to the other, explaining the nature and expected duration thereof, and shall act diligently to remedy the interruption or delay if it is reasonably capable of being remedied. In the event of a force majeure situation, 21 21 of 278
Contract Number: PS25830
9 deliveries or acceptance of deliveries that have been suspended shall not be required to be made upon the resumption of performance.

ARTICLE 17 - WAIVER
No delay or failure by either Party to exercise any right, remedy or power herein shall impair such acquiescence therein; and any single or partial exercise of any such right, remedy or power shall not preclude any other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right, remedy or power. No waiver hereunder shall be valid unless set forth in writing executed by the waiving Party and then only to the extent expressly set forth in such writing.

ARTICLE 18 - PARTIES BOUND; ASSIGNMENT
This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the respective successors and assigns of the Parties hereto, but it may not be assigned in whole or in part by Vendor without prior written notice to Purchaser which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.

ARTICLE 19 - SURVIVABILITY/PARTICIPATING AGENCY DISCRETIONARY EXTENSION Provided the laws of the jurisdiction of the Participating Agency permit survivability of the contract term through a mutually agreed upon extension of the agreement between the Participating Agency and the Vendor beyond the term of the publicly awarded Agreement, to be determined and confirmed by the Participating Agency at its sole discretion, all applicable agreements and warranties that were entered into between Vendor and the Participating Agency under the terms and conditions of the Agreement shall survive the expiration or termination of the Agreement if mutually agreed upon between the Vendor and the Participating Agency. All purchase orders issued and accepted by Vendor shall survive expiration or termination of the Agreement for the term of the purchase order or subscription, unless the Participating Agency terminates the purchase order sooner. However, regardless of the term of the purchase order or subscription, no purchase order shall survive the expiration or termination of the Agreement unless the Participating Agency makes an express finding and justification for the longer term as mutually agreed upon by the Participating Agency and Vendor.

The finding and justification must either be included in the purchase order or referenced in the purchase order contemplated after the maturity date of the Lead Public Agency cooperative procurement contract, and prior to the expiration date of the Purchase Order or subscription, shall be individually negotiated directly between the awarded Vendor and the Participating Agency identified in that Purchase Order or subscription. Rights and obligations under this Agreement which by their nature should survive, including, but not limited to, the administrative fee provided in the Vendor Administrative Agreement and any and all payment obligations invoiced prior to the termination or expiration hereof, obligations of confidentiality, and indemnification will remain in effect after termination or expiration hereof.

ARTICLE 20 - SEVERABILITY
To the extent possible, each provision of this Agreement shall be interpreted in such a manner as to be effective and valid under Applicable Law. If any provision of this Agreement is declared invalid or unenforceable, by judicial determination or otherwise, such provision shall not invalidate or render unenforceable the entire Agreement, but rather the entire Agreement shall be construed as if not containing the particular invalid or unenforceable provision or provisions and the rights and obligations of the Parties shall be construed and enforced accordingly.

ARTICLE 21 - INCORPORATION; ENTIRE AGREEMENT
22 22 of 278
Contract Number: PS25830
10 21.1 All the provisions of the Attachments hereto are hereby incorporated herein and made a part of this Agreement. In the event of any apparent conflict between any provision set forth in the main body of this Agreement and any provision set forth in the Attachments, including the RFP and/or rpreted, to the extent possible, as if they do not conflict. If such an interpretation is not possible, the provisions set forth in the main body of this Agreement shall control.

21.2 This Agreement (including Attachments and Contract Documents hereto) constitutes the entire Agreement of the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any and all prior written and oral agreements or understandings relating to such subject matter.

ARTICLE 22 - HEADINGS
Headings used in this Agreement are for convenience of reference only and shall in no way be used to construe or limit the provisions set forth in this Agreement.

ARTICLE 23 - MODIFICATIONS
This Agreement may be modified or amended only in writing executed by Vendor and the Lead Contracting Agency. The Lead Contracting Agency and each Participating Agency contracting hereunder acknowledge and agree that any agreement entered into in connection with any Purchase Order hereunder shall constitute a modification of this Agreement as between the Vendor and the Participating Agency. Any modification of this Agreement as between Vendor and any Participating Agency shall not be deemed a modification of this Agreement for the benefit of the Lead Contracting Agency or any other Participating Agency.

ARTICLE 24 - GOVERNING LAW
This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Participating Agency exists, without regard to its choice of law provisions. [Signature page to follow]
23 23 of 278
Contract Number: PS25830
11 ARTICLE 25 - COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts all of which together shall constitute one and the same Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year last written below.

PURCHASER:

Signature: ____________________________________
Printed Name:

Title: ____________________________________________

LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES
Dated: ____________________________
VENDOR:

Signature: ______________________________
Printed Name:

Title: _____________________________

LIFE-ASSIST, INC
Dated: ____________________________
24 24 of 278
Contract Number: PS25830
12 ATTACHMENT A
to Master Price Agreement by and between VENDOR and PURCHASER.

PRODUCTS, SERVICES, SPECIFICATIONS AND PRICES

MEDICAL PRODUCTS, MONITORS, SOFTWARE, DATA TRANSMISSION,

AND RELATED SERVICES
Product Category Percentage (%) off
List Price
MEDICAL PRODUCTS AND SUPPLIES 31%
PHARMACEUTICLAS 31%
MEDICAL MONITORS, DEFIBRILLATORS, AND DIAGNOSTICS 31%
MEDICAL LIFE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 31%
TRAINING, SIMULATION, AND CERTIFICATION 15%
OTHER
- CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
- OPERATIONS
15%

EXCLUDES ITEMS ON SALE
Vendor pays freight for all standard ground shipments in the Continental US. Alaska and Hawaii shipments are sent via Priority Mail or UPS 2nd Day Air, and freight is added to the invoice. Vendor will only charge the actual freight amount that we are charged; it will never be marked up in price.

Pricing contained in this Attachment A shall be extended to all NPPGov members upon execution of the Intergovernmental Agreement.
provided the pricing and terms of this Agreement are extended to Participating Agencies by such dealers and distributors, as applicable, may be updated from time to time. [A current list may be obtained from Vendor.]
25 25 of 278
Contract Number: PS25830
13 ATTACHMENT B
to Master Price Agreement by and between VENDOR and PURCHASER.

ADDITIONAL SELLER WARRANTIES
To the extent possible, Vendor will make available all warranties from third party manufacturers of Products 26 26 of 278
Contract Number: PS25830
14 ATTACHMENT C
to Master Price Agreement by and between VENDOR and PURCHASER.

PARTICIPATING AGENCIES
The Lead Contracting Agency in cooperation with National Purchasing Partners (NPPGov) entered into this Agreement on behalf of other government agencies that desire to access this Agreement to purchase Products and Services. Vendor must work directly with any Participating Agency concerning the placement of orders, issuance of the purchase orders, contractual disputes, invoicing, and payment. The Lead Contracting Agency shall not be held liable for any costs, damages, etc., incurred by any Participating Agency.

Any subsequent contract entered into between Vendor and any Participating Agency shall be construed to be in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State in which the Participating Agency exists. Each Participating Agency is directed to execute an Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing www.nppgov.com. The IGA allows the Participating
legal
27 27 of 278
Contract Number: PS25830
15 ATTACHMENT D
to Master Price Agreement by and between VENDOR and PURCHASER.

REQUIREMENTS FOR PROCUREMENTS UTILIZING FEDERAL FUNDS AND GRANTS Summary of Key Provisions for Participating Agencies Utilizing U.S. Federal Funds Participating Agencies acquiring goods or services through this contract using United States federal grants or FEMA funding are subject to specific requirements, including those outlined in 2 C.F.R. § 200.

Additional stipulations may apply based on the source of funding. For re exclusively to the United States federal government.

The following provisions are applicable solely when a Participating Agency procures Vendor equipment, products, or services with United States federal funds:

A. Equal Employment Opportunity
-1.3 must
incorporate the Equal Opportunity clause pursuant to 41 C.F.R. § 60-1.4(b), ensuring compliance with Executive Order 11246 (as amended) and relevant Department of Labor regulations. This provision is included by reference.

B. Davis-Bacon Act, as Amended (40 U.S.C. § 3141-3148)
Prime construction contracts exceeding $2,000 require adherence to the Davis-Bacon Act and related Department of Labor regulations (29 C.F.R. § 5). Contractors must pay at least the prevailing wage determined by the Secretary of Labor, with weekly payments mandated. Each solicitation must feature the current wage determination, and any violations must be reported to the awarding agency. - C. Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. § 3701-3708) Contracts exceeding $100,000 involving mechanics or laborers must comply with 40 U.S.C. §§ 3702 and 3704, and 29 C.F.R. § 5. Wages must reflect a standard 40-hour work week, with overtime compensated at no less than one and a half times the basic rate. Workers must not be subjected to hazardous or unsafe conditions. These rules exclude supply purchases and transportation contracts.

The Vendor confirms compliance throughout the contract duration.

D. Rights to Inventions Made Under a Contract or Agreement 28 28 of 278
Contract Number: PS25830
16 29
29 of 278
Contract Number: PS25830
17 ATTACHMENT E
to Master Price Agreement by and between VENDOR and PURCHASER. 30 30 of 278
Contract Number: PS25830
18 ATTACHMENT F
to Master Price Agreement by and between VENDOR and PURCHASER. 31 31 of 278
Contract Number: PS25830
19 ATTACHMENT G
to Master Price Agreement by and between VENDOR and PURCHASER.

ADDITIONAL VENDOR TERMS OF PURCHASE, IF ANY.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS
===============================

WARRANTIES AND LIABILITY LIMITS
===============================
Warranties are limited to those offered by the manufacturer. Life-Assist, Inc. gives no express or implied warranties on any items shown in its catalog, price list, or otherwise offered for sale and shall not be responsible for the proper use and servicing of goods purchased nor does the company give any express or implied warranty that goods purchased are merchantable or fit for a particular purpose. LifeAssist, Inc. shall not be liable for special or consequential damage or injury to person or property which results from the use of these products. All products sold by Life-Assist, Inc. are intended for use by trained medical personnel.
========

SHIPPING
========
Free Standard Shipping within the contiguous U.S. on orders over $100! Orders under $100 will be charged a $14.50 shipping and handling fee. All other orders are shipped FOB origin and freight charges will be applied at time of shipment.

It is our service policy to ship orders the same day we receive them, providing the order is placed by 4:00 pm Monday through Friday. Most orders are shipped by UPS ground complete within 24 hours (MF). If, by chance, an item is backordered, it will be shipped to you immediately upon our receipt.

Refrigerated items are only shipped Monday Wednesday and will arrive in 1 2 days. Destinations outside of the 2-day shipping zone must be shipped 2nd Day Air and the air freight charges will apply.

Refrigerated items cannot be returned.

Freight charges will be applied to special orders, overweight orders, oversized products, and requested rush deliveries.
=======

RETURNS
=======
If a product does not meet your specifications, you may return the item in its original and unaltered* packaging, in resalable condition, within 45 days. Prior to returning any purchase, please contact Customer Care at (800) 824-6016 or email [email protected] to obtain a return authorization number.
*Please note, we are unable to provide credit for items where packaging has been altered (i.e., marked with permanent marker or internal agency labels affixed).

Returned merchandise must be sent freight prepaid and be received in new, resalable condition.

To expedite the process, please have your shipping or invoice document available for reference. 32 32 of 278
Contract Number: PS25830
20 Items returned within 45 days of shipment will not be subject to a restocking fee. Items returned 46 days or more will be subject to a 15% restocking fee ($25.00 minimum) plus freight.

Non-returnable items include:

Pharmaceutical products
Custom / special order items
Refrigerated products
Items listed as non-returnable
Short dated or expired products
Items not in original packaging
Some goods, such as refrigerated items, special order items, short dated product and/or items more than 90 days old, etc., are not be eligible for credit. Products shipped directly from vendor partners fees. If we make an error in filling or shipping your order, we will promptly rectify the mistake at no cost to you.

Please note: Issuance of a Return Authorization Number is required and does not guarantee credit.

Credit will be issued only after the product is received, inspected, and confirmed to meet our return requirements.

If a damaged shipment is received, please note the extent of the damage to the carrier at the time of delivery. Keep all boxes and packaging materials and immediately contact Customer Care at (800) 824- 6016 or email [email protected]. Damage claims must be made within 5 days of receipt of merchandise. ======
CREDIT
======
Municipalities, fire and police departments, recognized volunteer organizations, government agencies and related: may purchase on terms of Net 30 days from shipping date without prior arrangement.

Please fax or mail your first order on agency letterhead.

Commercial businesses: may apply for open account status by submitting a completed Life-Assist, Inc.

Credit Application Form.

Resellers may request price quotations online only. Rx items are not available for resale.

Overdue accounts: will be assessed a 1 1/2% monthly (18% year) charge. Payment on account will be credited upon receipt at Lifereferred for collection. Purchaser will be liable for all costs of collection on overdue accounts, plus ©2003-2025 Life-Assist, Inc. All Rights Reserved. No part of this website may be reproduced in whole or part without expressed written permission by Life-Assist, Inc. 33 33 of 278

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:

July 21, 2026

CONSENT
10 SUBJECT: AWARD OF TASK ORDER FOR DESIGN OF PERMANENT LIFEGUARD TOWERS
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Authorize the City Manager to award a task order with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. for design engineering services for the Permanent Lifeguard Tower Program in the amount of $280,791;

2. Authorize the City Manager to approve project-related expenses and change orders for additional design-related services that may be required in an amount not to exceed $28,000; and

3. Find that the action consists of government activities, which do not result in a direct or indirect physical change in environment and therefore does not constitute a “Project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
This report recommends that the City Council authorize a Task Order with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Stantec) in the amount of $280,791 for design engineering services for the City’s Permanent Lifeguard Tower Program and approve a not-to-exceed $28,000 contingency for additional design-related services.

Stantec’s proposal includes preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates for the installation of permanent lifeguard towers on caissons at 39 locations citywide, together with coastal hazard analyses and structural designs.

In July 2025, City Council directed staff to evaluate the feasibility of installing enclosed lifeguard towers to enhance public safety and provide more effective, secure, and weather-resistant work environments for lifeguards. As part of that effort, a geotechnical study was prepared by Engeo in January 2026 to support evaluation of feasible tower locations and foundation considerations. Stantec’s scope of work will build on the geotechnical report and preliminary coastal engineering recommendations prepared by Engeo to include final engineering designs for all permanent lifeguard tower locations.

This project will enhance beach safety, support Marine Safety operations, and improve long-term resilience and functionality of lifeguard facilities along the City’s coastline. The construction and implementation of the permanent lifeguard towers will be implemented over multiple fiscal years as funding becomes available.

DISCUSSION
The City is advancing the Permanent Lifeguard Tower Program to provide 39 permanent lifeguard observation tower improvements at identified beach locations throughout Laguna Beach (Attachment 1).

The proposed scope includes project management and coordination, field assessments, environmental entitlements, preliminary engineering, coastal hazards analysis, and preparation of final plans, specifications, and construction cost estimates. The proposed permanent lifeguard towers will be supported by reinforced concrete pile (caisson) foundations drilled into bedrock to provide long-term structural 1 of 297

AWARD OF TASK ORDER FOR DESIGN OF PERMANENT LIFEGUARD TOWERS July 21, 2026

stability in the dynamic coastal environment. During the design phase, site-specific engineering will be completed to determine the appropriate foundation depth, bedrock embedment, structural design requirements, and construction means or methods for each tower location. Utility designs are not included in the scope of work; any communication or information technology items will be separately addressed on a case-by-case basis.

Lifeguard tower foundation designs will be developed using a geotechnical study previously prepared by EnGeo in addition to site-specific geotechnical investigations as needed including wave force analyses, soil analyses, and reviews of individual site conditions. The EnGeo study also included analyses of construction means and methods which will be factored into future construction bid documents. The final designs will include structural calculations, material specifications, inspection requirements, and construction details.

The permanent foundation system is intended to provide a durable and resilient support structure capable of accommodating the dynamic coastal environment, including tides, seasonal sand fluctuations, scour conditions, and long-term changes in beach elevation and shoreline conditions. To date, permanent enclosed lifeguard towers have been installed at ten beaches including most recently at Moss Beach and Anita Beach as part of the beach access improvements, and staff will pursue similar opportunities at future beach access projects.

The proposed program includes 39 lifeguard tower locations and is anticipated to be implemented over multiple fiscal years, subject to available funding. Construction is expected to be phased, with an estimated 3 to 5 towers completed annually. As part of this project, enclosed towers on skids have already been placed at Shaw’s Cove and 9th and 10th Street Beaches with the use of a barge. Those towers are still scheduled to be made permanent as part of this project. Stantec’s proposed fee for the base scope of services is $280,791.

Staff solicited proposals from three On-Call consultants for professional design and engineering services. Proposals were received as follows:

On-Call Consultant Total Proposal Amount

1. Stantec $280,791

2. Dokken $306,960

3. Mark Thomas Declined to propose
Following review of the proposals, staff determined that Stantec was the most qualified firm to perform the required work. Stantec’s proposal demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the project requirements, including preparation of plans and specifications, coastal hazard assessments, structural foundation design, permitting support, and cost estimating. The consultant brings significant experience in the planning and design of coastal and marine infrastructure, as well as familiarity with the City’s standards, procedures, environmental entitlements. Stantec has successfully supported the City on prior projects, including the Moss Point Beach Access Rehabilitation Project which included a permanent lifeguard tower design, and the Cleo Street Beach Access Stairs Replacement project, positioning the firm to effectively deliver the proposed services. Stantec’s proposed fee for the scope of services is $280,791.

Procurement Authority:

Stantec is under an approved On-Call Consultant Agreement (Contract No. 26-179). The requested fee 2 of 297

AWARD OF TASK ORDER FOR DESIGN OF PERMANENT LIFEGUARD TOWERS July 21, 2026

exceeds $100,000 and therefore requires City Council approval pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 2.30.030.

Contingency:

In addition to the task order amendment amount, it is recommended to authorize the City Manager to approve change orders for additional design-related services that may be required in an amount not-toexceed $28,000 for this project. Due to the unique topographical and tidal conditions at each beach location, additional site investigations and geotechnical analyses may be required.

Schedule:

The project proposes installing 39 lifeguard towers on permanent caissons over multiple years subject to available funding, tower procurement (towers take several months to fabricate), accessibility for installations (barge, crane, etc.) and limited construction windows for installations. Final engineering designs will be completed by Stantec in six months including environmental entitlements following by construction bidding to install the first several towers based on Marine Safety’s priority levels. These towers are located at Aliso Beach, Table Rock South, Picnic Beach, Victoria Beach, and Shaw’s Cove. Approximately five towers will be installed annually during subsequent years as programmed in future Capital Improvement budgets.

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Funding for the design and engineering phase is included in the adopted Fiscal Year 2026–27 budget. The project currently has approximately $471,521 in available funding, with an additional $250,000 budgeted in Fiscal Year 2027–28 to support project contingencies and initial construction activities. No additional appropriation is needed at this time.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The recommended actions consist of organizational or administrative activities of the City that will not result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and therefore does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21065; 14 CCR Section 15378(b)(5)). The award of a task order for design services for lifeguard tower improvements is for design services only, and any future actual improvements will be subject to independent environmental review under CEQA at the time entitlements for those improvements are applied for. Approving the funding for design services only, which may or may not result in an application for improvements that will be subject to independent environmental review in the future is a fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific projects.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Lifeguard Towers Map (Pg. 5)

2. Proposal (Stantec) (Pgs. 6-16)
Submitted By: Mark McAvoy Approved: .David A Kiff
Mark McAvoy, Director of Public
Works & Utilities
Dave Kiff, City Manager
3 of 297

AWARD OF TASK ORDER FOR DESIGN OF PERMANENT LIFEGUARD TOWERS July 21, 2026

Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:

Yun-Yun Lee, Project Manager Pierre Sawaya, Capital Program Manager Thomas Perez, City Engineer
Kai Bond, Marine Safety Chief
4 of 297
5 5 of 297
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
38 Technology Drive, Irvine CA 92618-5312
City of Laguna Beach
Permanent Lifeguard Tower Program Proposal (CIP _______) April 243, 2026
File: 204281016
Attention: Mr. Yun-Yun Lee
Project Manager
City of Laguna Beach
Public Works and Utilities Department
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Reference: Request for Proposal – Permanent Lifeguard Towers Program (CIP _______) Dear Mr. Lee and the Selection Committee:

The City of Laguna Beach is entrusted by its community to implement the Permanent Lifeguard Tower Program to enhance beach recreation activities, bolster public safety, and improve the overall quality of life in the City. Our goal as your design consultant will be to maximize our expertise to deliver a design that will meet this goal. On behalf of Stantec Consulting Services Inc., (Stantec) we are pleased to provide you with our proposal. Our team provides:

A proven team of local individuals and firms
We are active members of the communities we serve. That is why at Stantec, we always design with community in mind. The Stantec community unites more than 34,000 specialists working in over 450 locations. We collaborate across disciplines and industries to make buildings, infrastructure, and energy and resource projects happen. Our work - professional consulting in planning, engineering, landscape architecture, surveying, environmental sciences, project management, architecture, coastal design, and project economics - begins at the intersection of community, creativity, and client relationships.

Your professional service needs will be met with our team’s high quality work, good communications, and effective project management. As a well-established local firm, we have the resources and abilities to provide personalized service on short notice while keeping work on schedule and within budget.

We offer:
• Familiarity with your design and plan preparation standards and provisions • Local knowledge of the area and your review process
• Coastal engineering expertise to evaluate beach erosion and local scour, estimate sea level rise, determine appropriate still water level and wave height for design, and calculate wave loads on the permanent lifeguard tower foundations
• A working relationship with David Stollery at Industrial Design Research, Inc. (IDR) including familiarity with IDR’s product line, framing, and anchorage system for permanent lifeguard towers.
• Experience with design and detailing for construction/rehabilitation of structures in marine and coastal environment including high strength concrete, galvanized rebar, and corrosion inhibiting admixtures
• Capacity to complete assigned tasks ahead of or on schedule • Proactive identification of critical issues and prompt acceptable resolutions.

Attachment 2
6 6 of 297
City of Laguna Beach
Permanent Lifeguard Tower Program Proposal (CIP _______) A proven record of local projects
Our team has a proven record of successfully completed projects with, in, and surrounding the City of Laguna Beach. Several are highlighted in Section III of our proposal. Just a few of these projects include:
• Cleo Street Beach Access, Laguna Beach
• Moss Beach Access Rehabilitation and Removable Lifeguard Tower Design, Laguna Beach • Bluebird Canyon Drive Evacuation Route Widening, Laguna Beach • Laguna Beach Pathway Project, Laguna Beach
• Cress Street Sidewalk, Laguna Beach
• Queda Way Retaining Wall, Laguna Beach
• Pacific Vista Soil Nail Wall, Laguna Beach
This proposal is based on information provided in the request for proposal, responses to our follow-up questions, preliminary review of the corresponding geotechnical report by ENGEO, previous site visits to similar permanent Lifeguard Observation Tower (LOT) installations, and our experience working with IDR on the Moss Street LOT foundation design and detailing. We look forward to continuing our working relationship with the City. If you require any additional information, please feel free to contact either myself or Sherry Weinmeier at the numbers listed below.

Regards,
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.

Sherry Weinmeier PE
Principal
Cell: 949 588 5441
[email protected]
Dan Hayes PE
Design Manager
Office: 949 923 6110
Cell: 949 279 3440
[email protected]
7 7 of 297
City of Laguna Beach P a g e | 2
Permanent Lifeguard Tower Program Proposal (CIP _______)

PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
Stantec will prepare comprehensive plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) for the installation of all identified permanent lifeguard towers. The PS&E will cover all thirty nine (39) sites, but we understand the projects will be released over multiple fiscal years as funding becomes available. We will collect available as-built drawings, IDR shop drawings, and review available FEMA flood data and geotechnical design parameters as a basis for analysis. Due to the number and distribution of sites along the City’s coastline, Stantec will identify critical locations, design constraints, and enveloping design criteria to reduce the total number of foundation designs, maximize constructability, and provide a cost effective solution. We will take advantage of our existing relationship with IDR, apply resources, and experience gained from the Moss Street Lifeguard Observation Tower (LOT) design, detailing, and construction support activities.

We believe our team is best qualified to provide these professional services for the City and its residents.

We will be both time efficient and cost effective while delivering comprehensive, resilient, aesthetic solutions to enhance beach safety and enjoyment for many years to come. Our team has many years of expertise in similar parks, beach access, and recreational facilities projects. We understand the product, design, and construction techniques. We know the importance of City and stakeholder communications and how to support the Planning Commission approval process. We will be committed to providing outstanding service and deliverables to make the Permanent Lifeguard Tower Program a success.

SCOPE OF WORK
Phase 1. Management and Data Collection
Task 1.1 – Project Management, Meetings and Coordination Following the notice to proceed, we will schedule and attend a Kick-Off Meeting with City Staff to initiate the project; establish lines of communication; review and refine, if needed, the project scope of work and schedule; establish design guidelines; discuss project parameters and constraints; and obtain background information.

Throughout the duration of the project, the team will communicate with the City and other agencies and stakeholders as necessary to present the project, discuss critical design issues, and answers questions. This task allows Stantec attendance at up to four (4) meetings including but not limited to:
• Planning Commission - The project is located within the Coastal Zone and is therefore subject to review and approval by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for purposes of obtaining a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). It is our understanding that the CDP will be processed through the City and approved by the Planning Commission. We will provide all technical data and prepare exhibits as required to present the preliminary plans to the Planning Commission and CDP as part of a Design Review. We will revise the layouts accordingly per the comments received. We will be available to attend one (1) Planning Commission meeting and respond to one (1) round of comments. City will handle the application and coordination with Planning staff. • Marine Safety, Public Works, and Community Development/Coastal – The LOT sites were selected by Marine Safety to satisfy operational needs. If site constraints or hazards are identified, this task allows for reviewing any LOT location adjustments with the City (Marine Safety + Public Works + Community Development/Coastal) prior to design finalization. • Neighborhood Meetings – Stantec will attend and assist the City in conducting up to two (2) Neighborhood Meetings/Public Workshops with the residents in neighborhoods with the greatest potential environmental impact or with a history of resistance to the Project. We will be responsible for creating exhibits to facilitate the discussions and help secure stakeholder support. Stantec will address technical questions and take meeting notes.
8 8 of 297
City of Laguna Beach P a g e | 3
Permanent Lifeguard Tower Program Proposal (CIP _______) Stantec will prepare and distribute meeting agendas and minutes and communicate regularly with City Staff regarding project issues and status via email and telephone.

Task 1.2 – Data Collection & Site Visits (15 Sites)
Following the kick-off meeting with the City, Stantec will review City provided as-built improvement plans, utility information, geotechnical report with preliminary coastal engineering recommendations by ENGEO, and any other information pertinent to the project. This task also allows for coordination with Industrial Design Research to collect and review shop drawings, product brochures, LOT weights, framing system layout, points of connection, and accessories.

Also, as part of this task, we will perform a thorough field walk at select locations (15 sites) with appropriate City Staff to verify and identify noteworthy features of the proposed LOT installation. These features may include, but will not be limited to, visible surface utilities, proximity to access roads, stairs, storm drain outlet structures, and/or geologic hazards that might necessitate relocating the LOT to a preferred area. This task includes preparation of a Site Visit Summary Report to present our findings, describe any reasons that justify relocating the LOT, and supporting photos.

Deliverables:

Site Visit Summary Report
Phase 2. Preliminary Design
Task 2.1 – Coastal Hazard Analysis Report
Stantec will perform a coastal analysis to understand the wave environment and wave loads impacting the towers. To optimize efforts, we will group the 39 towers into 5-8 representative groups and perform wave and force analysis for each group. The results from the analysis for each group will be applied to the towers within that group. The towers will be grouped based on wave exposure, orientation and beach profile.

For each group we will define a representative beach transect and offshore wave conditions. We will then perform a 1-D analysis with XBeach to model wave propagation to shore. XBeach is a modern and industry accepted numerical modeling software for coastal environments. The XBeach model will provide a wave height and period at the shore, which will be used to calculate wave loading using American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-22 standards.

The input for offshore wave conditions will be obtained from CoSMoS, which is a publicly available wave model developed by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). It will provide the 100-yr storm event for various increments of sea level rise (SLR). Topographic and bathymetric data will be obtained from public sources and supplemented with aerial topographic survey. Any beach or transect survey data provided by the City during data collection will be incorporated into the topographic data.

To capture wave runup under eroded conditions, we will modify the beach profiles to represent winter eroded condition and repeat the XBeach and wave loading analysis.

The result of the coastal analysis will be the following for each grouping of towers:
• Design wave conditions (wave height, wave period and water depth) along the shoreline • Wave forces to be used in the design of the tower
Deliverable:
- Final Coastal Analysis Report based on representative groups including comparison of results with preliminary coastal evaluation assumptions and recommendations provided by ENGEO. 9 9 of 297
City of Laguna Beach P a g e | 4
Permanent Lifeguard Tower Program Proposal (CIP _______) Task 2.2 – CEQA and Coastal Permitting Support
The City is currently evaluating its CEQA compliance options for the PLTP and as such, we are unable to provide a comprehensive scope of work for this line item. However, from our perspective and experience, we believe that a focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) may be the appropriate compliance document. We base this on several considerations, including potential legal challenges related to claims of “piecemealing” by opponents, provided the lifeguard towers are installed over a long period of time and are processed using a Categorical Exemption or Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. In order to determine the correct environmental compliance document, we recommend preparation of an Initial Study. This will allow us to evaluate and eliminate those environmental topic areas where it can be clearly demonstrated that no significant environmental impacts will result, and no mitigation measures will be required. This approach will also serve the City in a variety of ways, including: (1) function as an evidentiary document supporting the agency’s conclusions regarding the project's environmental effects; (2) focus the subsequent environmental analysis on the most critical issues; and (3) facilitate early consultation, public notice, and information sharing, allowing for input on potential impacts. Concerning coastal permitting support, we understand that the city staff is well acquainted with the adopted Local Coastal Program (LCP) and regularly processes coastal permits and that our role would likely be limited to periodic support.

Deliverables:
- Initial Study (No Mitigated Negative Declaration)
Task 2.3 – Preliminary Plans (60%)
Stantec will provide civil design services to prepare one (1) set of 60 percent level plans including cover sheet, general notes, sheet index, and 39 individual site plans. The sheet count is anticipated to be approximately 14-sheets assuming four (4) site plans per sheet. Site plans will show both the location as proposed and investigated in the geotechnical report and the final location after considering observations during the site visit, data collection, and other constraints such as geologic hazards. Site plans will be at 20- scale superimposed on aerial imagery, with zoomed-in view, pertinent boring location, horizontal control, and cross section showing the LOT model, footprint, orientation, and foundation type. The LOT floor elevation will be evaluated relative to NAVD 88 vertical datum and defined based on coastal analysis results and seasonal sand level fluctuations with provisions for LOT product ladder accessories. Structural Details will be provided in the subsequent submittals.

This task assumes that utilities or telecommunication connections are not required. Furthermore, we understand that the City intends to sole-source to IDR for all LOTs.

Deliverables:
- Preliminary Plans (60 percent) for City (Marine Safety + Public Works + Community Development/Coastal) review and approval prior to foundation design Task 2.4 – Preliminary Estimates
We will compute quantities of construction materials and provide a preliminary engineer’s opinion of probable construction costs in accordance with the City’s format for items of work included in the project. The preliminary quantity/cost estimates will be based on the preliminary site plans assuming the IDR LOT Jr. model with extended folding ladder and 36” diameter piles socketed 15-ft into bedrock. Unit prices will be based upon coordination with IDR and current cost information for a recent, similar projects. We understand the City will divide the project and release it in phases at their discretion and as funding becomes available. 10 10 of 297
City of Laguna Beach P a g e | 5
Permanent Lifeguard Tower Program Proposal (CIP _______) Task 2.5 – Architectural Renderings (15 Sites)
As required to support the Plan Commission review and approval, this task allows for preparation of 3D visual simulations to represent fifteen (15) critical LOT installations. Stantec will create a 3D model of one (1) City selected LOT structure for superposition on site specific photos to capture at least one perspective from a publicly accessible viewpoint. The renderings will be tailored in terms of direction and scale to best inform the Planning Commission and Stakeholders. as to the visual impact of the LOT installation in the context of the adjacent roads, hillsides, plants, stairs, and buildings.

Deliverables:
- 3D Visual Simulations / Rendered Views (digital files for 15 sites) Phase 3. Final Design
Task 3.1 – Structural Design, Detailing, & Report
We will review the results of the coastal engineering (wave loading), civil site layout, and LOT product data, apply geotechnical parameters, and provide structural engineering services to design mono-pile foundations separated into five (5) to eight (8) categories that envelope all combinations of site conditions and constraints. These site conditions include variable structure geometry, site topography, stratified soils and bedrock locations, variable sand and sea levels, wave impact forces, and soil structure interaction. The analyses will be performed using similar L-Pile software to satisfy stability subject to maximum allowable deflection criteria compatible with the extreme event. The resulting shear and moment demands will become the basis for structural section capacity and detailing using a combination of the Response or SPColumn software and in-house spreadsheets. The structural design will also consider equipment access, constructability, sustainability, and resilience when detailing reinforced concrete pile sections, designating LOT anchor bolt configurations, and specifying construction materials and methods.

This task includes the preparation and submittal of a Structural Design Report for review and approval by the City assuming one (1) round of minor comment incorporation and resubmittal to gain final approval.

Task 3.2 – Final Plans (90%)
Stantec will prepare 90 percent construction drawings that will incorporate all City comments on the 60 percent plans and feedback from the meetings with Planning Commission, Marine Safety, Public Works, and Community Development/Coastal Divisions as well as Neighborhood Outreach. The Final drawings will expand the preliminary plans with up to four (4) sheets of Structural Drawings consisting of General Notes, Design Parameters, Material Specifications, List of Special Inspections, and a Master Lifeguard Tower Summary Table followed by Typical Structural Plan layout, Elevation View, Sections, Miscellaneous Construction Details, and Reinforcement Schedule corresponding to five (5) to eight (8) groups of mono-pile solutions as required. The Master Lifeguard Tower Summary Table with show all relevant site specific coastal engineering, geotechnical data, LOT product information and accessories, mono-pile foundation design category, and pile geometry for verification and documentation of compliance by the field inspector.

We will submit the 90 percent plans with the Structural Design Report, preliminary specifications package, and updated cost estimate from Tasks 3.1, 3.4, and 3.5,, respectively.

Task 3.3 – Final Plans (100%)
Stantec will prepare 100 percent construction drawings that incorporate all 90-percent review comments from City. We will submit the 100 percent signed and stamped plans and Structural Design Report, along with final specifications and cost estimate from Tasks 3.1, 3.4, and 3.5, respectively, in electronic format (AutoCAD and current Adobe Acrobat files) for a final review and approval. 11 11 of 297
City of Laguna Beach P a g e | 6
Permanent Lifeguard Tower Program Proposal (CIP _______) This task assumes no further comments or revisions to the 100 percent submittal documents will be required.

Task 3.4 – Technical Specifications (90% & 100%)
Stantec will prepare a comprehensive Project Specification Package with Front End (Sections A through D) including Bid Schedule and technical specifications (Section E) based on the latest City supplied “boilerplate” Special Provisions. Section E includes General Provisions, Construction Materials, and Construction Method, Measurement, and Payment (Parts 1, 2 and 3). Technical Specifications will be prepared in a format in accordance with City standards, Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook) and Caltrans Standard Specifications where applicable. Stantec will also prepare Technical Appendices such as Referenced Standard Plans, Geotechnical Report, Product Data, Reduced Project Plans, and any supplemental Technical Specifications (in CSI Format) as required (Sections F, G, H, I, and J). These technical specifications and appendices will be submitted in electronic Microsoft Word and PDF formats with the 90-percent and Final (100 percent) PS&E packages.

This task assumes the City is responsible for revisions to the Project Specification package as required to release it in phases possibly over multiple fiscal years and at their discretion as funding becomes available.

Task 3.5 – Final Estimates (90% & 100%)
This task allows for updates to and verification of quantities of construction materials and current unit pricing to provide a final engineer’s opinion of probable construction costs. The final quantity/cost estimates will be based on the final plans with precise LOT product information and foundation design results (pile top, tip, diameter, and reinforcement) assigned to the individual sites. The project cost estimate will be submitted in electronic Excel and PDF formats with the 90 percent and Final (100 percent) PS&E packages.

Phase 4. Optional Tasks (Contingencies)
Task 4.1 – Site Specific Coastal Hazard Analysis (Optional) If more detailed Coastal Hazard analyses are required by the agencies, we will perform the XBeach analysis and wave forcing calculations for each of the thirty nine (39) towers. The extra work for these additional site specific analyses is covered under an optional subtask in the fee schedule.

Deliverable:
- Revisions to the Final Coastal Analysis Report to include results of site specific analyses.

Task 4.2 – Entitlement CEQA/LCP/CCC Risk & Strategy (Optional) Stantec understands that the Permanent Lifeguard Tower Program (PLTP) has experienced some public and California Coastal Commission (CCC) opposition in the past, based on our review of CCC reports. Therefore, it is likely that some of the proposed locations may be once again contested by these entities. To this end, Stantec proposes to conduct a preliminary entitlement feasibility analysis to understand what challenges/opportunities may exist and the best path forward. We will work closely with the Planning Division and Community Development staff to develop an implementation strategy that can apply to the whole of the program or individual or groups of lifeguard tower installations, understanding that funding may be available in stages for the program. Concerning CEQA compliance, we understand that city has not decided on what approach or environmental compliance document will be utilized and is currently in consultation with staff and the City Attorney. Stantec proposes the preparation of a CEQA risk register (or similar tool) in anticipation of this decision or after the identification of an appropriate document. This approach entails proactively recording risk, probability, impact, owners, and mitigation plans to help the City and Stantec proactively manage challenges and opportunities.

Deliverables:
12 12 of 297
City of Laguna Beach P a g e | 7
Permanent Lifeguard Tower Program Proposal (CIP _______) - CEQA Risk Register
Task 4.3 - Design Survey/Site Topography (Optional)
The topographic mapping for the Project will be prepared using aerial topographic survey methods. Our field crews will visit the site to establish vertical and horizontal control for the project and set aerial control targets for use in developing photogrammetric backgrounds for all thirty nine (39) installation sites. The photogrammetric topography will allow our team to capture data beyond the immediate installation site in case site constraints require relocation of the LOT.

Due to seasonal variations in sand levels, tolerances to the precise horizontal location of the LOT, and flexibility inherent to the LOT ramp or ladder accessories, this task assumes that supplemental field survey is not required to facilitate the preparation of civil site plans and construction documents.

The control used for the aerial survey will tie into the County Surveyor’s Horizonal Control Network which is based on State Plane Coordinates 2017.50 epoch adjustment as well as the County Vertical Benchmarks using NAVD 88.

Deliverables:
- Aerial Survey
- Topographic Maps (39-sites ~200’ radius circle with 1-ft contours at 20-scale) Task 4.4 – Additional Data Collection & Site Visits (Optional) If required, this task allows for a thorough field walk at the remaining twenty-four (24) LOT locations with appropriate City Staff to verify and identify noteworthy features of the proposed installation. Similar to task

1.2, we will look for visible surface utilities, proximity to access roads, stairs, storm drain outlet structures, and/or geologic hazards that might necessitate relocating the LOT to a preferred area. This task includes preparation of a Site Visit Summary Report to present our findings, describe any reasons that justify relocating the LOT, and supporting photos. The site photos will also be used for renderings of the remaining twenty-four (24) sites as described in Task 4.5 below.

Deliverables:
- Site Visit Summary Report (24 Sites)
Task 4.5 – Architectural Renderings – 24 Sites (Optional) If required to support the Plan Commission review and approval, this task allows for preparation of additional 3D visual simulations to represent the remaining twenty-four (24) LOT installations. Stantec will use the 3D model created as part of Task 2.5 for superposition on site specific photos to capture at least one perspective from a publicly accessible viewpoint. Similar to Task 2.5, the renderings will be tailored in terms of direction and scale to best inform the Planning Commission and Stakeholders.

Deliverables:
- 3D Visual Simulations / Rendered Views (digital files for 24 sites) Assumptions
In preparing this scope of work and fee estimate, the following assumptions were made:
• Stantec’s Coastal Engineering services and Memo seek to benefit the project with final design level analysis of coastal hazards including a comparison of results with preliminary coastal evaluation assumptions and recommendations as provided by ENGEO.
13 13 of 297
City of Laguna Beach P a g e | 8
Permanent Lifeguard Tower Program Proposal (CIP _______) • Supplemental field survey beyond the aerial survey is not required to facilitate the preparation of civil site plans and construction documents.
• 60 percent level plans will include cover sheet, general notes, sheet index, and 39 individual site plans separated into approximately 14-sheets.
• Utilities or telecommunication connections are not required. • City intends to sole-source all LOTs from IDR.
• Typical lifeguard tower installation consists of IDR LOT Jr. model with extended folding ladder on a 36” diameter pile socketed into bedrock.
• Structural Design Report will be submitted up to two times for review and approval by the City allowing for one (1) round of minor comment incorporation and resubmittal to gain final approval. • Any comments or revisions to the 100 percent submittal documents will be treated as extra work.

Exclusions
Items not specifically identified in the scope of service sections of this proposal are to be excluded from this work effort and would be considered additional services. Such services would include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Agency & permitting fees
• Drainage, WQMP and SWPPP Documents
• Utility design or relocations
• Lighting design
• Bid and Construction Support
• Construction Staking
• Stantec is not responsible for the performance of IDR’s LOT including the enclosure, support framing, connection of the enclosure to the framing, and connection of framing to the concrete foundation when subjected to the design wave load.
• Stantec is not responsible for accessibility and functionality of the lifeguard tower immediately following the extreme event. The City is responsible for repairing beach erosion and restorations to the LOT as required.
• Categorized foundation solutions for non-mono-pile configurations. For example, Design Case 8 with extreme depth to bedrock might benefit from a precast prestressed battered driven pile foundation with cast-in-place pile cap at two locations. • Categorized foundation solutions for more than one type of LOT product • Preparation of a focused Environmental Impact (EIR)
Accounting Procedures
Stantec has a computerized accounting system which maintains detailed records by individual and activity and allows tasks to be monitored against established budgets. The Project Manager receives regular reports to track project status. The system is totally integrated and easily audited. Supporting data can be provided to the City in any format required.
14 14 of 297
City of Laguna Beach P a g e | 9
Permanent Lifeguard Tower Program Proposal (CIP _______) Project Schedule
Upon receiving the Notice to Proceed (NTP), we anticipate the following schedule to submit the various Project deliverables.

1. Data Collection – three (3) Weeks

2. Aerial Survey – six (6) Weeks

3. Coastal Analysis – eight (8) Weeks

4. Environmental Clearance Support (Optional) – eight (8) Weeks

5. 60 percent Improvement Plans and Estimate – five (5) Weeks

6. Structural Design Report – three (3) Weeks

7. 90 percent Improvement Plans, Estimate, and Specifications – four (4) Weeks after receiving City comments

8. 100 percent Improvement Plans, Estimate, and Specifications – two (2) Weeks after receiving City comments
Project Fee
Our proposed fee to complete Tasks 1 through 3 is $280,791. A separate fee for optional tasks (contingency budget) of $164,075 is listed under Task 4. A breakdown of the fees required to complete Tasks 1 through 3, Optional Task 4, and reimbursable cost as described above is attached (Exhibit 1). 15 15 of 297
Principal, Level 17
Sr. Structural Engineer
Level 16
Sr. Project Manager Level
15 Principal Environmental
Planner
Level 15
Project Engineer Level 13
Engineering
Designer,
Level 10
Engineering
Designer,
Level 9
Sr Coastal Engineer
Level 14
Sr Coastal Engineer
Level 14
Coastal Engr'g
Specialist
Level 10
Project Coordinator
Survey
Manager
Level 14
Survey
Part 2-Man Crew
Survey
Part 2-Man Crew
Principal Environmental
Planner, Level 15
Project Environmental
Scientist, Level 10
Principal Landscape
Architect
Level 15
Landscape
Architect
Level 14
Landscape
Architect
Level 9
GPSI Aerial Survey
Name Weinmeier,
Sherry
Upadhyay,
Anurag Hayes, Dan Ruiz, Gilberto Walker, Eric Veliz, Melanie Rodriguez,
Yevgenity
Kassem,
Sarah
Jimenez
Martinez,
Arturo
Marston Jr,
Will
Bolton,
Jenna
Shockley,
Jason
Thomas,
Justin
Standley,
Dustin
Spann,
Sarah
Ballmer,
Lisel
Cubberly,
Dave Wu, Niki Olaes, Bernice
Project Summary Hours Total
Project Billing Rate (T&M) $265.00 $256.00 $232.00 $232.00 $209.00 $173.00 $168.00 $219.00 $219.00 $173.00 $162.00 $219.00 $170.00 $140.00 $232.00 $173.00 $232.00 $219.00 $168.00 $1.00 Fixed Fee 0 $0.00 Total Units (T&M) 13 8 279 60 279 172 196 60 32 300 4 10 48 48 60 160 12 88 106 68,500 Time & Material 1,935 $444,866.00 Fee (T&M) $3,445.0 $2,048.0 $64,728.0 $13,920.0 $58,311.0 $29,756.0 $32,928.0 $13,140.0 $7,008.0 $51,900.0 $648.0 $2,190.0 $8,160.0 $6,720.0 $13,920.0 $27,680.0 $2,784.0 $19,272.0 $17,808.0 $68,500.0 Total 1,935 $444,866.00 Task Code Task Name Units Task Type Hours Total
201 PMC & Data Collection 4 0 101 0 53 24 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time & Material 190 $41,065.00 201.001 Proj Mgt Meetings & Coord 4 0 61 0 13 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time & Material 94 $20,697.00 201.001a Gen'l PM&C 2 48 Time & Material 50 $11,666.00
201.001b Plan'g Commiss Mtg Support 1 3 4 4 Time & Material 12 $2,489.00 201.001c Marine Safe+PW+CD+Coastal Mtg 1 4 3 Time & Material 8 $1,820.00 201.001d Neighborhood Mtg Spport 6 6 12 Time & Material 24 $4,722.00 201.002 Data Collection & Site Visits (15 Sites) 40 40 8 8 Time & Material 96 $20,368.00 202 Preliminary Design 4 0 42 40 84 84 80 36 16 180 0 0 0 0 40 160 8 48 54 0 Time & Material 876 $166,540.00 202.001 Coastal Hazard Analysis 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 16 180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time & Material 233 $42,793.00 202.001a Collect & Dev Proj DEM 16 Time & Material 16 $2,768.00 202.001b Group Sites 4 44 Time & Material 48 $8,488.00
202.001c XBeach Model 4 4 24 Time & Material 32 $5,904.00 202.001d Erosion Analysis + XBeach 8 4 40 Time & Material 52 $9,548.00 202.001e Wave Force Calcs 4 4 24 Time & Material 32 $5,904.00 202.001f Coastal Memo 1 16 4 32 Time & Material 53 $10,181.00 202.002 CEQA & Coastal Permit Support 1 40 40 160 Time & Material 241 $46,505.00 202.003 Prelim Plans 60% 2 40 80 80 80 Time & Material 282 $53,810.00 202.004 Prelim Estimate 2 4 4 Time & Material 10 $1,992.00 202.005 Arch'l Renderings (15 Sites) 8 48 54 Time & Material 110 $21,440.00 203 Final Design 4 8 96 0 102 56 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time & Material 366 $73,186.00 203.001 Str Design, Det, & Report 4 50 50 60 Time & Material 164 $33,154.00 203.002 Final Plans 90% 1 2 20 20 24 24 Time & Material 91 $17,781.00 203.003 Final Plans 100% 1 1 8 12 12 16 Time & Material 50 $9,649.00 203.004 Tech Specs 90% & 100% 1 1 16 16 12 Time & Material 46 $9,653.00 203.005 Final Estimate 90% & 100% 1 2 4 8 Time & Material 15 $2,949.00 204 Optional Tasks (Contingency) 1 0 40 20 40 8 8 24 16 120 4 10 48 48 20 0 4 40 52 68,500 Time & Material 503 $164,075.00 204.001 Site Spec Coastal Hazard Analysis (OPT) 24 16 120 Time & Material 160 $29,520.00 204.002 Entitle CEQA/LCP/CCC Risk Strat (OPT) 1 20 20 Time & Material 41 $9,545.00 204.003 Design Survey/Site Topo (OPT) 4 10 48 48 68,500 Time & Material 110 $86,218.00 204.004 Add'l Site Visits (24 Sites) (OPT) 40 40 8 8 Time & Material 96 $20,368.00 204.005 Add'l Arch'l Render (24 Sites) (OPT) 4 40 52 Time & Material 96 $18,424.00 FEE ESTIMATE - Permanent Lifeguard Tower Program
16 16 of 297
Request for Clarification Regarding CEQA Finding
for Proposed Permanent Lifeguard Towers
July 18, 2026
To: Laguna Beach City Council
Cc: City Manager
Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council, and City Manager, I am writing to respectfully request clarification regarding the proposed installation of permanent lifeguard towers mounted on permanent caissons at several Laguna Beach coves and the accompanying finding that the action 'does not result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and therefore does not constitute a Project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).'
As a resident and someone who values both public safety and the unique character of Laguna Beach, I am struggling to understand how the installation of permanent structures anchored by permanent caissons could reasonably be considered to have no physical, environmental, or aesthetic impact.

Physical Changes
The proposed towers appear to require permanent foundations or caissons installed into the beach or underlying bedrock. Such work would seemingly involve excavation, drilling, concrete placement, and construction activities. Once completed, the towers would remain as permanent structures occupying areas that are currently free of permanent development. How is this not considered a direct physical change to the environment?
Environmental Considerations
Even if the footprint of each tower is relatively small, installation activities may affect coastal resources, beach geology, drainage, habitat, or public use during construction. Has the City evaluated these potential impacts, and if so, where can the public review that analysis? Visual and Aesthetic Impacts
Laguna Beach is internationally recognized for its scenic coastline, picturesque coves, and relatively undeveloped beaches. Introducing permanent lifeguard towers into multiple coves would visibly alter the character of these public spaces throughout the year. How has the City concluded that these permanent structures do not constitute a physical or aesthetic change to the environment?
CEQA Determination
I respectfully request that the City explain the legal and factual basis for concluding that installation of permanent towers and caissons is not a CEQA 'Project'; identify any engineering, environmental, geotechnical, or visual studies supporting this conclusion; explain whether an Initial Study or CEQA exemption was considered; and indicate whether the California Coastal Commission or other permitting agencies have been consulted.

This request is made in the interest of transparency and informed public participation. I appreciate the City's commitment to public safety and recognize the important work performed by the Marine Safety Department. At the same time, public safety improvements and environmental stewardship need not be mutually exclusive. I respectfully request that these questions be addressed publicly before any action is taken on the proposed permanent lifeguard towers.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Laguna Beach Resident
17 of 297
18 of 297
19 of 297

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:

July 21, 2026

CONSENT
11 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE APPENDIX OF DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES

WITH FILING RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE CITY'S CONFLICT OF

INTEREST CODE
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Adopt the Resolution titled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE

APPENDIX OF DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES AND FINDING THE SAME EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT” to update designated employee titles and positions of City personnel; and

2. Find that the proposed action does not constitute a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(2) & (5) because the action involves administrative organizational activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable physical change in the environment.

SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
On January 6, 1981, the City Council adopted the standard model Conflict of Interest Code pursuant to the Political Reform Act. The Conflict of Interest Code identifies City officials and employees who are required to file Statements of Economic Interests to publicly disclose financial interests and ensure transparency and unbiased governmental decision-making.

State law requires local agencies to review their Conflict of Interest Codes biennially (every even-numbered year) to ensure the list of designated employees accurately reflects current positions and responsibilities.

Updates may also occur outside of the biennial review when organizational changes occur, such as the creation of new positions, restructuring of duties, or changes in decision-making authority. The proposed resolution updates the City’s Appendix of Designated Employees to reflect current organizational titles.

DISCUSSION
As part of its ongoing commitment to transparency and ensuring sound governance, the City maintains a Conflict of Interest Code, which, among other things, lists those City officials and employees that must file financial disclosures. The City’s Conflict of Interest Code has two disclosure categories:

Category 1 – Full Disclosure:

Applies to high-level employees (City Manager, City Attorney, Department Heads, etc.) and City Councilmembers and requires broad financial disclosure.

Category 2 – Limited Disclosure:

Applies to other employees (Deputy Directors, certain Managers, public safety leadership, etc.) and Commission, Board and Committee members and requires financial disclosures related to job/assignment. 1 of 305

RESOLUTION AMENDING THE APPENDIX OF DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES WITH FILING

RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE CITY'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE July 21, 2026