F-2. Actions that address conditions in the home ignition zone to significantly reduce ignition potential can prevent a community wildland -urban interface fire disaster or suburban conflagration.
City's Response: The City agrees with the finding. The City of Orange concurs that managing the Home Ignition Zone (HIZ) is one of the most critical and effective actions homeowners can take to mitigate wildfire risk. Evidence-based research and evaluation have demonstrated that proper HIZ maintenance significantly reduces the risk of home ignition caused by ember cast during a wildfire event. To embed this critical practice within the community, the City conducts public outreach campaigns. These targeted engagements have included Orange Park Acres (HOA) and were specifically designed to elevate awareness of the Home Ignition Zone as a primary focus for local wildfire resilience and risk reduction.
F-3. Expanded engagement with the community to raise awareness and provide support regarding home hardening and defensible space will increase effectiveness of wildfire risk mitigation and insurance risk reduction efforts.
City's Response: The City agrees with the finding. Community engagement is critical to empowering residents with the knowledge required to systematically reduce structural and vegetative vulnerability ahead of a wildfire event. To move beyond generalized mapping, the City of Orange is in the process of evaluating Xyloplan modeling technology. This technology could be used to analyze local fire pathways and evaluate specific risk exposure down to the individual parcel level. The City is investigating leveraging data -driven insights from this localized analysis to educate individual homeowners on high -impact, property-specific risk reduction strategies.
F-4. Achievement of community-level and property-level wildfire risk mitigation designations (such as Firewise USA Site, Fire Risk Reduction Community or Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety certification) lessens wildfire risk and helps reduce insu rance premium costs.
City's Response: The City agrees with the finding. The City of Orange is investigating a possible Firewise for specific high and very high fire zones. The City recognizes that establishing a community-led structure necessary for successful implementation.
F-5. All county residents should be made aware that Safer from Wildfire regulation requires insurers to provide discounts to homeowners and communities that implement home hardening and defensible space measures regardless of whether a property is located within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
City's Response: The City agrees with the finding. The City of Orange actively promotes and disseminates information regarding the California Department of Insurance “Safer from Wildfires” regulatory framework. These resources are in our brochure Ready, Set, Go! Information includes wildfire recovery and readiness, how Safer can help with insurance, and how the California FAIR Plan is a critical insurance option for residents and businesses.
374
300 E. CHAPMAN A VENUE • ORANGE, CA 92866-1506
August 12, 2026
F-6. AB888, California Safe Homes Grant Program, provides financial assistance to eligible homeowners, cities, counties, and special districts for home hardening and defensible space measures. Applying for and using these grant funds will reduce wildfire losses and improve insurability and resilience of vulnerable communities.
City’s Response: The City agrees with the finding. The City of Orange recognizes that external grant funding is an essential tool to expand community -wide resilience and assist homeowners who face financial constraints when implementing critical wildfire mitigation measures. Securing and utilizing available grant funds can enhance localized hazard reduction efforts. The City will continue to evaluate available grant opportunities, including the California Safe Homes Grant Program.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
R-2. By December 31, 2026, cities and fire service agencies, including Orange County Fire Authority should commit to participation in a county -wide annual wildfire prevention fair planned by the Orange County Board of Supervisors to showcase wildfire prevention outreach programs.
City's Response: The recommendation requires further analysis. The City will evaluate participation in a county-wide annual wildfire prevention fair based on the scope of the event, available resources, and the City's existing wildfire prevention and public outreach programs.
The City will complete its analysis within six months of publication of the Grand Jury report.
R-3. By December 31, 2026, cities, unincorporated areas, special districts, and fire service agencies in High and Very-High Fire Hazard Severity Zones should initiate planning activities to achieve community-level wildfire risk mitigation designations and/or establish a local Fire Safe Council within one year.
City's Response: The recommendation requires further analysis. The City will evaluate the feasibility and resource requirements associated with pursuing an appropriate community - level wildfire risk mitigation designation and/or establishment of a local Fire Safe Council.
The City will complete its analysis within six months of publication of the Grand Jury report.
R-4. By December 31, 2026, to ensure city residents are engaged and aware of wildfire risk reduction resources, OCFA member and non -member cities should provide information, develop their own outreach program, and establish a direct contact person(s) for their residents.
This is in addition to whatever referrals or references made to OCFA outreach programs.
City's Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The City of Orange and the Orange City Fire Department have established a comprehensive public outreach program, hosting multiple educational events annually. Furthermore, a dedicated Public Education staff member is formally assigned as the direct point of contact for residents regarding these wildfire safety initiatives.
375
300 E. CHAPMAN A VENUE • ORANGE, CA 92866-1506
August 12, 2026
Thank you for your service and efforts on behalf of the City of Orange. We hope this response will be helpful.
Sincerely,
Daniel R. Slater
Mayor, City of Orange
Cc: The Orange County Grand Jury
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Bcc: Jarad L. Hildenbrand, City Manager
Nathalie Adourian, City Attorney
376
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
377
This page left intentionally blank so the first page starts to the right
378
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 3 of 74
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 5 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 6 REASON FOR STUDY ................................................................................................... 9 METHOD OF STUDY ...................................................................................................... 9 INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 10 FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................... 31 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 32 COMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................... 33 REQUIRED RESPONSES ............................................................................................ 34 Acronyms ...................................................................................................................... 41 Glossary ........................................................................................................................ 43 Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 45 Appendix A .................................................................................................................... 50 Appendix B .................................................................................................................... 53 Appendix C .................................................................................................................... 55 Appendix D .................................................................................................................... 56 Appendix E .................................................................................................................... 58 Appendix F .................................................................................................................... 61 Appendix G ................................................................................................................... 63
FIGURES
Figure 1 Map of Eaton and Palisades Fires in January 2025 ......................................... 7 Figure 2 Shared responsibility for risk reduction in wildland-urban interface areas ...... 11 Figure 3 WUI and suburban conflagration fire disaster chain of events. ...................... 13 Figure 4 Example of an Orange County City LRA Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map ..... 16 Figure 5 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Defensible Zones 0, 1, and 2 .............. 18 Figure 6 Total FAIR Plan Dwelling and Commercial Policies Have Increased, September 2023 to September 2025 ............................................................. 20 Figure 7 City Area Reported in Fire Hazard Severity Zones ......................................... 26 Figure 8 Cities Reporting Achieved, Applied for, or Plan to Apply for a Community- Level Wildfire Risk Mitigation Designation ..................................................... 27 379
Wildfires Hit Home
Figure 9 Cities Reporting Outreach Program to Provide Information and Guidance to Property Owners on Wildfire Risk Mitigation Measures and/or Grants .......... 28 Figure 10 Cities Reporting Their Outreach Program Refers to Orange County Fire Authority Outreach Programs and Resources ............................................. 29 Figure 11 Top 20 Deadliest California Wildfires ............................................................ 50 Figure 12 Top 20 Most Destructive California Wildfires ................................................ 51 Figure 13 Large Fires 300 Acres and Greater - State and Contract Counties Direct Protection Area ............................................................................................ 52 Figure 14 Orange County Wildfires by Size ................................................................. 52 Figure 15 Safer from Wildfires Flyer, Page 1 ................................................................ 53 Figure 16 Safer from Wildfires Flyer, Page 2 ................................................................ 54 Figure 17 Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map of Orange County ...................................... 55 Figure 18 Fire Hardening and Defensible Space Disclosure, Page 1 .......................... 56 Figure 19 Fire Hardening and Defensible Space Disclosure, Page 2 .......................... 57 Figure 20 California Property and Casualty Insurance Company Homeowners Premium and Loss ....................................................................................... 58 Figure 21 FAIR Plan Data for Orange County Zip Codes 90620 - 92679 ..................... 59 Figure 22 FAIR Plan Data for Orange County Zip Codes 92680 – 92899 .................... 60 Figure 23 Orange County Fire Authority Covered Cities .............................................. 61 Figure 24 Orange County Fire Jurisdictions ................................................................. 62 Figure 25 Ready, Set Go! Flyer for Immediate Zone .................................................... 63 Figure 26 Ready, Set, Go! Flyer on Defensible Space ................................................. 64 Figure 27 Ready, Set, Go! Flyer for Home Hardening, Page 1 .................................... 65 Figure 28 Ready, Set, Go! Flyer for Home Hardening, Page 2 .................................... 66 Figure 29 Ready, Set, Go! Flyer on Vegetation Management ...................................... 67 Figure 30 Ready, Set, Go! On Be Ember Aware .......................................................... 68 Figure 31 Ready, Set, Go! Flyer on Home Assessment ............................................... 69 Figure 32 Ready, Set, Go! Flyer on Wildfire Home Risk Assessment, Page 1 ............. 70 Figure 33 Ready, Set, Go! Flyer on Wildfire Home Risk Assessment, Page 2 ............. 71 Figure 34 Zone 0 At-A-Glance, Page 1 ........................................................................ 72 Figure 35 Zone 0 At-A-Glance, Page 2 ........................................................................ 73
380
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 5 of 74
SUMMARY
Wildfires have become a fact of life in California. Persistent drought conditions and accelerated warming have led to an increase in wildfires throughout the state. Of the twenty most destructive wildfires in California history, fifteen have occurred in the last ten years (see Appendix A). From the Camp Fire, also referred to as the Paradise Fire, in Northern California to the Palisades and Eaton Fires in Los Angeles and the Airport Fire in Orange County, the tragic loss of life and the destruction of thousands of homes and structures have upended homeowners’ lives and rocked the insurance industry with billions of dollars in claims just in the last few years. These conditions have made home insurance unaffordable or unavailable for many Orange County residents. The State of California has attempted over recent years to mitigate the impact on ratepayers and insurers and has provided tougher regulations for hardening homes and property. Both the California legislature and the California Department of Insurance have issued recent laws and regulations to address these issues. Significant for this report are Safer from Wildfires (2022), California Fair Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) Plan (1968, revised 2025), Assembly Bill 888 (2025) and California Wildland-Urban Interface Code (2025).
The California FAIR Plan was established in 1968 to provide basic insurance for property owners who could not obtain fire coverage through the traditional insurance market due to being in high-risk fire areas. The FAIR Plan is not a state agency, and it receives no taxpayer funding. It is a syndicated fire insurance pool made up of all insurers licensed to write property/casualty insurance in the state. The FAIR Plan is intended to be the insurer of last resort and is meant to be a temporary safety net helping property owners until they can transition back to the traditional insurance market. The numerous fires over the last few years coupled with private insurers leaving the California market or no longer insuring homes in high-risk areas, have resulted in the FAIR Plan being financially strained with the number of policies more than doubling since September 2023.1 The State Legislature and Department of Insurance both responded with strategies to rebalance this problem requiring insurers to increase the number of policies issued in high-risk areas and to change the way rates are established, however, insurance companies, using loopholes in the legislation, have so far largely avoided meeting the goals set for them.2
The Safer from Wildfires regulation was issued by the Insurance Commissioner after development in partnership with California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) and the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. The regulation mandates
1 Key Statistics & Data. The California FAIR Plan. https://www.cfpnet.com/key-statistics-data/ 2 The New York Times, California Promised Insurance Relief, But Delivered Loopholes, Nov. 2, 2025. 381
Wildfires Hit Home
that insurance companies provide rate discounts for various actions that property owners take to create defensible space and harden their homes against wildfires (see Appendix B).
AB888, the California Safe Homes Grant Program, aims to reduce wildfire losses, improve insurability and resilience of vulnerable communities, and support home hardening efforts to help residents qualify for insurance premium incentives. It provides grants to aid qualifying residents and communities to complete wildfire risk mitigation measures.
The California Wildland-Urban Interface Code (CWUIC) refers to the California Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 7. Effective in January 2026, the CWUIC requires fire- resistant and ignition-resistant construction in Fire Hazard Severity Zones or the wildland-urban interface. Requirements were also established for vegetation and hazard mitigation in the same areas. Studies have definitively shown that implementing these home hardening and defensible space requirements, including retrofitting existing homes, will greatly reduce ignition and fire spread, thereby reducing damage and resulting claims. Compliance with the 2015 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code (IWUIC) could save $4 for every $1 invested and retrofitting structures to the IWUIC could provide from $2 to as much as $8 in benefits for each $1 invested.3 Home hardening and defensible space measures that align with wildland-urban interface codes and Safer from Wildfires regulations will help save homeowners and insurance companies from catastrophic loss.
The 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury found evidence that clearly shows Safer from Wildfires home hardening and defensible space measures protect homes and communities, saving homeowners, local governments, and fire authorities as well as insurance companies from catastrophic loss while also providing discounts for homeowners’ insurance premiums.
BACKGROUND
California’s Wildfire Crisis and Insurance Impact
California faces an escalating wildfire crisis fueled by accelerated warming, prolonged droughts, increasingly windy conditions, and expanded development into fire-prone areas. Between 2015 and 2025, 15 of the 20 most destructive wildfires in state history
3 National Institute of Building Science, Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves. 2019. https://nibs.org/wp- content/uploads/2025/04/NIBS_MMC_MitigationSaves_2019-1.pdf. Accessed March 3, 2026. 382
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 7 of 74
occurred, including the Palisades and Eaton Fires in 2025. These events have caused loss of life, devastated communities, destroyed thousands of homes, and resulted in billions in insured losses (see Appendix A).
The Eaton Fire in January 2025, spread through the suburbs of Pasadena destroying 9,413 structures and burning 14,021 acres. It became Los Angeles County’s most destructive and second deadliest fire with 19 fatalities (see Appendix A).
On the same day in January 2025, the Palisades Fires swept through Pacific Palisades, Topanga, and Malibu, consuming 6,833 homes and 23,707 acres. It became Los Angeles County’s third-most destructive fire and third deadliest with 12 fatalities (see Appendix A). Both fires were fueled by strong Santa Ana winds of between 80-100 mph, extremely dry conditions, and dense vegetation, creating what officials called a "perfect storm" for wildfire spread.4,5
Figure 1 Map of Eaton and Palisades Fires in January 2025 The most destructive California wildfire listed by CAL FIRE is the November 2018 Camp Fire in Butte County which burned 153,336 acres, destroyed 18,804 structures, and resulted in 85 deaths. The CAL FIRE list of the Top 20 Most Destructive California Wildfires can be viewed in detail in Appendix A. Data for Orange County wildfires for the period 2008 through 2024 can be viewed in Appendix A.
Orange County’s 2024 Airport Fire that started in Trabuco Canyon burned 23,500 acres and destroyed 160 structures. The fire raged for nearly a month, prompting a state of
4 Andrea Thompson, How the Ferocious Santa Ana Winds are Fueling the Palisades Fire, Scientific American, Accessed January,8, 2026, http://www.scientificamerican.com 5 Julia Jacobo and Ginger Zee, A perfect storm of weather and climate conditions led to the severity of the California fires, ABC News, Accessed January 8, 2026, http://www.abcnews.com/US/perfect-storm- weather-climate-conditions-severity-california-fires/story?id=117468072 383
Wildfires Hit Home
emergency and millions of dollars in claims. This fire and others not only caused property loss, but also damaged ecosystems, water resources, and impacted air quality.
Post-fire soil degradation and the expansion of invasive, non-native plants has further hindered recovery.6
In California, wildfires have strained the private insurance market. Many insurers, facing frequent and unsustainable financial exposure and constraints on rate hikes caused by Proposition 103 have withdrawn from high-risk areas, or stopped issuing new policies altogether. Some insurers have even withdrawn from the state completely.
California homeowners in high-risk wildfire areas report premiums ranging from $5,000 to $12,000 annually.7 Orange County, California’s fifth most expensive housing market as of the 4th quarter 2025,8 faces challenges that are different than the statewide market. With an average home price of $1.2 million,9 rising insurance costs further threaten housing affordability. A recent survey found that 43% of Orange County seniors worry most about housing costs and financial security.10 Among the hardest hit by insurance premium increases and policy nonrenewal are retirees, renters, and owners of condominiums, townhomes, and mobile homes.
The Safer from Wildfires regulation requires insurers to offer discounts to homeowners who take proactive steps to reduce wildfire risk. Discounts are based on both achieving community-level designations, which assess the collective mitigation efforts of neighborhoods, and property-level improvements such as installing fire-resistant roofing, ember-resistant vents, and clearing defensible space.11 Reducing wildfire risk in the wildland-urban interface helps ensure that insurance coverage remains accessible. California’s wildfire and insurance crisis demands coordinated action from local governments and fire authorities, communities, and homeowners to reduce risk of wildfire.
6 Mashall A. Hayrikian, Engineering and Environmental Implications of the LA wildfires: Eaton and Palisades Fire, Marshall Geoscience – Geotechnical Engineering, Laboratory Services, http://www.marshallgeo.com/geotechnical-engineering/engineering-and-environmental-implications-of-la- wildfires-eaton-palisades-fires/
7 Merlin Law Group. Fire Insurance in California: A Complete Guide. https://www.merlinlawgroup.com/fire- insurance-california-guide/. Accessed March 6, 2026.
8 California Association of Realtors®, Median Prices of Existing Single Family Homes. Accessed March 8, 2026. https://www.car.org/marketdata/data/housingdata
9 O.C. CA Real Estate and Property Data, ATTOM, October 2025 10 Gabriel San Roman, New report on aging in Orange County outlines key concerns among seniors, Los Angeles Times, June 21, 2024, https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/entertainment/story/2024-06- 21/aging-in-orange-county-report
11 California Code of Regulations, Title 10, Section 2644.9, Consideration of Mitigation Factors; Wildfire Risk Models. https://regulations.justia.com/states/california/title-10/chapter-5/subchapter-4-8/article- 4/section-2644-9/
384
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 9 of 74
REASON FOR STUDY
Wildfires have become an increasingly severe threat to residential communities in Orange County, particularly those in high-risk fire zones. The frequency and intensity of wildfires has escalated due to prolonged droughts, rising temperatures, and development encroachment into wildland-urban interface areas. Catastrophic losses from these wildfires have resulted in a continuing insurance crisis.
This study aims to (1) identify the shared responsibilities of local governments and fire service agencies, communities and homeowners to reduce the risk of wildfire in the wildland-urban interface, (2) investigate the status of actions taken by the California legislature and Department of Insurance to provide relief to policyholders, and (3) inform communities and homeowners on home hardening, defensible space, insurance risk reduction, and wildfire safety awareness.
METHOD OF STUDY
The investigation reviewed the efforts of Orange County local governments, local fire departments, and homeowner associations to better understand and provide an independent look at the above concerns and possible solutions. To achieve a clear picture of the wildfire problem in the Orange County wildland-urban interface and its impact on insurance rates, the 2025-2026 Grand Jury has done the following:
Reviewed studies and academic papers
Issued a Fire Hazard Severity Zone survey to all Orange County cities Examined the 2025 California Wildland-Urban Interface Code Observed a demonstration at a Yorba Linda Water District Heli-Hydrant™ Visited Firewise USA Site designated communities
Conducted literature review of previous statewide Grand Jury reports Interviewed California Department of Insurance staff, reviewed Department website and pertinent regulations
Visited Orange County Fire Authority facilities to better understand their training, procedures, and preparedness
Conducted multiple interviews with city, county, and fire officials, as well as homeowners association staff and residents regarding wildland-urban interface wildfire risk reduction
385
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Fire Authority helicopter approaching Yorba Linda Water District Heli-HydrantTM Source: Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS
The 2025-2026 Grand Jury investigated the risk of wildfire in Orange County wildland- urban interface areas, the insurance industry’s response to this risk, actions taken by fire prevention authorities to reduce the risk of damage and destruction of homes by wildfire, and the state legislature and California Department of Insurance (CDI) response to the insurance crisis. The Grand Jury also investigated actions homeowners should take to share the responsibility to reduce community wildfire risk, and by doing so, potentially reduce their insurance costs.
The Grand Jury investigation included evaluation of CDI initiatives, the Safer from Wildfires insurance regulation,12 and other regulations related to wildfire and insurance risk reduction. The investigation also included examination of recent changes to Fire Hazard Severity Zone mapping, the 2025 CWUIC, and pending amendments to the ember-resistant Zone 0 regulations that comprise defensible space requirements.
Shared Responsibility for Reduction of Wildfire and
Insurance Risk
There is a broad scope of shared responsibility for risk reduction in wildland-urban interface areas. State legislators, CDI, state and local fire prevention authorities, counties and cities, community-level organizations, and homeowners all share responsibility for taking actions necessary to prevent wildfires in wildland-urban interface areas and thereby reduce insurance risk and policy rates. Figure 2 below illustrates the shared responsibility.
12 California Code of Regulations, Title 10, Section 2644.9 386
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 11 of 74
Figure 2 Shared responsibility for risk reduction in wildland-urban interface areas The conclusion of this report focuses on the responsibilities of local governments and fire prevention authorities to provide homeowners the information and guidance needed to reduce property-level wildfire and insurance risk and thereby reduce these risks across entire communities.
Wildland-Urban Interface
Wildland-urban interface (WUI) is where urban development meets or intermixes with undeveloped natural areas. The term
“wildland-urban interface” refers most often
to areas where houses are located within or
adjacent to relatively larger areas of natural
vegetation. The U.S. Forest Service refers to
WUI simply as “areas where human
development meets natural landscapes.13
WUI is at greatest risk of wildfire in
13 Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Wildland-Urban Interface. https://research.fs.usda.gov/nrs/fire/wui. Accessed January 12, 2026.
Source: RanchoMissionViejo.com
387
Wildfires Hit Home
California, where we have led the nation in both WUI growth and wildfires for 30 years.14 The Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Problem
The current National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Firewise USA program was developed out of the 1986 Wildfire Strikes Home conference principally organized by the U.S. Forest Service and the NFPA. This initiative was the initial fire management response to the home destruction problem related to wildfires nationally recognized in 1985 which has since become known as the WUI fire problem.15 By the middle of this century, many Orange County residents may have a dramatic experience with wildfire due to increasingly drier, hotter conditions. Research that examined wildfires during the period from 1959 through 2009 predicts that in the next 25 years Southern California will see increased wildfires during months when fall winds occur and also during the warmer, summer months. It is estimated that by the mid-21st century there will be a 64% increase in acreage burned during higher intensity fall winds, and a 77% increase during summer winds due to warmer and drier climate. A greater concern is the estimated 20% increase in structures destroyed due to fires during fall winds and estimated 74% increase in structures destroyed due to fires during summer winds in warmer, drier conditions.16
Orange County development that continues into the WUI should expect to face these predictions. This Orange County Grand Jury report focuses on the implications for increased wildfire and insurance risk and our concern that most homes in WUI areas are not prepared to resist ignition and destruction by wildfire.
Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Disaster and Suburban Conflagration WUI fire disasters and suburban conflagrations occur during extreme fire conditions when numerous houses ignite and burn simultaneously, overwhelming the capabilities of firefighting resources.17 If enough homes are ignition-resistant, many homes do not ignite during extreme fire conditions and fire protection is not overwhelmed by the
14 Center for Critical Urban and Environmental Studies. University of California, Santa Cruz. Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Research for Resilience: Addressing California’s Climate, Conservation & Housing Crises. https://criticalurbanenvironments.ucsc.edu/projects/wildland-urban-interface-wui-research-for- resilience/
15 Jack Cohen. The Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Problem: A Consequence of the Fire Exclusion Paradigm. Forest History Today. Fall 2008: 20-26.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2008_cohen_j002.pdf. Accessed March 25, 2026. 16 Yufang Jin, et al. Identification of two distinct fire regimes in Southern California; implications for economic impact and future change. Environmental Research Letters, Volume 1, Number 9. IOP Science, September 8, 2015. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094005.
Accessed January 9, 2026.
17 Cohen, The Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Problem, 22. 388
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 13 of 74
homes that do ignite; the ignition-resistant homes can survive without firefighter protection, and an extreme wildfire can occur without becoming a WUI fire disaster18 or suburban conflagration.
Suburban conflagrations occur when fire spreads from the wildlands into the WUI and suburban environment. Suburban conflagration follows the conceptual WUI fire chain of events in Figure 3.19 Once a structure in a community ignites, the probability of its complete destruction is high and the risk to the rest of the community increases as the burning structure produces significant heat and embers.20 Effective prevention of structure ignitions through home hardening and defensible space measures can break the WUI fire chain of events.
Figure 3 WUI and suburban conflagration fire disaster chain of events.21 Home Ignition Zone and Home Ignition Potential
The home ignition zone refers to a home and its immediate surroundings within 100 to 200 feet. The home ignition zone principally determines the potential for WUI fire disasters. Research shows that a home’s ignition potential during extreme wildfires is determined by the characteristics of its exterior materials and design, their response to
18 Cohen, The Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Problem, 23. 19 Ian M. Gammanco, et al. The Return of Conflagration in Our Built Environment. Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety. September 2023. https://ibhs.org/wp- content/uploads/Suburban_Wildfire_Conflagration_WhitePaper.pdf. Accessed March 20, 2026. 20 Gammanco, The Return of Conflagration, 22.
21 Gammanco, The Return of Conflagration, 14.
389
Wildfires Hit Home
burning objects within 100 feet, and their response to embers. Most destroyed homes in residential areas ignite from smaller flames and firebrands (lofted embers), not surrounding vegetation.22 Reducing home ignition potential is the key to preventing WUI fire disaster.
Reducing Home Ignition Potential Can Prevent Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Disaster and Suburban Conflagration
During extreme WUI fires, homes ignite and burn and sustain the requirements for combustion both indirectly and directly: Indirectly from radiation and convection heating from flames, and directly from ember spot ignitions on a house. Computational modeling and laboratory and field experiments show that large flames of burning shrubs and tree canopies must be within 100 feet to ignite a home’s wood exterior, while most destroyed homes ignite from smaller flames and directly from burning embers.23 These research results suggest that addressing the conditions in the home ignition zone to significantly reduce home ignition potential can prevent WUI fire disaster. Reducing home ignition potential means addressing the ignitability of the structure rather than the immediate surroundings.
Source: Patrick T. Fallon / Agence France-Presse / Getty Images An analysis of CAL FIRE data and Butte County property records shows that about 51% of the 350 single-family homes built after 2008 in the path of the Camp Fire were undamaged. By contrast, only 18% of the 12,100 homes built prior to 2008 escaped damage.24 The homes built after 2008 were required to conform to 2008 Title 24, Chapter 7A of the California Building Standards Code which focused on construction of new buildings located within WUI and Fire Hazard Severity Zones. These 2008 wildfire risk mitigation requirements for new homes included materials such as fire-resistant
22 Cohen, The Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Problem, 23. 23 Cohen, The Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Problem, 24. 24 Dale Kasler and Phillip Reese. In Camp Fire, Newer Houses Were Much Less Damaged. The Sacramento Bee. April 11, 2019, updated January 9, 2024. https://www.kqed.org/science/1940012/newer- %D8%8Cuses-much-less-damaged-in-camp-fire. Accessed March 4, 2026. 390
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 15 of 74
roofs and siding, and construction methods for exterior wildfire protection. These wildfire risk mitigation requirements for new construction directly reduce home ignition potential and help homes constructed to the new standards survive undamaged.
Benefits of Reducing Home Ignition Potential Can Exceed Costs The benefits of reducing home ignition potential through compliance with new construction requirements can exceed costs, with 90% of the benefits estimated from reduced property losses and insurance costs. The benefit-cost ratio (BCR) for complying with the 2015 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code (IWUIC) has been calculated by the National Institute of Building Science for a number of representative counties with moderate to extreme fire risk. Total benefits were calculated at $3 billion and total costs at $800 million, suggesting a BCR of approximately 4:1 or $4 saved for every $1 of additional construction and maintenance cost.25 A national average BCR for retrofitting typical 2,000 square-foot existing homes plus nearby non-residential buildings (stores, schools, etc.) to 2018 IWUIC ignition-resistant construction and defensible space was also calculated. Benefits of retrofit exceed costs, with 93% of the benefits estimated from reduced property losses. Total benefits were calculated at $430 billion and total costs at $240 billion, equivalent to a national average BCR of 2:1 or $2 saved for every $1 of retrofit and maintenance costs.26 The per-house retrofit cost is highly uncertain. The lowest average per-house retrofit cost would imply a much higher benefit-cost ratio, perhaps as high as 8:1, equivalent to an average of $8 saved for every $1 of retrofit cost.27
Office of the State Fire Marshal Fire Hazard Severity
Zone Mapping
California laws now require Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) mapping.28,29,30 The need for FHSZ mapping arose from repeated occurrence of major destructive fires. The FHSZ maps are developed using a science-based and field-tested model that assigns a hazard score based on the factors that influence fire likelihood and fire behavior. There are three levels of hazard score: Moderate, High, and Very High. Many factors are
25 National Institute of Building Science, Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves. 63 26 National Institute of Building Science, Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves, 114. 27 National Institute of Building Science, Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves, 115. 28 California Public Resources Code 4201-4204. https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-prc/division- 4/part-2/chapter-1/article-9/
29 California Government Code 51175-89. https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-gov/title-5/division- 1/part-1/chapter-6-8/section-51175/
30 California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 1280. https://regulations.justia.com/states/california/title-14/division-1-5/chapter-7/subchapter-3/article-1/section- 1280/
391
Wildfires Hit Home
considered such as fire history, existing and potential fuel (natural vegetation), predicted flame length, blowing embers, terrain, and typical fire weather for the area. FHSZ maps evaluate hazard, not risk. “Hazard” is based on the physical conditions that create a likelihood and expected fire behavior over a 30- to 50-year period without considering mitigation measures such as home hardening, recent wildfire, or fuel reduction efforts. “Risk” is the potential damage that a fire can do to the area under existing conditions, accounting for any modifications such as fuel reduction projects, defensible space, and ignition resistant building construction.31
FHSZ mapping began with the State
Responsibility Area (SRA), defined as a
designated area in California where the
state has primary responsibility for fire
prevention and suppression. The SRA
FHSZ mapping went into effect in April
2024. Since then, the Office has also been
mapping Local Responsibility Areas (LRA),
defined as a portion of land where local
agencies, such as city or county fire
departments, are responsible for wildfire
protection. All Orange County FHSZ maps
are accessible at the CAL FIRE website.32
Figure 4 shows an example of an Orange
County city FHSZ map. Appendix C shows
a screenshot of Orange County FHSZs
using the CAL FIRE Find Your Fire Hazard
Severity Zone viewer accessible at this
CAL FIRE web address:33
31 CAL FIRE. Office of the State Fire Marshal. Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Explore Fire Hazard Severity Zones. . https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard- severity-zones. Accessed March 20, 2026.
32 CAL FIRE. Office of the State Fire Marshal. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area.
Phase 4. Orange County.
https://calfire.app.box.com/s/wahuw9ny7cgn89xpxh7092ur50r1pwvj/folder/312669458215. Accessed March 12, 2026.
33 CAL FIRE. Office of the State Fire Marshal. Fire Hazard Severity Zones. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what- we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones. Accessed March 12, 2026.
Figure 4 Example of an Orange County City LRA
Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map
392
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 17 of 74
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/5065c998b4b0462f9ec3c6c226c610a9.
Homeowners can enter their address in this viewer to find whether their property is located within a specific FHSZ.
How Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps Impact Homeowners
FHSZ maps have no direct impact on insurance coverage. The CDI states that the FHSZ maps are intended to drive local planning decisions, not insurance decisions, and that FHSZ maps have nothing to do with insurance rating.34 Though not used directly for insurance rating, FHSZ mapping does have significant indirect impacts. Properties located in High or Very High FHSZs are subject to certain legal requirements. New state building code requirements effective January 2026 for homes within a FHSZ or a WUI area include fire-resistant materials and construction methods. Buildings in these areas are subject to defensible space requirements. If you sell a home located in these areas, you are required to disclose fire risk and compliance to potential buyers using a specific form.
These regulations are in place to increase fire-resistance of communities and ensure property owners are aware of the risks involved in living in a wildfire-prone area.
California Wildland-Urban Interface Code Effective January 1, 2026 Title 24, Part 7 of the California Building Standards Code, also referred to as the 2025 California Wildland-Urban Interface Code (CWUIC),35 became effective January 1, 2026.
Title 24, Part 7, Chapter 5, Special Building Construction Regulations establishes minimum standards to locate, design and construct buildings and structures or portions thereof for the protection of life and property, to resist damage from wildfires, and to mitigate building and structure fires from spreading to wildland fuels.36 Chapter 5 requirements for construction within a FHSZ or a WUI area include:
Specifications for fire-resistance-rated construction and non-combustible materials
Ignition-resistant construction and material
Replacement or repair of roof coverings
34 California Department of Insurance. CAL FIRE Hazard Maps Do Not Affect Insurance Rates or Availability. https://www.insurance.ca.gov/0400-news/0102-alerts/2025/CAL-FIRE-hazard-maps-do-not- affect-insu.cfm. Accessed March 6, 2026.
35 2025 California Wildland-Urban Interface Code, Title 24, Part 7, 2024 IWUIC Amended, Effective Date:
Jan 01, 2026. https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAWUIC2025P2. Accessed January 22, 2026. 36 2025 California Wildland-Urban Interface Code, Title 24, Part 7, 2024 IWUIC Amended, Effective Date:
Jan 01, 2026. https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAWUIC2025P2. Accessed January 22, 2026. 393
Wildfires Hit Home
Defensible Space Requirements and the New Ember-Resistant Zone 0 The State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection is responsible for the existing defensible space regulations37 for buildings or structures located in the SRA or in Very High FHSZ in the LRA. If you have a home or building in the SRA or in the Very High FHSZ in the LRA, you are responsible for ensuring that your property complies with defensible space requirements to protect structures from wildfire. The Board of Forestry and Fire Protection webpages include an illustration of existing Defensible Space Zones 0, 1, and 2 (Figure 5), and links to Zones 0, 1, and 2 resources.38
Figure 5 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Defensible Zones 0, 1, and 2 It is important to note that “ember-resistant Zone 0” does not mean all vegetation, including trees, within 0-5 feet must be removed. New ember-resistant Zone 0
37 California Public Resources Code Division 4 - Forests, Forestry and Range and Forage Lands Part 2 - Protection of Forest, Range and Forage Lands Chapter 3 - Mountainous, Forest-, Brush- and Grass- Covered Lands Section 4291. https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-prc/division-4/part-2/chapter- 3/section-4291/. Accessed January 14, 2026.
38 State of California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. https://bof.fire.ca.gov/projects-and- programs/defensible-space-zones-0-1-and-2. Accessed January 14, 2026. 394
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 19 of 74
vegetation options will be finalized later in 2026. The next public workshop meeting is scheduled for April 23, 2026. New ember-resistant Zone 0 requirements enhance existing defensible space requirements in High and Very High FHSZs in the LRA to create an ember-resistant zone within 0 to 5 feet of a building. 39 Compliance with existing or enhanced defensible space requirements addresses home ignition potential and reduces home ignitability. Reducing the ignitability of enough homes can break the WUI fire chain of events and help more homes escape destruction or survive undamaged.
AB38 Defensible Space Compliance Documentation and Disclosure AB38 became effective in 2021, requiring sellers of property located in a High or Very High FHSZ to provide buyers with documentation stating the property complies with state defensible space requirements or local vegetation management ordinances, as applicable. The law provides that if documentation demonstrating compliance cannot be obtained by the close of escrow, a written agreement may be executed showing that the buyer agrees to obtain documentation of compliance within one year of the close of escrow. 40
The law also requires a Defensible Space Disclosure be provided by sellers of property located in a High or Very High FHSZ to buyers of homes constructed before January 1, 2010. The Disclosure must include specified information and a copy of a final inspection report, or information on where the report may be obtained. A sample Defensible Space Disclosure notice is reproduced at Appendix D.
California Homeowners Insurance Crisis
Devastating property losses and casualties resulting from numerous wildfires in California WUI areas and other natural disasters beginning in 2018 have precipitated a continuing homeowners insurance crisis. Beginning in 2022 and 2023, insurers began dramatically raising California homeowners fire insurance premiums in what were considered wildfire risk areas, and some insurers began to stop issuing policies in high- risk areas or withdraw from the California homeowners’ insurance market altogether.
Like many homeowners throughout the state that are severely impacted by the insurance crisis, many Orange County homeowners are also impacted.
39 Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. Summary of October 2025 Draft Zone 0 Regulation Language. https://34c031f8-c9fd-4018-8c5a-4159cdff6b0d-cdn-endpoint.azureedge.net/-/media/bof-website/projects- and-programs/defensible-space-zones-0-1-2/october-zone-0-summary-and-rule- plead.pdf?rev=927f9551dc7b4f15b8263671cca15ef2&hash=F80F2C5451370BB3C855E38CCCC516D4.
Accessed February 17, 2025.
40 Assembly Bill 38, Wood. Fire safety: low-cost retrofits: regional capacity review: wildfire mitigation.
Approved October 2, 2019. California-2019-AB38-Chaptered 395
Wildfires Hit Home
Actions have been taken by the state legislature and the CDI during the last three years to strengthen the property insurance market, increase insurer commitments to write more policies in wildfire-distressed areas, and provide a framework to support homeowners in securing premium reductions from insurers when they take specific actions to reduce their community- and property-level wildfire risk.41 Despite these actions, many homeowners remain vulnerable to dramatic policy premium increases, nonrenewal, or the inability to secure traditional insurance coverage.
A recent New York Times article42 cites a 2023 California Association of Realtors survey wherein “nearly 7 percent of realtors surveyed…said that they had deals fall out of escrow that year because buyers couldn’t find adequate, affordable coverage.” As further cited in the article: “The percentage of realtors reporting that they had deals fall through for lack of insurance has more than doubled since 2023, to 16.6 percent.” Unabated Growth of the California FAIR Plan
The continuing statewide insurance crisis is further demonstrated by the unabated growth in California FAIR Plan residential insurance policies. The FAIR Plan provides basic fire insurance coverage for
eligible high-risk properties when
such coverage is demonstrated by
the applicant to be unavailable in
the traditional insurance market.43
FAIR Plan coverage is limited,
relatively expensive, and is the
insurer of last resort for these
properties. During the period from
September 2023 to September
2025, the number of FAIR Plan
residential dwelling policies in
force (PIF) increased from
320,581 to 625,033 as shown at
41 California Department of Insurance. Sustainable Insurance Strategy. https://ains.assembly.ca.gov/system/files/2023-12/insurance-commissioner-ricardo-lara-california- sustainable-insurance-strategy-presentation-to-assembly-insurance-committee-12-13-2023.pdf. Accessed January 29, 2026.
42 New York Times.California Promised Insurance Relief, But Delivered Loopholes. November 1, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/01/us/los-angeles-california-fire-insurance-regulations.html. Accessed March 25, 2026.
43 The California FAIR Plan. https://www.cfpnet.com/. Accessed March 25, 2026.
Figure 6 Total FAIR Plan Dwelling and Commercial Policies Have Increased, September 2023 to September 2025 396
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 21 of 74
Figure 6.44 FAIR Plan data for Orange County residential policies in 2022 is shown in Appendix E.
The FAIR Plan is a syndicated fire insurance pool comprised of all insurers licensed to conduct property and casualty business in California. The FAIR Plan was established by statute45 in August 1968 as an insurance placement facility and all licensed property/casualty insurers that write basic property insurance are required to be members of the FAIR Plan. The FAIR Plan issues policies on behalf of its member companies, and each member company participates in the profits, losses, and expenses of the FAIR Plan in direct proportion to its market share of business written in the state. The FAIR Plan is not a state agency or public entity; it does not receive public or taxpayer funding. As the total number of FAIR Plan policies continues to grow unabated, so does the financial strain on the overall FAIR Plan fire insurance pool.
Insurance Relief for Homeowners: Safer from Wildfires
Insurance Regulation
The first of the wildfire safety regulatory incentives was the Safer from Wildfires regulation enacted in fall 2022.46 Safer from Wildfires requires insurers to offer premium discounts based, in part, on mandatory factors including community-level wildfire risk mitigation designations and property-level wildfire risk mitigation efforts. Every action taken under Safer from Wildfires qualifies applicants and policyholders for insurance discounts.
Safer from Wildfires: Community-Level Wildfire Risk Mitigation There are two examples of community-level wildfire risk mitigation designations listed in the Safer from Wildfire regulation: 1) Fire Risk Reduction Community Listing47 approved by the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, and 2) Firewise USA Site Designation48 approved by the National Fire Protection Association. Other examples of community- level wildfire risk mitigation designations include local Fire Safe Council supported by the California Fire Safe Council, Community Wildfire Protection Plan supported by the
44 Key Statistics & Data. The California FAIR Plan. https://www.cfpnet.com/key-statistics-data/. Accessed March 25, 2026.
45 California Insurance Code sections 10090 et seq. https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code- ins/division-2/part-1/chapter-9/section-10090/. Accessed April 21, 2026. 46 California Code of Regulations, Title 10, Section 2644.9 47 Fire Risk Reduction Community listed by the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 4290.1. https://bof.fire.ca.gov/projects-and-programs/fire-risk-reduction- community-list. Accessed February 10, 2026.
48 Firewise USA program managed by National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). https://www.nfpa.org/Education-and-Research/Wildfire/Firewise-USA. Accessed April 21, 2026. 397
Wildfires Hit Home
U.S. Fire Administration, and the Wildfire Prepared Neighborhood™ Pilot Program49 being launched by the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS).
Safer from Wildfires: Property-Level Wildfire Risk Mitigation Safer from Wildfires also requires insurers to offer premium discounts based, in part, on the reduced wildfire risk resulting from each and every property-level wildfire risk mitigation action. These individual property-level wildfire risk mitigation efforts include measures addressing the immediate surroundings of a building and building hardening.
The IBHS offers homeowner guidance based on its research,50 and a property-level Wildfire Prepared Home™ designation51 that recognizes mitigation measures addressing both immediate surroundings and home hardening.
Safer from Wildfires: Property-Level Measures Addressing Immediate Surroundings - Defensible Space
The following measures are specified in Safer from Wildfires to address the immediate surroundings of a building. Each of these actions qualifies for insurance discount:
a. Clearing of vegetation and debris from under decks
b. Clearing of vegetation, debris, mulch, stored combustible materials, and any and all movable combustible objects from the area within five (5) feet of the building c. Use of only noncombustible materials in any improvements to the property, including fences and gates situated within five (5) feet of the building d. Removal or absence of combustible structures, including sheds and other outbuildings, from the area within thirty (30) feet of the building or as much of such area as is under the control of the applicant or policyholder e. Whether the property upon which the building is situated complies with state or local defensible space requirements, as applicable
Safer from Wildfires: Property-Level Building Hardening Measures The following building hardening measures are specified in Safer from Wildfires. Each of these actions qualifies for insurance discount:
a. Class-A fire rated roof
b. Enclosed eaves
49 Institute for Business & Home Safety. Wildfire Prepared Neighborhood Pilot Program. https://wildfireprepared.org/wildfire-prepared-neighborhood-pilot-program/. Accessed March 19, 2026. 50 IBHS Research. Wildland Fire Embers and Flames: Home Mitigations That Matter. April 2023. https://ibhs1.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/Home-Mitigations-that-Matter-FINAL.pdf.
Accessed February 10, 2026.
51 Institute for Business & Home Safety. Wildfire Prepared Home: Take Proven Steps to Reduce Your Risk. https://wildfireprepared.org/. Accessed March 19, 2026. 398
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 23 of 74
c. Fire-resistant vents
d. Multipane windows, including dual pane windows, or functional shutters, which when closed, cover the entire window and do not have openings e. At least six (6) inches of noncombustible vertical clearance at the bottom of the exterior surface of the building, measured from the ground up Safer from Wildfires: Optional Factors
The Safer from Wildfires regulation also incorporates other optional factors that are substantially related to risk of wildfire loss. These optional factors may include, but are not limited to: fuel, slope, access, aspect, structural characteristics, wind, and other community-level or property-level mitigation efforts, or designations as recommended by a state or local fire safety agency or organization as reducing wildfire risk.
Reducing Wildfire and Insurance Risk: AB888 The
California Safe Homes Grant Program
AB888 established the California Safe Homes Grant Program in October 2025 to be developed and administered by the Department of Insurance for the purpose of achieving the following goals:
(1) Reducing local and statewide wildfire losses
(2) Improving insurability and resilience of vulnerable communities (3) Home hardening of insurable properties to mitigate wildfire risk and enable consumers to get access to insurance premium incentives offered by insurance companies and in alignment with the department’s rules.
Eligible California Safe Home Grant Program applicants include qualifying individuals and qualifying cities, counties, and special districts. For individuals, grant funds may be awarded if the following criteria are met:
(1) The property of the applicant is covered by an admitted insurer or the California FAIR Plan
(2) The property of the applicant is in a ZIP Code that overlaps with a High or Very High FHSZ.
(3) The income of the applicant is no higher than the low-income limit for the county in which they reside
399
Wildfires Hit Home
As of January 1, 2026, the Department of Insurance was developing the grant application portal and planned to begin accepting California Safe Homes Grant applications in spring 2026.52
Our Shared Responsibilities
Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA)
OCFA serves all unincorporated areas of Orange County and its 23 Orange County member cities. The OCFA Board of Directors is made up of elected officials from the County and its member cities. The 11 Orange County cities that are not served by OCFA have their own city fire departments, i.e., their own fire service agencies having jurisdiction. The list of OCFA member cities and other Orange County fire service agencies is included at Appendix F.
OCFA education and outreach programs are comprehensive. Online materials and event scheduling is accessible at their website. and a staff of seven community education specialists and a community education supervisor are available to coordinate and attend events. The Wildfire Preparedness53 webpages cover multiple topic areas including:
Ready, Set, Go!
Home Assessment
Defensible Space Disclosure
Inspection
Pest Control (tree pests
management)
Immediate Zone
FHSZ Maps
Insurance
Contractors (specializing in
wildfire preparedness)
OCFA takes a systematic approach to mitigating risk through its Community Risk Reduction Department (formerly Fire Prevention). OCFA Community Risk Reduction (CRR) staff identifies community risks, collaborates with developers, agencies, and residents to build and maintain safe communities.54 In addition to the extensive Wildland Preparedness webpages, the CRR department webpages include a section on Wildland & Vegetation with specific information for homeowners in wildland interface areas. The CRR department supports homeowners’ risk reduction efforts by providing an online
52 CalMatters. California homeowners could qualify for grants for new roofs and fire safety. January 1, 2026. https://calmatters.org/economy/2026/01/california-safe-homes-grants/. Accessed February 17, 2026.
53 Orange County Fire Authority. Wildfire Preparedness. https://ocfa.org/ready-set-go/. Accessed February 24, 2026.
54 Orange County Fire Authority. About Us. Departments. https://ocfa.org/about- us/departments/community-risk-reduction/. Accessed February 24, 2026. 400
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 25 of 74
home assessment tool55 that covers the basics of both home hardening and defensible space principles. The online assessment tool guides the homeowner through a series of questions and ends with the opportunity to receive an emailed report providing recommendations for fire mitigation strategies. Before beginning the online questionnaire, homeowners are given the option to request an in-person home assessment with an OCFA Fire Prevention Specialist.
Fire Hazard Severity Zone Survey Results - Local Governments and Fire Service Agencies
This investigation included a survey of Orange County cities to gather information about their efforts to reduce risk of wildfire in WUI areas and their outreach programs for homeowners. The Grand Jury invited 34 Orange County cities to respond to the survey and received 28 responses. Of these 28 responses, 20 were from various city departments, and eight were from city fire departments.
The Orange County cities that responded to the survey reported having from zero to 100% of their city land area within Moderate, High, or Very-High FHSZs. Reported land areas may not match each individual city’s FHSZ map. A summary of the survey results for city area reported in FHSZs are shown at Figure 7:
55 Orange County Fire Authority. Home Assessment Tool. https://ocfa.org/ready-set-go/home- assessment/. Accessed February 24, 2026.
401
Wildfires Hit Home
City Area Reported in
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
% of
Responding
Cities
# of
Responding
Cities
No area in FHSZ 21% 6
Some area in FHSZ (not quantified) 14% 4
2% to 25% in FHSZ 25% 7
26% to 50% in FHSZ 18% 5
51% to 75% in FHSZ 11% 3
76% to 100% in FHSZ 11% 3
Figure 7 City Area Reported in Fire Hazard Severity Zones 11 of 28 responding cities reported having achieved or have applications pending approval for community-level wildfire risk mitigation designations. Achievement of community-level wildfire risk mitigation designations is a significant way local governments, local fire departments, unincorporated areas, and special districts can reduce wildfire and insurance risk for their residents. A summary of the survey results for cities that have achieved or applied for community-level wildfire risk mitigation designation are shown at Figure 8.
21%14%25%18%11%11%City Area Reported in Fire Hazard Severity ZonesNo area in FHSZSome area in FHSZ (not quantified)2% to 25% in FHSZ26% to 50% in FHSZ51% to 75% in FHSZ76% to 100% in FHSZ 402
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 27 of 74
Achieved, Applied for, or Plan to Apply
for a Community-Level Wildfire Risk
Mitigation Designations
% of
Responding
Cities
# of
Responding
Cities
Yes 39% 11
No 61% 17
In progress 0% 0
Figure 8 Cities Reporting Achieved, Applied for, or Plan to Apply for a Community-Level Wildfire Risk Mitigation Designation
16 of 28 responding cities reported having an outreach program that provides information and guidance to property owners on wildfire risk mitigation measures and grant programs. A summary of the survey results on cities reporting whether they have these outreach programs in place are shown at Figure 9. These outreach programs are needed to help homeowners achieve awareness and ability to plan and take actions required to reduce individual and community wildfire and insurance risk. 39%61%0%Cities That Have Achieved, Applied for, or Plan to Apply for a Community-level Wildfire Risk Mitigation DesignationYesNoIn progress 403
Wildfires Hit Home
Outreach Program to Provide Information
and Guidance to Property Owners on
Wildfire Risk Mitigation Measures and
Grants
% of
Responding
Cities
# of
Responding
Cities
Yes 57% 16
No 29% 8
In progress 14% 4
Figure 9 Cities Reporting Outreach Program to Provide Information and Guidance to Property Owners on Wildfire Risk Mitigation Measures and/or Grants
11 of the 16 cities reported having their own outreach programs, are Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) member cities, and referred to one or more of OCFA’s comprehensive programs and resources (see Figure 10). While OCFA member cities’ use of OCFA outreach programs and resources is efficient and beneficial to their residents, the availability of a direct local contact at the city who is knowledgeable and can provide even a minimum of information and guidance on wildfire mitigation resources would help remove barriers to homeowners’ actions to reduce wildfire risk. 57%29%14%Cities That Have an Outreach Program to Provide Information and Guidance to Property Owners on Wildfire Risk Mitigation Measures and/or Grants YesNoIn progress 404
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 29 of 74
Outreach Program Refers to Orange
County Fire Authority Programs and
Resources
% of
Responding
Cities
# of
Responding
Cities
Yes 55% 11
No 45% 9
Figure 10 Cities Reporting Their Outreach Program Refers to Orange County Fire Authority Outreach Programs and Resources
Orange County Homeowners Associations Play an Important Role According to the California Community Managers Association, there are 4,927 homeowners associations (HOA) in Orange County, and 82% of Orange County residents live in HOAs.56 These HOAs communicate directly with their residents, and thus have the ability to mobilize people and resources to effectively achieve and maintain community-level wildfire risk mitigation designations and reduce their residents’ homeowner insurance premiums.
HOAs are the local contact for their residents, and through their architectural and landscape standards can effectively communicate information on home hardening and defensible space requirements. HOAs often host community leaders and local fire service agencies for fire prevention workshops and other outreach events for HOA residents. Their local contact function can also provide information and organize opportunities to volunteer and support local fire prevention overall through activities such as Citizens Brigade57 and Bike Brigade.58 These HOA-hosted workshops, outreach
56 California Association of Community Managers. Estimated number of residents living in HOAs based on average of 2010-2014 Census reports of 3.04 persons per household. www.cacm.org. 57 Weathered: After the LA Firestorm. PBS, KCET, 2026.
58Ellis, Rebecca. Los Angeles Times. January 10, 2026. Topanga Canyon felt abandoned. So residents are banding together to fight fire. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-01-10/topanga-canyon- felt-abandoned-so-residents-are-banding-together-to-fight-fire. Accessed March 6, 2026. 55%45%Cities With an Outreach Program That Refers To OCFA Programs and ResourcesYesNo 405
Wildfires Hit Home
events, and local contact functions are effective means to help homeowners achieve awareness and ability to plan and take actions necessary to reduce wildfire and insurance risk.
HOAs often have significant responsibility for large open space areas of Orange County that can total hundreds of acres of fuel modification zones. The HOAs’ collaborative role with local fire service agencies in managing these fuel modification zones is as important as their role with HOA residents in the shared responsibilities for wildfire and insurance risk reduction.
Homeowners are Responsible for Reducing Home Ignition Potential Fire science research has demonstrated that ignition-resistant homes can survive wildfire without firefighter protection.59 Where there are enough ignition-resistant homes, the WUI fire chain of events can be broken to prevent fire disasters, and these homes can escape destruction or survive undamaged. Taking the actions necessary to make homes ignition resistant to windborne embers is the responsibility of homeowners. The role of the homeowner is critical in the shared responsibilities for reducing wildfire and insurance risk in WUI areas.
Homeowners need support from local governments and fire service agencies to achieve the awareness and ability to plan and take actions necessary to make homes ignition resistant. This support is most effectively delivered through local outreach programs; effective communications in outreach programs have been found to be the more local, personalized efforts such as one-on-one consultation with fire experts, townhall events, small workshops, tours, and demonstrations.60 For example, provision of in-person or online home assessments that result in written recommendations to homeowners for specific wildfire risk mitigation actions. Documentation of the recommended actions taken can then be presented to homeowners’ insurers for the insurance discounts required by Safer from Wildfires.
Safer from Wildfires home hardening and defensible space measures protect homes and communities, save homeowners, local governments, and fire authorities as well as insurance companies from catastrophic loss while also providing discounts for homeowners’ insurance premiums.
Reducing wildfire risk in the wildland-urban interface helps ensure that insurance coverage remains accessible. California’s wildfire and insurance crisis demands coordinated action from local governments and fire authorities, communities, and homeowners to reduce risk of wildfire.
59 Cohen, The Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Problem, 23. 60 Gammanco, The Return of Conflagration, 34.
406
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 31 of 74
FINDINGS
In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the findings presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.
Based on its investigation “Wildfires Hit Home” the 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at the following six findings:
F1 More frequent and severe wildfires driven by increasingly hotter, drier, and windier conditions in the Orange County wildland-urban interface are escalating impacts on financial and non-financial resources. Among the financial costs are dramatic increases in homeowners’ insurance premiums, nonrenewals, and inabilities to obtain insurance.
F2 Actions that address conditions in the home ignition zone to significantly reduce ignition potential can prevent a community wildland-urban interface fire disaster or suburban conflagration.
F3 Expanded engagement with the community to raise awareness and provide support regarding home hardening and defensible space will increase effectiveness of wildfire risk mitigation and insurance risk reduction efforts.
F4 Achievement of community-level and property-level wildfire risk mitigation designations (such as Firewise USA Site, Fire Risk Reduction Community or Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety certification) lessens wildfire risk and helps reduce insurance premium costs.
F5 All county residents should be made aware that Safer from Wildfire regulation requires insurers to provide discounts to homeowners and communities that implement home hardening and defensible space measures regardless of whether a property is located within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
F6 AB888, California Safe Homes Grant Program, provides financial assistance to eligible homeowners, cities, counties, and special districts for home hardening and defensible space measures. Applying for and using these grant funds will reduce wildfire losses and improve insurability and resilience of vulnerable communities.
407
Wildfires Hit Home
RECOMMENDATIONS
In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.
Based on its investigation described herein, the 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
R1 By December 31, 2026, the Orange County Board of Supervisors should plan to host a county-wide annual wildfire prevention fair for the County and all cities and fire service agencies, including Orange County Fire Authority, to showcase respective wildfire outreach programs, and for the first annual wildfire prevention fair to be scheduled no later than December 31, 2027. [F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6]
R2 By December 31, 2026, cities and fire service agencies, including Orange County Fire Authority should commit to participation in a county-wide annual wildfire prevention fair planned by the Orange County Board of Supervisors to showcase wildfire prevention outreach programs. [F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6]
R3 By December 31, 2026, cities, unincorporated areas, special districts, and fire service agencies in High and Very-High Fire Hazard Severity Zones should initiate planning activities to achieve community-level wildfire risk mitigation designations and/or establish a local Fire Safe Council within one year. [F4, F5, F6]
R4 By December 31, 2026, to ensure city residents are engaged and aware of wildfire risk reduction resources, OCFA member and non-member cities should provide information, develop their own outreach program, and establish a direct contact person(s) for their residents. This is in addition to whatever referrals or references made to OCFA outreach programs. [F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6]
408
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 33 of 74
COMMENDATIONS
Yorba Linda Water District
The 2025-26 Orange County Grand Jury extends its special thanks to the Yorba Linda Water District (YLWD) for providing two tours of its facilities, including their non-portable Heli-Hydrants™. The YLWD with foresight and planning installed three Heli-Hydrant™ facilities. One of the tanks was the first
to be installed in Southern California.
These innovative tanks enable fire
department helicopters to access water
more quickly and efficiently, improving
helicopter firefighting capabilities in
areas where wildland vegetation and
human development intersect, such as
in the Yorba Linda service area.
Newport Beach Fire Department
The 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury acknowledges and recognizes the Newport Beach Fire Department for their outstanding and continuing efforts to lead the Southern California region in dedication and adherence to the highest level of fire protection and safety. They are a role model for other cities in Orange County and elsewhere. In 2024, the Insurance Services Office honored Newport Beach Fire Department as a Top Tier Class 1 fire agency through its Public Protection Classification Program Newport Beach Fire Department shares the Top Tier Class 1 designation with only about 1% of the top fire departments nationwide.
The Grand Jury particularly commends Newport Beach Fire Prevention leadership, who generously dedicated time and expertise to share insights from their extensive knowledge of fire science.
Source: 2025-2026 Grand Jury
409
Wildfires Hit Home
REQUIRED RESPONSES
California Penal Code Section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g., District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected County official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors.
The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the Findings and Recommendations of this Grand Jury report:
§933
(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years.
§933.05.
(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
410
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 35 of 74
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons, therefore.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation, therefore.
(c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.
The Orange County Grand Jury requires the following responses:
Orange County Board of Supervisors 90 Day Response Required Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R1, R2, R3
411
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Fire Authority Board of Directors 90 Day Response Required Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3
City of Aliso Viejo 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of Anaheim 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of Brea 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of Buena Park 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of Costa Mesa 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R4
City of Cypress 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R4
412
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 37 of 74
City of Dana Point 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R4
City of Fountain Valley 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R4
City of Fullerton 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R4
City of Garden Grove 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R4
City of Huntington Beach 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R4
City of Irvine 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of La Habra 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
413
Wildfires Hit Home
City of La Palma 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R4
City of Laguna Beach 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of Laguna Hills 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of Laguna Niguel 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of Laguna Woods 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of Lake Forest 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of Los Alamitos 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R4
414
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 39 of 74
City of Mission Viejo 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of Newport Beach 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of Orange 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of Placentia 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R4
City of Rancho Santa Margarita 90 Day Response Required Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of San Clemente 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of San Juan Capistrano 90 Day Response Required Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
415
Wildfires Hit Home
City of Santa Ana 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of Seal Beach 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R4
City of Stanton 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R4
City of Tustin 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of Villa Park 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
City of Westminster 90 Day Response Requested
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R4
City of Yorba Linda 90 Day Response Required
Findings: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6
Recommendations: R2, R3, R4
416
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 41 of 74
Acronyms
AB Assembly Bill
B Brush
BCR Benefit Cost Ratio
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CAL OES California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services CC Contract Counties
CDI California Department of Insurance
CRR Community Risk Reduction
CWUIC California Wildland-Urban Interface Code
FAIR Fair Access to Insurance Requirement
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHDS Fire Hardening and Defensible Space
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
G Grass
HOA Homeowners Association
IBHS Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety®
IWUIC International Wildland -Urban Interface Code
LRA Local Responsibility Area
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
OCFA Orange County Fire Authority
P&C Property and Casualty
PIF Policies in Force
SB Senate Bill
SRA State Responsibility Area
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
417
Wildfires Hit Home
USFS United States Forest Service
WRAP Wildfire Risk Reduction and Asset Protection
WUI Wildland-Urban Interface
YLWD Yorba Linda Water District
418
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 43 of 74
Glossary
Aspect Compass direction that a slope or terrain surface faces, influencing sunlight exposure, temperature, and vegetation.
Catastrophic loss A sudden, severe, and often, widespread event resulting in extreme financial, loss of life, or permanent injury.
Class-A roof Highest fire resistance classification for a roof assembly, signifying its effectiveness against severe fire exposure.
Conflagration A particularly large and destructive fire; in the built environment, this may describe a fire that spreads via structure to structure.
Defensible space Buffer zone created and managed between buildings and surrounding wildland area to protect buildings from embers, flames, or heat, slow or stop wildfire spread, and help ensure safety of firefighters.
Ember Small piece of burning or glowing fragment from a fire.
Ember-resistant Refers to features that reduce the risk of ignition from embers.
Ember spot ignition Refers to one of the principal ways homes can ignite during extreme WUI fires, by embers directly on a house.
Firebrands Refers to airborne embers; pieces of burning wood.
Firewise USA Program administered by NFPA® and co-sponsored by the USDA Forest Service and the National Association of State Foresters.
Fuel modification zone Designated area where vegetation is managed to reduce wildfire risk for protection of homes and communities.
Fuel reduction Management of vegetation to reduce risk of wildfires.
Heli-Hydrant™ Patented rapid-fill water tank system for helicopter firefighting operations.
Home hardening Utilizing building materials, construction methods and maintenance practices to increase resistance to ignition from fire exposure.
Home ignition potential Susceptibility of a home and its immediate surroundings within 100 feet (thirty meters) to ignite during a wildfire.
Home ignition zone A home and its immediate surroundings within 100 feet (thirty meters).
419
Wildfires Hit Home
Ignition Process leading to the onset of a sustained combustion reaction; “start of a fire.”
Ignition-resistant Refers to materials and construction methods designed to resist ignition or sustained flaming combustion; difficult to catch fire when exposed to direct flame or heat.
Wildland fuels Burnable plant materials that can act as fuel during wildfires, including grasses, shrubs, trees, dead leaves, and fallen pine needles.
Zone 0 Ember-resistant defensible space within the first five feet around a structure, required for properties in State Responsibility Area or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in the Local Responsibility Area.
420
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 45 of 74
Bibliography
2025 California Wildland-Urban Interface Code, Title 24, Part 7, 2024 IWUIC Amended, Effective Date: Jan 01, 2026. Accessed January 22, 2026. https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAWUIC2025P2.
2025 California Wildland-Urban Interface Code, Title 24, Part 7, 2024 IWUIC Amended, Effective Date: Jan 01, 2026. Accessed January 22, 2026. https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAWUIC2025P2/chapter-6-fire-protection- requirements.
Artemis. “Golden Bear Re Ltd. (Series 2026-1).” Artemis Deal Directory. Accessed February 1, 2026. https://www.artemis.bm/deal-directory/golden-bear-re-ltd-series-2026- 1/.
Austin, Troy, et al. “A Spatial Analysis of Structure Loss and Survival Resulting from the 2018 Camp Fire in Paradise, California.” Frames Resource Catalog. February 19, 2020.
Accessed November 25, 2025. https://www.frames.gov/catalog/60818 Becker, Jo. “California Promised Insurance Relief, But Delivered Loopholes.” New York Times. November 1, 2025. Accessed November 25, 2025.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/01/us/los-angeles-california-fire-insurance- regulations.html
CAL FIRE. Office of the State Fire Marshal. Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area>Phase 4>Orange> https://calfire.app.box.com/s/wahuw9ny7cgn89xpxh7092ur50r1pwvj/folder/3126694582 15 CAL FIRE. Top 20 Deadliest California Wildfires. Accessed October 9, 2025. https://34c031f8-c9fd-4018-8c5a-4159cdff6b0d-cdn-endpoint.azureedge.net/- /media/calfire-website/our-impact/fire-statistics/top-20-deadliest-ca- wildfires.pdf?rev=0d4612ff0cb447fb827fa0ac6c309d3d&hash=34718653A215C315C5E 3CB5BB6A4E550
CAL FIRE. Top 20 Most Destructive California Wildfires. Accessed October 9, 2025. https://34c031f8-c9fd-4018-8c5a-4159cdff6b0d-cdn-endpoint.azureedge.net/- /media/calfire-website/our-impact/fire-statistics/top-20-destructive-ca- wildfires.pdf?rev=737a1073f76947b4a3bfb960b19f44c7&hash=7CA02D30D9BF46A32 D5D98BD108BA26A
California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Risk Reduction Community List.
Accessed February 16, 2026. https://bof.fire.ca.gov/projects-and-programs/fire-risk- reduction-community-list.
421
Wildfires Hit Home
California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 1280.
https://regulations.justia.com/states/california/title-14/division-1-5/chapter-7/subchapter- 3/article-1/section-1280/
California Department of Insurance – Wildfire Risk Reduction Regulations California Department of Insurance. CAL FIRE hazard maps do not affect insurance rates or availability. Accessed February 1, 2026. https://www.insurance.ca.gov/0400- news/0102-alerts/2025/CAL-FIRE-hazard-maps-do-not-affect-insu.cfm The California FAIR Plan. https://www.cfpnet.com/
California Government Code 51175-89. https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code- gov/title-5/division-1/part-1/chapter-6-8/section-51175/ California Insurance Code § 2644.9
California Insurance Code sections 10090 et seq.
https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-ins/division-2/part-1/chapter-9/section- 10090/
California Public Resources Code 4201-4204.
https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-prc/division-4/part-2/chapter-1/article-9/ California Public Resources Code Division 4 - Forests, Forestry and Range and Forage Lands Part 2 - Protection of Forest, Range and Forage Lands Chapter 3 - Mountainous, Forest-, Brush- and Grass-Covered Lands Section 4291. Accessed January 14, 2026. https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-prc/division-4/part-2/chapter-3/section- 4291/.
California’s Sustainable Insurance Strategy. Accessed January 22, 2026. https://boe.ca.gov/meetings/pdf/2024/202402-CA-Insurance-Martinez.pdf.
Center for Critical Urban and Environmental Studies. University of California, Santa Cruz. Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Research for Resilience: Addressing California’s Climate, Conservation & Housing Crises. Accessed November 25, 2025. https://criticalurbanenvironments.ucsc.edu/projects/wildland-urban-interface-wui- research-for-resilience/.
Cohen, Jack. The Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Problem: A Consequence of the Fire Exclusion Paradigm. Forest History Today. Fall 2008: 20-26.
Copley, Michael. “California Fire Victims Say Fighting with Insurance Companies Has Delayed Rebuilding.” NPR News, January 13, 2026. https://www.kanw.org/npr- news/2026-01-13/california-fire-victims-say-fighting-with-insurance-companies-has- delayed-rebuilding.
422
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 47 of 74
Edelson, Josh. [Cover page lower left image of a home survives Palisades Fire].
Photograph. Agence France-Presse / Getty Images. Accessed March 25, 2026.
Edelson, Josh. [Cover page lower right image of a home burns in Paradise, California during the Camp Fire]. Photograph. “In Camp Fire, Newer Houses Were Much Less Damaged Accessed.” The Sacramento Bee. April 11, 2019. Accessed March 25, 2026. https://www.kqed.org/science/1940012/newer-houses-much-less-damaged-in-camp-fire Executive Order N-13-23. https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/9.21.23- Homeowners-Insurance-EO.pdf
Executive Order N-18-25. Accessed January 13, 2026. https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/2025/02/2025-2-6.Urban-Conflagration-EO-ATTESTED.pdf.
Fallon, Patrick T. [A House a hill with fire and smoke]. Photograph. Agence France- Presse / Getty Images. Accessed March 25, 2026.
Firewise USA program managed by National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). https://www.nfpa.org/Education-and-Research/Wildfire/Firewise-USA Hall, Alex – Journal of Environmental Research, September 8, 2015.
Gammanco, Ian M., et al. The Return of Conflagration in Our Built Environment.
Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety. September 2023. Accessed March 20, 2026. https://ibhs.org/wp-
content/uploads/Suburban_Wildfire_Conflagration_WhitePaper.pdf.
Hayrikian, Mashall A.. Engineering and Environmental Implications of the LA wildfires:
Eaton and Palisades Fire. Marshall Geoscience – Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory Services. http://www.marshallgeo.com/geotechnical-engineering/engineering-and- environmental-implications-of-la-wildfires-eaton-palisades-fires/.
Instagram. [Cover page upper left image of Wildland-Urban Interface at Rancho Mission Viejo]. Photograph. Accessed March 25, 2026.
https://www.instagram.com/popular/rancho-mission-viejo-ca/.
Instagram. [Rancho Mission Viejo.com]. Photograph. Accessed March 25, 2026. https://www.instagram.com/p/CsmLvqlMqm2/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igshid=M zRlODBiNWFlZA%3D%3D.
IBHS Research. Wildland Fire Embers and Flames: Home Mitigations That Matter. April 2023. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://ibhs1.wpenginepowered.com/wp- content/uploads/Home-Mitigations-that-Matter-FINAL.pdf. 423
Wildfires Hit Home
Institute for Business & Home Safety. Wildfire Prepared Neighborhood Pilot Program.
Accessed March 19, 2026. https://wildfireprepared.org/wildfire-prepared-neighborhood- pilot-program/.
Jacobo, Julia and Ginger Zee, Ginger. A perfect storm of weather and climate conditions led to the severity of the California fires, ABC News, Accessed January 8, 2026, http://www.abcnews.com/US/perfect-storm-weather-climate-conditions-severity- california-fires/story?id=117468072
Kasler, Dale and Reese, Phillip. “In Camp Fire, Newer Houses Were Much Less Damaged.” The Sacramento Bee. April 11, 2019, updated January 9, 2024. Accessed March 4, 2026. https://www.kqed.org/science/1940012/newer-%D8%8Cuses-much- less-damaged-in-camp-fire.
McChrystal Group. After-Action Review of Alert Notification Systems and Evacuation Policies for the Eaton and Palisades Fires. Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, September 25, 2025. https://lacounty.gov/2025/09/25/la-county-releases-after-action- review-of-alert-notification-systems-and-evacuation-policies-for-the-eaton-and- palisades-fires/.
Miller, Rebecca. “Residents Reducing Wildfire Risks: Findings from the NFPA® Firewise® Sites of Excellence Pilot, 2019-2020,” May 2022. NFPA® Firewise USA®:
Residents Reducing Wildfire Risks. https://www.nfpa.org/education-and- research/wildfire/firewise-usa/firewise-sites-of-excellence National Institute of Building Science. “Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves.” 2019. https://nibs.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/NIBS_MMC_MitigationSaves_2019-1.pdf Orange County Fire Authority. Resource Library. Accessed March 8, 2026. https://ocfa.org/documents/.
Orange County Grand Jury (2025 – 2026). [OCFA helicopter approaching Yorba Linda Water District Heli-Hydrant™]. Photograph, January 27, 2026. Unpublished internal documentation.
Orange County Grand Jury (2025 – 2026). [Cover page upper right image of Orange County Fire Authority helicopter water drop]. Photograph, January 27, 2026.
Unpublished internal documentation.
Polacek, Andy. 2018. “Catastrophe Bonds: A Primer and Retrospective.” Chicago Fed Letter, no. 405. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/chicago-fed-letter/2018/405.
Rojanasakul, Jira, & Brown, Claire. “America’s Home Insurance Affordability Crunch:
See What’s Happening Near You.” New York Times. November 19, 2025. Accessed 424
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 49 of 74
November 25, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/11/19/climate/home- insurance-premiums-costs-usa.html?smid=nytcore-android-share San Diego County Grand Jury. “Fire Country: Forging a United Defense in the Backcountry,” SanDiegoCounty.gov. May 15, 2025.
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/grandjury/reports/2024-2025/fire- country/Fire-%20Final%20Filed%20Version.pdf
Senate Bill 504. Accessed January 14, 2026.
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB504/id/3018449.
State of California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. Accessed January 14, 2026. https://bof.fire.ca.gov/projects-and-programs/defensible-space-zones-0-1-and-2.
The California FAIR Plan. Key Statistics & Data. Accessed March 8, 2026. https://www.cfpnet.com/key-statistics-data/
Thompson, Andrea. How the Ferocious Santa Ana Winds are Fueling the Palisades Fire. Scientific American. Accessed January 7, 2026. http://www.scientificamerican.com United Policyholders – WRAP Resource Center and Safer from Wildfires Initiative U.S. Fire Administration. What is the WUI? Accessed November 25, 2025. https://www.usfa.fema.gov/wui/what-is-the-wui/
Weathered: After the LA Firestorm. Directed by Trip Jennings. Presented by Maiya May.
PBS, 2026. 56 min.
Wildland-Urban Interface. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Accessed January 12, 2026. https://research.fs.usda.gov/nrs/fire/wui.
Yufang, Jin, et al. Identification of two distinct fire regimes in Southern California:
implications for economic impact and future change. Environmental Research Letters, Volume 1, Number 9. IOP Science, September 8, 2015. Accessed January 9, 2026. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094005. “ZIP Codes in Orange County, California.” Felt.com. Accessed November 11,2025. https://felt.com/map/ZIP-Codes-in-Orange-County-California- GX3e19BKrS5uwCICY3r5gFD?loc=33.6408,-117.7804,9z.
425
Wildfires Hit Home
Appendix A
CAL FIRE Wildfire Data
Source: CalFire Redbook Data
Figure 11 Top 20 Deadliest California Wildfires
426
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 51 of 74
Source: CalFire Redbook Data
Figure 12 Top 20 Most Destructive California Wildfires
427
Wildfires Hit Home
Figure 13 Large Fires 300 Acres and Greater - State and Contract Counties Direct Protection Area
Figure 14 Orange County Wildfires by Size
428
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 53 of 74
Appendix B
Safer from Wildfires Flyer
Figure 15 Safer from Wildfires Flyer, Page 1
429
Wildfires Hit Home
Figure 16 Safer from Wildfires Flyer, Page 2
430
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 55 of 74
Appendix C
Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map of Orange County
Figure 17 Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map of Orange County
431
Wildfires Hit Home
Appendix D
Figure 18 Fire Hardening and Defensible Space Disclosure, Page 1 432
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 57 of 74
Figure 19 Fire Hardening and Defensible Space Disclosure, Page 2 433
Wildfires Hit Home
Appendix E
California Department of Insurance Data
Figure 20 California Property and Casualty Insurance Company Homeowners Premium and Loss 434
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 59 of 74
Note: P. O. Boxes are excluded from this list. Data is for calendar year 2022 and includes homeowners (excluding condominium), mobile home, dwelling fire owner- and tenant-occupied insuring structures with four or less units.
Source: California Department of Insurance
Figure 21 FAIR Plan Data for Orange County Zip Codes 90620 - 92679 435
Wildfires Hit Home
Note: P. O. Boxes are excluded from this list. Data is for calendar year 2022 and includes homeowners (excluding condominium), mobile home, dwelling fire owner- and tenant-occupied insuring structures with four or less units.
Source: California Department of Insurance
Figure 22 FAIR Plan Data for Orange County Zip Codes 92680 – 92899 436
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 61 of 74
Appendix F
OCFA and Covered Cities
Figure 23 Orange County Fire Authority Covered Cities
437
Wildfires Hit Home
Figure 24 Orange County Fire Jurisdictions
438
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 63 of 74
Appendix G
Ready, Set, Go!, Zone 0 At-A-Glance and Links
Figure 25 Ready, Set Go! Flyer for Immediate Zone
439
Wildfires Hit Home
Figure 26 Ready, Set, Go! Flyer on Defensible Space
440
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 65 of 74
Figure 27 Ready, Set, Go! Flyer for Home Hardening, Page 1 441
Wildfires Hit Home
Figure 28 Ready, Set, Go! Flyer for Home Hardening, Page 2 442
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 67 of 74
Figure 29 Ready, Set, Go! Flyer on Vegetation Management 443
Wildfires Hit Home
Figure 30 Ready, Set, Go! On Be Ember Aware
444
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 69 of 74
Figure 31 Ready, Set, Go! Flyer on Home Assessment
445
Wildfires Hit Home
Figure 32 Ready, Set, Go! Flyer on Wildfire Home Risk Assessment, Page 1 446
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 71 of 74
Figure 33 Ready, Set, Go! Flyer on Wildfire Home Risk Assessment, Page 2 447
Wildfires Hit Home
Figure 34 Zone 0 At-A-Glance, Page 1
448
Wildfires Hit Home
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026 Page 73 of 74
Figure 35 Zone 0 At-A-Glance, Page 2
449
Wildfires Hit Home
Links
Immediate Zone
https://storageocfaprod001.blob.core.windows.net/blobocfaprod01/2025/12/Immediate- Zone-2025.pdf
Defensible Space
https://storageocfaprod001.blob.core.windows.net/blobocfaprod01/2025/03/OCFA-RSG- Defensible-Space-1-1.pdf
Home Hardening
https://storageocfaprod001.blob.core.windows.net/blobocfaprod01/2025/12/Home- Hardening-2025.pdf
Vegetation Management
https://storageocfaprod001.blob.core.windows.net/blobocfaprod01/2026/01/OCFA-RSG- Vegetation-Management.pdf
Be Amber Aware
https://storageocfaprod001.blob.core.windows.net/blobocfaprod01/2025/07/OCFA-RSG- Be-Ember-Aware-688b04d7e4fb9.pdf
Home Assessment
https://storageocfaprod001.blob.core.windows.net/blobocfaprod01/2025/12/Home- Assessment-2025.pdf
Wildfire Home Risk Assessment
https://storageocfaprod001.blob.core.windows.net/blobocfaprod01/2025/07/OCFA-RSG- Home-Assessment-Form-688b05b09d57e.pdf
Zone 0 At-A-Glance
https://34c031f8-c9fd-4018-8c5a-4159cdff6b0d-cdn-endpoint.azureedge.net/- /media/calfire-website/prepare/zone-0-at-a-glance.pdf
450
Agenda Item
Orange City Council
Item #: 3.10. 8/11/2026 File #: 26-0462
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THRU: Jarad Hildenbrand, City Manager
FROM: Nathalie Adourian, City Attorney
1. SUBJECT
Response to the 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury Report, “CaliforniaHousing Mandates: The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods”
2. SUMMARY
The 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury issued a report entitled “California Housing Mandates:
The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods.” The City of Orange is required to respond to certain findings and recommendations contained in the report. The City’s proposed response is presented to the City Council for consideration and approval.
3. RECOMMENDED ACTION
Approve the City of Orange response to the 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury Report, “California Housing Mandates: The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods,” and authorize the Mayor to execute the response on behalf of the City Council.
4. FISCAL IMPACT
None.
5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Goal 3: Enhance Public Communication Strategy and Quality of Life
6. DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND
The 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury issued the report “California Housing Mandates: The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods,” which includes findings and recommendations directed to cities and other public agencies throughout Orange County. The City of Orange is required to respond to Findings F1, F2, F4 through F12 and Recommendations R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, and R16.
Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the City Council is required to respond to the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under its control. The proposed City response is attached for the City Council’s consideration and approval.
Upon approval, the response will be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Orange County Superior Court as required by law.
City of Orange Printed on 8/6/2026Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
451
Item #: 3.10. 8/11/2026 File #: 26-0462
7. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of CEQA guidelines section 15378, as it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
8. ATTACHMENTS
· Proposed City of Orange Response to the 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury Report
· 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury Report, “California Housing Mandates: The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods”
City of Orange Printed on 8/6/2026Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
452
Agenda Item
Orange City Council
Item #: 3.10. 8/11/2026 File #: 26-0462
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THRU: Jarad Hildenbrand, City Manager
FROM: Nathalie Adourian, City Attorney
1. SUBJECT
Response to the 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury Report, “CaliforniaHousing Mandates: The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods”
2. SUMMARY
The 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury issued a report entitled “California Housing Mandates:
The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods.” The City of Orange is required to respond to certain findings and recommendations contained in the report. The City’s proposed response is presented to the City Council for consideration and approval.
3. RECOMMENDED ACTION
Approve the City of Orange response to the 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury Report, “California Housing Mandates: The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods,” and authorize the Mayor to execute the response on behalf of the City Council.
4. FISCAL IMPACT
None.
5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Goal 3: Enhance Public Communication Strategy and Quality of Life
6. DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND
The 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury issued the report “California Housing Mandates: The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods,” which includes findings and recommendations directed to cities and other public agencies throughout Orange County. The City of Orange is required to respond to Findings F1, F2, F4 through F12 and Recommendations R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R14, R15, and R16.
Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the City Council is required to respond to the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under its control. The proposed City response is attached for the City Council’s consideration and approval.
Upon approval, the response will be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Orange County Superior Court as required by law.
City of Orange Printed on 8/6/2026Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
453
Item #: 3.10. 8/11/2026 File #: 26-0462
7. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of CEQA guidelines section 15378, as it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
8. ATTACHMENTS
· Proposed City of Orange Response to the 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury Report
· 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury Report, “California Housing Mandates: The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods”
City of Orange Printed on 8/6/2026Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
454
August 12, 2026
300 E. CHAPMAN A VENUE • ORANGE, CA 92866-1506
Office of Mayor PHONE: (714) 744-2211 • FAX: (714) 744-5523 www.cityoforange.org
August 12, 2026
The Honorable Sheila F. Hanson
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
RE: Grand Jury Report – California Housing Mandates
Dear Judge Hanson:
The City of Orange is pleased to submit this response to the Orange County Grand Jury Report, California Housing Mandates, the Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods (Report). The City Council reviewed and approved the response at its August 11, 2026 City Council meeting.
The City of Orange faces particular challenges when faced with state legislation and mandates given the high value it places on protecting properties within its Old Towne Orange National Register of Historic Places District, the largest historic district in California, and three other local Eichler Homes Historic Districts. Neighborhood housing demands associated with the student population at Chapman University also influence housing availability and cost. The City desires to address the housing needs of its residents and employers, while also continuing to place a high priority on the community characteristics that its residents value. While the City of Orange has identified a number of Candidate Housing Sites in its Housing Element, projects with entitlements have not moved forward to development due to financing constraints, or site redevelopment proposals have been slow to materialize. Since adoption and state certification of the City’s Housing Element, the majority of residential development has come in the form of affordable senior and family housing supported by federal funding or former redevelopment agency set-aside funds.
The findings and recommendations of the Report appliable to the City of Orange are re-stated below followed by the City’s responses in bold. Findings and Recommendations have not been included for which no response was required from the City of Orange.
455
August 12, 2026
300 E. CHAPMAN A VENUE • ORANGE, CA 92866-1506
FINDINGS:
F1. In recent years, the California Legislature has enacted an unusually large and burdensome volume of housing -related laws intended to strengthen compliance with State Housing Mandates.
City’s Response: The City agrees with this finding.
F2. Housing Mandates are implemented through a RHNA process that often lacks transparency and relies on complex methodologies that are difficult for local officials and the public to understand or meaningfully challenge.
City Response: The City agrees with this finding, and has direct experience with an attempted appeal effort that involved significant preparation and use of staff time with only brief consideration before the appeal board involving lack of any discussion and ultimate denial.
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.
City’s Response: The City agrees with this finding.
F5. SCAG’s 6th Cycle RHNA assigned Orange County a questionable total of 183,861 housing units for the 2021–2029 planning period, with higher allocations concentrated in cities with major population and employment centers.
City’s Response: The City agrees with this finding.
F6. RHNA allocations are unrealistic and not attainable within the current planning cycle due to limited available land, built -out urban conditions, infrastructure constraints, environmental factors, and public health and safety requirements.
City’s Response: The City largely agrees with this finding, with the additional experience that project financing and grant funding requirements represent significant impediments to housing development.
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.
City’s Response: The City agrees with this finding.
456
August 12, 2026
300 E. CHAPMAN A VENUE • ORANGE, CA 92866-1506
F8. California’s regulatory construction costs (i.e. permitting fees) present substantial challenges for private housing developers—particularly those delivering affordable units.
City’s Response: The City agrees, in part, with this finding. While permitting fees contribute to challenges faced by housing developers, equally or more important factors that influence private housing developers are land cost, compliance with stringent Building Code standards, and development impact fees.
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 with out public subsidy.
City’s Response: The City agrees with this finding.
F10. Prior to their dissolution in 2012, redevelopment agencies served as a primary mechanism for cities and counties to finance affordable housing and related infrastructure. The loss of redevelopment has reduced cities’ ability to support construction of affordable units.
City’s Response: The City agrees with this finding.
F11. Because public subsidy is limited and highly competitive, cities seeking to produce meaningful quantities of low -income housing must rely in part on private development incentives, often resulting in higher overall development densities and unit counts tha n the RHNA allocation.
City’s Response: The City agrees with this finding, and notes that the application of private development incentives are common among affordable housing projects in Orange, along with government funding programs.
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.
City’s Response: The City agrees with this finding.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
R7. OCCOG, all Orange County cities and the County of Orange should reassess the current dues structure, by September 30, 2026, to ensure that OCCOG has the resources necessary to effectively represent Orange County jurisdictions in SCAG processes, including RHNA methodology development and appeals. (F3, F15)
City’s Response: The City of Orange is willing to participate in this Recommendation. 457
August 12, 2026
300 E. CHAPMAN A VENUE • ORANGE, CA 92866-1506
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)
City’s Response: The City of Orange is willing to participate in this Recommendation, however staff resources may be limited to devote to this effort. Additionally, the City of Orange does not have financial resources to contribute to this effort.
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)
City’s Response: The City of Orange is willing to participate in this Recommendation, however staff resources may be limited to devote to this effort.
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)
City’s Response: The City of Orange is willing to participate in this Recommendation.
R12. The County of Orange and each city should designate a single technical representative, by September 30, 2026, along with an alternate, for all RHNA -related SCAG and OCCOG committees to ensure continuity of participation and eliminate gaps in representation across multiple decision-making bodies. (F4)
City’s Response: The City of Orange is willing to participate in this Recommendation, however staff resources may be limited to devote to this effort should it become prolonged and time-intensive.
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)
City’s Response: The City of Orange is willing to participate in this Recommendation, however staff resources may be limited to devote to this effort should it become prolonged and time-intensive.
458
August 12, 2026
300 E. CHAPMAN A VENUE • ORANGE, CA 92866-1506
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)
City’s Response: The City of Orange is willing to participate in this Recommendation.
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)
City’s Response: The City of Orange is willing to participate in this Recommendation.
The City of Orange appreciates the opportunity to provide a response to the Findings and Recommendations of the Report in an effort to improve the RHNA process in the future, and work toward a methodology that reflects population and employment trends, fin ancial constraints facing local government and the development community, and reflects the distinctive qualities, character, and influencing factors of individual Orange County cities.
Sincerely,
Daniel R. Slater
Mayor, City of Orange
cc: The Orange County Grand Jury
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
459
August 12, 2026
300 E. CHAPMAN A VENUE • ORANGE, CA 92866-1506
Bcc: Jarad L. Hildenbrand, City Manager
Nathalie Adourian, City Attorney
460
California State Housing Mandates
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
461
California State Housing Mandates
This page left intentionally blank!
462
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 ........................................................................................................... 65 463
California State Housing Mandates
Responsibilities of SCAG .............................................................................................................. 66 Responsibilities of HCD ................................................................................................................ 66
464
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 465
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 6
th 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 growth
2. 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-Legislation- April-2023-Final.pdf
2 California Housing in 2025 - Advocacy - California Chamber of Commerce 466
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-Legislation- April-2023-Final.pdf
467
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-Legislation- April-2023-Final.pdf
10 California State Senate Recent Legislative Actions
468
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.
469
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
470
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.
471
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 472
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 473
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 474
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
475
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 476
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
477
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-Legislation- April-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 478
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 479
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
480
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
481
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
482
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 483
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 484
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
485
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 486
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
487
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 488
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 489
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. 490
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 6
th 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 491
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
492
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 7
th 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.
493
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 6
th 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.
494
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 7 th 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. 495
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) 496
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)
497
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)
498
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)
499
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 500
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 decision- making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.
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
501
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
502
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
503
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
504
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 505
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 506
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. 507
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.
508
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 509
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 510
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 Housing- Element 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 511
California State Housing Mandates
2023. New-Pathways-to-Encourage-Housing-Production-Evaluating-Californias- Recent-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
512
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
513
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
514
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 515
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 H ousing Element non-compliance, explicitly linking failure to adopt or implement a compliant H ousing 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.
516
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.
517
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.
518
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.
519
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.
520
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 H ousing 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.
521
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 7 th 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. 522
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. 523
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,
524
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.
525
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 526
California State Housing Mandates
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
shaping statewide housing policy, and enforcing housing laws to promote equity, environmental quality, and community stability across the state.
HCD’s mission is to lead and implement California’s housing policy by determining regional housing needs, reviewing and enforcing Housing Element compliance, administering state and federal housing funds, and holding local jurisdictions accountable for fulfilling their obligations under state housing law. 84
84 California Department of Housing and Community Development 527
Agenda Item
Orange City Council
Item #: 8.1. 8/11/2026 File #: 26-0400
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THRU: Jarad Hildenbrand, City Manager
FROM: Russell Bunim, Director of Community Development
1. SUBJECT
Public Hearing pursuant to Government Code Section 53083 to consider approval of the Vehicle Incentive Program Participation Agreement with five Orange franchised automobile dealerships, contingent upon voter approval of a future Transactions and Use Tax Measure
2. SUMMARY
The proposed Vehicle Incentive Program (VIP) is a buy-local economic development initiative designed to encourage City of Orange residents and businesses to purchase or lease vehicles from participating franchised dealerships located within the City. The Program would provide a $500 rebate toward the purchase or lease of a new vehicle and a $250 rebate toward the purchase of a qualifying pre-owned vehicle (minimum purchase price of $15,000). By encouraging local vehicle purchases, the Program is intended to protect the City's point-of-sale (Bradley-Burns) sales tax base, support local automobile dealerships and the jobs they provide, and preserve revenues that help fund essential City services.
The Program is contingent upon voter approval of the proposed Transactions and Use Tax Measure anticipated for the November 2026 ballot. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 53083, the City Council must conduct a noticed public hearing and review the attached Economic Development Subsidy Report before approving the Participation Agreement and establishing the Program.
3. RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Conduct and close the Public Hearing pursuant to California Government Code Section 53083.
2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Participation Agreement with the participating Orange franchised vehicle dealers (Mazda of Orange, Selman Chevrolet, Nissan of Orange, Toyota of Orange, and Villa Ford of Orange) to establish the Vehicle Incentive Program for the period of April 1, 2027 to April 1, 2040, for an amount not to exceed $1,550,000 per year in rebates ($20,150,000 over the 13-year term), contingent upon voter approval of a future Transactions and Use Tax (sales tax) Measure.
3. Approve the Vehicle Incentive Program Guidelines as established by the City Manager and Economic Development Subsidy Report and direct staff to return following the November 3, 2026, election with any necessary implementation actions and budget appropriation requests, contingent upon voter approval of the proposed Transactions and Use Tax Measure.
City of Orange Printed on 8/6/2026Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
528
Item #: 8.1. 8/11/2026 File #: 26-0400
4. FISCAL IMPACT
The total estimated annual cost of the Vehicle Incentive Program (VIP) is up to $1,600,000, consisting of up to $1,550,000 in resident and business rebates and up to $50,000 for City marketing and administration. Over the 13-year Program term, total expenditures shall not exceed $20,800,000, including up to $20,150,000 for rebates and up to $650,000 for marketing and administration.
The Program is contingent upon voter approval of the proposed Transactions and Use Tax Measure and annual appropriation of funds by the City Council. If approved by the voters, rebate payments and administrative costs would be budgeted annually in the General Fund, with the initial appropriation covering the partial fiscal year beginning April 1, 2027.
Because the Program is structured as a rebate to qualifying Orange residents and businesses, with participating dealerships serving only as an administrative pass-through, it does not divert existing Bradley-Burns point-of-sale sales tax revenues from any other jurisdiction. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed Program structure for consistency with Government Code Sections 53083 and 53084.
5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Goal 3: Enhance Economic Development and Achieve Fiscal Stability.
6. DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND
The City of Orange is home to five franchised automobile dealerships that are a significant source of local sales tax revenue and local employment. On May 26, 2026, the City Council reviewed the draft Vehicle Incentive Program (VIP) and directed staff to prepare the required economic development subsidy report and to schedule a public hearing to consider approval. In anticipation of the proposed Transactions and Use Tax Measure on the November 2026 ballot, staff has developed the Vehicle Incentive Program (VIP) to encourage Orange residents and businesses to continue purchasing and leasing vehicles from Orange dealerships, thereby protecting the City's point-of-sale sales tax base and supporting local employment.
The VIP provides a rebate to Orange residents and businesses who purchase or lease a vehicle from a participating Orange dealership in the amounts of $500 for the purchase or lease of a new vehicle and $250 for the purchase of a qualifying pre-owned vehicle (minimum final sales price of $15,000) applied as a discount to the purchase or lease price at the point of sale. Motorcycles, off-road vehicles, and watercraft are not eligible. The Program is a buy-local incentive designed to improve the price-competitiveness of Orange dealerships for Orange residents and businesses, thereby retaining vehicle-purchase and lease activity, and the associated local sales tax revenue and jobs, within the City. Staff focused the Program on this industry because vehicle purchases represent one of the City's largest and most mobile sources of taxable retail sales, making it particularly well suited for a targeted buy-local incentive.
Vehicle purchases are among the largest taxable transactions most households make, and consumers routinely compare pricing among multiple dealerships throughout Orange County. In many cases, purchasing decisions are influenced by relatively small differences in price or incentives.
Staff believes the proposed rebate provides sufficient value to encourage residents and businesses to purchase locally when competing offers are otherwise comparable, helping retain taxable sales and associated sales tax revenues within the City.
Under California law, the local Bradley-Burns sales tax (the City’s existing 1% local share) is City of Orange Printed on 8/6/2026Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
529
Item #: 8.1. 8/11/2026 File #: 26-0400
Under California law, the local Bradley-Burns sales tax (the City’s existing 1% local share) is allocated to the jurisdiction where the selling dealership is located. The City retains that point-of-sale revenue only when a resident or business purchases from a dealership located in Orange. A district transaction and use tax, such as the proposed measure, is applied to a vehicle that is required to be registered, and allocated to the City based on the buyer’sregistration address. Therefore, an Orange resident or business pays the City’s district rate regardless of where the vehicle is purchased.
Because the tax rate the buyer pays does not depend on dealer location, the decision to purchase locally turns primarily on price; the VIP improves the price-competitiveness of Orange dealerships and thereby protects the City’spoint-of-sale sales tax base. The Economic Development Subsidy Report (Attachment 2) provides a detailed analysis of the Program’s fiscal effects.
Although the rebate is provided only to qualifying purchasers, the intended beneficiary of the Program is the community as a whole. By retaining taxable vehicle sales within Orange, the Program helps preserve revenues that support police, fire, parks, streets, libraries, infrastructure maintenance, and other essential City services relied upon by all residents.
The proposed Agreement is with five participating Orange franchised dealerships: Mazda of Orange, Selman Chevrolet, Nissan of Orange, Toyota of Orange, and Villa Ford of Orange. The Program is limited to franchised dealerships because they generate the majority of the City's taxable vehicle sales and compete directly with other franchised dealerships throughout the region selling substantially similar vehicles. Staff believes this highly competitive market provides the greatest opportunity for a modest rebate to influence purchasing decisions and retain local sales tax revenues. While independent used vehicle dealerships are valued members of the City's business community, they generally offer unique inventories that compete primarily on vehicle availability, condition, mileage, and price rather than identical vehicles sold at multiple locations. As a result, staff does not believe a standardized rebate would have the same effect on retaining taxable vehicle sales for those businesses.
The Program is proposed to commence on April 1, 2027, and continue through April 1, 2040, aligning with the proposed 13-year duration of the Transactions and Use Tax Measure. Program implementation is contingent upon voter approval of the measure and annual appropriation of funds by the City Council. The annual rebate budget is capped at $1,550,000, with up to $50,000 annually available for City marketing and administration. Participating dealerships will verify purchaser eligibility, apply the rebate at the point of sale, maintain supporting documentation, submit monthly reimbursement requests to the City for reimbursement, and assist in promoting the Program to eligible Orange residents and businesses.
Government Code Section 53083 requires that the City Council hold a noticed public hearing and, prior to the hearing, provide specified information regarding a proposed economic development subsidy in a report posted on the City’s website. An “economic development subsidy” is any expenditure of public funds or reduction of revenue of $100,000 or more for the purpose of stimulating economic development; the aggregate expenditure for the VIP exceeds that threshold.
The attached Economic Development Subsidy Report will remain posted on the City’swebsite until the end date of the subsidy. The base term of the subsidy is 13 years. In accordance with Government Code Section 53083, the City will prepare a follow-up economic development subsidy report and hold a public hearing within the Program term, but no later than five years after approval.
Because the Program has a term more than 10 years, the City will also provide the required City of Orange Printed on 8/6/2026Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
530
Item #: 8.1. 8/11/2026 File #: 26-0400
information and hold a public hearing at the conclusion of the 13-year Program term.
7. ATTACHMENTS
· Attachment 1 - Participation Agreement with Dealerships · Attachment 2 - Economic Development Subsidy Report (per Government Code Section 53083)
· Attachment 3 - Vehicle Incentive Program Guidelines
City of Orange Printed on 8/6/2026Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™
531
Agenda Item
Orange City Council
Item #: 8.1. 8/11/2026 File #: 26-0400
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THRU: Jarad Hildenbrand, City Manager
FROM: Russell Bunim, Director of Community Development
1. SUBJECT
Public Hearing pursuant to Government Code Section 53083 to consider approval of the Vehicle Incentive Program Participation Agreement with five Orange franchised automobile dealerships, contingent upon voter approval of a future Transactions and Use Tax Measure
2. SUMMARY
The proposed Vehicle Incentive Program (VIP) is a buy-local economic development initiative designed to encourage City of Orange residents and businesses to purchase or lease vehicles from participating franchised dealerships located within the City. The Program would provide a $500 rebate toward the purchase or lease of a new vehicle and a $250 rebate toward the purchase of a qualifying pre-owned vehicle (minimum purchase price of $15,000). By encouraging local vehicle purchases, the Program is intended to protect the City's point-of-sale (Bradley-Burns) sales tax base, support local automobile dealerships and the jobs they provide, and preserve revenues that help fund essential City services.
The Program is contingent upon voter approval of the proposed Transactions and Use Tax Measure anticipated for the November 2026 ballot. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 53083, the City Council must conduct a noticed public hearing and review the attached Economic Development Subsidy Report before approving the Participation Agreement and establishing the Program.
3. RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Conduct and close the Public Hearing pursuant to California Government Code Section 53083.
2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Participation Agreement with the participating Orange franchised vehicle dealers (Mazda of Orange, Selman Chevrolet, Nissan of Orange, Toyota of Orange, and Villa Ford of Orange) to establish the Vehicle Incentive Program for the period of April 1, 2027 to April 1, 2040, for an amount not to exceed $1,550,000 per year in rebates ($20,150,000 over the 13-year term), contingent upon voter approval of a future Transactions and Use Tax (sales tax) Measure.
3. Approve the Vehicle Incentive Program Guidelines as established by the City Manager and Economic Development Subsidy Report and direct staff to return following the November 3, 2026, election with any necessary implementation actions and budget appropriation requests, contingent upon voter approval of the proposed Transactions and Use Tax Measure.
City of Orange Printed on 8/6/2026Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
532
Item #: 8.1. 8/11/2026 File #: 26-0400
4. FISCAL IMPACT
The total estimated annual cost of the Vehicle Incentive Program (VIP) is up to $1,600,000, consisting of up to $1,550,000 in resident and business rebates and up to $50,000 for City marketing and administration. Over the 13-year Program term, total expenditures shall not exceed $20,800,000, including up to $20,150,000 for rebates and up to $650,000 for marketing and administration.
The Program is contingent upon voter approval of the proposed Transactions and Use Tax Measure and annual appropriation of funds by the City Council. If approved by the voters, rebate payments and administrative costs would be budgeted annually in the General Fund, with the initial appropriation covering the partial fiscal year beginning April 1, 2027.
Because the Program is structured as a rebate to qualifying Orange residents and businesses, with participating dealerships serving only as an administrative pass-through, it does not divert existing Bradley-Burns point-of-sale sales tax revenues from any other jurisdiction. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed Program structure for consistency with Government Code Sections 53083 and 53084.
5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Goal 3: Enhance Economic Development and Achieve Fiscal Stability.
6. DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND
The City of Orange is home to five franchised automobile dealerships that are a significant source of local sales tax revenue and local employment. On May 26, 2026, the City Council reviewed the draft Vehicle Incentive Program (VIP) and directed staff to prepare the required economic development subsidy report and to schedule a public hearing to consider approval. In anticipation of the proposed Transactions and Use Tax Measure on the November 2026 ballot, staff has developed the Vehicle Incentive Program (VIP) to encourage Orange residents and businesses to continue purchasing and leasing vehicles from Orange dealerships, thereby protecting the City's point-of-sale sales tax base and supporting local employment.
The VIP provides a rebate to Orange residents and businesses who purchase or lease a vehicle from a participating Orange dealership in the amounts of $500 for the purchase or lease of a new vehicle and $250 for the purchase of a qualifying pre-owned vehicle (minimum final sales price of $15,000) applied as a discount to the purchase or lease price at the point of sale. Motorcycles, off-road vehicles, and watercraft are not eligible. The Program is a buy-local incentive designed to improve the price-competitiveness of Orange dealerships for Orange residents and businesses, thereby retaining vehicle-purchase and lease activity, and the associated local sales tax revenue and jobs, within the City. Staff focused the Program on this industry because vehicle purchases represent one of the City's largest and most mobile sources of taxable retail sales, making it particularly well suited for a targeted buy-local incentive.
Vehicle purchases are among the largest taxable transactions most households make, and consumers routinely compare pricing among multiple dealerships throughout Orange County. In many cases, purchasing decisions are influenced by relatively small differences in price or incentives.
Staff believes the proposed rebate provides sufficient value to encourage residents and businesses to purchase locally when competing offers are otherwise comparable, helping retain taxable sales and associated sales tax revenues within the City.
Under California law, the local Bradley-Burns sales tax (the City’s existing 1% local share) is City of Orange Printed on 8/6/2026Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
533
Item #: 8.1. 8/11/2026 File #: 26-0400
Under California law, the local Bradley-Burns sales tax (the City’s existing 1% local share) is allocated to the jurisdiction where the selling dealership is located. The City retains that point-of-sale revenue only when a resident or business purchases from a dealership located in Orange. A district transaction and use tax, such as the proposed measure, is applied to a vehicle that is required to be registered, and allocated to the City based on the buyer’sregistration address. Therefore, an Orange resident or business pays the City’s district rate regardless of where the vehicle is purchased.
Because the tax rate the buyer pays does not depend on dealer location, the decision to purchase locally turns primarily on price; the VIP improves the price-competitiveness of Orange dealerships and thereby protects the City’spoint-of-sale sales tax base. The Economic Development Subsidy Report (Attachment 2) provides a detailed analysis of the Program’s fiscal effects.
Although the rebate is provided only to qualifying purchasers, the intended beneficiary of the Program is the community as a whole. By retaining taxable vehicle sales within Orange, the Program helps preserve revenues that support police, fire, parks, streets, libraries, infrastructure maintenance, and other essential City services relied upon by all residents.
The proposed Agreement is with five participating Orange franchised dealerships: Mazda of Orange, Selman Chevrolet, Nissan of Orange, Toyota of Orange, and Villa Ford of Orange. The Program is limited to franchised dealerships because they generate the majority of the City's taxable vehicle sales and compete directly with other franchised dealerships throughout the region selling substantially similar vehicles. Staff believes this highly competitive market provides the greatest opportunity for a modest rebate to influence purchasing decisions and retain local sales tax revenues. While independent used vehicle dealerships are valued members of the City's business community, they generally offer unique inventories that compete primarily on vehicle availability, condition, mileage, and price rather than identical vehicles sold at multiple locations. As a result, staff does not believe a standardized rebate would have the same effect on retaining taxable vehicle sales for those businesses.
The Program is proposed to commence on April 1, 2027, and continue through April 1, 2040, aligning with the proposed 13-year duration of the Transactions and Use Tax Measure. Program implementation is contingent upon voter approval of the measure and annual appropriation of funds by the City Council. The annual rebate budget is capped at $1,550,000, with up to $50,000 annually available for City marketing and administration. Participating dealerships will verify purchaser eligibility, apply the rebate at the point of sale, maintain supporting documentation, submit monthly reimbursement requests to the City for reimbursement, and assist in promoting the Program to eligible Orange residents and businesses.
Government Code Section 53083 requires that the City Council hold a noticed public hearing and, prior to the hearing, provide specified information regarding a proposed economic development subsidy in a report posted on the City’s website. An “economic development subsidy” is any expenditure of public funds or reduction of revenue of $100,000 or more for the purpose of stimulating economic development; the aggregate expenditure for the VIP exceeds that threshold.
The attached Economic Development Subsidy Report will remain posted on the City’swebsite until the end date of the subsidy. The base term of the subsidy is 13 years. In accordance with Government Code Section 53083, the City will prepare a follow-up economic development subsidy report and hold a public hearing within the Program term, but no later than five years after approval.
Because the Program has a term more than 10 years, the City will also provide the required City of Orange Printed on 8/6/2026Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
534
Item #: 8.1. 8/11/2026 File #: 26-0400
information and hold a public hearing at the conclusion of the 13-year Program term.
7. ATTACHMENTS
· Attachment 1 - Participation Agreement with Dealerships · Attachment 2 - Economic Development Subsidy Report (per Government Code Section 53083)
· Attachment 3 - Vehicle Incentive Program Guidelines
City of Orange Printed on 8/6/2026Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™
535
City of Orange Vehicle Incentive Program – Participation Agreement Page 1 of 4 ATTACHMENT 1
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT FOR THE CITY OF ORANGE
VEHICLE INCENTIVE PROGRAM WITH
ORANGE FRANCHISED VEHICLE DEALERS
This Participation Agreement for the City of Orange Vehicle Incentive Program (“Agreement”) is entered into this [___] day of [__________, 20__], by and between the City of Orange, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (“City”), and the franchised vehicle dealers located in the City of Orange identified herein (“Dealership(s)”), all collectively referred to hereafter as the “Parties.”
RECITALS
1. The Parties desire to implement a City of Orange Vehicle Incentive Program (“VIP” or the “Program”) whereby the City shall provide a rebate to eligible City of Orange residents and licensed Orange businesses for the purchase or lease of a new vehicle, or t he purchase of a pre-owned vehicle, from a participating Franchised Vehicle Dealership located in the City of Orange, pursuant to the terms defined herein. This Agreement governs the process of reimbursement to participating Dealerships that provide a corresponding discount on the agreed upon purchase or lease price of any qualifying vehicle purchased or leased in the City of Orange by an eligible resident or licensed Orange business.
2. The Dealerships participating in the VIP shall include: Mazda of Orange; Selman Chevrolet; Stadium Nissan; Toyota of Orange; and Villa Ford of Orange.
AGREEMENT
3. Rebate Program: The City of Orange hereby agrees to provide to the participating Dealerships a rebate for each qualifying vehicle obtained by an eligible City of Orange resident or licensed Orange business, in the following amounts: (i) $500.00 per qualifying new vehicle purchased or leased; and (ii) $250.00 per qualifying pre -owned vehicle purchased, with a minimum final sales price of $15,000. Motorcycles, off-road vehicles, and watercraft are not eligible. Each rebate is subject to the following conditions:
A. The Dealership documents the sale or lease of the new or pre -owned vehicle to an eligible City of Orange resident or licensed Orange business under the program guidelines;
B. The Dealership discounts the purchase or lease price of the qualifying vehicle by an additional amount equal to the applicable rebate ($500 for a new vehicle, or $250 for a pre-owned vehicle) from the agreed upon purchase/lease price , identified on the final sales contract on a separate line under “Other” with an “Orange VIP Rebate” description; and
C. The Dealership submits all required rebate forms to the City on a monthly basis, providing the rebate request and corresponding proof-of-sale or lease documentation and registration documents under the program guidelines established by the City for administration of the VIP. (See attached rebate forms)
536
City of Orange Vehicle Incentive Program – Participation Agreement Page 2 of 4
4. Dealership Responsibilities: The Dealership shall meet all of the following requirements:
A. Dealership must be a Franchised Vehicle Dealer located in the City of Orange and hold a valid City of Orange business license;
B. Dealership must be in good standing with its manufacturer and the Orange County Automobile Dealers Association. and have no unresolved code violations or legal or administrative proceedings with the City;
C. Dealership shall document the sale or lease of each qualifying vehicle using the applicable Orange Resident/Business Rebate Form, including the final sales invoice showing proof of purchase or lease and proof of registration of the vehicle in the City of Orange;
D. Dealership shall identify the applicable rebate ($500 for a new vehicle, or $250 for a pre-owned vehicle) on the final sales contract on a separate line under “Other” with an “Orange VIP Rebate” description, and apply it toward the purchase or lease price; E. Dealership shall collect and submit all required documentation as proof of eligibility — for a resident, a copy of one of the following: a valid California driver’s license, utility bill, property tax bill, proof of insurance, or bank statement; and for a business, a valid City of Orange business license; and
F. Dealership shall submit all rebate forms and required documentation to the City on a monthly basis, together with a completed VIP Summary Form, and shall meet the requirements of the City under the VIP program guidelines established by the City Manager or designee. A Dealership that provides a rebate to a non-Orange resident or non-Orange business will not be reimbursed by the City.
5. City of Orange Resident Responsibilities:
A. The qualified resident applicant must be able to prove City of Orange residency under the program guidelines by registering the purchased or leased vehicle to an address within the City of Orange and providing one of the following: a valid California driver’s license, utility bill, property tax bill, proof of insurance, or bank statement; and B. The City -sponsored rebate is available only for the purchase or lease of a new vehicle, or the purchase of a pre -owned vehicle (with a minimum sales price of $15,000), from a participating Dealership.
6. City of Orange Business Responsibilities:
A. The qualified business applicant must be able to provide proof of location within the City of Orange and a valid City of Orange business license under the program guidelines established by the City Manager or designee for the rebate program; and B. The City -sponsored rebate is available only for the purchase or lease of a new vehicle, or the purchase of a pre -owned vehicle (with a minimum sales price of $15,000), from a participating Dealership.
7. Term: This Agreement shall commence on April 1, 2027, and continue for a thirteen (13) year term ending April 1, 2040, established to align with the anticipated duration of a future 537
City of Orange Vehicle Incentive Program – Participation Agreement Page 3 of 4 City of Orange transactions and use tax (sales tax) measure. Commencement of this Agreement is contingent upon voter approval of that measure. In accordance with Government Code Section 53083, the City will issue a follow -up report and hold a public hearing within the term of the Program, but no later than five (5) years after approval of the economic development subsidy. Because the Program has a term of ten (10) years or more, the City will also hold a public hearing at the conclusion of the Program term. Any extension, renewal, or material amendment of the Program shall be made by written amendment approved by the City Council and executed by the authorized representatives of the Parties, subject to applicable law.
The Dealership may terminate it’s participation in the program by providing the City thi rty (30) days written notice to the attention of the City Manager.
8. Reimbursement by City: Dealerships shall submit requests for reimbursement to the City on a monthly basis, together with all required documentation necessary to verify the sale or lease of a qualifying vehicle under the VIP guidelines. Within five (5) business days of receipt, t he City will review the rebate applications and supporting documentation; if documentation is missing, the City will request the additional documentation to provide the opportunity to resubmit with completed documentation, which may delay processing of the deficient applications but will not delay applications that are complete. Upon approval, the City shall reimburse the Dealership within thirty (30) days of receipt of the approved rebate forms. The maximum amount of reim bursements by the City for the VIP shall not exceed $1,550,000 in any year of the Agreement or $20,150,000 over the thirteen (13) year term.
All reimbursements are subject to annual appropriation by the City Council and the availability of legally available funds.
9. Administration: The City Manager is hereby appointed to administer this Agreement and take all necessary actions to implement this Agreement on behalf of the City.
10. Interpretation of the Agreement:
A. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, and agreements, whether oral or written. Any amendment to this Agreement, including an oral modification supported by new consideration, must be reduced to writing and signed by both Parties before it will be effective.
B. This Agreement and all amendments and supplements to it may be executed in counterparts, and all counterparts together shall be construed as one document.
C. This Agreement is to the benefit of, and is binding on, the Parties and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns.
D. The captions heading the various paragraphs of this Agreement are for convenience and shall not be considered to limit, expand, or define the contents of the respective paragraphs. Masculine, feminine, or neuter gender and the singular and the plural number shall each be considered to include the other whenever the context so requires. If either Party consists of more than one person, each such person shall be 538
City of Orange Vehicle Incentive Program – Participation Agreement Page 4 of 4 jointly and severally liable. This Agreement shall be interpreted under California law and according to its fair meaning, and not in favor of or against any Party.
11. Governing Law: This Agreement is executed and intended to be performed in the State of California, and the laws of that State shall govern its interpretation and effect. Any legal proceedings on this Agreement shall be brought under the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement the date and year first above written.
CITY OF ORANGE
Daniel R. Slater, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela Coleman
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Connor Hyland
Senior Assistant City Attorney √
DEALERSHIP:
[Dealership Owner Name]
[Title, Dealership Name]
539
Economic Development Subsidy Report
Pursuant to Government Code Section 53083
For a City of Orange Resident Vehicle Incentive Program
City of Orange — Resident Vehicle Incentive Program (§ 53083 Subsidy Report) Page 1
Pursuant to Government Code Section 53083, the City Council of the City of Orange must hold a noticed public hearing and, prior to the public hearing, provide all of the following information in written form and available to the public through the City’s website regarding a proposed economic development subsidy provided by the City pursuant to a Participation Agreement between the City of Orange and 5 franchised dealers (Agreement), in connection with the Vehicle Incentive Program. Notice was published on the City’s website for a public hearing to be held on August 11th.
The purpose of this report is to provide the information required pursuant to Government Code Section 53083 in regards to the Orange Vehicle Incentive Program. This report shall remain available to the public and posted on the City’s website until the end date of the economic development subsidy, as further described in number 2 below.
(1) The name and address of all corporations or any other business entities, except for sole proprietorships, that are the beneficiary of the economic development subsidy, if applicable.
The City proposes to enter into a Participation Agreement with the five franchised automobile dealerships listed below. For purposes of this report, the participating dealerships are identified as business -entity beneficiaries because they are parties to the Participation Agreement and may receive an indirect economic benefit from increased or retained vehicle sales resulting from the Vehicle Incentive Program.
The direct financial incentive will be provided to eligible City of Orange residents and businesses that purchase a qualifying vehicle from a participating dealership. The Participation Agreement will establish the responsibilities of the City and each participating dealership, including purchaser eligibility verification, required documentation, program administration, and payment procedures. The participating dealership entities are:
Mazda of Orange
1350 W. Katella Ave.
Orange, CA 92867
Selman Chevrolet
1800 E. Chapman Ave.
Orange, CA 92866
Nissan of Orange
1140 W. Katella Ave.
Orange, CA 92867
Toyota of Orange
1400 N. Tustin Ave.
Orange, CA 92867
Villa Ford of Orange
2550 N. Tustin Ave.
Orange, CA 92865
(2) The start and end dates and schedule, if applicable, for the economic development subsidy.
Upon City Council approval, the proposed Participation Agreement is expected to commence on April 1, 2027, and end on April 1, 2040, for a thirteen-year term set to align with the duration of the proposed sales tax measure, which is anticipated for the November 2026 ballot and is
540
Economic Development Subsidy Report
Pursuant to Government Code Section 53083
For a City of Orange Resident Vehicle Incentive Program
City of Orange — Resident Vehicle Incentive Program (§ 53083 Subsidy Report) Page 2
contingent upon voter approval. Should the measure be extended or renewed, the City Manager and/or City Council would have the authority to extend the VIP accordingly. Because the term of the sales tax exceeds ten years, the City will post this report on the City's website for the full term, issue an interim report to the Council within five years of approval, and the City Council will hold a public hearing at the conclusion of the \subsidy, consistent with Government Code Section 53083. (3) A description of the economic development subsidy, including the estimated total amount of the expenditure of public funds by, or of revenue lost to, the local agency as a result of the economic development subsidy.
The economic development subsidy to Orange residents and businesses is $500 per new vehicle and $250 per pre -owned vehicle purchased from a participating dealership, for a maximum subsidy of $1,550,000 per year over the 13 -year proposed term, for a maximum cumulative total of $20,150,000. In addition, up to $50,000 per year is budgeted for City marketing and administration of the VIP, for a total estimated public expenditure of up to $1,600,000 per year — totaling up to $20,800,000 over the term.
The VIP would be funded by a portion of the revenue generated by the proposed sales tax measure. Pre - owned vehicles must have a final agreed -upon sales price of at least $15,000. Pre -owned vehicles must have a final agreed -upon sales price of at least $15,000. Qualifying leases are limited to new cars and trucks. Pre-owned vehicle leases, motorcycles, off -road vehicles, and watercraft are not eligible. These figures are maximum (appropriation) ceilings; the estimated actual rebate cost, based on current purchase volumes, is provided in item 5 below. The program is anticipated to be funded through annual appropriations from legally available City revenues. All program expenditures will remain subject to City Council for budget approval and the terms of the Participation Agreement. (4) A statement of the public purposes for the economic development subsidy.
With the proposed sales tax measure set for the November 2026 ballot, local dealerships have expressed concern that a citywide sales tax increase could lead to a decrease in the potential number of cars sold or leased to residents. The VIP has been developed to address the potential leakage of local automotive purchases to outside jurisdictions. This represents a shifting in local revenues, as well as the loss of funds needed for vital City services, to outside jurisdictions, resulting in a negative impact on the City's local economy. To spur residents to continue to purchase or lease from Orange dealerships, the Resident VIP incentive has been proposed.
(5) Projected tax revenue to the local agency as a result of the economic development subsidy.
With targeted marketing and program awareness efforts, staff anticipate that the proposed incentive program will increase the number of eligible City of Orange residents and businesses
541
Economic Development Subsidy Report
Pursuant to Government Code Section 53083
For a City of Orange Resident Vehicle Incentive Program
City of Orange — Resident Vehicle Incentive Program (§ 53083 Subsidy Report) Page 3
purchasing vehicles and, importantly, improve the City's ability to retain a portion of those transactions within Orange rather than losing sales activity to competing dealerships in surrounding jurisdictions. Staff estimates that the Vehicle Incentive Program will retain approximately 205 new -vehicle purchases and 70 pre-owned vehicle purchases annually at participating dealerships located within the City of Orange.
These estimates represent purchases that are assumed to occur outside the City in the absence of the program.
Using estimated average transaction values of $49,182 for a new vehicle and $24,591 for a pre -owned vehicle, the projected annual taxable sales retained within the City are calculated as follows:
• 205 new vehicles × $49,182 = $10,082,310
• 70 pre-owned vehicles × $24,591 = $1,721,370
• Total estimated taxable sales = $11,803,680
Applying the City’s existing 1.0% Bradley -Burns local sales tax allocation, the program is projected to generate approximately $118,037 in additional annual tax revenue to the City:
• $11,803,680 × 1.0% = $118,037
Assuming consistent annual participation throughout the proposed 13 -year program term, the cumulative projected tax revenue would be approximately $1.53 million, without adjustment for inflation, changes in vehicle prices, or changes in purchasing activity.
The proposed one-cent local transactions and use tax is generally associated with the purchaser’s place of registration or use. Because an Orange resident may generate this revenue for the City regardless of whether the vehicle is purchased from a dealership located inside or outside Orange, revenue from the proposed tax measure is not included in the amount projected to result directly from the Vehicle Incentive Program.
Actual revenue will depend on program participation, the number of purchases that are retained within Orange because of the incentive, vehicle transaction values, purchaser eligibility, and applicable tax - allocation rules.
(6) Estimated number of jobs created by the economic development subsidy, broken down by full- time, part-time, and temporary positions.
The proposed VIP will assist in retaining the existing jobs at the five Orange auto dealerships — its principal purpose. The VIP is not expected to create a significant number of new net positions; as an offset to a sales tax increase rather than a demand stimulus, its primary effect is to sustain existing employment, and new part-time or temporary positions are anticipated to grow with corresponding sales growth. Based on employment information provided, dealerships currently employ approximately 620 full -time and 35 part-time positions (approximately 655 total), with no temporary positions reported. 542
C
ity of Orange
RESIDENT VEHICLE INCENTIVE PROGRAM
GUIDELINES
As a means to spur growth of the local tax base and to encourage Orange residents and businesses to “buy local”, the City has developed the Vehicle Incentive Program (VIP) that incentivizes Orange residents and businesses to purchase or lease a car and/or truck from one of 5 franchised Orange auto dealerships.
The VIP provides a $500 rebate to an Orange resident who purchases or leases a new car/truck or $250 rebate for a pre-owned vehicle from a franchised Orange auto dealer. The rebates are designed to encourage residents to continue to buy locally when making their largest taxable purchase. The VIP has been developed to avoid leakage of local automotive purchases to outside jurisdictions and would ensure that future revenue generated by this sector will be available to provide vital City services.
Program Objectives
• Reinvest in the local economy.
• Encourage job creation and retention.
• Incentivize residents and businesses to shop local.
• Avoid leakage of automotive purchases to other cities. • Maintain a strong retail sales base in the City.
Buy Local
The Resident Vehicle Incentive Program (VIP) has been designed to encourage residents to purchase or lease a car or truck from one of the 5 franchised auto dealers in the City of Orange. A list of eligible dealerships is provided below.
Eligible Dealerships
1. Mazda of Orange – 1350 W. Katella Ave., Orange, CA
2. Selman Chevrolet – 1800 E. Chapman Ave., Orange, CA
3. Nissan Of Orange – 1140 West Katella, Orange, CA
4. Toyota of Orange – 1400 North Tustin Ave., Orange, CA
5. Villa Ford of Orange – 2550 North Tustin Ave., Orange, CA E
ligible Participants
Any resident or business of the City of Orange that purchases or leases a new automobile or truck or purchases a pre-owned automobile or truck from the eligible dealership is eligible to receive the rebate.
■ Qualified residents must be able to provide proof of Orange residency to the dealership by registering their new purchase in Orange and one of the following:
• Valid California Driver’s License
• Utility Bill
• Property Tax Bill
• Proof of insurance
• Bank statement
■ Qualified businesses must provide proof of valid Orange business license. 543
■ Qualified residents and businesses must sign an Orange Resident/Business Rebate Form verifying residency and/or operation of business in Orange. ■ Rebate will be applied towards the agreed upon purchase/lease price in the final sales contract.
Qualifying Vehicles
■ All purchases and leases of new cars or trucks are eligible. ■ All purchases of pre -owned cars or trucks with a final agreed upon sales price of at least $15,000 (after all manufacturer rebates and dealer incentives) are eligible. ■ Motorcycles, off-road vehicles or watercraft are not eligible purchases under this program.
Rebate Administration and Process
■ Participating dealers document the sale/lease of the new or pre -owned vehicle using the Resident Rebate Form. Dealer must include:
1) Final sales invoice showing proof of purchase;
2) Proof of auto registration in Orange;
3) Resident Rebate Form;
4) Copy of one of the following: valid resident California Driver’s license; utility bill; property tax bill; proof of insurance; or bank statement;
5) Business License for business purchases for full reimbursement. ■
Within 30 days of the last day of the reportable month, dealers will submit a rebate summary report with required documentation to the City of Orange for reimbursement and processing.
The purchase summary form must be filled out and attached with rebate forms.
Within 30 days of receipt from dealerships, City will issue reimbursement to dealers.
■ Dealers that reimburse a non -Orange resident or non -Orange business will not be reimbursed from the City.
Dealer Responsibilities
■ Dealership franchises must have an Orange business license and be in good standing with their manufacturer.
■
Dealerships must document the sale/lease of the new or pre -owned vehicle using the Resident/Business Rebate Form. Dealer must include: final sales invoice showing proof of purchase, proof of registration in Orange, Resident Rebate Form.
■ Dealerships shall identify the $500(new vehicle) or $250(pre -owned vehicle) rebate to be applied towards the purchase price and shall be listed in the sales contract under a separate rebate on the “Other” line with a “Orange VIP Rebate” description.
544
■
Dealerships must collect and submit all required documentation as proof of residency for qualified Orange residents and/or businesses. (A copy of one of the following: valid California Driver’s license; utility bill; property tax bill; proof of insurance; or bank statement for residents or a valid business registration for businesses). ■
On a monthly basis dealers will submit all rebate forms with required documentation to the City of Orange for reimbursement and processing. VIP summary form must be filled out and attached with rebate forms.
■
Dealers that reimburse a non -Orange resident or non-Orange business will not be reimbursed from the City.
Program Term
The Vehicle Incentive Program shall commence on April 1, 2027, and continue through April 1, 2040, for a term of thirteen years, subject to annual appropriation of funds by the City Council and the terms of the applicable Participation Agreement.
Any extension, renewal, or material modification of the Program beyond April 1, 2040, shall be subject to City Council approval and compliance with all applicable legal requirements.
Program Administration
Within 5 business days of receipt of documentation from dealerships, the City of Orange will review the rebate applications and all supporting documentation. Dealers are required to self- certify that the summary covers all transactions handled during the reporting period.
Upon approval of documentation, the City of Orange will be responsible for issuing checks to dealerships within 30 days of receipt of approved rebate forms.
Program Funding
The Program budget shall be limited to $1,550,000 per year for vehicle rebates and up to $50,000 per year for City marketing and administration, subject to annual appropriation by the City Council. Over the 13-year Program term, the maximum cumulative expenditure shall not exceed $20,150,000 for vehicle rebates and $650,000 for marketing and administration, for a maximum total Program expenditure of $20,800,000.
Program Evaluation
Staff will periodically evaluate the effectiveness of the Program, including changes in eligible new and pre-owned vehicle purchases and leases by Orange residents and businesses, rebate participation, local sales-tax revenue, and dealership employment. Staff will also consider external factors, including economic conditions, Orange County vehicle sales, changes in manufacturer market share, and the opening or closure of dealerships inside or outside the City.
In accordance with Government Code section 53083, the City will prepare a follow-up economic development subsidy report and hold a public hearing within the Program term, but no later than five years after approval. Because the Program has a term of 10 years or more, the City will also provide the required information and hold a public hearing at the conclusion of the 13-year Program term.
545
ORANGE RESIDENT VIP REBATE FORM
VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION
NUMBER MAKE AND MODEL RETAIL DELIVERY DATE
CUSTOMER INFORMATION FOR VALIDATION:
CUSTOMER LAST NAME FIRST, M.I. TELEPHONE NUMBER
STREET ADDRESS CITY, STATE ZIP CODE
DEALERSHIP NAME Purchase Amount/Rebate Amount
Initial below:
_______________
_
_______________
_
I, the customer and Orange resident, have applied the Orange Resident’s Rebate towards the purchase of my vehicle. Therefore, I have assigned the cash payment directly to the dealer. I release the City of Orange from any further claim or obligation for payment to me for this vehicle.
I, the customer, give the dealership named above permission to share this form, the final sales contract and a copy of my valid identification to the City of Orange to process the rebate. I declare under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct.
CUSTOMER SIGNATURE DATE
SALESMANAGER NAME (PLEASE PRINT) DEALERSHIP NAME DATE
SALESMANAGER SIGNATURE DATE
THIS COMPLETED FORM MUST BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY OF ORANGE WITH THE VEHICLE SALES DOCUMENTS. BY SIGNING THE ABOVE DOCUMENT, THE DEALER IS
VERIFYING THAT THE RESIDENT LIVES IN THE CITY OF ORANGE AND QUALIFIES FOR THE REBATE.
546
ORANGE BUSINESS VIP REBATE FORM
VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION
NUMBER MAKE AND MODEL RETAIL DELIVERY DATE
BUSINESS INFORMATION FOR VALIDATION:
BUSINESS NAME REPRESENTATIVE NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER
STREET ADDRESS CITY, STATE ZIP CODE
DEALERSHIP NAME Purchase Amount/Rebate Amount
Initial below:
_______________
_
_______________
_
I, the customer and Orange business, have applied the Orange Rebate towards the purchase of my vehicle. Therefore, I have assigned the cash payment directly to the dealer. I release the City of Orange from any further claim or obligation for payment to me for this vehicle.
I, the customer, give the dealership named above permission to share this form, the final sales contract and a copy of my business license to the City of Orange to process the rebate. I declare under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct.
ORANGE BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE DATE
SALESMANAGER NAME (PLEASE PRINT) DEALERSHIP NAME DATE
SALESMANAGER SIGNATURE DATE
THIS COMPLETED FORM MUST BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY OF ORANGE WITH THE VEHICLE SALES DOCUMENTS. BY SIGNING THE ABOVE DOCUMENT, THE DEALER IS
VERIFYING THAT THE BUSINESS OPERATES IN THE CITY OF ORANGE AND QUALIFIES FOR THE REBATE.
547
CITY OF ORANGE — VEHICLE INCENTIVE PROGRAM (VIP)
Monthly Dealer Summary Form • Submit with all Resident/Business Rebate Forms via the City online portal
Dealership Name: Month:
Prepared By:
Phone /
Email:
Instructions: Complete the yellow cells above and one row per vehicle below. Use the drop-down in the Transaction Type column. Buyer Address must match the proof of Orange residency submitted with the Rebate Form (for business purchases, enter the licensed Orange business address). Buyer must sign each row (print, sign, and scan — or type full name if submitting electronically). Row 10 is an example only — please delete it before submitting.
# Date of
Purchase/Lease
Resident /
Business Name
Buyer
Address
(Street,
City, ZIP)
New /
Used /
Lease
Vehicle
Identification
Number (VIN)
Rebat
e
Amou
nt
Buyer
Signature
1 04/15/2027 Smith, John A.
Smith
123 N.
Glassell St.,
Orange, CA
92866
New 1HGCM82633
A004352 $500 John A.
Smith
TOTAL VEHICLES / TOTAL REBATES REQUESTED $500 1
vehicle(s)
Breakdown: New: 1 • Used: 0 • Lease: 0
DEALER CERTIFICATION: By signing below, the Sales Manager certifies that each buyer listed above is a verified City of Orange resident or licensed Orange business, and that all required supporting documentation (final sales invoice, proof of Orange registration, Rebate Form, and proof of residency or business license) is attached to this submission.
Sales Manager
Name (Print): Signature:
Date:
_________
548
Agenda Item
Orange City Council
Item #: 9.1. 8/11/2026 File #: 26-0372
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Jarad Hildenbrand, City Manager
1. SUBJECT
County of Orange Unincorporated Island Annexation Study and Policy Direction
2. SUMMARY
During the February 5, 2026 Strategic Planning Session, the City Council expressed interest in evaluating whether the remaining unincorporated County islands within the City's Sphere of Influence should be annexed into the City of Orange. Annexation has the potential to create a more unified community, improve service consistency, and eliminate jurisdictional boundaries that currently divide neighborhoods surrounded by the City. At the same time, annexation would transfer ongoing service responsibilities, infrastructure obligations, and Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocations to the City. This report provides an overview of the annexation process, summarizes the potential fiscal and policy considerations, and seeks City Council direction regarding whether staff should pursue annexation of some or all of the remaining County islands.
3. RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Receive and file the presentation regarding the potential annexation of the remaining County islands within the City of Orange's Sphere of Influence.
2. Provide policy direction regarding whether staff should pursue annexation of all, some, or none of the remaining County islands, and identify any additional analysis desired before initiating formal proceedings.
4. FISCAL IMPACT
There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with this report. Should the City Council direct staff to initiate annexation proceedings, additional staff time and consultant resources may be required to prepare fiscal analyses, service plans, environmental documentation, and annexation applications.
Preliminary estimates indicate that annexation of one or more County islands could result in ongoing net costs to the City unless additional revenue-sharing agreements are negotiated with the County of Orange.
5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Goal 3: Enhance Quality of Life Through City Services.
Objective 3.2: County Island Annexation
6. DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND
History of County Island Annexation
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Act) was enacted to streamline local government organization and encourage logical municipal boundaries that promote efficient and effective service delivery. One of the Act's primary objectives is to facilitate the City of Orange Printed on 8/6/2026Page 1 of 6
powered by Legistar™
549
Item #: 9.1. 8/11/2026 File #: 26-0372
efficient and effective service delivery. One of the Act's primary objectives is to facilitate the annexation of unincorporated "County islands" that are substantially surrounded by incorporated cities.
Following adoption of the Act, the City of Orange partnered with the County of Orange and the Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (OC LAFCO) to evaluate the City's remaining unincorporated islands. As a result of that effort, the City successfully annexed 11 County islands in 2003, eliminating numerous jurisdictional boundaries and expanding municipal services to those neighborhoods.
At that time, six additional County islands were also evaluated for annexation; however, annexation did not proceed due to a combination of fiscal, procedural, and community considerations. Those six remaining County islands continue to exist today and collectively encompass approximately 850 acres and are home to nearly 5,000 residents.
The remaining County islands are summarized below.
County Island
Name
Location Acreage
El Modena North of Chapman Avenue and south of east Silverleaf Avenue.
101.67
North El Modena South of East Bond Avenue and north of East Walnut Avenue, encompassing Hewes Street
31.59 Lincoln/Glassell North of West Lincoln Avenue and Adjacent to the Santa Ana River.
103.03
Olive Heights North and south of East Buena Vista Avenue, north of Lincoln Avenue and south of East Bixby Avenue.
32.47 Orange Park
Acres
South of East Santiago Canyon Road and north of East
Chapman Avenue, encompassing Orange Park
Boulevard.
394.02
Santiago Creek
(Bond Pits)
North and south of Villa Park Road and west of Hewes
Street.
187.25
Potential Benefits of Annexation
Annexation of the remaining County islands has the potential to provide several long-term community and operational benefits. Because these neighborhoods are already surrounded by or closely connected to the City of Orange, annexation would create more logical municipal boundaries while allowing the City to provide consistent municipal services throughout the community.
Potential benefits include:
· Elimination of fragmented City and County jurisdictional boundaries. · More consistent police, fire, code enforcement, planning, and public works services. · Improved coordination of infrastructure maintenance and capital improvements.
City of Orange Printed on 8/6/2026Page 2 of 6
powered by Legistar™
550
Item #: 9.1. 8/11/2026 File #: 26-0372
· Greater consistency in land use planning and development standards. · Enhanced emergency response coordination.
· Increased local representation through the Orange City Council. · Creation of a more unified community by incorporating neighborhoods that already identify closely with the City of Orange.
Annexation Process
California law establishes two different annexation procedures depending upon the size of the territory proposed for annexation. County islands that are 150 acres or smaller qualify for a streamlined annexation process, while larger territories require additional procedural steps, including protest proceedings and, under certain circumstances, an election.
I. Annexation Process for County Islands with 150 Acres or Less When a County island is 150 acres or less (all but Orange Park Acres and the Bond Pits), California Government Code Section 56375.3 authorizes a streamlined approach that is further described below:
Step 1 - Preliminary Discussions: City staff meet with OC LAFCO, the County Executive Office, service providers/special districts, and residents/property owners to express the City’sinterest and intent of annexing the County island(s).
Step 2 - Negotiate Revenue Shares: As further described below, the City and County will negotiate one-time and ongoing revenue exchanges. As a part of this process, the City and County will finalize the property tax share. In Orange County, this has already been established through a 1980 City/County Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement. The property tax revenue split is 51% to the City and 49% to the County.
Step 3 - City Council Resolution and OC LAFCO Application Submission: The City Council adopts a resolution confirming findings pursuant to California Government Code Section 56375.3, and submits all the required materials (e.g., boundary map(s), vicinity maps, plan for service, property tax exchange resolution) to OC LAFCO.
Step 4 - County Board of Supervisors: The County Board of Supervisors considers adopting an annexation agreement and a property tax exchange resolution.
Step 5 - OC LAFCO Review and Public Hearing: OC LAFCO ensures the proposal is complete, prepares the report, and schedules a public hearing. In accordance with the Act, OC LAFCO notifies parties of the proposal and waiver of protest proceedings, and the OC LAFCO Commission shall approve the proposed annexation.
The approximate timeline for annexations that are 150 Acres or less is generally 6-12 months.
II. Annexation Process for County Islands with 150 Acres or More Step 1 - Preliminary Feasibility Analysis: In collaboration with OC LAFCO and the County of Orange, City staff evaluates the fiscal impacts, service costs, and existing infrastructure.
Step 2 - Outreach to Residents: Although not legally required at initiation, staff recommends conducting community meetings, mailers, or informational workshops to better understand the City of Orange Printed on 8/6/2026Page 3 of 6
powered by Legistar™
551
Item #: 9.1. 8/11/2026 File #: 26-0372
community’s perspective on potentially being annexed into the City of Orange.
Step 3 - Negotiate Revenue Shares: As further described below, the City and County will negotiate one-time and ongoing revenue shares to support City services. As a part of this process, the City and County will finalize the property tax share. In Orange County, this has already been established through a 1980 City/County Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement. The property tax revenue split is 51% to the City and 49% to the County.
Step 4 - City Council Resolution: The City Council adopts a resolution initiating annexation proceedings.
Step 5 - County Board of Supervisors: The County Board of Supervisors considers adopting an annexation agreement and a property tax exchange resolution.
Step 6 - Submit Application to OC LAFCO: Application materials include plan for services, fiscal analyses, CEQA compliance, maps, and legal descriptions.
Step 7 - OC LAFCO Hearing: OC LAFCO holds a public hearing and determines whether to approve the annexation. Approval does not complete the annexation. Instead, it authorizes commencement of protest proceedings.
Step 8 - Protest Proceedings: OC LAFCO schedules a protest hearing and accepts written protests for a period generally ranging from 21 to 60 days. The outcome depends on whether the territory is inhabited. Provided below are the processes for inhabited vs. uninhabited territories.
Inhabited Territory (12 or More Registered Voters)
Protest Level Result
Less than 25% protest Annexation Ordered
25% to less than 50% protest submitted by
registered voters within the territory; or
protest submitted by 25% of the owners of
the land who also own at least 25% of the
assessed value of land within the territory
Election required
50% or more protest Proceedings terminated
Uninhabited Territory (Fewer than 12 Registered Voters) Protest LevelResult
Less than 50% of assessed value
protesting
Annexation Ordered
50% or more of assessed value protesting Proceedings terminated If protests fall within the election range, OC LAFCO calls an election among voters residing within the annexation territory. A majority vote is required for annexation to proceed.
Step 9 - Completion: If there is no majority protest or the election succeeds, then OC LAFCO issues a Certificate of Completion, the annexation becomes effective, and the County service City of Orange Printed on 8/6/2026Page 4 of 6
powered by Legistar™
552
Item #: 9.1. 8/11/2026 File #: 26-0372
responsibilities transfer to the City.
This process may last 12-18 months, or longer if an election is required.
Financial Considerations
In early 2025, City staff requested preliminary fiscal information from the County of Orange and OC LAFCO to better understand the financial implications associated with annexing the remaining County islands. Based on the County's estimates, annexation of all remaining County islands would likely result in an ongoing net fiscal impact to the City under the existing revenue allocation structure.
Should the City Council direct staff to proceed, staff would negotiate with the County regarding one- time and ongoing revenue-sharing agreements intended to offset municipal service costs associated with annexation. Generally, the following revenue categories would be addressed in those discussions:
· City Share of Property Taxes (51% to the City / 49% to the County) · City Share of Orange County Street Light Assessment District Dissolution Fund · City Share of the Orange County Structural Fire Fund
· City Share of the Orange County Public Library Fund
Prior to initiating annexation proceedings, staff recommends conducting additional due diligence regarding the condition of public infrastructure within each County island, including streets, sidewalks, storm drains, street lighting, parks, and other public improvements. Understanding existing infrastructure conditions will help the City better estimate future maintenance obligations and long-term capital replacement needs.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
Annexation of County islands would also transfer responsibility for the County's remaining Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocations within those territories to the City. In total, the remaining County islands currently contain an allocation of 1,383 RHNA units. Although annexation would not require immediate residential development, the City would assume responsibility for planning for those housing units in accordance with State housing law.
Island RHNA Units
El Modena 328
Lincoln Glassell 624
North El Modena 0
Olive Heights 431
Orange Park Acres 0
Santiago Creek (Bond Pits) 0
Total 1,383
In determining whether to pursue annexation, the City Council may wish to consider several policy factors, including the long-term fiscal impacts to the City, opportunities to negotiate additional revenue sharing with the County, the transfer of RHNA obligations, the condition of existing public City of Orange Printed on 8/6/2026Page 5 of 6
powered by Legistar™
553
Item #: 9.1. 8/11/2026 File #: 26-0372
revenue sharing with the County, the transfer of RHNA obligations, the condition of existing public infrastructure, community support, and the benefits of creating more unified municipal boundaries and service delivery.
Summary Comparison of Remaining County Islands
County Island Acres Population RHNA Units Annexation Process El Modena 101.67 2,797 328 Streamlined
North El Modena 31.59 520 0 Streamlined
Olive Heights 32.47 500 431 Streamlined
Lincoln/Glassell 103.03 0 624 Streamlined
Orange Park Acres 394.02 1,074 0 Standard
Santiago Creek 187.25 0 0 Standard
Conclusion
Annexation of the remaining County islands presents an opportunity to eliminate jurisdictional inconsistencies and provide more unified municipal services to neighborhoods that are closely connected to the City of Orange. However, annexation would also transfer ongoing service responsibilities, infrastructure maintenance obligations, and applicable RHNA allocations to the City.
Because the financial impacts vary by island and additional negotiations with the County would be necessary regarding revenue sharing, staff is seeking policy direction from the City Council regarding whether to proceed with annexation of all, some, or none of the remaining County islands and the level of additional analysis desired before initiating formal proceedings.
7. ATTACHMENTS
· County Island Profiles (OC LAFCO)
· 1980 Property Tax Agreement
City of Orange Printed on 8/6/2026Page 6 of 6
powered by Legistar™
554
Agenda Item
Orange City Council
Item #: 9.1. 8/11/2026 File #: 26-0372
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Jarad Hildenbrand, City Manager
1. SUBJECT
County of Orange Unincorporated Island Annexation Study and Policy Direction
2. SUMMARY
During the February 5, 2026 Strategic Planning Session, the City Council expressed interest in evaluating whether the remaining unincorporated County islands within the City's Sphere of Influence should be annexed into the City of Orange. Annexation has the potential to create a more unified community, improve service consistency, and eliminate jurisdictional boundaries that currently divide neighborhoods surrounded by the City. At the same time, annexation would transfer ongoing service responsibilities, infrastructure obligations, and Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocations to the City. This report provides an overview of the annexation process, summarizes the potential fiscal and policy considerations, and seeks City Council direction regarding whether staff should pursue annexation of some or all of the remaining County islands.
3. RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Receive and file the presentation regarding the potential annexation of the remaining County islands within the City of Orange's Sphere of Influence.
2. Provide policy direction regarding whether staff should pursue annexation of all, some, or none of the remaining County islands, and identify any additional analysis desired before initiating formal proceedings.
4. FISCAL IMPACT
There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with this report. Should the City Council direct staff to initiate annexation proceedings, additional staff time and consultant resources may be required to prepare fiscal analyses, service plans, environmental documentation, and annexation applications.
Preliminary estimates indicate that annexation of one or more County islands could result in ongoing net costs to the City unless additional revenue-sharing agreements are negotiated with the County of Orange.
5. STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Goal 3: Enhance Quality of Life Through City Services.
Objective 3.2: County Island Annexation
6. DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND
History of County Island Annexation
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Act) was enacted to streamline local government organization and encourage logical municipal boundaries that promote efficient and effective service delivery. One of the Act's primary objectives is to facilitate the City of Orange Printed on 8/6/2026Page 1 of 6
powered by Legistar™
555
Item #: 9.1. 8/11/2026 File #: 26-0372
efficient and effective service delivery. One of the Act's primary objectives is to facilitate the annexation of unincorporated "County islands" that are substantially surrounded by incorporated cities.
Following adoption of the Act, the City of Orange partnered with the County of Orange and the Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (OC LAFCO) to evaluate the City's remaining unincorporated islands. As a result of that effort, the City successfully annexed 11 County islands in 2003, eliminating numerous jurisdictional boundaries and expanding municipal services to those neighborhoods.
At that time, six additional County islands were also evaluated for annexation; however, annexation did not proceed due to a combination of fiscal, procedural, and community considerations. Those six remaining County islands continue to exist today and collectively encompass approximately 850 acres and are home to nearly 5,000 residents.
The remaining County islands are summarized below.
County Island
Name
Location Acreage
El Modena North of Chapman Avenue and south of east Silverleaf Avenue.
101.67
North El Modena South of East Bond Avenue and north of East Walnut Avenue, encompassing Hewes Street
31.59 Lincoln/Glassell North of West Lincoln Avenue and Adjacent to the Santa Ana River.
103.03
Olive Heights North and south of East Buena Vista Avenue, north of Lincoln Avenue and south of East Bixby Avenue.
32.47 Orange Park
Acres
South of East Santiago Canyon Road and north of East
Chapman Avenue, encompassing Orange Park
Boulevard.
394.02
Santiago Creek
(Bond Pits)
North and south of Villa Park Road and west of Hewes
Street.
187.25
Potential Benefits of Annexation
Annexation of the remaining County islands has the potential to provide several long-term community and operational benefits. Because these neighborhoods are already surrounded by or closely connected to the City of Orange, annexation would create more logical municipal boundaries while allowing the City to provide consistent municipal services throughout the community.
Potential benefits include:
· Elimination of fragmented City and County jurisdictional boundaries. · More consistent police, fire, code enforcement, planning, and public works services. · Improved coordination of infrastructure maintenance and capital improvements.
City of Orange Printed on 8/6/2026Page 2 of 6
powered by Legistar™
556
Item #: 9.1. 8/11/2026 File #: 26-0372
· Greater consistency in land use planning and development standards. · Enhanced emergency response coordination.
· Increased local representation through the Orange City Council. · Creation of a more unified community by incorporating neighborhoods that already identify closely with the City of Orange.
Annexation Process
California law establishes two different annexation procedures depending upon the size of the territory proposed for annexation. County islands that are 150 acres or smaller qualify for a streamlined annexation process, while larger territories require additional procedural steps, including protest proceedings and, under certain circumstances, an election.
I. Annexation Process for County Islands with 150 Acres or Less When a County island is 150 acres or less (all but Orange Park Acres and the Bond Pits), California Government Code Section 56375.3 authorizes a streamlined approach that is further described below:
Step 1 - Preliminary Discussions: City staff meet with OC LAFCO, the County Executive Office, service providers/special districts, and residents/property owners to express the City’sinterest and intent of annexing the County island(s).
Step 2 - Negotiate Revenue Shares: As further described below, the City and County will negotiate one-time and ongoing revenue exchanges. As a part of this process, the City and County will finalize the property tax share. In Orange County, this has already been established through a 1980 City/County Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement. The property tax revenue split is 51% to the City and 49% to the County.
Step 3 - City Council Resolution and OC LAFCO Application Submission: The City Council adopts a resolution confirming findings pursuant to California Government Code Section 56375.3, and submits all the required materials (e.g., boundary map(s), vicinity maps, plan for service, property tax exchange resolution) to OC LAFCO.
Step 4 - County Board of Supervisors: The County Board of Supervisors considers adopting an annexation agreement and a property tax exchange resolution.
Step 5 - OC LAFCO Review and Public Hearing: OC LAFCO ensures the proposal is complete, prepares the report, and schedules a public hearing. In accordance with the Act, OC LAFCO notifies parties of the proposal and waiver of protest proceedings, and the OC LAFCO Commission shall approve the proposed annexation.
The approximate timeline for annexations that are 150 Acres or less is generally 6-12 months.
II. Annexation Process for County Islands with 150 Acres or More Step 1 - Preliminary Feasibility Analysis: In collaboration with OC LAFCO and the County of Orange, City staff evaluates the fiscal impacts, service costs, and existing infrastructure.
Step 2 - Outreach to Residents: Although not legally required at initiation, staff recommends conducting community meetings, mailers, or informational workshops to better understand the City of Orange Printed on 8/6/2026Page 3 of 6
powered by Legistar™
557
Item #: 9.1. 8/11/2026 File #: 26-0372
community’s perspective on potentially being annexed into the City of Orange.
Step 3 - Negotiate Revenue Shares: As further described below, the City and County will negotiate one-time and ongoing revenue shares to support City services. As a part of this process, the City and County will finalize the property tax share. In Orange County, this has already been established through a 1980 City/County Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement. The property tax revenue split is 51% to the City and 49% to the County.
Step 4 - City Council Resolution: The City Council adopts a resolution initiating annexation proceedings.
Step 5 - County Board of Supervisors: The County Board of Supervisors considers adopting an annexation agreement and a property tax exchange resolution.
Step 6 - Submit Application to OC LAFCO: Application materials include plan for services, fiscal analyses, CEQA compliance, maps, and legal descriptions.
Step 7 - OC LAFCO Hearing: OC LAFCO holds a public hearing and determines whether to approve the annexation. Approval does not complete the annexation. Instead, it authorizes commencement of protest proceedings.
Step 8 - Protest Proceedings: OC LAFCO schedules a protest hearing and accepts written protests for a period generally ranging from 21 to 60 days. The outcome depends on whether the territory is inhabited. Provided below are the processes for inhabited vs. uninhabited territories.
Inhabited Territory (12 or More Registered Voters)
Protest Level Result
Less than 25% protest Annexation Ordered
25% to less than 50% protest submitted by
registered voters within the territory; or
protest submitted by 25% of the owners of
the land who also own at least 25% of the
assessed value of land within the territory
Election required
50% or more protest Proceedings terminated
Uninhabited Territory (Fewer than 12 Registered Voters) Protest LevelResult
Less than 50% of assessed value
protesting
Annexation Ordered
50% or more of assessed value protesting Proceedings terminated If protests fall within the election range, OC LAFCO calls an election among voters residing within the annexation territory. A majority vote is required for annexation to proceed.
Step 9 - Completion: If there is no majority protest or the election succeeds, then OC LAFCO issues a Certificate of Completion, the annexation becomes effective, and the County service City of Orange Printed on 8/6/2026Page 4 of 6
powered by Legistar™
558
Item #: 9.1. 8/11/2026 File #: 26-0372
responsibilities transfer to the City.
This process may last 12-18 months, or longer if an election is required.
Financial Considerations
In early 2025, City staff requested preliminary fiscal information from the County of Orange and OC LAFCO to better understand the financial implications associated with annexing the remaining County islands. Based on the County's estimates, annexation of all remaining County islands would likely result in an ongoing net fiscal impact to the City under the existing revenue allocation structure.
Should the City Council direct staff to proceed, staff would negotiate with the County regarding one- time and ongoing revenue-sharing agreements intended to offset municipal service costs associated with annexation. Generally, the following revenue categories would be addressed in those discussions:
· City Share of Property Taxes (51% to the City / 49% to the County) · City Share of Orange County Street Light Assessment District Dissolution Fund · City Share of the Orange County Structural Fire Fund
· City Share of the Orange County Public Library Fund
Prior to initiating annexation proceedings, staff recommends conducting additional due diligence regarding the condition of public infrastructure within each County island, including streets, sidewalks, storm drains, street lighting, parks, and other public improvements. Understanding existing infrastructure conditions will help the City better estimate future maintenance obligations and long-term capital replacement needs.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
Annexation of County islands would also transfer responsibility for the County's remaining Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocations within those territories to the City. In total, the remaining County islands currently contain an allocation of 1,383 RHNA units. Although annexation would not require immediate residential development, the City would assume responsibility for planning for those housing units in accordance with State housing law.
Island RHNA Units
El Modena 328
Lincoln Glassell 624
North El Modena 0
Olive Heights 431
Orange Park Acres 0
Santiago Creek (Bond Pits) 0
Total 1,383
In determining whether to pursue annexation, the City Council may wish to consider several policy factors, including the long-term fiscal impacts to the City, opportunities to negotiate additional revenue sharing with the County, the transfer of RHNA obligations, the condition of existing public City of Orange Printed on 8/6/2026Page 5 of 6
powered by Legistar™
559
Item #: 9.1. 8/11/2026 File #: 26-0372
revenue sharing with the County, the transfer of RHNA obligations, the condition of existing public infrastructure, community support, and the benefits of creating more unified municipal boundaries and service delivery.
Summary Comparison of Remaining County Islands
County Island Acres Population RHNA Units Annexation Process El Modena 101.67 2,797 328 Streamlined
North El Modena 31.59 520 0 Streamlined
Olive Heights 32.47 500 431 Streamlined
Lincoln/Glassell 103.03 0 624 Streamlined
Orange Park Acres 394.02 1,074 0 Standard
Santiago Creek 187.25 0 0 Standard
Conclusion
Annexation of the remaining County islands presents an opportunity to eliminate jurisdictional inconsistencies and provide more unified municipal services to neighborhoods that are closely connected to the City of Orange. However, annexation would also transfer ongoing service responsibilities, infrastructure maintenance obligations, and applicable RHNA allocations to the City.
Because the financial impacts vary by island and additional negotiations with the County would be necessary regarding revenue sharing, staff is seeking policy direction from the City Council regarding whether to proceed with annexation of all, some, or none of the remaining County islands and the level of additional analysis desired before initiating formal proceedings.
7. ATTACHMENTS
· County Island Profiles (OC LAFCO)
· 1980 Property Tax Agreement
City of Orange Printed on 8/6/2026Page 6 of 6
powered by Legistar™
560
OC LAFCO Unincorporated Areas Program
Orange Islands (ID#17-19, #21-23)
Sphere of Influence – City of Orange
Strategic Opportunities for County Unincorporated Areas Since 2000, OC LAFCO has successfully annexed several unincorporated county areas to adjacent cities.
Today the collaboration with the County and cities adjacent to these areas continues with t he remaining unincorporated areas involving a combination of challenges (e.g., historical resident and agency opposition, lack of infrastructure financing, differences in city/county development standards) that requires a strategic partnership facilitated by OC LAFCO. Current demographic and fiscal data are critical to this effort and a better understanding of issues related to municipal service delivery to unincorporated communities.
The information below provides an overview of current service related costs and revenues as well as potential opportunities for islands.
Overview of the Orange Islands (ID#17 – 19, #21-23)
The Orange Islands include six separate islands consisting of a total of approximately 850 acres of unincorporated territory surrounded by the City of Orange. The islands are generally located in the western part of the sphere of influence of the City of Orange and include 1,362 single-family detached units and 447 other dwelling units, a population of 4,891 residents, and 2,375 registered voters. The chart below depicts the acreage for each island.
Island Name Island ID # Location Acreage
El Modena ID#17 North of Chapman Avenue and south of East Silverleaf Avenue. 101.67
Lincoln/Glassell ID#18 North of West Lincoln Avenue and adjacent to Santa Ana River. 103.03
North El Modena ID#19 North and south of the intersection of Hewes St. and East Bond Avenue. 31.59
Olive Heights ID#21 North and south of East Buena Vista Avenue, south of East Bixby Avenue 32.47
Orange Parks Acres ID#22
South of East Santiago Canyon Road and north
of East Chapman Avenue, encompassing
Orange Park Boulevard.
394.02
Santiago Creek ID#23 South of Villa Park Road and west of Hewes Street. 187.25
561
The chart below highlights current municipal service provisions to the area.
Service Category Current Service Provider
Sewer City of Orange
Fire Protection & Prevention Orange County Fire Authority Law Enforcement Orange County Sheriff
Solid Waste Collection Ware Disposal/CR&R
Inc./Waste Management
Street Sweeping County of Orange
Library County of Orange
Animal Control County of Orange
Planning County of Orange
Code Enforcement County of Orange
Parks & Recreation OC Parks (Regional)
Education Orange Unified School District (K-12)
County Costs/Revenues
The County has worked with various departments to develop an annual accounting of County General Fund municipal service revenues and expenditures for each of the unincorporated areas. This profile includes a snapshot of the costs to the County to provide municipal services and the revenue generated for the Orange Islands for fiscal year 2023-24. Currently, the Orange Islands result in a yearly negative impact to the County General Fund of approximately $2,099,692 (excluding capital project expenditures). Primary service expenses for the island s include animal control, law enforcement, and infrastructure maintenance.
Property tax revenue allocated to the County general fund is the major revenue source gener ated within the islands, consisting of approximately $360,535 each fiscal year.
Annexation Opportunity
Approval of the a nnexation of the island s to the City by OC LAFCO could result in several benefits to the residents and the commercial area related to City service levels and the proximity of City service providers and emergency responders. The Orange Islands consist of built‐out residential neighborhoods , small commercial area s, and recreational areas with opportunities for additional revenues. Unincorporated islands that are less than 150 acres may be processed by OC LAFCO under the streamlined “small island” provisions of State law which require OC LAFCO to approve the annexation and waive protest proceedings2.
Currently, OC LAFCO is waiving the application fee for cities and providing resources that bridge information gaps and align the efforts of local stakeholders. In part to this, OC LAFCO staff is available to facilitate discussions among stakeholders and participate in community workshops, when requested, to ensure that the residents and landowners are informed on the annexation process. Additionally, the State Board of Equalization currently supports the streamlining of small island annexations (less than 150 acres) through its waiver of the requirement for a map and legal description of the annexation territory.
2Cortese‐Knox‐Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, Section 56375.3 (a) 562
Orange County Revenue & Expenditure Data
Orange Unincorporated Islands (ID#17-19, #21-23)
0BCounty Revenue (FY 2023-24)
1BIsland 2BIsland ID# 3BSales Tax 4BProperty Tax 5BTotal Taxes 6BEl Modena 7BID# 17 8B$31,109 9B$19,081 10B$50,190
11BLincoln/Glassell 12BID# 18 13Bn/a 14B$23,331 $23,331 16BNorth El Modena 17BID# 19 18Bn/a 19B$ 3,017 20B$3,017 21BOlive Heights 22BID# 21 23B$525,160 24B$5,014 25B$530,174 26BOrange Park Acres 27BID# 22 28B$5,755 29B$309,318 30B$315,073 31BSantiago Creek 32BID# 23 33Bn/a 34B$774 35B$774
36BTotal Revenue:
37B$562,024 38B$360,535 39B$922,559
Potential Property Tax Revenue upon annexation (based on the City/County Master Property Tax Exchange Agreement adopted on October 28, 1980):
40BIsland 41BIsland ID# 42BCity Tax % 43BCounty Tax %
44BCity
Revenue
45BCounty
Revenue
46BEl Modena 47BID# 17 48B51% 49B49% 50B$9,731 51B$9,350 52BLincoln/Glassell 53BID# 18 54B51% 55B49% 56B$11,899 57B$11,432 58BNorth El Modena 59BID# 19 60B51% 61B49% 62B$1,539 63B$1,478 64BOlive Heights 65BID# 21 66B51% 67B49% 68B$2,557 69B$2,456 70BOrange Park
Acres
71BID# 22 72B51% 73B49% 74B$157,752 75B$151,565
76BSantiago Creek 77BID# 23 78B51% 79B49% 80B$395 81B$317
563
82BCounty Expenditures (FY 2023-24)
Operations and Maintenance
OC
Waste &
Recycling
Animal
Care
Services
Sheriff OCPW
Road
Maint.
OCPW
Infra.
Maint.
Code Enf.
El Modena $4,373 $8,784 $844,007
$109,2861 $189,4972 $73,3333
Lincoln/
Glassell $1,782 $0 $0
North El Modena $415 $715 $156,912
Olive Heights $403 $117 $150,877
Santiago Creek $0 $0 $0
Orange Parks Acres $18,440 $10,927 $324,084 $70,428 $90,529 $44,783 Total Expenditures $25,413 $20,543 $1,475,880 $179,714 $280,026 $118,116 Total Operation and Maintenance Expenditures: $2,099,692
1 Includes the total cost of OCPWD Road Maintenance for the following islands: El Modena, Lincoln Glassel, North El Modena, Olive Heights and Santiago Creek.
2 Includes the total cost of OCPWD Infrastructure Maintenance for the following islands: El Modena, Lincoln Glassel, North El Modena, Olive Heights and Santiago Creek.
3 Includes the total cost of Code Enforcement for the following islands: El Modena, Lincoln Glassel, North El Modena, Olive Heights and Santiago Creek. 564
El Modena Island (ID #17)
General Information
Sphere of Influence City of Orange
Supervisorial District 2nd
Acreage 101.67
Within City of Orange’s General Plan? Yes
City of Orange’s Pre-zoning Designation Low and Low Medium Density Residential Fire Stations (within 1-mile radius) Orange Fire Station #2 and #4 Parks (within ½ mile radius) El Modena (Orange), La Veta (Orange) Flood Control Channels (miles) .82
Demographics
Population 2,797
Housing Units 684
565
566
Lincoln/Glassell Island (ID #18)
General Information
Sphere of Influence City of Orange
Supervisorial District 2nd and 4th
Acreage 103.03
Within City of Orange’s General Plan? Yes
City of Orange’s Pre-zoning Designation Resource area / Open Space Fire Stations (within 1-mile radius) Anaheim Fire Station #5 Parks (within ½ mile radius) Olive, Steve Ambriz Memorial (Orange), Rio Vista (Anaheim)
Flood Control Channels (miles) 1.01
Demographics
Population 0
Housing Units 0
567
568
North El Modena Island (ID #19)
General Information
Sphere of Influence City of Orange
Supervisorial District 2nd
Acreage 31.59
Within City of Orange’s General Plan? Yes
City of Orange’s Pre-zoning Designation Low Density Residential Fire Stations (within 1-mile radius) OCFA Fire Station #23 and Orange Fire Stations #2 and #4
Parks (within ½ mile radius) None
Flood Control Channels (miles) .243
Demographics
Population 520
Housing Units 126
569
570
Olive Heights Island (ID #21)
General Information
Sphere of Influence City of Orange
Supervisorial District 2nd
Acreage 32.47
Within City of Orange’s General Plan? Yes
City of Orange’s Pre-zoning Designation Low Medium Residential Fire Stations (within 1-mile radius) None
Parks (within ½ mile radius) Eisenhower (Orange), Oliver (Orange) Flood Control Channels (miles) .371
Demographics
Population 500
Housing Units 166
571
572
5 Orange Park Acres Island (ID #22)
General Information
Sphere of Influence City of Orange
Supervisorial District 3rd
Acreage 394.02
Within City of Orange’s General Plan? Yes
City of Orange’s Pre-zoning Designation Estate Low-Density Residential Fire Stations (within 1-mile radius) OCFA Fire Station #23 Parks (within ½ mile radius) None
Flood Control Channels (miles) 1.784
Demographics
Population 1,074
Housing Units 386
573
6 574
Santiago Creek Island (ID #23)
General Information
Sphere of Influence City of Orange
Supervisorial District 3rd
Acreage 187.25
Within City of Orange’s General Plan? Yes
City of Orange’s Pre-zoning Designation Resource Area/Open Space Fire Stations (within 1-mile radius) OCFA Fire Station #23 and Orange Fire Stations #2 and #4
Parks (within ½ mile radius) Grijalva Community
Flood Control Channels (miles) 1.328
Demographics
Population 0
Housing Units 0
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584