Laguna Hills City Council
October 13, 2026

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES C. Resumes and Qualifications of Personnel - Resumes (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) C.7 • BS in Engineering
Registrations/Certifications
• Licensed Civil Engineer
• QSD, QSP
• Caltrans Resident Engineer Academy
Highlights
Mr. Demirci has approximately 15 years of experience. Mr. Demirci serves as Assistant Public Works Director, City Engineer, CIP Program Manager, Resident Engineer at Transtech’s Contract Cities and provides technical and management support. He completed Caltrans Resident Engineer Academy, and is very familiar with the management and administration of federally and state funded projects in compliance with Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM). Mr. Demirci works as CIP Program Manager at various Transtech’s Contract Cities, and manages various capital improvement programs including state and federal funded programs such as CDBG, HSIP, ATP, Metro Call for Projects, SR2S, etc. Following are few examples of projects where Mr. Demirci served in various capacities, including Project Manager, Construction Manager, Resident Engineer:
• Slauson Traffic Congestion Relief Project (Federally Funded), City of Maywood. Intersection widening at major City corridor, including R/W acquisition, traffic signal modification, asphalt and concrete improvements. Cost: $10m.
• Washington Boulevard Widening and Reconstruction Project (Federally Funded), City of Commerce/Caltrans. Widening and reconstruction of 2.7 miles of Roadway (including approx. 3,500 tons rubberized AC overlay), median construction, street lights, SCE undergrounding, ADA improvements, landscaping, and hardscaping. Cost: $40m. • Slauson Avenue ADA Improvements and Tree Replacement Project, City of Commerce. Served as Project Manager for this ADA Improvements and tree replacement project. Cost: $1.2m. • Rosemead Boulevard Improvements Project (Federally Funded), City of Temple City. Roadway widening and reconstruction of 2 miles of roadway (including approx. 6,000 tons rubberized AC overlay), class IV bike lanes, ADA improvements, street lighting, beautification, landscaping, and hardscaping. Cost: $20m.
• Eastside Water Treatment Facility (Federally Funded), City of Chino. Expansion of water treatment facility (the treatment capacity from 3,500 gpm to 7,000 gpm), includes pre-filters, Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) vessels, and an ion exchange system, construction of dual brine pipelines. Cost: $20m. • Riverside Dr Street Rehab, City of Chino. Asphalt reconstruction, storm drain installation, ADA improvements (curb&gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps), traffic signal improvements. Cost: $7.5m. • El Prado Rd Reconstruction Project, City of Chino. Asphalt full depth reclamation (FDR), concrete improvements (sidewalk, curb ramp, curb & gutter, etc.), traffic signal, signing and striping. Cost: $3.0m. • City’s Annual Pavement Management Program, City of Commerce. Managed City’s PMP since 2015, prepared PS&E following recommendations from PMP and managed construction. Cost: $20m. • 30 HSIP Traffic Signal Improvements at Various Transtech Client Cities (Federally Funded). Worked as Resident Engineer on various HSIP funded Traffic Signal Improvements projects for various Transtech Client Cities. Cost: $40m.
• 15 ATP Pedestrian Safety and Safe Routes to School Improvement Projects at Various Transtech Client Cities (Federally Funded). Worked as Resident Engineer on various pedestrian safety projects for various Transtech Client Cities. Cost: $35m.
• Lugo Park, Soccer Field Project (CDBG Federally Funded), City of Cudahy. Construction of a regulation new soccer field with artificial turf on existing baseball field, DG walking path, landscaping, parking lot expansion, concrete plaza, lighting, drainage, bathroom and concession stand ADA improvements.

Cost $1.6m.
• Almansor Park Improvements Project (CDBG Federally Funded), City of Alhambra: Renovation of existing park including new basketball courts, playground, DG walking path, landscaping, lighting, drainage, prefab restroom and office space and ADA improvements. Cost $2.5m Mr. Demirci has a broad knowledge of municipal government operations, including preparation and presentation of staff reports/resolutions to city councils, committees and interaction with public, various city departments, city council and other governmental agencies.

MICHAEL ACKERMAN, PE, QSD, QSP, QISP, Sr. Engineer
Education
• BS in Engineering

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES C. Resumes and Qualifications of Personnel - Resumes (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) C.8 Registrations/Certifications
• Licensed Civil Engineer; QSD, QSP, QISP; RE Academy, Caltrans Highlights
Mr. Ackerman has 25 years of experience. At Transtech, he has been working as a Sr. Engineer at various Transtech City Engineering Contracts. He has served at various Cities under Transtech’s City Engineering Contracts, including Temple City, Huntington Park, and Alhambra. He has a broad knowledge of municipal government operations, including preparation and presentation of staff reports/resolutions to city councils, committees and interaction with public, various city departments, city council and other governmental agencies.

Mr. Ackerman’s experience also includes working at Caltrans and other agencies:
• Caltrans District 8: Mr. Ackerman was a civil transportation engineer for Caltrans District 8 where he was involved in the design and construction of various projects. • City of San Bernardino: Mr. Ackerman was involved in various projects, including Development Review and Plan Check, Design and Project Management.
• City of Huntington Park: Mr. Ackerman worked as contract City Engineer under Transtech’s municipal services contract and later as City Engineer and Interim Director of Public Works under the City.

RAYMOND VELASCO, PE, Sr. Engineer/City Engineering Support Education
• BS Civil Engineering, Long Beach State University
Registrations/Certifications
• Licensed Civil Engineer
Highlights
Mr. Velasco has over 25 years of experience in both public and private sectors. He excels in the design, construction, and management of civil engineering and public works projects, such as roadway rehabilitation and widening and citywide concrete repairs, traffic signal improvements, utilities, park, and municipal facilities. He has a broad knowledge of municipal government operations, including preparation and presentation of staff reports/resolutions to city councils, committees and interaction with public, various city departments, city council and other governmental agencies.

Mr. Velasco’s public sector experience includes:
• Public Works Operations Manager / CIP Manager, City of Carson • Principal Civil Engineer, City of Norwalk
• Senior Civil Engineer, City of Carson
• Public Works Administrator, City of Carson
AZITA FAKOORBAYAT, PE, Sr. Engineer
Education
• BS in Civil Engineering
Registrations/Certifications
• Licensed Civil Engineer
Highlights
Ms. Fakoorbayat has over 25 years of experience. She has a broad knowledge of municipal government operations, including preparation and presentation of staff reports/resolutions to city councils, committees and interaction with public, various city departments, city council and other governmental agencies.

Recent Experience with Transtech’s contract Cities:

Contract CIP Project Manager, City of Chino: As contract CIP Project Manager, coordinate various CIP projects throughout project design phase, including concrete, asphalt, storm drain, sewer, water, grading, traffic signal, accessibility. Conduct design review, PS&E review, constructability and biddability review, and manage design phase of various CIP projects, and manage and coordinate various CIP projects with various design engineers to ensure project design phases are completed within time and budget, and proceed with construction.

Public Agency Experience:
• Principal Engineer, City of Costa Mesa, CA
• As Principal Engineer, perform a broad range of highly complex and professional • Civil Engineer I, Pierce County Public Works Utilities and Transportation • Services, Design Section, Tacoma, WA

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES C. Resumes and Qualifications of Personnel - Resumes (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) C.9 • Assistant City Engineer, City of Sumner, Sumner, WA
Private Consulting Experience:
• Senior Project Manager, Afb Group, Laguna Niguel, Ca
• Senior Project Manager, Berryman & Henigar, Santa Ana, Ca • Project Manager, CNC Engineering, Newport Beach, Ca
• Senior Design Engineer/ Project Manager, Harding Lawson Associates Group Inc., Bellevue, Wa OMAR M. MOHEIZE PE, Sr. Engineer (PM/CM/RE Support)
Education: BS in Civil Engineering, MBA
Registrations/Certifications: Registered Civil Engineer Highlights: Mr. Moheize has over 35 years of experience in the public sector, including 17 years as the Principal Civil Engineer for the City of Burbank. He is skilled at performing project management, as well as civil engineering, design, and quality construction management services. His industry background includes work on several public works projects, including upgrading traffic signals, road and bridge design, wastewater treatment, potable water treatment, issuing permits, vertical structure building, and redevelopment projects.

Los Angeles County, PMD III: For the past 2 years, Mr. Moheize has worked as a consultant for the County of Los Angeles as Project Manager on various projects from Design phase to procurement Phase to Construction phase and completion. Projects related to the Traffic Signal Safety projects (known as the HSIP Safety program) entailed obtaining permits from several other agencies and meeting the grant conditions and deadlines. Omar is highly proficient at using sophisticated LA County software and MS365 suite, including Project Online (POL), Project Information Website (PIW), Construction Management Database Portal (CMD), Power BI, SharePoint and PW Intranet, and Project Delivery Guide (PDG).

City of Burbank (2001 to 2023) – As a Principal Civil Engineer in Charge of the CIP and specialty projects, Omar issued permits for work in the public right of way, conducts redevelopment reviews of conditions, and acted as a Stormwater and Drainage Specialist. Omar provided construction management services on major infrastructure projects, utility relocations, bridges and roadways, erosion controls, foundation designs, piers, water and wastewater treatment, and site restorations. He supervised various roadway maintenance contracts, negotiated and resolved contractor claims, and managed change order requests. Omar also ensured quality and compliance with special project provisions. Additional duties included coordination with utility companies, preparing the construction documents (PS&E), schedule, budget, and analyzing project progress to ensure on-time completion. Omar reviewed plans and work and ensured compliance with health and safety plans.

ALI F. ZAGHARI, PE, PMP, Sr Engineer, Caltrans Coordination Support (Former Caltrans District 7, Deputy Director, Traffic Operations)
Education
• MS, BS in Civil Engineering
Registrations/Certifications
• Registered Civil Engineer; PMP
Highlights
Mr. Zaghari has over 30 years of experience in Transportation Management & Operations at various capacities in the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). His career path includes a number of key managerial positions in Caltrans leading to his last position as the Deputy District Director (DDD) for Traffic Operations at Caltrans District 7 in Los Angeles. As a member of District 7 Executive Team, Mr.

Zaghari was responsible for policy, development and implementation of the traffic operations assets and the safe mobility of all users of the State Highway System (SHS) consisting of approximately 1500 center miles of freeways and conventional highways in Los Angeles and Ventura counties. He managed an operating budget of approximately $70M encompassing both operations management and capital outlay support needs. The organization under his leadership included critical functions such as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), Traffic Design, District Traffic Manager (DTM), Corridor Management, System Performance, and Encroachment Permits.

RUDOLPH RODRIGUEZ, PE, QSD/P, CAPM, Sr. Associate Engineer Education
• BS in Civil Engineering, CalPoly

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES C. Resumes and Qualifications of Personnel - Resumes (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) C.10 Registrations/Certifications
• Licensed Civil Engineer
Highlights
Mr. Rodriguez has over 7 years of experience. He serves as CIP Project Manager in design and construction. Attended Caltrans Resident Eng. Academy and has extensive experience in State/Fed Funded Projects.

JEFFREY KAO, PE, CBO, CASp, ICC Certified Building Official, Plans Examiner and Inspector Education
• MS, BS Civil Engineering, Cal Poly
Registrations/Certifications
• Licensed Civil Engineer; CASp (Certified Accessibility Specialist) • ICC Certified Building Official, California Building Plans Examiner, CalGreen Inspector, CalGreen Plans Examiner, Mechanical Plans Examiner, Plumbing Plans Examiner, Building Inspector Highlights
Mr. Kao has over 20 years of experience and has been working at Transtech as Deputy Building Official, Senior Plans Examiner, On-Site Over the Counter Plans Examiner and performed plan checks for a variety of residential and commercial projects in Cities of Alhambra, South Pasadena, and Temple City. Mr. Kao has broad knowledge of building and safety operations, including working in the capacity of Deputy Building Official and Plans Examiner. His past experience includes working as a structural engineer for 4 years at a structural design firm.

CARLOS A. PINEDA, PE, QSD, QSP, LEED, Sr. Engineer
Education
• BS in Civil Engineering,
Registrations/Certifications
• Licensed Civil Engineer
Highlights
Mr. Pineda has over 30 years of experience in civil engineering and project management. He has extensive experience working for both private and public sectors. He has participated on numerous multi-disciplinary teams dealing with the planning and development of civil and traffic engineering, urban and rural development, and public works projects. He has served as Principal Project Manager for a variety of projects. Public works design experience covers a wide variety of projects, including the improvement of major arterials, secondary highways and collectors, flood control and drainage projects, water and waste water projects, ADA retrofit, and safe routes to school projects. He has a good understanding and knowledge of municipal government operations, including preparation and presentation of staff reports/resolutions to city councils, committees and interaction with public, various city departments, city council and other governmental agencies. Private sector design experience covers a wide range of projects including residential master planned communities and “in tract” residential improvements. In-tract residential improvements included the design and construction of domestic and reclaimed water infrastructure to serve the new developments.

JOSEPH DEPERALTA, PE, QSD, Sr. Engineer
Education
• BS in Civil Engineering
Registrations/Certifications
• Licensed Civil Engineer
Highlights
Mr. Peralta has approximately 30 years of experience. His experience includes working as contract/consultant City Engineer, Plan Checker, Design Engineer for various Cities. His experience includes dealing, coordinating and navigating thru the permitting processes with municipal, county and state level and other governmental agencies, architects and consultant, utility companies, and regional entities, including Caltrans, Water Quality Board, AQMD, US Corps of Engineers, Department of Fish and Game, Union Pacific Railroad and others.

ZIAD Y. MAZBOUDI, PE, QSD, QSP, CPSWQ, CPESC, LEED AP, D.WRE, Sr. Engineer Education
• BS in Civil Engineering

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES C. Resumes and Qualifications of Personnel - Resumes (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) C.11 Registrations/Certifications
• Licensed Civil Engineer; QSD, QSP, CPSWQ, CPESC, LEED AP Highlights
Mr. Mazboudi has 34 years of progressively responsible, diversified experience in public works, engineering, utilities, development engineering, facilities maintenance, sustainability, environmental programs and project management in both the public and private sector, supported by a strong educational background in civil engineering, geographic information systems, water quality/urban runoff, and environmental programs. His experience includes:
• City of San Clemente - PW Department, Deputy Director/Engineering • City of San Juan Capistrano - PW/Utilities Department, Senior Civil Engineer • City of Westminster - PW Department, Associate Civil Engineer/Development Engineer • City of La Habra - PW Department, Assistant Civil Engineer.

Special International Projects:
• US Green Building Council (www.usgbc.org), Egyptian Green Building Council (EGBC) Represented the US Green Building Council, to assist in the formation of the EGBC. Provided lectures on the role of government in Green Building and on the US Green Building Program, LEED. • USAID International Development Agency (www.usaid.gov), In partnership with USAID and ICMA Kingdom of Jordan Commercial/Industrial Environmental Audit In partnership with USAID and ICMA, developed a training manual for the audit of commercial and industrial facilities in Jordan. Performed audits in Jordan and provided recommendations to the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Local Government.

DAVID RAGLAND, PE, PLS, QSD, QSP, QISP, Sr. Engineer/Surveyor Education
• Humboldt State University, CA, Bachelor of Science
Registrations/Certifications
• Licensed Civil Engineer; Licensed Land Surveyor; QSD, QSP, QISP Highlights
Mr. Ragland is a civil engineer and land surveyor has over 30 years of diverse experience in a wide variety of projects in civil engineering. He has managed numerous multi-disciplinary teams dealing with the planning, engineering, entitlement, environmental permitting, development and construction of urban and rural development, and public works projects. His experience also includes special emphasis on complex grading and hillside developments (has worked on the civil engineering and development of more than 40,000 acres of hillside properties), preparation of due diligence and project feasibility analysis, through conceptual planning and design to entitlement and construction.

MOHAMMAD MOSTAHKAMI, PE, Sr. Engineer, Primary CITY ENGINEER Education
• BS in Civil Engineering
Registrations/Certifications
• Licensed Civil Engineer
Highlights
Mr. Mostahkami has over 30 years of experience, including working in both public and private sector.

He has a broad knowledge of municipal government operations, including preparation and presentation of staff reports/resolutions to city councils, committees and interaction with public, various city departments, city council and other governmental agencies.

Mr. Mostahkami provided oversight, support and direction of the operation of the Public Works involving engineering, construction, operation and maintenance of water production and distribution, maintenance of sewer lines and storm drains, administration of street sweeping activities and management of solid waste disposal, and weed abatement, the operations of street maintenance, equipment maintenance and facilities upkeep, the operation of the Engineering Division including Traffic Engineering, Office Engineering and Capital Improvements, beverage and oil recycling program, directed the compilation of reports, technical studies and research activities. Prepared the Departmental Annual Budget, review maintenance schedules and methods of performance, directed training activities; promoted safety programs and safe work practices, advised on personnel recruitment

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES C. Resumes and Qualifications of Personnel - Resumes (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) C.12 and reviewed performance evaluations, participated in a public Works and other internal and external Committees, Commissions meetings as necessary, conferred with developers, businesses and residents on respective matters, developed short and long range department goals and objectives, policies and procedures, oversaw compliance of City’s NPDES and TMDL compliance regulations , oversaw development and implementation of public improvements associated with developments, participated in various community functions , secured grants from Federal, State, Metro, etc., performed other related duties as assigned.

His prior experience includes working for various public agencies, including:
• City of Downey, PW Director;
• City of South Gate, PW Director, City Engineer
• City of Arcadia, Civil Engineer
BAHMAN JANKA, TE, Sr. Traffic Engineer, Primary CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER Education
• MS, BS in Civil Engineering
Registrations/Certifications
• Licensed Traffic Engineer
Highlights
Mr. Janka has over 35 years of experience in Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning. He has served as City Traffic Engineer and Transportation Director for public agencies, including:
• City of Pasadena, California: Transportation Administrator • City of Santa Clarita, California: City Traffic Engineer • City of Fremont, California: Associate Transportation Engineer • City of Palo Alto, California: Associate Transportation Engineer • Entranco Engineers, Bellevue, Washington: Transportation Engineer.

JANA ROBBINS, PTP, RSP, Sr. Transportation Planner
Education
• BA, Cal Poly Pomona
Registrations/Certifications
• Licensed Professional Transportation Planner
Highlights
Ms. Robbins has over 25 years of experience. She serves as one of Transtech representatives at various Cities, prepares traffic safety and calming studies, stop and signal warrants/studies, traffic impact studies, traffic calming reports, parking studies, responds to requests from Public and City Officials and attends Traffic Commission, Planning Commission, City Council Meetings as well as Design Review Board meetings. On behalf of client Cities, reviews traffic impact studies and parking analysis submitted by developers and represents contract Cities at Commission meetings when these projects are reviewed.

She works directly with staff in the departments of public works, planning, engineering, and community development at each client city. She attends community forums and neighborhood block meetings to discuss and answer questions about current and future traffic conditions. She prepares traffic impact studies for development projects in Southern California, which involves the coordination with developers, as well as local and regional agencies.

NORMAN CAESAR M. BACULINAO, PE, TE, Sr. Traffic Operations Engineer Education
• BS in Civil Engineering
Registrations/Certifications
• Registered Civil and Traffic Engineer
Highlights
Mr. Baculinao has 30 years of experience in Traffic Engineering.

He has strong Traffic Signal System Operation experience, including Traffic Management Centers or TMC.

He is technology oriented and has extensive working knowledge of new (Intelligent Transportation System) ITS standards, the System Engineering Process; Traffic Signal System Integration, Video Detection, CCTV systems, twisted pair communication system, fiber optic cables, Ethernet, Light Emitting Diode (LED) signals, Red Light Camera Systems, etc.

His prior experience includes:

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES C. Resumes and Qualifications of Personnel - Resumes (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) C.13 • County of Ventura, California: Traffic Engineering Manager • City of Pasadena, California: Traffic Engineering Manager • City of Santa Clarita, California: Associate Traffic Engineer • City of Stockton, California: Assistant Traffic Engineer • City of Roseville, California: Assistant Traffic Engineer ROBERT QUINTERO, Sr. Project Manager, Utility Coordinator Education
• BS Urban & Regional Planning; MBA
Registrations/Certifications
• Licensed General Contractor B
Highlights
Mr. Quintero has over 25 years of experience in government relations, city administration, city planning, public works and utility coordination. Throughout his career, Mr. Quintero has demonstrated strong leadership, project management, and comprehensive understanding of municipal government operations. He has successfully managed complex projects and engaged with various stakeholders to achieve positive outcomes for the communities he has served. He has a broad knowledge of municipal government operations, including preparation and presentation of staff reports/resolutions to city councils, committees and interaction with public, various city departments, city council and other governmental agencies.

Mr. Quintero’s experience also includes working for a public agency in various capacities, including as Director of Public Services/Public Work Assistant City Administrator. Mr. Quintero also worked at Southern California Edison (SCE) as Director of Government Relations.

KAREN VIGIL, EIT, PTP, RSP, Associate Engineer
Education
• BS Civil Engineering, Cal Poly Pomona
Registrations/Certifications
• EIT, Licensed Professional Transportation Planner, Licensed Roadway Safety Professional • Completed Caltrans Resident Engineer Academy, very familiar with the management and administration of federally funded projects in compliance with Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM).

Highlights
Ms. Vigil has approx. 8 years of experience in City Traffic/Transportation Engineering/Planning. She serves as one of Transtech representatives at various Cities, prepares traffic safety and calming studies, stop and signal warrants/studies, traffic impact studies, traffic calming reports, parking studies, responds to requests from Public and City Officials and attends Traffic Commission, Planning Commission, City Council Meetings as well as Design Review Board meetings. She works directly with staff in the departments of public works, planning, engineering, and community development at each client city.

She contacts, meets with residents representing city staff in assisting in the resolution of local traffic problems and concerns. After meeting with residents, she prepares and presents reports and recommendations to various city staff and agencies. She attends community forums and neighborhood block meetings to discuss and answer questions about current and future traffic conditions.

PETER SHIAU, Associate Engineer
Education
• B.S Civil Engineering, Cal Poly Pomona
Registrations/Certifications
• Completed Caltrans Resident Engineer Academy, very familiar with the management and administration of federally funded projects in compliance with Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM).

Highlights
Mr. Shiau currently provides support to Transtech’s client cities in City Engineering, Public Works, and Transportation and Traffic Engineering. His experience includes serving as an Associate Engineer, CIP Project Manager, Permit Technician, and Public Works Inspector. He also serves as Office Engineer on construction projects and assists Resident Engineers and Construction Managers with contract administration, document control, and contract compliance. Some of his responsibilities includes

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES C. Resumes and Qualifications of Personnel - Resumes (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) C.14 managing and permitting various residents’ land development projects such as assisting City Engineer in design review process of multifamily and commercial development projects, review and approval of grading and drainage plans, erosion control plans, and grading permit issuance, etc. Mr. Shiau has experience in developing stormwater management for the surrounding premises which involved implementing low impact development to allow stormwater runoff to infiltrate below the subgrade.

ROY KOO, Associate Engineer
Education
• BS Civil Engineering, Cal State Fullerton
Registrations/Certifications
 Completed Caltrans Resident Engineer Academy
Highlights
Mr. Koo has approximately 2 years of experience. As an Associate Engineer, he works at various Cities under Transtech’s Municipal Service Contracts in support of managing Capital Improvements Projects.

He is very familiar with the management and administration of federally funded projects in compliance with Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM).

ANDY CARLTON, Public Works Inspector
Education
• Computer Science, California State University, Fullerton Registrations/Certifications
 Cal OSHA 10 hour Construction Certified; Completed Caltrans Resident Engineer Academy Highlights
Mr. Carlton has approximately 15 years of experience, His experience includes issuing and inspecting public works encroachment permits for various public works projects and providing inspection to capital improvements projects. His inspection experience in this capacity includes steel, masonry, concrete sidewalks, curb ramps, curb & gutter, driveways, on-site & off-site grading, trenching, traffic control measures, water, sewer, stormwater and street pavement. He has knowledge of standards and procedures for public agencies, including the Green Book, Caltrans, and has extensive experience in traffic control, safety and OSHA compliance requirements. Mr. Carlton also has experience in inspecting federally funded projects to ensure compliance with the Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual.

He also has extensive experience in communicating/working with the public/adjacent property owners, and being proactive in dealing with complaints and comments and minimizing project impacts.

EARL FRASER, Registered Constr. Inspector, QSP, Sr. Project/Construction Manager/Inspector Education
• BA
Registrations/Certifications
• Registered Construction Inspector by American Construction Inspectors Association; QSP (Construction General Permit Qualified SWPPP Practitioner)
Highlights:

Mr. Fraser has approximately 30 years of experience. He is a Registered Construction Inspector by American Construction Inspectors Association. He is also certified as QSP (Construction General Permit Qualified SWPPP Practitioner). His experience includes inspection local roads, pavement rehab, ADA, grading wet and dry utilities. As Sr. Inspector/Construction Manager, he performs a wide variety of tasks to ensure the project progresses on schedule, is in compliance with approved plans and specifications, and effective communication and information flow is maintained with project participants. He has inspected projects that are funded with State and Federal Funds, and is familiar Caltrans LAPM for Contract Administration.

BRIAN CERVANTES, EIT, MBA, On-site Support, Associate Eng., Project Management, Inspection, Permits, Office Engineer
Education
• BS Civil Engineering, Cal Poly Pomona, MBA
Highlights
Mr. Cervantes has approximately 6 years of experience in Public Works Engineering, and Transportation and Traffic Engineering. He works in the Public Works Department/City Engineering at Transtech’s client Cities assisting City Engineers and Public Works Directors. He also serves as Office Engineer on

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES C. Resumes and Qualifications of Personnel - Resumes (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) C.15 construction projects and assists Resident Engineers and Construction Managers with contract administration, document control, contract compliance.

ANTONIO GUIRADO, EIT, Associate Engineer
Education
• BS in Civil Engineering, CalPoly
Registrations/Certifications
• EIT
Highlights
Mr. Guirado has 3 years of experience. Mr. Guirado assists the Public Works permit counter in permit issuance and inspections for Transtech’s client cities. He also assists Traffic Engineers with technical report writing, diagram and conceptual plan preparation, field data collection for traffic investigations, and other daily traffic related tasks.

HANI NASR, PMP, Sr. Project and Construction Manager (Project/Construction Management Support when needed) Education
• BS, Mechanical Power Engineering; Masters in Engineering Management, Arkansas State University Registrations/Certifications
• PMP, Project Management Professional; General Contractor License B; OSHA 30 & OSHA 10 Certification; Inspector Certification. B2 Commercial Building Highlights
Mr. Nasr is a certified Project Management Professional (PMP) with an extensive background in construction management. He holds a bachelor’s degree in mechanical power engineering and has over 20 years of experience managing multimillion-dollar projects.

With a strong engineering foundation, Mr. Nasr has developed expertise across multiple construction disciplines, including MEP systems, general contracting, and construction estimating. His proficiency in cost estimation and bid preparation has contributed to securing and executing successful projects. His comprehensive knowledge and hands-on experience enable him to lead projects effectively while ensuring strict adherence to budgetary and scheduling requirements.

Notable Projects:
• City of Temple City, Construction/Project Manager, City Hall Roof Structural improvements/Upgrades and Replacement ($3.5M)
• San Bernardino Unified School District-SBCUSD F19-01 Prop 39 EEP3 ($4M) • Chaffey Community College (Improvement Project) -( Value: $1 M) • Ontario HS with Chaffey Joint School District- Mechanical Plant- ($2 M) • Irvine Valley College (HVAC & Roofing Replacement for 5 Buildings & Powerhouse) -($ 7M) • MacArthur Hotel (Eleven-Story Historic Building Improvement)- ($100 M) • Oasis International School/UAE – ($ 30 M)
• Drinking Water Plant- Lusaka/ Zambia ($ 1.2 M)
• Multi-Million-Dollar Luxury Homes in Dubai
• Orange HS Gym Renovation ($3M)
• OCTA Bus Station Improvements/ Anaheim ($1M)
• Irvine USD Measure Series 3 Expansion Projects ($1.2M) • Hemet HVAC Replacement Multi Sites (6 Schools / $5M)
• Long Beach Robinson K-8 Academy HVAC LBUSD Rehabilitation ($4M) ROBERT MINES, Sr. Inspector
Education
• UCLA, Certificate in Construction Management; Ventura College, Psychology Highlights
Mines has approximately 35 years of experience in general engineering/public works and building construction projects. He has worked in the capacity of project superintendent, project inspector and construction manager. In these capacities, he has been involved in a wide variety of private and public works construction projects in general engineering/public works.

Mr. Mines has worked as construction management and project inspector for a number of agencies

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES C. Resumes and Qualifications of Personnel - Resumes (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) C.16 including LA Metro, City of LA Public Works, City of LA Airports and City of LA Water and Power. His experience includes all types of public works improvements including pavement rehabilitation (asphalt and concrete), water, sewer, storm drain, traffic signals, striping, grading, utilities. Mr. Mines has knowledge of standards and procedures for public agencies, including the Green Book, Caltrans, and has extensive experience in traffic control, safety and OSHA compliance requirements.

He has knowledge of standards and procedures for public agencies, including the Green Book, Caltrans, and has extensive experience in traffic control, safety and OSHA compliance requirements. Mr. Hirsh also has experience in inspecting federally funded projects to ensure compliance with the Caltrans LAPM.

JERRY PEREZ, Sr. Inspector
Education
• BS Degree, Public Administration – Department Honors, University of La Verne; AS Degree, Public Works – Honors, Citrus College
Registrations/Certifications
• Testing Technician Grade I, American Concrete Institute; Certified Public Infrastructure Inspector, American Public Works Association; Collection System Maintenance Grade 4, California Water Environment Association (CWEA); Environmental Compliance Inspector Grade 4, California Water Environment Association (CWEA): Water Distribution Operator D2, Department of Health Services:

Water Treatment Operator T1, Department of Health Services: C-8 Concrete License, California Highlights
Mr. Perez has over 30 years of experience in managing and inspecting public works infrastructure construction projects. Mr. Perez is very experienced in construction and rehabilitation of streets, concrete construction, wet and dry utilities, encroachment permit projects and operational budgets. Mr. Perez has extensive experience in leading cross functional teams of public works staff to ensure that underground construction, rehabilitation, and installation aligns with given plans, specifications, contracts and regulations. He also has extensive experience in communicating/working with the public/adjacent property owners, and being proactive in dealing with complaints and comments and minimizing project impacts. Prior to joining Transtech, Mr. Perez worked in the public sector in various public works capacities, including:
• Public Works Inspector II, City of Jurupa Valley
• Streets and Solid Waste Services Manager, City of Pomona • Public Works Manager, City of Fontana
• Streets and Solid Waste Services Manager, City of Pomona • Utilities Supervisor, City of Fontana
• Streets Supervisor, City of Chino
• Streets Crew Chief, City of Arcadia
JEFFREY HIRSH, Sr. Project/Construction Manager/Inspector Education
• SDSU, College Level Classes
Registrations/Certifications
• Cal OSHA 10-hour construction certified; Construction Site Storm Water Training Highlights:

Mr. Hirsh has approximately 25 years of experience in general engineering/public works and building construction projects. He has worked in the capacity of foreman, site superintendent and project manager. In these capacities, he has been involved in a wide variety of private and public works construction projects in Type A (General Engineering) and Type B (Building) construction. He has knowledge of standards and procedures for public agencies, including the Green Book, Caltrans, and has extensive experience in traffic control, safety and OSHA compliance requirements. Mr. Hirsh also has experience in inspecting federally funded projects to ensure compliance with the Caltrans LAPM.

Jeffrey’s prior experience includes: 2013-214, PSBI Parking Structure Construction: Sr. Superintendent; 1995-2013, Harwood Homes, Inc. Managed 35 Development Projects; 1992-1995, Overland Company:

Site Superintendent – SFR Tract Home Development; 1985-1992, Cambridge Development: Site Superintendent/Assistant Superintendent

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES C. Resumes and Qualifications of Personnel - Resumes (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) C.17 CRAIG M. WHEELER, Sr. Project/Construction Manager/Inspector Education
• BA
Registrations/Certifications
• NASSCO-Certified Inspector (Pipeline, Lateral and Manhole Assessments); Licensed A General Eng.

Contractor
Highlights:

Mr. Wheeler has more than 30 years of experience in engineering and construction in both the public and private sectors. He has provided project management and inspection services on a wide variety of public works projects. His experience includes pavement rehab, ADA, sidewalk, curb&gutter, grading, wet and dry utilities, roadway reconstruction and resurfacing, bridge construction and rehabilitation, water and sewer lines, RCP or RCB storm drains, pump stations, booster pump stations, street lights, traffic signals-new and upgrade/modifications, parks, parking lots, structures and other related types of projects. As a project manager and construction inspector, Mr. Wheeler’s responsibilities include site observation and construction quality assurance and control, ensuring general site safety, preparing daily reports, photo documentation, monitoring SWPPP and BMP implementation, providing daily updates to the City project manager, providing recommendations and responses for contractor RFIs, assisting with submittal and shop drawing reviews, tracking quantities, and conducting progress payment reviews. He has inspected projects that are funded with State and Federal Funds and is familiar Caltrans LAPM for Contract Administration.

ROBERT RUIZ, Sr. Inspector
Education
• Mt. San Antonio College, General Education; California State University, Sacramento - Home CoursesWater Distribution Systems Operation and Maintenance, Water Treatment Plant Operations Highlights
Mr. Ruiz has approximately 30 years of experience in general engineering/public works and building construction projects. He has worked in the capacity of foreman, site superintendent and project manager. In these capacities, he has been involved in a wide variety of private and public works construction projects in Type A (General Engineering) and Type B (Building) construction. Mr. Ruiz worked as with a number of agencies, including Federal Highways, State of California, County of Riverside, County of San Bernardino, County of Riverside, San Bernardino, EVMWD, Coachella Valley Water District, Golden State Water and other Special Districts throughout California. He has knowledge of standards and procedures for public agencies, including the Green Book, Caltrans, and has extensive experience in traffic control, safety and OSHA compliance requirements. Mr. Ruiz also has experience in inspecting federally funded projects to ensure compliance with the Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual.

He also has extensive experience in communicating/working with the public/adjacent property owners, and being proactive in dealing with complaints and comments and minimizing project impacts.

ROBERT GARCIA, Sr. Inspector
Education
• California State University, Los Angeles, Continuing Education/Public Works Construction Inspection Course; California State University, Sacramento, Water Program/Operation and Maintenance of Wastewater Collection Systems
Highlights
Mr. Garcia has approximately 30 years of experience, of which 20 years has been working as the City Public Works Inspector for the City of Palmdale. His experience includes inspecting of all types of public works construction project: roadway construction, pavement rehabilitation, signals, grading, storm drains, sewer mains, concrete structures, sidewalks, and gutters. He also worked on county, state and federal funded projects. Mr. Garcia provided public works inspection services to the following Transtech client Cities: City of Hesperia, Public Works Inspector; City of Commerce, Public Works Inspector.

CLEMENTE ELIZALDE, Traffic Signal Inspector
Education
• San Bernardino Valley College, Radio/Television, Communications and Electronics • Chaffey College, Industrial Electricity, Motor starters and Operational amplifiers Registrations/Certifications
• Certified International Municipal Signal Association “IMSA” level III Technician

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES C. Resumes and Qualifications of Personnel - Resumes (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) C.18 Highlights
Mr. Elizalde has over 30 years of experience in Traffic Signal Systems inspection, maintenance and installation.

City of San Bernardino, 1985 to 2018, Traffic Signal Maintenance Department, various positions:
• Street Lighting Electrician; Traffic Signal Technician II; Traffic Signals Technician III; Lead-Person for Traffic Signals, Street Lighting and Signs; Street Signal/Lighting and Signs Supervisor KEVIN GREEN, Sr. Inspector
Education
• BS Degree, La Sierra University
Highlights
approximately 15 years of experience in performing both construction inspection and construction management Mr. Green has services on highway and public works construction projects for the interest of both state and local agencies. Mr. Green also has extensive experience in inspecting electrical, controllers, pull boxes, ramp meters, traffic signals, crosswalk push buttons and signals, ETTM systems, traffic loops, camera systems, hot mix asphalt, jointed plane/rapid strength/set concrete paving, median concrete barrier, electrical, striping, traffic control and construction liaison to the Caltrans Chief Public Information Officer. Mr. Green has thorough knowledge of the Caltrans Standard Plans, Specifications and Construction Manual and of construction oversight.

JOE LARA, Sr. Inspector
Education
• Courses in Public Works – Citrus College; Courses in Civil Engineering – Mount San Antonio College Certifications
• OSHA 30-Hour Construction Safety & Health (License #34-602288731); Metrolink Railroad Safety Trained (License # 1448816); Public Works Certificate Level I; QSP Certification Training; Public Works Construction Inspection; General Engineering A Contractors License (License # 825064) Highlights
Mr. Lara has approximately 35 years of experience, of which 25 years has been working as the Public Works Inspector for the Orange County Sanitation District and City of Pomona, in the public sector. Mr.

Lara led cross functional teams of construction workers and staff to ensure that construction, rehabilitation, and installation aligns with given plans, specifications, contracts, and regulations. His experience includes inspecting all types of public works construction project: roadway construction, pavement rehabilitation, signals, grading, storm drains, sewer mains, concrete structures, sidewalks, and gutters. He also worked on county, state and federal funded projects. He has knowledge of standards and procedures for public agencies, including the Green Book, Caltrans, and has extensive experience in traffic control, safety and OSHA compliance requirements.

Mr. Lara also has experience in inspecting federally funded projects to ensure compliance with the Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual. He also has extensive experience in communicating/working with the public/adjacent property owners, and being proactive in dealing with complaints and comments and minimizing project impacts. As part of his responsibilities as construction management and inspector, Mr. Lara maintains daily inspection reports, field test results, field change orders, extra work requests, and photo logs; collaborates with project engineers and provide technical input on project constructability and efficiency; works with other agency personnel such as city engineers, city inspectors, and project personnel to streamline projects in a safe and effective manner; and respond to concerns or issues regarding district projects in various district wide cities, and implement policies and procedures to maintain the safety of public workers and citizens alike.

JAMES PAGANI, DSA Certified Accessibility Specialist, CHST, Inspector Education
• BA, Goucher College
Registrations/Certifications
• BCSP Constr. Health and Safety Technician; CalOES SAP Evaluator; DSA Certified Accessibility Specialist; FEMA Training: IS-3, IS-100.PWb, IS-200.b, IS-325, IS-552, IS-556, IS-700.a, IS-800.a, IS-803, IS-806, IS-809, IS-907; ICC: Building, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing; OSHA 30 Hour Trained Highlights
Mr. Pagani has approximately 15 years of experience in public works construction management and

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES C. Resumes and Qualifications of Personnel - Resumes (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) C.19 inspection. Mr. Pagani has thorough knowledge and understanding of construction both on the jobsite and in the office, experience working with the various trades, designers, and managers of many different types of projects. Examples of his project experience as Public Works Inspector/Construction Manager includes: City of Rialto, Public Works Encroachment Permit Inspections; City of South El Monte, Public Works Encroachment Permit Inspections; Primrose Park Improvements, City of Temple City; FY 20/21 Pavement Rehab, City of West Covina; Previous Experience -Koury Engineering, Combination Inspector.

JASMIN VALLEZ, EIT, Associate Engineer
Education
• BS Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles Registrations/Certifications
• EIT
Highlights
Ms. Valles provides support to Transtech’s client cities in City Engineering and Transportation and Traffic Engineering. She is responsible for aiding cities like Rancho Palos Verdes, Rialto, and West Covina. Much of her responsibilities include technical report writing, site investigations and research and data compilation.

ALISON RICHTER, EIT, Associate Engineer
Education
• BS Civil Engineering, Cal Poly Pomona
Registrations/Certifications
• EIT
Highlights
Ms. Richter currently provides support to Transtech’ s client cities to various City Engineering, Transportation, and Traffic Engineering Departments. She has extensive experience in traffic management and reporting. Ms. Richer writes and reviews technical traffic reports for several cities within Los Angeles and San Bernardino County, many of which she has successfully presented critical traffic information and recommendations to city traffic commission meetings across various municipalities in the Los Angeles County.

BRIAN CERVANTES, EIT, Associate Engineer
Education
• BS Civil Engineering, Cal Poly Pomona
Registrations/Certifications
• EIT
Highlights
Mr. Cervantes has approximately 4 years of experience. He works in Transtech’s Public Works, City Engineering and Traffic Engineering Departments at Transtech’s client Cities assisting City Engineers and Public Works Directors. He assists in the review of traffic engineering requests, and in the preparation of staff reports, reviews of traffic reports, preparation of exhibits, traffic safety and calming studies/reports, traffic impact studies. He also serves as Office Engineer and assists Resident Engineers with contract administration, document control, contract compliance. He has extensive experience in customer service and interacting with Public Officials and community stakeholders, including with residents and businesses. He serves as a liaison between Transtech, our clients cities, and community stakeholders. He also manages the public works permit counter and in permit issuance and public works inspection for Transtech’s client cities.

NICOLE ROBBINS, Traffic Analyst
Education
• A.S. Business Administration, Rio Hondo College; B.A. Marketing, Ottawa University; MBA, Strategic Innovation, Ottawa University
Highlights
Ms. Robbins has approximately 4 years of experience. She currently provides support to Transtech’s client cities in Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning. Ms. Robbins is one of our lead Traffic Analysts and is in constant interaction with City Officials and residents which makes her the liaison between Transtech, our clients cities, and the residents. She communicates with them via email and phone. Ms.

Robbins manages all of the traffic related inquires that come from residents and businesses to the city

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES C. Resumes and Qualifications of Personnel - Resumes (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) C.20 and communicates with the applicants about the status of their request. This includes management of our Traffic Department’s comprehensive traffic task log. She manages the tasks and oversees traffic projects for over 10 client cities. She also assigns the tasks and reports based on the type of request to the various departments and team members at Transtech.

LAMAR CASTILLO, Associate Engineer
Education
• BS Construction Engineering and Management, Cal Poly Pomona Highlights
Mr. Castillo currently provides support to Transtech’s client cities in City Engineering, Public Works, and Transportation and Traffic Engineering. He assists Traffic Engineers with technical report writing, diagram and conceptual plan preparation, field data collection for traffic investigations, and other daily traffic related tasks. He interacts with Public Officials and community stakeholders, including residents and businesses. He serves as a liaison between Transtech, our client cities and community stakeholders. Prior to joining Transtech Mr. Castillo was an Intern at the City of Fontana where he estimated construction costs, material costs, and managed weekly worker’s Payroll.

SUBCONSULTANTS
Our Team includes specialty sub-consultants to provide specialty support services, if such services are requested by the City within the scope of a project:
• Funding / Labor Compliance Consulting Support: AVANT GARDE, Inc. (DBE/WBE Firm); www.agi.com.co Established 15 years ago, Avant-Garde is a progressive full-service public agency firm. The firm is working with various programs and projects throughout the entirety of Southern California, including counties of Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange, and San Bernardino. Transtech works with Avant-Garde exclusively in many Cities for the administration of Fed Funds and Labor Compliance.
• Geotechnical Engineering Consulting Support: GEO-ADVANTEC, Inc.; www.geoadvantec.com Geo-Advantec offers comprehensive services in various areas from site feasibility evaluation thought project completion for a wide range of projects and services, which include: Geotechnical Eng.; Eng. Geology; Geotechnical Earthquake Eng.; Geotechnical Instrumentation; Pavement Eng.; Forensic Geotechnical Eng.; Grading Monitoring and Field Testing; Soils & Materials Laboratory Testing; Special Inspection Services. Geo-Advantec owns a certified laboratory accredited by AMRL (ASSHTO Materials Reference Laboratory), in conformity to the requirements of the AASHTO Accreditation Program (AAP), AASHTO R-18, ASTM D3740 and ASTM E329; CCRL (Cement and Concrete Reference Laboratory); Caltrans; DSA (the Department of the State Architects); Army Corp of Engineers. • Landscape Architecture Consulting Support: WITHERS & SANDGREN, LTD; www.withersandsandgren.com Withers & Sandgren has been involved in providing varying levels of support to Community Development Departments for over twenty years. The firm has provided counter support for walk in plan reviews, been monthly Design Review Committee attendees, as well as presenters with planning staff to Planning Commissions and City Councils. • Environmental Consulting Support: ULTRA SYSTEM, Inc. (DBE/WBE Firm); www.ultrasystems.com UltraSystems was established in 1994 as a consulting practice specializing in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and to assist private industry and governmental agencies navigate environmental regulations. The firm prepares and reviews CEQA and NEPA compliance documents and supporting technical studies that include the following disciplines: air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, noise, biological, cultural, land use, socioeconomic, hydrology, water supply and aesthetics. The projects have ranged in complexity from categorical exemptions and categorical exclusions, to Negative Declarations (ND) and Mitigated Negative Declarations (MND), to full Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). • Survey Consulting Support Consulting: VANLENCO, Inc.; www.vanlenco.com Vanlenco offers topographic surveying, mapping, terrestrial lidar, UAV services and right-of-way engineering. Vanlenco has been working as one of Transtech’s subconsultants and providing support services on many projects. • Architectural Consulting Support: IDS GROUP, Inc.; www.idsgi.com IDS Group is an award-winning multi-discipline structural/architectural firm based in Southern California. IDS has several licensed Structural Engineers, MEP Engineers, and Architects and has successfully provided the building and infrastructure industries with state-of-the-art sustainable projects throughout the United States. With roots spanning over 60 years, the firm has provided services for over 5,000 projects, to hundreds of public and private sector clients. IDS Group is headquartered in Irvine, California with offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, Arizona.

Transtech has worked with the above sub-consultants on many projects.

PROPOSAL D.0

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES D.Organizational Chart

D. Organizational Chart D.1

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES

1. Organization Chart

2. Transition Plan if a Key Staff is Replaced
Our staffing structure is intentionally designed with depth and redundancy to ensure uninterrupted service to the City throughout the duration of the contract.

Each key staff member identified for this project has an assigned backup professional who is familiar with the project scope, client expectations, project procedures, and ongoing activities. Backup personnel will participate in periodic project coordination meetings, have access to project documentation and communications, and remain informed of project status and deliverables. This approach ensures that, should a key staff member become unavailable, a qualified team member can immediately assume responsibilities without disruption to project progress, responsiveness, or quality of service. Because of this integrated team structure and cross-training approach, there would be no anticipated gap in services or loss of continuity to the City. Our goal is to provide seamless project delivery at all times, regardless of staffing changes or unforeseen circumstances.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

BUILDING AND SAFETY SERVICES PUBLIC WORKS /ENGINEERING SERVICES

OKAN DEMIRCI, PE, QSD/P
Sr. Engineer
15 yrs experience
15 yrs with Transtech

MICHAEL ACKERMAN, PE, QSD/P, QISP
Sr. Engineer
25 yrs experience
15 ysr with Transtech
AHMAD ANSARI, PE, Principal
Public Works /Engineering Services
35 yrs experience
10 yrs with Transtech
A. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION
B. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

INSPECTION
C. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

PROJECT MANAGEMENT
D. MAP CHECK
E. ENGINEERING PLAN CHECK
F. CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES
DENNIS TARANGO, CBO, Principal
Building And Safety Services
25 yrs experience
15 yrs with Transtech
DENNIS BOGLE, CBO, CASp
Project Building Official
30 yrs experience
1 yr with Transtech

AYLA JEFFERSON, CBO
Staffing Assignment/Coordination
20 yrs experience
15 yrs with Transtech
Specialty Sub-consultants if-needed
Funding / Labor Compliance Support:

AVANT GARDE, Inc. (DBE/WBE Firm);
www.agi.com.co
Geotechnical Engineering Support:

GEO-ADVANTEC, Inc.;
www.geoadvantec.com
Landscape Architecture Support:

WITHERS & SANDGREN, LTD;
www.withersandsandgren.com
Environmental Consulting Support:

ULTRA SYSTEM, Inc. (DBE/WBE Firm);
www.ultrasystems.com
Survey Support:

VANLENCO, Inc.; www.vanlenco.com
Architectural Consulting Support:

IDS GROUP, Inc.; www.idsgi.com
With a robust team of approximately 250 experienced professionals, supported by a deep bench of experienced local staff and readily available resources, Transtech consistently deliver services in a timely, efficient, and cost-effective manner. Our depth of resources ensures continuity of service, scalability, and consistent performance across multiple assignments.

PROPOSAL E.0

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES E. References

E. References E.1

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES

CITY OF ALHAMBRA
Contact: Andrew Ho, Community Development Director
T: 626-570-5041; E: [email protected]
Contract Dates: Started in 1993 – Ongoing Service
Contract Amount: Appr. $1.5m annually
Services Provided: Building & Safety; Building Official, Plan Review, Inspections City Engineering; Traffic Engineering; CIP Management; Federally Funded Project Management; Engineering Design; Engineering Plan Check; Map Check; Public Works Permit Inspection

CITY OF AZUSA
Contact: Jose Jimenez, Director of Economic & Community Development T: 626-812-5236; E: [email protected]
Contract Dates: Started in 2019 – Ongoing Service
Contract Amount: Appr. $1m annually
Services Provided: Building & Safety; Building Official, Plan Review, Inspection; CIP Project Management; Construction Management

CITY OF CARSON
Contact: Robert Lennox, Ed.D., Assistant City Manager
T: 310-952-1728; E: [email protected]
Contract Amount: Appr. $1.5m annually
Contract Dates: Started in 2023 – Ongoing Service
Services Provided: Building & Safety; Building Official, Plan Review, Inspection; CIP Project Management; Construction Management

CITY OF HIDDEN HILLS
Contact: Gloria Molleda, City Manager
T: 818-888-9281; E: [email protected]
Contract Dates: Started in 2026 – Ongoing Service
Contract Amount: Appr. $0.75m annually
Services Provided: Building & Safety; Building Official, Plan Review, Inspections City Engineering; Traffic Engineering; CIP Management; Federally Funded Project Management; Engineering Design; Engineering Plan Check; Map Check; Public Works Permit Inspection

CITY OF MONTEBELLO
Contact: Joseph Palombi, Director, Planning and Community Development Department T: 626-403-7222; E: [email protected]
Contract Dates: Started in 2023 – Ongoing Service
Contract Amount: Appr. $1m annually
Services Provided: Building & Safety; Building Official, Plan Review, Inspections City Engineering; Traffic Engineering; CIP Management; Federally Funded Project Management; Engineering Design; Engineering Plan Check; Map Check; Public Works Permit Inspection

CITY OF ONTARIO
Contact: Dan Beers, Design & Construction, Director
T: 909-395-2806; E: [email protected]
Contract Dates: Started in 2024 – Ongoing Service
Contract Amount: Appr. $1m annually
Services Provided: Project Specific Building Official, Building Plan Check and Inspection (City’s Minor League Baseball Stadium Project (Valuation $100 M); Engineering Plan Check; CIP Management; Construction Management

CITY OF ROSEMEAD
Contact: Ben Kim, City Manager
T: 626-569-2169; E: [email protected]
Contract Dates: Started in 2022 – Ongoing Service
Contract Amount: Appr. $1.5m annually

E. References E.2

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES Services Provided: Building & Safety; Building Official, Plan Review, Inspection; City Engineering; Traffic Engineering; CIP Management; Federally Funded Project Management; Engineering Design; Engineering Plan Check; Map Check; Public Works Permit Inspection

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
Contact: Rene Bobadilla, City Manager
T: 562- 868-0511; E: [email protected]
Contract Dates: Started in 2023 – Ongoing Service
Contract Amount: Appr. $1m annually
Services Provided: Building & Safety; Building Official, Plan Review, Inspection

CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE
Contact: Rene Salas, City Manager
T: 626-579-6540; E: [email protected]
Contract Dates: Started in 2018 – Ongoing Service
Contract Amount: Appr. $1m annually
Services Provided: Building & Safety; Building Official, Plan Review, Inspection; City Engineering Services; Traffic Engineering; CIP Management; Federally Funded Project Management; Engineering Design; Public Works Permit Inspections; Map Check

CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
Contact: Bryan Cook, City Manager
T: 626-285-2171; E: [email protected]
Contract Dates: Started in 2013 – Ongoing Service
Contract Amount: Appr. $1.5m annually
Services Provided: Building & Safety; Building Official, Plan Review, Inspection; City Engineering; Traffic Engineering; CIP Management; Federally Funded Project Management; Engineering Design; Engineering Plan Check; Map Check; Public Works Permit Inspection
Following are references letters from few public agencies where we provide similar services.

E. References E.3

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES

E. References E.4

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES

E. References E.5

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES

E. References E.6

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES

E. References E.7

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES

E. References E.8

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES

PROPOSAL F.0

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES F. Project Understanding, Overview
and Approach

F. Project Understanding, Overview and Approach F.1

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES

1. Understanding
The City is soliciting proposals from qualified consultants to provide on-call professional building services in support of the City’s Building Division and Public Works Department operations. The City intends to enter into non-exclusive, multi-year Professional Services Agreements with one or more qualified building and/or public works/engineering services firms to provide services on an as-needed basis to meet the City’s operational needs. Firms selected through this process will enter into Professional Services Agreements with the City of Laguna Hills.

The City is largely built-out; however, turnover in commercial tenants and residential remodeling activity continues to generate significant building permit activity. Since September 23, 2025, the City has approved four residential developments - La Paz Village, Oakbrook Plaza, 23161 Mill Creek Road (Khoshbin), and Terravita, totaling approximately 946 residential units. Several of these projects are anticipated to submit building permit applications in 2026 and construction to commence in late 2026/early 2027.

In addition, the Village at Laguna Hills project, which involves the redevelopment of the former Laguna Hills Mall site, continues to progress through the entitlement process, with public hearings anticipated in mid-2026. The proposed project includes approximately 1,456 residential units, two hotels totaling approximately 140,000 square feet, approximately 150,000 square feet of retail space, and structured parking facilities.

The City currently operates on a 9/80 work schedule. Building counter hours are maintained from 1:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on alternating Fridays. Staff workday hours begin at 7:30 a.m., and building inspections are available Monday through Friday, with the exception of federal holidays.

The City is a member agency of the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA), which provides fire plan check and inspection services. OCFA personnel also serve as the City’s Fire Marshal and actively participate in the City’s triennial building code adoption process.

All building permit applications are submitted online through the City’s Self-Service Permit Portal. The City uses Bluebeam software for electronic plan routing and review and Tyler Technologies’ EnerGov permitting system to calculate fees, issue permits, schedule inspections, track inspection results, and manage other development-related processes.

The City currently maintains one in-house Permit Technician who provides building counter services and administers the plan check routing and permit issuance process. The Building & Safety Division is further supported by an in-house Management Analyst and Administrative Assistant, who assist with program administration, customer service, and coordination of development review activities.

The City’s Planning Division processes approximately 50 zoning applications annually that require input from building inspectors regarding basic building code requirements associated with proposed development projects.

The Public Works Department is responsible for the planning, design, construction, and ongoing maintenance of the City’s public infrastructure and facilities. This includes oversight of landscaping, parks, public streets, storm drain systems, traffic signals, and the development and management of annual street maintenance programs and zone mapping.

The Public Works Department is organized into three primary divisions—Engineering, Parks, and Public Works—each working collaboratively to support the City’s infrastructure needs. Public Works plays a critical role in maintaining the quality and safety of public assets while ensuring efficient delivery of services to the community. Key responsibilities include investigating and resolving citizen inquiries related to public property, coordinating with local, regional, state, and federal agencies, and administering contracts for maintenance services, professional consulting, and capital improvement projects. The Department also manages the issuance of transportation, grading, and encroachment permits and oversees compliance with water quality regulations.

F. Project Understanding, Overview and Approach F.2

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES

2. Approach
Our service philosophy is built on our “Customer Care” approach—delivering high-quality, timely, efficient, cost-effective, and customer-friendly services.
 Transtech employs a structured and efficient project execution approach that enables us to deliver the highestquality products and services to the City.  We start by working with the applicant early on and during plan review to help them prepare a set of plans which have all of the required information clearly and logically presented.  When appropriate, we proactively provide recommendations to simplify complex details, and incorporate elements that are straightforward to verify in the field. Experience has taught us well that inspection time and applicant frustration can both be substantially reduced, while increasing overall compliance, by producing a better set of plans during the plan review process. And in the case of homeowners, this policy often demonstrates early on that the City really is truly a partner in a process that can often be a source of stress and tension for many applicants.
 This policy reduces the number of plan review rechecks required, allows the applicant to obtain a permit much sooner, and reduces the overall permit process time.
 Transtech provides all plan check comments on electronic files. All plan check comments are provided on pdf format electronically, as well as hard copies. Plan review corrections are written clearly and are fully detailed to explain the Code deficiency.
 To help the applicant better understand the problem, Transtech provides as much information during plan review as possible. We believe that if the applicant has a clear understanding of the problem, he or she can take the necessary steps to correct the condition. This policy reduces the number of plan review rechecks required, allows the applicant to obtain a permit much sooner, and reduces the overall time our staff is required to spend on that particular plan. Unclear and/or cryptic corrections are never written, and all correction lists, except those written over the counter, are typed and printed on a laser printer.  Our plan checkers confer early on and respond to questions from the architect, engineer, designer, applicant, etc. When requested, our plan checkers also meet with the architect, engineer, designer, applicant, etc. at our offices to answer questions or for rechecks where the plan corrections.  Our policy is to assist the architect, engineer, designer, applicant, etc. as much as possible, which helps eliminate complicated details, reduce construction costs, and/or provide details which are easy to verify in the field.  All telephone calls or e-mails received are returned within the same working day, or the following day. We take pride in our “Same Day Response” motto.
 Responsiveness is an integral part of Transtech’s “customer friendly” service approach.  We will strive to enhance the City’s image by public trust to be the most desirable community to live, invest and conduct business.
 Customer Care means highest quality customer service. Transtech is committed to providing “Customer Care” to the City, City's patrons, responding quickly and effectively to the walk-in, telephone, and electronic inquiries of the public related to our services.

Plan Check Processing:

When a plan check order is received, it is logged and reviewed by Building Staff and then assigned to applicable plan checkers. The plan check duration is monitored thru the plan check log data base, which generates messages at identified intervals to inform plan checker and supervising Sr. Staff so that they are aware of how the progress and status continuously. If any potential delay is monitored, necessary steps are taken, such as meeting with plan checker to review the schedule, workload, performance, and identify actions, including assigning additional staff, if necessary, to ensure timely completion of assignment.

Plan Check Coordination:
• Our plan checkers respond to questions from the architect, engineer, designer, applicant, etc. When requested, our plan checkers also meet with the architect, engineer, designer, applicant, etc. at our offices to answer questions or for rechecks.
• Our policy is to assist the architect, engineer, designer, applicant, etc. as much as possible, which helps eliminate

BUILDING AND SAFETY SERVICES

F. Project Understanding, Overview and Approach F.3

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES complicated details, reduce construction costs, and/or provide details which are easy to verify in the field. This proactive approach reduces inspection time and questions, and applicant frustration, while increasing overall compliance, by producing a better set of plans during plan review process. Especially, when the applicant is a homeowner trying to improve his/her property, this policy often demonstrates early on that the City really is here to help.

Approach to Meeting with Applicants:

Our staff is available to applicants by phone and through email or through virtual meeting for questions or available to meet for rechecks if necessary. Our policy is to meet with applicants virtually via TEAMS or ZOOM but we also have an available facility at our office meetings with applicants.

Quick Turn Around Time and Expedited Services / Off-Business Hours/Weekend Services:
• Transtech also provides expedited service when requested. • If the City receives a request from applicants for expedited plan check services, Transtech staff will provide additional resources to accommodate such a request.
• If the City requests inspection services, Transtech staff will provide additional resources to accommodate inspection requests during off business hours and weekends.

Emergency Response:

In the event of a local or regional emergency or disaster, our staff will be accessible to the extent feasible based on the conditions and circumstances. All of our building officials and inspectors have gone through extensive training to be SAP Evaluator and registered with the State of California Safety Assessment Program.

Training Program:

We offer any City staff, who are involved in inspection, plan check and permit issuance, an option to participate in our training program for code updates and process, as well as ICC certification training.

Other Services:

Transtech is a full-service municipal consulting firm that currently provides a variety of different city services for public agencies. We understand that Transtech would be responsible for all correspondence related to activities of the Building and Safety Division. In addition, Transtech would respond to any complaints, perform investigations, provide problemsolving methods for unique or challenging plan check or code interpretation issues, provide report writing and policy & procedure recommendations, and attend City Council and Commission meetings as requested by the City Manager or designee.

ELECTRONIC PLAN CHECK
• Transtech provides Electronic Plan Check: Transtech has integrated many technological assets into its services to provide the most efficient and cost-effective service possible. We provide fully automated electronic plan submittal, plan checking, and tracking. We provide this on our company portal, as well as offer same portal access to our client cities on their web sites.
• The electronic plan check system we use is e-PlanSoft™: PlanSoft™ is the leading provider of electronic plan review software. Our suite of products provides practical solutions to both public and private sectors to streamline and improve efficiency and effectiveness in plan reviews, saving time and money. • e-PlanREVIEW®: e-PlanREVIEW® is a web-based electronic plan review solution that allows for a well-coordinated, collaborative review process where multiple reviewers can mark up plans simultaneously, making the review process faster and more accurate.
• e-PlanREVIEW® / goPost®: This portal allows applicants to apply for permits, upload and submit plans for review, manage document versioning, access reviewer comment reports, and download reviewed and approved plans. • Electronic Plan Check Portal: Transtech provides all Electronic Plan Check. • We maintain and manage electronic plan submittal portals for over 30 cities.

SERVICE TRANSITION
Transtech has a rich history of successfully transitioning Building and Safety Department services from existing service provider. We have successfully implemented some of the largest service transitions:

F. Project Understanding, Overview and Approach F.4

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES • Santa Fe Springs (transitioned from Los Angeles County to Transtech after several decades of service) • Carson (transitioned from Los Angeles County to Transtech after several decades of service) • Commerce (transitioned from Los Angeles County to Transtech after several decades of service) • Temple City (transitioned from Los Angeles County to Transtech after several decades of service) Also, in January 2026, Transtech was selected by the City of Hidden Hills as their Building and Safety Official and City Engineer, transitioning full municipal services to Transtech from Charles Abbott Associates.

Our approach encompasses comprehensive planning, stakeholder engagement, meticulous project management, and a commitment to delivering results. Transtech's track record in transitioning municipal services showcases our dedication to ensuring a seamless and efficient transition process, ultimately benefitting both the City and its residents  No disruption to current services. Well experienced in-house staff readily available to commence with the services upon the City’s authorization.
 Transtech has extensive experience in facilitating transitions for Building and Safety Services from current service providers, other consultants, in-house staff, as well as from Los Angeles County.  Efficient and immediate transition.

Service Analysis - Transtech’s Plans for assessing the operation, staffing levels, and resources:

Transtech will complete a thorough review of existing City policies, ordinances, and conditions pertaining to relevant services, and perform an operational, service and quality assessment and efficiency review. Based on this review, we will provide recommendations and an implementation plan for improved service quality, staffing, and efficiency.

Customer Care and Responsive Service Approach:
 Our services are founded on the principals of Total Quality Management for Total Customer Care and Satisfaction.  All telephone calls or e-mails received are returned within the same working day, or the following day. We take pride in our “Same Day Response” motto.
 Transtech also provides a 24-hour emergency contact number to its clients.  Customer Care means highest quality customer service. Transtech is committed to providing “Customer Care” to the City, City's patrons, including responding quickly and effectively to the walk-in, telephone, and electronic inquiries of the public related to our services. Responsiveness is an integral part of Transtech’s “Customer Care” service approach.
 Our Contract Principal will meet with the Client’s Project Manager frequently for service evaluation and address any areas for improvements.
 Responsiveness is an integral part of Transtech’s “customer friendly” service approach. While our service is always on an “as needed” basis, our responsiveness is on “full-time” basis.  Transtech understands the importance of being able to expedite certain projects, when requested, by the City.

Structured Approach: We have a structured approach to execute projects in an efficient manner that makes Transtech capable of providing the City with an efficient and quality product. Transtech has established guidelines and policies, including written manuals on quality control, project management, and design procedures for its staff and for its contract cities. These guidelines ensure a consistent approach to the execution of assignments undertaken by our organization in compliance with City’s specific procedures, standards and requirements. The following paragraphs describe our general approach to deliver projects in an efficient and cost-effective manner. A project specific approach will be provided for each assigned project and will become part of the specific contract for the specific project. • Project Management: Our approach is to provide proactive management and attempt to identify potential issues and problems in advance and take corrective actions before they become problems. This requires extensive handson knowledge, experience and management skills of the people involved in managing the project. Our team members have extensive experience and proven track record in managing large and complex projects and bringing them to a completion on time and within budget.
• Approach to Cost Control and Change Orders: We evaluate project costs and develop feasible mitigation measures to minimize additional costs. We work as a team to solve problems or make modifications in the field to address unforeseen conditions or owner generated changes in a cost-effective manner.

PUBLIC WORKS /ENGINEERING SERVICES

F. Project Understanding, Overview and Approach F.5

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES • Approach to Scheduling and Timely Completion of Project and Schedule Recovery: The baseline schedule should properly identify the project scope, critical path, project milestones, target dates, phases and sequences of work, and activity durations. When significant activities show that they are slipping from the baseline, we work with the contractor to develop recovery plans.
• Management of Documents: We use an electronic file management system. All construction forms, daily dairies, weekly statement of working days, etc. are stored in our electronic file system, and are per Caltrans documentation system. We provide these documents at the end of the project to the client in organized files as well as pdf files. • Safety and Security: We hold meetings with the contractor to review and discuss safety and security requirements, OSHA conformance, emergency security and safety procedures, and enforce security and safety responsibilities. • Funding Closeout: We prepare necessary closeout documentation required by the funding agencies, submit final reimbursement documentation, follow-up on the reimbursements, and final funds balance report. • Project Closeout: We recognize that closeout is an important part of the construction process. It signifies that the new facility structure is ready to use. We methodically handle all closeout tasks to ensure a smooth transition from construction to occupancy.
• Methodology for Communication to Inform City on Work Progress: Key project team members will attend periodic project progress meetings with City staff throughout the project duration. • Electronic common project information and file sharing platform: We create and provide access to project participants a common project information and file sharing platform.

Coordination with City: Key project team members will attend periodic project progress meetings with City staff throughout the project duration. We will establish and maintain a close working relationship with City staff. We will manage assigned projects, carefully control costs and resources, and complete assigned work on schedule. We will provide progress reports to the City at regular intervals.

Expediting Projects: Transtech understands the importance of being able to expedite tasks when requested by the City.

Transtech has sufficient staff and resources to expedite projects.

CIP Management: Transtech manages Capital Project Programs and maintains CIP Matrix and Schedule for various contract Cities. The CIP Matrix includes detailed tracking information for each CIP, as well as a high-level project schedule status in bar chart format for various project phases. The CIP Matrix is updated frequently, and project status is presented to City Management at management meetings, as well as to City Council when directed by the City Management.

Project Schedules: Transtech has a proven track record for completing projects on time. Part of our role as Project Managers is to develop, review, update and manage the project schedules and confirm that tasks are scheduled within reasonable and appropriate timeframes. We constantly review, monitor and update the schedule to confirm it is in compliance with the original schedule and that related coordination with external/3rd parties/regulatory agencies/utility companies, etc. are on track. If the look ahead schedule is not in compliance with the original schedule, we take appropriate actions to avoid potential delays. Our approach to Scheduling and Timely Completion of Project and Schedule Recovery includes having the contractor prepare a baseline schedule, which identifies the project scope, critical path, project milestones, target dates, phases and sequences of work, and activity durations. When significant activities show that they are slipping from the baseline, we work with the contractor to develop recovery plans.

Contract Administration Approach (Caltrans LAPM): For construction contract administration, we follow guidelines described in Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM).

DB (Design-Built) Delivery: Transtech has extensive experience in managing DB Projects in compliance with CA Public Contract Code, CHAPTER 4. Local Agency Design-Build Projects.

Project Controls: Our staff has experience with various document control software systems including Procore, Autodesk ConstructWare (which has now become Construction Cloud), and Primavera P6. In our experience all major control software programs work basically the same way and adapting from one software offering to another has a fairly small learning curve. Because the specific software is generally a choice made by the prime contractor, our staff is ready to partner with any user of any program. That said, not all projects require the ‘fire power’ associated with an expensive, sophisticated control system. Sometimes an intelligently designed filing system that stores basic Word, Excel, PDF, and email documents in the cloud is all a project really needs.

Project Control System: Transtech has developed its in-house Project Control Procedures and System, follow guidelines similar to what is described in Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM).

F. Project Understanding, Overview and Approach F.6

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES

3. Services Proposed
A. BUILDING STAFF SERVICES
Transtech will provide experienced staff to supplement the City’s existing staff on an on-call, as-needed basis. Currently the City does not provide any in-house building inspection services, or building official services. The Consultant shall provide these services on a full-time basis (Monday through Friday) unless notified otherwise by the City. The inspection staff shall be certified by the International Code Council or other appropriate recognized organization in accordance with state law and possess a minimum of three (3) years of code analysis and enforcement within a municipality or a private municipal Contractor. The Consultant shall identify the number of “inspection stops” it will perform in a business day. It is the City’s desired customer service goal to provide “next day” inspections, without limitation.

The Community Development Director shall have the right of refusal of any staff member assigned by the consultant. All inspection staff and plan review staff members must have a commitment to efficiency, high standards of customer service, ability to maintain positive relationships with City staff, utilize Bluebeam software in completing the plan check process, and Energov for permit issuance and inspections.

B. CERTIFIED ACCESS SPECIALIST (CASp) SERVICES (Transtech provides this service) Transtech will has a staff member that is a Certified Access Specialist (CASp) from the California Department of State Architect (DSA) with a minimum of three (3) years of disabled accessibility inspection experience. This staff member shall complete inspections for any assigned projects that have aspects related to California disabled accessibility requirements with compliance concerns. This staff member shall complete CASp inspection services when requested by the City.

C. BUILDING PLAN CHECK SERVICES
Transtech will provide staffing specified in the RFP:
• Building Official
• Commercial Building Inspector
• Residential Building Inspector
• Commercial/Residential Mechanical Inspector
• Commercial/Residential Plumbing Inspector
• Commercial/Residential Electrical Inspector
• Building Plans Examiner
• CASp Certified Inspector
Transtech has staff members that are capable of providing all necessary plan review services needed to comply with adopted City building code regulations and have any credentials needed to provide written certification on behalf of the City. Consultant shall provide specific information regarding minimum timeframes required to complete plan check reviews. The City’s current customer service goal is to complete first submittals within ten (10) business days, and subsequent submittals within five (5) days from when plans are transmitted to consultants for plan check.

D. UNDERSTANDING OF STORMWATER REGULATIONS (Transtech provides this service) Transtech staff have understanding of the City’s Stormwater Regulations, Erosion Control methods, Best Management Practices (BMP’s), etc. and be qualified to inspect all aspects related to such regulations.

E. AFTER HOURS INSPECTION (Transtech provides this service) Transtech has staff available to provide inspection outside of normal City working hours services when requested by OCFA, or other government agencies, such as the County of Orange. Transtech will also maintain the ability to offer after hours inspections for businesses and residents. This is an extra service the City may offer to businesses and residents on an extremely limited, as-needed basis subject to the approval of the Community Development Director and the availability of the Consultant.

F. STAFF QUALIFICATIONS
Transtech has the ability to provide building inspection staff with the following professional certifications:

G. CONSULTATION & COORDINATION
Transtech will be responsible for providing consultations and coordination with City departments (such as the City’s

BUILDING AND SAFETY SERVICES

F. Project Understanding, Overview and Approach F.7

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES Planning Division and Public Services Department) and other agencies (such as OCFA) working on behalf of the City, that are involved in the normal course and scope of the City’s construction processes.

H. DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REVIEW (Transtech provides this service) Transtech will respond to Planning Division “request for comments” for new business uses and development projects.

I. ON-CALL PERMIT TECHNICIAN (Transtech provides this service) Transtech has the ability to provide permit technicians for temporary assignment with the City as needed to cover staff absences, or supplement City staff services.

J. TRAINING
Transtech has the ability to provide training to City counter staff in duties required for building permit technicians.

K. ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Transtech’s multi-disciplinary service capabilities include:
• City Engineer, City Traffic Engineer, Development Review, Public Works Engineering, Plan Check, Inspection
• Civil Engineering,
• Staff Augmentation
• CIP Program, Construction Management and Inspection
• Grant Writing and Grant Funded Project Management
• Labor Compliance
• Building & Safety Services, Building Official,
Inspection, Plan Check, Permits
• Planning Support
• Traffic and Transportation Planning and
Engineering
• Water Resources Engineering
• Surveying, Mapping, ALTA, ROW Eng
PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION (Transtech provides this service) As specified in the RFP, the inspector will be performing at least 20 hours per week of general inspection services for encroachment permits, public works construction, and related work for 52 weeks per year. The inspector will have a minimum of 4 years of experience in public agency construction inspection. Work hours will generally be from 7:00 am to 11:00 am Monday to Friday or as mutually agreed. To the extent the encroachment permit work justifies and exceeds these work hours, additional hours of work will be provided.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT INSPECTION (Transtech provides this service) Transtech will provide experienced public agency construction inspectors, as needed, for a variety of public works, street maintenance, landscape construction, traffic signal construction, storm drain construction and similar construction inspection services. The inspector will have a minimum of 15 years of experience in public agency construction inspection.

Per the RFP, it is assumed the duration of work is limited duration up to 8 hours per day for 120 working days per fiscal year.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT MANAGEMENT (Transtech provides this service) Transtech will provide experienced project managers for Capital Improvement Projects sufficient to carry out the City’s multi-year Capital Improvement Program in accordance with the approved City Budget. Per the RFP, it is assumed the duration of work is limited duration up to 8 hours per day for 120 working days per fiscal year. Typically, project managers with professional backgrounds well suited to this work are former experienced public agency senior or principal engineers, assistant city engineers, city engineers, or public works directors.

MAP CHECK (Transtech provides this service)
Transtech will provide map checking for parcel map, tract map, lot line adjustment, street vacations, and other maps.

Per the RFP, it is assumed map check services will be requested up to eight times per year and each map check will require three cycles of map check. Also assume the distribution of map checking will be 3 tract maps, 2 parcel maps, 3 lot line adjustments, and 1 street vacations.

ENGINEERING PLAN CHECK (Transtech provides this service) Transtech will provide plan checking to include private development improvement plans, grading plans, storm water quality plans, and traffic control plans. Per the RFP, it is assumed plan check services will be requested up to ten times per

PUBLIC WORKS /ENGINEERING SERVICES

F. Project Understanding, Overview and Approach F.8

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES year and each plan check will consist of one set of plans of twenty sheets being checked for three cycles of plan check.

CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES (Transtech provides this service) Transtech will provide design services for the preparation of plans, specifications and estimates for Capital Improvement Projects including, but not limited to, street maintenance, street improvements, street widening, grading, erosion control, traffic control and related improvements. Per the RFP, it is assumed that civil engineering design services will be requested once per contract term and will consist of the design of arterial highway pavement rehabilitation plans for a 6-lane highway, 2 miles long, with 10 signalized intersections, and will include a title sheet, 2 detail sheets, 5 double-stacked asphalt and sidewalk removal and replacement plan sheets at 1” = 40’, and 5 double-stacked signing and striping plan sheets at 1” = 40’.

PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (Transtech does not provide this service)

4. Project Management
Our firm understands the importance of clear communication, responsiveness, and coordinated project delivery when working with City staff and stakeholders. We recognize that the Community Development Director will serve as the City’s dedicated Project Manager and primary point of contact and contract officer for these services, with additional oversight potentially provided by the Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works and City Manager. Our project management approach is specifically designed to support effective coordination with City leadership while maintaining project schedules, budget control, and high-quality deliverables.

The designated Project Manager will serve as the point of contact for the City and will be responsible for overall project coordination, communication, scheduling, quality control, and contract administration. The Project Manager will work closely with the City representatives to ensure project objectives, priorities, and expectations are consistently understood and achieved.

To support schedule commitment and timely project delivery, our team utilizes proactive project planning and milestone tracking procedures. Detailed work plans and schedules are developed at the outset of each assignment and updated throughout the project lifecycle. Critical path items, review durations, agency coordination requirements, and City review timelines are continuously monitored to minimize delays and maintain project momentum.

Key project team members will participate in regular progress meetings with City staff throughout the duration of the project. This collaborative approach ensures transparency, facilitates timely decision-making, and allows all stakeholders to remain informed regarding project status, budget, schedule, and upcoming activities. Regular participation by multiple team members also promotes continuity and ensures backup personnel remain familiar with project details and ongoing tasks.

Our staffing structure includes experienced backup personnel for key team members to ensure continuity of service throughout the duration of the contract. In the event of unforeseen staffing changes, qualified staff familiar with the project can immediately assume responsibilities without disruption to project progress or responsiveness to the City.

Through proactive communication, disciplined project controls, and responsive coordination with the City staff, our firm is committed to delivering projects efficiently, professionally, and within established schedules and budgets.

5. Resources, City Assistance, Other Items by City
Access to city facilities and information/documents necessary for the performance of the services by our staff.

6. Additionally/Optionally Provided Services(ADDITIONAL SERVICES) Transtech maintains a robust team of approximately 250 experienced professionals, allowing us to quickly mobilize qualified staff and respond to client needs in a timely, efficient, and cost-effective manner. Our depth of resources ensures continuity of service, scalability, and consistent performance across multiple assignments.

F. Project Understanding, Overview and Approach F.9

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES Our multi-disciplinary service capabilities include:
• City Engineer, City Traffic Engineer, Development Review, Public Works Engineering, Plan Check, Inspection
• Civil Engineering,
• Staff Augmentation
• CIP Program, Construction Management and Inspection
• Grant Writing and Grant Funded Project Management
• Labor Compliance
• Building & Safety Services, Building Official,
Inspection, Plan Check, Permits
• Planning Support
• Traffic and Transportation Planning and
Engineering
• Water Resources Engineering
• Surveying, Mapping, ALTA, ROW Eng

7. Project Controls
Our firm utilizes established project management and internal control procedures to effectively manage project costs, maintain schedules, and provide accurate and timely invoicing throughout the duration of each assignment. These procedures are designed to ensure transparency, accountability, and consistent communication with the City while maintaining high-quality project delivery.

Cost Control and Budget Management: We implement proactive cost control measures beginning at project initiation and continuing through project completion. Project budgets are established by task and monitored regularly by the Project Manager and accounting staff to track labor hours, subconsultant costs, and overall expenditures against authorized budgets. Regular internal project reviews are conducted to evaluate budget status, staffing levels, scope management, and resource allocation to help ensure projects remain within authorized funding limits. Any potential scope changes or additional services are identified and communicated to the City in advance to avoid unexpected costs.

Accurate and Timely Invoicing: Our invoicing procedures include multiple levels of internal review to ensure invoices are accurate, complete, and submitted in a timely manner. Project invoices are prepared using detailed labor and expense tracking systems that document hours worked, billing rates, reimbursable expenses, and task progress. Invoices are accompanied by supporting documentation, as required by the City, and are submitted in accordance with agreedupon billing schedules.

Schedule Monitoring and Schedule Control: Project schedules are developed at the outset of each assignment and are continuously monitored throughout the project lifecycle. Our team uses project schedules, milestone tracking, and regular progress evaluations to ensure timely completion of deliverables and adherence to project deadlines.

The Project Manager is responsible for monitoring progress against established schedules and implementing corrective measures if schedule variances are identified. This proactive management approach allows our team to maintain project momentum, address issues efficiently, and complete projects within the proposed time frames.

8. Quality Control/Quality Assurance (QA/QC)
We employ a structured approach to project execution that enables Transtech to deliver efficient, high-quality results to the City.

Transtech has established comprehensive guidelines and policies, including written manuals covering quality control, project management, and design procedures. These resources guide both our staff and our contract cities, ensuring a consistent and reliable approach to all assignments. Our processes are designed to comply with the City’s specific procedures, standards, and requirements.

Our approach emphasizes proactive management, with a focus on identifying potential issues early and implementing corrective actions before they escalate. This requires strong technical expertise, hands-on experience, and effective leadership. Our team members have a proven track record of successfully managing large and complex projects, consistently delivering them on time and within budget.

PROPOSAL G.0

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES G. Schedule

G. Schedule G.1

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES

1. Plan Check Turn-around Times
a. Major Projects: Initial review completed within 20 business days; Rechecks completed within 10 business days of resubmittal. (For unusually large or complex development projects, the review period may be extended on a caseby-case basis only with the prior approval of the City.) b. Standard Projects: Initial review completed within 10 business days; Rechecks completed within five (5) business days of resubmittal.
c. Minor Projects: Initial review completed within five (5) business days; Rechecks completed within five (5) business days of resubmittal.

2. General Schedule Approach
Transtech is committed to full accountability and takes immediate, proactive measures to recover project schedules in the event of a consultant-caused delay—at no additional cost to the City. Our approach focuses on rapid response, resource allocation, and efficient corrective action to minimize impacts and restore project timelines.

Upon identification of a delay attributable to Transtech, we promptly assess the cause, extent of impact, and critical path implications. A targeted recovery plan is developed and implemented, which may include resequencing tasks, prioritizing critical activities, and accelerating deliverables to regain lost time.

Transtech maintains a large pool of approximately 250 experienced professionals, enabling us to quickly assign additional qualified staff, extend work hours, or reallocate internal resources as needed.

Our project management approach emphasizes early issue identification and resolution. Senior staff actively monitor project performance to prevent delays and, when necessary, intervene decisively to bring projects back on track while maintaining quality and compliance with City standards.

Our “Customer Care” philosophy ensures responsive and client-focused service. We are known for delivering costeffective solutions with a strong commitment to timeliness and communication. All inquiries are responded to within the same working day or the next, reinforcing our “Same Day Response” standard.

All corrective actions are implemented in accordance with our established quality control, project management, and design procedures. We remain committed to maintaining the highest standards of service while supporting the City’s goals and public trust.

PROPOSAL H.0

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES H. Communication Plan

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES H. Communication Plan H.1
Key project team members will participate in regularly scheduled progress meetings with City staff throughout the duration of the project. These meetings are an important component of our project management and communication approach and are intended to maintain transparency, support timely decision-making, and ensure that all stakeholders remain informed regarding project status, schedule, budget, and upcoming activities.

Progress meetings will provide an opportunity to review ongoing tasks, discuss project milestones and deliverables, identify potential challenges or schedule impacts, and confirm action items and responsibilities. Meeting discussions will also include updates on coordination with regulatory agencies, utility companies, subconsultants, and other stakeholders, as applicable to the project.

In addition to supporting effective project delivery, regular participation by multiple team members ensures continuity and familiarity with project details across our staff. This collaborative approach allows backup personnel and supporting staff to remain informed and engaged in project activities, which further strengthens our ability to provide uninterrupted service and seamless transitions should staffing changes become necessary.

Meeting summaries, action items, and schedule updates will be documented and distributed following each meeting to maintain clear communication and accountability among all project participants.

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES PROPOSAL I.0
I. Compensation/Payment Schedule
(per RFP requirement, submitted separately)

PROPOSAL J.0

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES J. Certificate of Insurance

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES J. Certificate of Insurance J.1
Following is Transtech’s current Insurance Certificate.

TRANSTECH Engineers, Inc.

Melissa Demirci
5-22-2026
Melissa Demirci, CEO

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES J. Certificate of Insurance J.2

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES J. Certificate of Insurance J.3
If selected by the City, we will appreciate the opportunity of having our Attorney discuss the final contract language to ensure our insurance is in compliance with current laws and regulations and meets the City’s requirements with the City’s Attorney. Following are our comments and suggestions for City’s consideration:

PROPOSAL K.0

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES K. Certification of Proposal

K. Certification of Proposal K.1

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES TRANSTECH Engineers, Inc.
22nd May Chino
Melissa Demirci
Melissa Demirci
CEO
5-22-2026

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES PROPOSAL Ap1.0
Appendix1 – Non-Collusion Affidavit

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES Appendix1 – Non-Collusion Affidavit Ap1.1
Melissa Demirci
Melissa Demirci CEO
22nd
May Chino

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES PROPOSAL Ap2.0
Appendix2 – Addenda Acknowledgement
(excluded from 30-page proposal limit)

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES Appendix2 – Addenda Acknowledgement (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) Ap2.1 ADDENDUM 1
As required under ACKNOWLEDGMENT, Transtech is acknowledging receipt of Addendum No. 1, including all attachments, and include with the proposal submission.

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES Appendix2 – Addenda Acknowledgement (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) Ap2.2

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES Appendix2 – Addenda Acknowledgement (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) Ap2.3

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES Appendix2 – Addenda Acknowledgement (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) Ap2.4 Melissa Demirci
TRANSTECH Engineers, Inc.

Melissa Demirci

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES Appendix2 – Addenda Acknowledgement (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) Ap2.5

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES Appendix2 – Addenda Acknowledgement (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) Ap2.6 ADDENDUM 2
As required under ACKNOWLEDGMENT, Transtech is acknowledging receipt of Addendum No. 2, including all attachments, and include with the proposal submission.

Melissa Demirci
TRANSTECH Engineers, Inc.

Melissa Demirci

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES Appendix2 – Addenda Acknowledgement (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) Ap2.7

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES Appendix2 – Addenda Acknowledgement (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) Ap2.8

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES Appendix2 – Addenda Acknowledgement (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) Ap2.9

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES Appendix2 – Addenda Acknowledgement (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) Ap2.10

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES Appendix2 – Addenda Acknowledgement (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) Ap2.11

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES Appendix2 – Addenda Acknowledgement (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) Ap2.12

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES Appendix2 – Addenda Acknowledgement (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) Ap2.13

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES Appendix2 – Addenda Acknowledgement (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) Ap2.14

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES Appendix2 – Addenda Acknowledgement (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) Ap2.15

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES Appendix2 – Addenda Acknowledgement (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) Ap2.16

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES Appendix2 – Addenda Acknowledgement (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) Ap2.17

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES Appendix2 – Addenda Acknowledgement (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) Ap2.18

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES Appendix2 – Addenda Acknowledgement (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) Ap2.19

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES Appendix2 – Addenda Acknowledgement (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) Ap2.20

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES Appendix2 – Addenda Acknowledgement (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) Ap2.21

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES Appendix2 – Addenda Acknowledgement (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) Ap2.22

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES Appendix2 – Addenda Acknowledgement (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) Ap2.23

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES Appendix2 – Addenda Acknowledgement (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) Ap2.24

ON-CALL BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING CONSULTING AND SUPPORT SERVICES Appendix2 – Addenda Acknowledgement (excluded from 30-page proposal limit) Ap2.25

Item No. 5.2.2
City of Laguna Hills
City Council / Planning
Agency
Staff Report
Date: October 13, 2026
To: Mayor and Council Members
From: Jennifer Lowe, Community Development Director
Issue: 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury Report, “California Housing Mandates: The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County
Neighborhoods”
Recommendation: That the City Council:

1. Approve the City of Laguna Hills response to the 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury Report, California Housing Mandates: The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods;

2. Authorize the Mayor to execute the response on behalf of the City Council; and

3. Direct the City Manager to submit the executed response to the Presiding Judge of the Orange County Superior Court as required by applicable law.

Background:

On May 27, 2026, the Orange County Grand Jury (“OCGJ”) released its 2025– 2026 report, California Housing Mandates: The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods (the “Report”; Attachment 1).The report is intended to inform Orange County local governments and regional policymakers regarding the implementation and impacts of State housing mandates, including RHNA, Housing Element requirements, development regulations, and affordable housing production. It evaluates the effects of these requirements on local capacity, infrastructure, community character, and land-use authority, and identifies opportunities to strengthen regional coordination through Orange County Council of Governments (“OCCOG”)and inform future housing allocation discussions with Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”).

Item No. 5.2.2
The OCGJ’s research and analysis resulted in 22 findings and 20 recommendations addressing State housing mandates and their implementation within Orange County. California Penal Code Section 933 requires local governing bodies to respond to applicable findings and recommendations contained in county grand jury reports. The Report identifies 21 Orange County cities, Orange County Board of Supervisors, OCCOG, and SCAG as entities subject to specified response requirements.

The City of Laguna Hills is required to respond to Findings F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, and F12, and Recommendations R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, and R16. Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933.05, the City Council's response must address each applicable finding and recommendation in accordance with the response categories established by State law.

Required Response to OCGJ Findings
California Penal Code Section 933.05 provides that, for each finding, the responding governing body must either:
• Agree with the finding; or
• Disagree wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response must identify the portion of the finding that is disputed and explain the reasons for the disagreement.

State law does not provide an option for a City to decline to respond to a finding because it considers the finding inapplicable.

Required Response to OCGJ Recommendations
California Penal Code Section 933.05 establishes four potential response categories for recommendations:
• The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the action taken;
• The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation; • The recommendation requires further analysis, including the scope and parameters of the analysis and a timeframe for City Council consideration that does not exceed six months from publication of the Grand Jury report; or
• The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation.

Item No. 5.2.2
City Response and Submittal
Staff prepared the proposed response for City Council consideration as Attachment 2. The response reflects the City’s experience implementing the 6th Cycle Housing Element (2021–2029), including staff’s experience with the RHNA process, Housing Element site inventory and capacity requirements, development standards, housing production, and related State housing mandates. The response incorporates staff’s observations and experience in administering these requirements within the local municipal context.

Upon approval, the response will be executed by the Mayor on behalf of the City Council and submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Orange County Superior Court in accordance with California Penal Code Section 933. The response will serve as the City’s formal position regarding the applicable OCGC findings and recommendations. Furthermore, the response acknowledges findings with which the City agrees and identifies areas where the City partially agrees or disagrees based on the City’s experience, local conditions, and implementation of the 6th Cycle Housing Element. The response also identifies actions already undertaken by the City and distinguishes recommendations that are outside the City’s authority or would duplicate existing programs, processes, or reporting requirements. The Superior Court will publish on the Orange County Grand Jury website the City's responses alongside the original investigative reports and other city responses.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Attachments:

1. Orange County Grand Jury Report - California Housing Mandates

2. Draft of City of Laguna Hills Responses to OC Grand Jury Report

California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026

California State Housing Mandates

This page left intentionally blank!

California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

In practice, Housing Mandates alone do not build homes.

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

For example:

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

segregation, and balances disproportionate household income distributions across jurisdictions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

Applies general-plan challenge rules to charter cities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does not authorize projects inconsistent with state housing laws.

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

Applies statewide, including charter cities.

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

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

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

Core Responsibilities:

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

California State Housing Mandates

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

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

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

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

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

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