Agenda — Stanton City Council, August 11, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

Notice and Call

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL / SUCCESSOR AGENCY / HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR THE CITY OF STANTON AND TO THE CITY CLERK / SECRETARY:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Special Meeting of the City Council / Successor Agency / Housing Authority for the City of Stanton is hereby called by the Mayor / Chairman, to be held on August 11, 2026, commencing at 5:00 p.m. at 7800 Katella Avenue, Stanton, CA 90680 (Council Chambers).

The Agenda for the Special Meeting is attached to this Notice and Call.

Dated: August 6, 2026
s/ Patricia A. Vazquez, City Clerk / Secretary

NOTICE AND CALL

CITY COUNCIL

SUCCESSOR AGENCY

HOUSING AUTHORITY

SPECIAL MEETING
Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk August 11, 2026

Page 1 of 11 ends

PUBLIC ACCESS IN-PERSON AND VIA TELECONFERENCE
(Electronically / Telephonically)
Attendance by the members of the public may view the meeting live in one of the following ways:
• Attend in person - City Council Chambers: 7800 Katella Avenue, California 90680. • Via Teleconference (electronically / telephonically) - Zoom:

In order to join the meeting via telephone please follow the steps below:

1. Dial the following phone number +1 (669) 444-9171 (US).

2. Dial in the following Meeting ID: 873 7200 1494 to be connected to the meeting.

In order to join the meeting via electronic device please utilize the Zoom URL link below:
• https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87372001494?pwd=SfVurK07YQyJGMK9B6Ufcte88k2C5Q.1

ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ANY ITEM ON THE AGENDA MAY DO SO AS FOLLOWS:

MEETING PARTICIPATION AND PUBLIC COMMENT OPTIONS: Each speaker has 3 minutes.

IN-PERSON: Attend in person and complete and submit a request to speak card to the City Clerk. • Translation services, disability-related accommodations, and assisted listening devices are available to participate in this meeting. Please contact the City Clerk's Office at (714) 890-4245 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting so the City can make the necessary arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting.

ZOOM: Closed captioning and translation services are available. • Zoom Virtual Participation (MEETING ID: 873 7200 1494) To request to speak, click the “Raise Hand” button when the Mayor opens public comment. Wait for City staff to call on you before speaking. You may choose to share your name and city of residence.
• Zoom Conference Call (+1 669-444-9171 / MEETING ID: 873 7200 1494) To request to speak, dial *9 on your phone after the Mayor opens public comment. When prompted press *6 to unmute your line and begin speaking. You may choose to share your name and city of residence.

E-MAIL: [email protected]
• Public comments may be submitted by e-mail. Please submit comments with the subject line “PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM #” (insert the item number relevant to your comment). Comments received no later than 4:30 p.m. before the scheduled meeting will be compiled, provided to the City Council, and made available to the public before the start of the meeting. Staff will not read e-mailed comments at the meeting. However, the official record will include all e-mailed comments received until the close of the meeting.

Should you have any questions related to participation in the City Council Meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (714) 890-4245 or via e-mail at [email protected].

AGENDA

SPECIAL AND JOINT REGULAR MEETING

CITY COUNCIL

SUCCESSOR AGENCY

HOUSING AUTHORITY
TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2026
CLOSED SESSION - 5:00 P.M.

JOINT REGULAR SESSION - 6:30 P.M.

STANTON CITY HALL, 7800 KATELLA AVENUE, STANTON, CA
Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk August 11, 2026

Page 2 of 11 ends

The City Council agenda and supporting documentation is made available for public review and inspection during normal business hours in the Office of the City Clerk, 7800 Katella Avenue, Stanton California 90680 immediately following distribution of the agenda packet to a majority of the City Council. Packet delivery typically takes place on Thursday afternoons prior to the regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday. The agenda packet is also available for review and inspection on the city’s website at www.StantonCA.gov.

The City Council is required to comply with the Levine Act (Government Code § 84308). The purpose of the Levine Act is to prevent public officials from being influenced by campaign contributions from parties and other financially interested persons appearing before them and to prevent officials from using their position of authority to unduly influence applicants to make contributions to campaigns. The Levine Act only applies to certain matters brought to the City Council, including permits, licenses, some contracts, and other entitlements for use. While these matters are pending and for 12 months after a decision has been made, a Council Member may not accept, solicit, or direct campaign contributions of more than $500 from parties/participants who have a financial interest in the proceedings, or their respective agents. In addition, a Council Member who has received such a contribution may be required to disclose the contribution and recuse themselves from consideration of an agenda item. This summary of the Levine Act does not constitute legal advice. Council members who need to recuse themselves from an agenda item may provide notice at any time during the Council meeting before consideration of the item. Under certain circumstances, contributions may be returned by the public official in order to participate in a decision or otherwise cure a potential violation.

1. CLOSED SESSION(5:00 PM)

2. ROLL CALL Council / Agency / Authority Member Barrios Council / Agency / Authority Member Torres
Council / Agency / Authority Member Warren
Mayor Pro Tem / Vice Chairman Taylor
Mayor / Chairman Shawver

3. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
Closed Session may convene to consider matters of purchase / sale of real property (G.C. §54956.8), pending litigation (G.C. §54956.9(a)), potential litigation (G.C. §54956.9(b)) or personnel items (G.C. §54957.6). Records not available for public inspection.

4. CLOSED SESSION
4A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) Number of Potential Cases: 1
4B. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6)
Title: City Attorney
Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk August 11, 2026

Page 3 of 11 ends

4C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1)
Number of cases: 1
Case Name: Tina-Pacific Residents Association et al. v. City of Stanton et al.

Case Number: G065384, CA Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three

5. CALL TO ORDER STANTON CITY COUNCIL / SUCCESSOR AGENCY / HOUSING AUTHORITY JOINT REGULAR MEETING (6:30 PM)

6. ROLL CALL Council / Agency / Authority Member Barrios Council / Agency / Authority Member Torres
Council / Agency / Authority Member Warren
Mayor Pro Tem / Vice Chairman Taylor
Mayor / Chairman Shawver

7. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

8. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS AND AWARDS
Update on City’s homeless outreach activities.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items on the Consent Calendar may be acted on simultaneously, unless a Council/Board Member requests separate discussion and/or action.

CONSENT CALENDAR
9A. MOTION TO APPROVE THE READING BY TITLE OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. SAID ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS THAT APPEAR ON THE

PUBLIC AGENDA SHALL BE READ BY TITLE ONLY AND FURTHER READING WAIVED
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

City Council/Agency Board/Authority Board waive reading of Ordinances and Resolutions.

Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk August 11, 2026

Page 4 of 11 ends

9B. APPROVAL OF WARRANTS
City Council approve demand warrants dated July 1, 2026 – July 31, 2026, in the amount of $5,972,962.10.
9C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
City Council/Successor Agency/Housing Authority approve Minutes of Special and Joint Regular Meeting July 14, 2026.
9D. RECEIVE AND FILE CITY OF STANTON QUALIFIED CONTRACTORS LIST FOR

CALIFORNIA UNIFORM PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION COST ACCOUNTING ACT The City of Stanton’s Qualified Contractors List has been prepared in accordance with the California Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act (CUPCCAA) guidelines and associated Public Contract Codes.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. City Council declare the recommended actions to be categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15378(b)(5) – Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment; and

2. Receive and file the Qualified Contractors List.
9E. RESPONSE TO THE 2025-2026 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT DATED MAY 27, 2026, ENTITLED, “CALIFORNIA HOUSING MANDATES, THE UNINTENDED RESHAPING OF ORANGE COUNTY NEIGHBORHOODS”
On May 27, 2026, the Orange County Grand Jury released a report entitled “California Housing Mandates, The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods” (Attachment A). This report examines how California's Housing Mandates operate in practice within Orange County, evaluating both their intended objectives and their unintended consequences for cities, neighborhoods, and local governance. It assesses the feasibility, effectiveness, and equity of current state housing policies, identifies areas where state requirements intersect with local capacity, infrastructure, funding, and community needs, and analyzes how recent legislative changes have affected the balance between state authority and local decision-making. The report also proposes a strategic framework for strengthening Orange County's influence within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) through a more effective role for the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) as the region enters the next housing planning cycle. California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require any public agency that the Grand Jury reviews respond to the findings and recommendations of the Grand Jury Report. The City’s proposed response letter responds to each of the applicable findings and recommendations (Attachment B).

Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk August 11, 2026

Page 5 of 11 ends

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. City Council find that this item is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15378(b)(5)(Organizational or administrative activities or governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment); and

2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the response letter to the Orange County Grand Jury related to the findings and recommendations contained in the May 27, 2026, report entitled “California Housing Mandates, The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods”.
9F. ACCEPTANCE OF THE STANTON CENTRAL PARK TENNIS COURT RENOVATION

PROJECT BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STANTON, CALIFORNIA The Stanton Central Park Tennis Court Renovation Project consisting of resurfacing, restriping, lighting improvements, and installation of site furnishings at the tennis courts and installation of additional lights around the playground area at Stanton Central Park has been completed. The final construction cost for the project was $389,165.00, above the contract award amount. The City Engineer, in his judgment, certifies that the work was satisfactorily completed as of July 14, 2026, and recommends that the City Council accept the completed work performed on this project.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. City Council find that this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Class 1, Section 15301(a) as operation, repair, and minor interior or exterior alterations of existing public facilities; and

2. Accept the completed improvements for the Stanton Central Park Tennis Court Renovation Project as certified by the City Engineer, and establish July 14, 2026, as the official date of completion; and

3. Approve the final construction contract amount of $389,165.00 with A2Z Construct, Inc.; and

4. Direct the City Clerk within ten (10) days from the date of acceptance to file the Notice of Completion (Attachment) with the County Clerk-Recorder of the County of Orange; and

6. Direct the City Manager to submit the 2026 Grant Accountability Form to the United States Tennis Association (USTA) for reimbursement of the Grant 25CA32148 in the amount of $20,000.

Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk August 11, 2026

Page 6 of 11 ends

9G. APPROVAL OF THE LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF STANTON

AND THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (OCTA) FOR OCTA

RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY
The City Engineer recommends that the City Council approve the License Agreement with the Orange County Transportation Authority in order to improve Monroe Avenue (approximately 150’ east of the centerline of Rose Street to Flower Avenue). Executing the License Agreement would allow the City to install concrete infrastructure (curb & gutters, sidewalks, and drive approach) and restore the asphalt pavement for a comprehensive rehabilitation / restoration of this section of Monroe Avenue. Additionally, the operator of the “ShareMyCoach” facility north of the project location, has agreed to donate $10,000 to the City to help fund the improvements on Monroe Avenue.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. City Council declare the recommended actions are exempt from CEQA per Section 15378(b)(5) [Project does not include]: organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment; and

2. Approve the License Agreement with the Orange County Transportation Authority and allow the City Attorney to make minor edits as necessary prior to the execution of the Amendment; and

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute the License Agreement with the Orange County Transportation Authority; and

4. Approve a budget adjustment to increase the project budget by $10,000 for a total of $2,060,000 offset by a donation in the same amount of $10,000 accounted for in the donation account within the General Fund (Account No. 101-0000-437125) as additional funding for the FY 25/26 Citywide Street Resurfacing Project (Task Code No. 2026-101). The additional funding will be transferred to the CIP fund (305) upon receipt.

Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk August 11, 2026

Page 7 of 11 ends

9H. CONTINUANCE OF THE PROCLAMATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL

EMERGENCY CAUSED BY HOMELESSNESS CRISIS
At its meeting of November 26, 2024, the City Council adopted a resolution proclaiming the existence of a local emergency. Based on the continuing impacts of homelessness on public health and safety within the City of Stanton, the City Council’s proclamation of the existence of a local emergency will continue until further notice.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. City Council declare that the proposed actions are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) because they do not qualify as a “project” under CEQA Receive and file; and

2. Receive and file the report.
9I. CONTINUANCE OF THE PROCLAMATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL

EMERGENCY REGARDING THE WESTERN HAZMAT INCIDENT
At its meeting of May 26, 2026, the City Council adopted a resolution proclaiming the existence of a local emergency regarding the Western Hazmat Incident. Based on the ongoing response to the Western Hazmat Incident and its effects on the City of Stanton, the City Council's proclamation of a local emergency will remain in effect until it is no longer needed.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

2. Receive and file the report.

END OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk August 11, 2026

Page 8 of 11 ends

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
10A. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2026-33, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STANTON,

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED SERVICE CHARGES FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES”
The City of Stanton has an exclusive franchise with CR&R, Inc. (“CR&R”) for the collection, disposal, recycling, and processing of solid waste within the City. CR&R is proposing to increase the rates it charges for the collection and handling of solid waste within the City in order to account for the increased cost of complying with certain new organic waste mandates. The attached Resolution would, if approved and adopted by the City Council, implement these rate increases (proposed as 3.5% for single family residential customers and 8.3% for commercial customers). Out of an abundance of caution, and without conceding the applicability of Proposition 218 (Prop. 218) to solid waste rate changes, a notice was mailed for a public hearing set for this evening’s regular meeting of the City Council to discuss the proposed solid waste rate increases called for by the first amendment to the CR&R franchise agreement.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. City Council conduct a public hearing to accept written protests and verbal comments against the increased solid waste fees, track the number of valid written protests and, if the number of written protests received by the close of the public comment portion of the hearing is not sufficient to constitute a majority, make a finding that there is not a majority protest by property owners and/or tenants; and

2. Approve Resolution No. 2026-33, entitled:
“A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STANTON,

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED SERVICE
CHARGES FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES.”
Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk August 11, 2026

Page 9 of 11 ends

11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
11A. APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 1171 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STANTON, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ARTICLE 3 (VACANT AND FORECLOSED PROPERTY REGISTRATION) OF CHAPTER 9.16 (PROPERTY MAINTENANCE, GENERAL) OF TITLE 9 (PEACE, SAFETY AND MORALS) OF THE

STANTON MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATED TO PROVIDING ENFORCEMENT AND

MONITORING OF VACANT AND FORECLOSED PROPERTIES
This Ordinance was introduced at the regular City Council meeting of July 14, 2026.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. City Clerk read the title of Ordinance No. 1171, entitled:
“AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STANTON, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ARTICLE 3 (VACANT AND FORECLOSED
PROPERTY REGISTRATION) OF CHAPTER 9.16 (PROPERTY
MAINTENANCE, GENERAL) OF TITLE 9 (PEACE, SAFETY AND MORALS)

OF THE STANTON MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATED TO PROVIDING

ENFORCEMENT AND MONITORING OF VACANT AND FORECLOSED
PROPERTIES”; and

2. City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1171.
11B. APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 1174 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STANTON, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING CHAPTER 20.250 AND AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 20 OF THE STANTON MUNICIPAL

CODE ALLOWING GROUP HOMES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE DISABLED This Ordinance was introduced at the regular City Council meeting of July 14, 2026.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. City Clerk read the title of Ordinance No. 1174, entitled:
“AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STANTON, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING CHAPTER 20.250 AND AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 20 OF THE STANTON MUNICIPAL CODE ALLOWING GROUP HOMES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE DISABLED”; and

2. City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1174.

12. NEW BUSINESS None.

Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk August 11, 2026

Page 10 of 11 ends

13. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - PUBLIC
At this time members of the public may address the City Council/Successor Agency/Stanton Housing Authority regarding any items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council/Successor Agency/Stanton Housing Authority, provided that NO action may be taken on non-agenda items.
• Members of the public wishing to address the Council/Agency/Authority during Oral Communications-Public or on a particular item are requested to fill out a REQUEST TO SPEAK form and submit it to the City Clerk. Request to speak forms must be turned in prior to Oral Communications-Public.
• When the Mayor/Chairman calls you to the microphone, please state your Name, slowly and clearly, for the record. A speaker’s comments shall be limited to a three (3) minute aggregate time period on Oral Communications and Agenda Items. Speakers are then to return to their seats and no further comments will be permitted. • Remarks from those seated or standing in the back of chambers will not be permitted.

All those wishing to speak including Council/Agency/Authority and Staff need to be recognized by the Mayor/Chairman before speaking.

14. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None.

15. MAYOR/CHAIRMAN COUNCIL/AGENCY/AUTHORITY INITIATED BUSINESS 15A. COMMITTEE REPORTS/ COUNCIL/AGENCY/AUTHORITY ANNOUNCEMENTS At this time Council/Agency/Authority Members may report on items not specifically described on the agenda which are of interest to the community provided no discussion or action may be taken except to provide staff direction to report back or to place the item on a future agenda.
15B. COUNCIL/AGENCY/AUTHORITY INITIATED ITEMS FOR A FUTURE MEETING At this time Council/Agency/Authority Members may place an item on a future agenda. 15C. COUNCIL/AGENCY/AUTHORITY INITIATED ITEMS FOR A FUTURE STUDY

SESSION
At this time Council/Agency/Authority Members may place an item on a future study session agenda.

Currently Scheduled: None.

Stanton City Council Agenda Prepared by the Office of the City Clerk August 11, 2026

Page 11 of 11 ends

16. ITEMS FROM CITY ATTORNEY/AGENCY COUNSEL/AUTHORITY COUNSEL

17. ITEMS FROM CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
17A. ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY
At this time the Orange County Fire Authority will provide the City Council with an update on their current operations.

18. ADJOURNMENT
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, the foregoing agenda was posted at Stanton City Hall, 7800 Katella Avenue, Stanton, 90680 and on the City’s website at www.StantonCA.gov not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. Dated this 6th day of August, 2026.
s/ Patricia A. Vazquez, City Clerk/Secretary
July 1, 2026 - July 31, 2026
Payments to Vendors:

Electronic Draft Payments EFT (1) 3,685,609.98Bank Drafts Payments 1,346,259.51Check Payments 140372-140457 465,217.13Voided Payments 140419 (4) - Total Payments to Vendors $ 5,497,086.62
Direct Deposit Payments (3):

Payroll dated July 2, 2026 154,871.51Payroll dated July 16, 2026 160,475.20Payroll dated July 30, 2026 160,528.77 Total Direct Deposit Payments $ 475,875.48
TOTAL PAYMENTS $ 5,972,962.10
Notes:
1 EFTs are electronic payments processed via a file exported from the City's Finance system and uploaded to the City's bank account. The City's Finance system designates these payment transactions as "EFT". 2 EFT Bank Drafts are auto-payments scheduled by the vendor as a monthly draft from the City's bank account mainly setup for utility payments. A specific transaction number is not assigned 3 Represents the total net payroll paid through direct deposit on pay date.4 Check 140419 voided.5 This Warrant Register includes the entire month of July 2026 because only one Council meeting was held that month.

Demands listed on the attachedregisters are accurate and fundsare available for payment thereof.

Finance Director
Budget as approved by the City Council.

City Manager Acting Accounting Manager
conform to the City of Stanton Annual

CITY OF STANTON

WARRANT REGISTER
EFT - Bank Drafts (2)
Demands listed on the attached registers
Finance Director
Acting Accounting Manager
ayment thereof.
g gg
Budget as approved by the City Council.

City Manager
Item: 9B
Click here to return to the agenda.

Check Date Bill Payment Type Check Number Check Amount Vendor Bill Number Bill Memo Total Bill Amount (Sum) 56873-060926 Water services for 11251 Beach Irr for May 26 $165.42 49873-060926 Water services for 10832 Beach Irr for May 26 $131.47 34873-060926 Water services for 7544 Katella Irr for May 26 $316.82 60472-060926 Water services for 10660 Western for May 26 $3,233.28 18873-060926 Water services for 8312 Briarwood Irr for May 26 $910.49 36873-060926 Water services for 11161 Beach Irr for May 26 $1,376.21 26873-060926 Water services for 7910 Katella Irr for May 26 $182.77 85873-060926 Water services for 7800 Katella for May 26 $1,229.11 69873-060926 Water services for 10560 Beach Irr for May 26 $159.63 50973-060926 Water services for 8741 Lola Irr for May 26 $4,515.30 78873-060926 Water services for 11746 Beach Irr for May 26 $211.70 65873-060926 Water services for 7730 Katella Irr for May 26 $368.89 57873-060926 Water services for 12372 Beach Irr for May 26 $159.63 27873-060926 Water services for 12776 Beach Irr for May 26 $182.77 59773-060926 Water services for 10686 Beach Irr for May 26 $165.42 25873-060926 Water services for 10181 Beach Irr for May 26 $165.42 094114-060926 Water services for 10660 Western FP for May 26 $56.68 46873-060926 Water services for 11151 Beach Irr for May 26 $179.70 95873-060926 Water services for 7800 Katella Irr for May 26 $3,525.22 93873-060926 Water services for 7322 Katella Irr for May 26 $316.82 28426-060926 Water services for 10660 Western Irr for May 26 $5,377.62 30107-060926 Water services for 11100 Cedar FP for May 26 $37.62 75873-060926 Water services for 7800 Katella FP for May 26 $54.00 88873-060926 Water services for 11632 Beach Irr for May 26 $205.92 88279-060926 Water services for 11100 Cedar for May 26 $658.10 98873-060926 Water services for 11432 Beach Blvd Irr for May 26 $337.27 68873-060926 Water services for 11898 Beach Irr for May 26 $367.94 63873-060926 Water services for 7139 Katella Irr for May 26 $345.76 47873-060926 Water services for 12640 Beach Irr for May 26 $131.47 35873-060926 Water services for 10231 Beach Irr for May 26 $176.98 7/1/2026 BD JE2707000001 $72,557.46 US Bank (June CalCard) JE2707000001 US Bank (June CalCard) $72,557.46 93632-062226 FY 25/26 Electricity for 11820 Santa Paula for June 26 $35.69 03668-062226 FY 25/26 Electricity for 7635& 7699 Chapman for June 26 $85.87 BD_EDD_070826 $8,773.34 EDD 26BW13:6/14/2026-6/27/2026 Tax Withholding PPE 6/27/2026 $8,773.34 BD_IRS_070826 $25,413.08 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 26BW13:6/14/2026-6/27/2026 Tax Withholding PPE 6/27/2026 $25,413.08 58156-062626 FY 25/26 electricity for 10671 Western for June 26 $84.91 78802-062426 FY 25/26-Electricity for City Hall and FRC For June26 $11,491.79 97824-062526 FY 25/26 Electricity for City Medians for June 26 $95.39 49235-062426 FY 25/26 Electricity for Sheriff Station for June 26 $3,788.67 10719-062426 FY 25/26 Electricity for 7951 Ruthann Ave for June 26 $14.90 140372 $56.04 AIRAM GOMEZ 063026 June Mileage Reimbursement $56.04 25440211 FY 25/26 Calnet for Cerritos/Magnolia for June 26 $64.05 25423012 FY 25/26 Calnet for Cerritos Intercon for June 26 $187.58 140374 $55.33 AUTOZONE INC. 04072811301 New headlights and brake lights for Code truck $55.33 140375 $459.00 BMI 500002487873 Stanton, City of (500002487873) $459.00 140376 $150.00 CA MUNICIPAL TREAS ASSOC 300004463 Government Associate - Individual $150.00 140377 $19,080.00 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. 66581 In-House Building Services 4/25/26-5/29/26 $19,080.00 140378 $95.00 ECONO TIRE, INC 34897 FY 25/26 Oil change on 2019 Tacoma $95.00 62696 Western Ave Resurfacing Project Design May '26 $5,481.00 62535 Western Ave Resurfacing Project Design April '26 $17,857.00 37973 Deep Cleaning at FRC - Summer 2026 $461.28
37703 FY 25/26 Janitorial service for June 26 $6,791.07 37931 Deep Cleaning at SCP - Summer 2026 $594.48
37932 Deep Cleaning at Community Center -2026 $2,926.42 140381 $1,145.00 GENERAL CODE GC00135968 GC00135968 Maint. & Update (Stanton, City of) $1,145.00 140382 $14.96 GRAINGER, INC. 9953423622 Supplies for City Hall repairs $14.96 140383 $309.00 JACQUELINE PASTOR GUERRERO 102992534 Deposit Refund $309.00 STA1FOG12605 FOG services for May 26 $2,100.25
STA1MS412604 NPDES service For Apr 26 $5,112.01
STA1MS412605 NPDES services for May 26 $5,100.50
STA1FOG12604 FOG services for Apr 26 $5,619.50
140385 $130.50 JORGE GUADARRAMA mr4/2026-6/24/26 milage reimbursement $130.50 140386 $103.00 KATHLEEN MADALONE 103026401 Deposit Refund $103.00 8053 Invoice 8053 (Stanton, City of) $95.00
8054 Invoice 8054 (Stanton, City of) $75.00
8055 Invoice 8055 (Stanton, City of) $95.00
140388 $103.00 MARTHA DIAZ 104026686 Deposit Refund $103.00 140389 $1,400.00 MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP, LTD Invoice #4 Development Impact Fee Nexus Study/5/1-5/30/26 $1,400.00 140390 $310.00 MAYRA HERNANDEZ 101787473 Deposit Refund $310.00 140391 $310.00 MEHWISH PATEL 102785635 Deposit Refund $310.00 140392 $103.00 MICKY HO 103025626 Deposit Refund $103.00 00164571 & 00164573 Public Notice Ads (2) $450.00
00164359 Ad #00164359 - City of Stanton $80.00
00164137 Ad #00164137 - City of Stanton $160.00
140394 $517.44 PARS 60349 Monthly Asset Fee (March) $517.44 140395 $2,500.00 PBK ARCHITECTS INC 19 Norm Ross design - June 26 $2,500.00 140396 $59,655.78 PSOMAS 236207 Orangewood Complete Streets Design (May 2026) $59,655.78 140397 $68.96 S C SIGNS & SUPPLIES LLC 270145 Street name sign $68.96 140398 $281.25 SECURITAS TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION 6200026605 Add coder user to FRC site $281.25 140399 $433.88 SOUTHLAND AUTOMOTIVE WORKS 38536 FY 25/26 Replace 2 tires and repair flat on 2022 Ford F250 $433.88 140400 $8,850.00 SQUARE SIGNS LLC 90546 Release Retention for Citywide Street Sign Replacement Project Phase 2 $8,850.00 140401 $310.00 SUNSHINE VAIVAO 104352935 Deposit Refund $310.00 140402 $5,894.00 SUPERIOR PAVEMENT MARKINGS, INC 22364 June FY 25/26 - Signing and Striping Refresh Project $5,894.00 001A Summer Camp Week 1 (July 1-3) FY 26/27 $630.00
001 Summer Camp Week 1 $420.00
140404 $1.53 VICTORIA HOLGUIN Q1_2026_Medicare_Correction Q1 2026 Medicare Correction $1.53 2026-425761-00 Room Painting supplies $79.65
2026-426454-00 Graffiti supplies $4.24
2026-426402-00 Room Painting supplies $19.39
2026-443982-00 FY 25/26 graffiti supplies $18.61
2026-443774-00 Fy 25/26 graffiti supplies $75.84
2026-425235-00 Gloves $54.88
2026-436969-00 Supplies for repairs $74.49
2026-443364-00 FY 25/26-graffiti supplies $41.40
140406 $122.00 WAGEWORKS, INC INV9160569 June 2026 Monthly Compliance and Admin Fee $122.00 5610008286 Pole Knockdown Katella/Western $2,454.00
90010213 STL Maintenance April '26 $758.40
5610008287 TS Callouts April '26 $778.50
90010479 TS Maintenance May '26 $1,138.50
5610008614 TS Callouts May '26 $1,130.45
90010480 STL Maintenance May '26 $758.40
90010203 Inst Polara Pusbuttons Magnolia/Pacific $2,550.00 00000100/1 $171,679.25 A2Z CONSTRUCT INC CentralParkPayApp3 May 2026 - Stanton Central Park Tennis Courts Renovation Project $171,679.25 00000100/10 $14,368.75 MSW CONSULTANTS, INC 1076 FY 25/26 Solid Waste Consulting services for May-June 26-Grant $14,368.75 June 2026 County Share of Parking Citation Revenue (440 Citations)/JUN-2026 - FY 25/26 $4,906.00 STTM004309 STTM004309 - 800Mhz 05/2026 ST1 $815.34
00000100/12 $1,317.68 PUBLIC AGENCY RISK SHARING AUTHORITY OF CALIFORNIA 26BW13:6/14/2026-6/27/2026 Def Comp PPE 6/27/2026 $1,317.68 00000100/13 $6.53 RESOURCE BUILDING MATERIALS 4226586 material was used to fill a section on the trail for Harry Dotson Park. $6.53 66695A Summer Camp Week 1 (July 1-3) FY 26/27 $1,500.00 66695 Summer Camp Week 1 $1,000.00
25-264514 CA Fee for Regulatory Costs June '26 $34.84
620260728 New Ticket Charges June'26 $111.05
00000100/16 $600.00 VAN RY MAINTENANCE 10211 June Floor Services $600.00 PS-InV106709 Crossing services for 5/24/26-6/6/26 $671.58 PS-INV106708 Crossing Guard services for 5/24/26-6/6/26 $2,590.38 PS-INV106999 FY 25/26 School Crossing Guard Service 6/7/26-6/20/26 $1,151.28 PS-INV107000 FY 25/26 School Crossing Guard Service 6/7/26-6/20/26 $823.49 19147 & B0NR2F July 2026 Dental Ins. & Life Ins. (2/2) $3,260.73 19147 &B0NR2F July 2026 Dental Ins. & Life Ins. (1/2) $3,503.37 1059543 Code Enforcement Fees thru 3/31/2026 - FY 25/26 $17,627.61 1064798 OCSD/Police Fees thru 5/31/2026 - FY 25/26 $59.60 EFT
00000100/4 $93,891.56 BEST BEST AND KRIEGER LLP
00000100/11 $5,721.34 OC TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR (EFT)
00000100/14 $2,500.00 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY LLC
00000100/15 $145.89 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
00000100/2 $5,236.73 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SVCS, INC.
00000100/3 $6,764.10 BENEFIT COORDINATORS CORPORATION
7/10/2026

ORANGE COUNTY NEWS
140403 $1,050.00 TENNIS FACTORY
140405 $368.50 VISTA PAINT CORP
140407 $9,568.25 YUNEX LLC
7/8/2026 BD
BD_SCE_070826 $15,475.66 SO CAL EDISON
7/9/2026 CK
140373 $251.63 AT&T
140379 $23,338.00 ENGINEERING RESOURCES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC 140380 $10,773.25 EXECUTIVE FACILITIES SERVICES, INC
140384 $17,932.26 JOHN L. HUNTER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
140387 $265.00 LISA HALL & ASSOCIATES
140393 $690.00
Warrant Report Detail City of Stanton
July 1, 2026 - July 31, 2026
7/1/2026 BD BD_GSW_070126 $25,245.43 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY 7/6/2026 BD BD_SCE_070626 $121.56 SO CAL EDISON
Check Date Bill Payment Type Check Number Check Amount Vendor Bill Number Bill Memo Total Bill Amount (Sum) 1064799 Svcs. Rendered 5/2026 (Inv. 1064799) $646.00
1064801 Svcs. Rendered 05/2026 (Inv. 1064801) $136.00
1064803 Svcs. Rendered 05/2026 (Inv. 1064803) $7,021.10 1064806 Svcs. Rendered 05/2026 (Inv. 1064806) $306.00
1064796 Svcs. Rendered 05/2026 (Inv. 1064796) $17,888.88 1064802 Svcs. Rendered 05/2026 (Inv. 1064802) $2,325.00 1064804 Svcs. Rendered 05/2026 (Inv. 1064804) $7,752.00 1064805 Svcs. Rendered 05/2026 (Inv. 1064805) $510.00
1061980 OCSD/Police Fees thru 4/30/2026 - FY 25/26 $116.11 1064797 Code Enforcement Fees thru 5/31/2026 - FY 25/26 $13,562.46 1064807 Svcs. Rendered 05/2026 (Inv. 1064807) $2,686.00 1064800 Svcs. Rendered 05/2026 (Inv. 1064800) $204.00
1061979 Code Enforcement Fees thru 4/30/2026 - FY 25/26 $23,050.80 05726A Summer Camp Week 1 (July 1-3) FY 26/27 $1,500.00 05726 Summer Camp Week 1 $1,000.00
00000100/6 $502,089.00 CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY PRIM-00234 Liability and Workers Compensation Annual Program Premiums $502,089.00 00000100/7 $3,000.00 CLAIMS CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY 7/2/2026 GL Trust Account Replenishment $3,000.00 00000100/8 $5,347.20 GREAT SCOTT TREE SERVICE, INC 122317 FY 25/26 Tree Trimming Services in June 26 $5,347.20 00000100/9 $1,500.00 HASA INC. 1128188 Splash pad services for Junne 26 $1,500.00 7/13/2026 BD BD_SCE_071326 $1,366.64 SO CAL EDISON 60954-062926 FY 25/26 electricity for City Traffic Signals for June 26 $1,366.64 78069-070126 FY 25/26 Electricity for 7172 Kermore for June 26 $20.10 12746-070126 FY 25/26 electricity for City Parks for June 26 $707.91 44111-070126 FY 25/26 Electricity for City owned Street light for June 26 $5,438.48 78692-070126 FY 25/26 Electricity for City owned Street light for June 26 $1,144.53 86342-070126 FY 25/26 Electricity for SCE owned Street light for June 26 $5,153.33 BD_CALPERS_071526 $30,928.87 CA ST PERS 103 26BW13:6/14/2026-6/27/2026 - No Bill Memo - $30,928.87 BD_SCE_071526 $5,806.22 SO CAL EDISON 15253-070226 FY 25/26 Electricity for SCP for June 26 $5,806.22 EFT 00000102/1 $1,251,249.13 OC TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR (EFT) SH 74464 SH 74464 (OCSD Contract Svcs. Jun. 26) $1,251,249.13 7/16/2026 CK 140408 $3,200.00 FRIGI AERIAL SERVICE July-2026 Night Drone Operations July-2026 $3,200.00 BD_SCG_071726 $199.76 SOCAL GAS 82007-062626 FY 25/26 Gas service for City Hall for June 26 $199.76 100000018342641 Annual Unfunded Accrued Liability - RPI 27338 $734,247.00 100000018342630 Annual Unfunded Accrued Liability - RPI 785 $270,111.00 BD_EDD_072026 $9,693.40 EDD 26BW14:6/28/2026-7/11/2026 - No Bill Memo - $9,693.40 BD_GSW_072026 $1,010.75 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY 86346-062626 Fy 25/26 Water HY # 2942 @ 8100 Pacific for June 26 $1,010.75 BD_IRS_072026 $27,675.86 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 26BW14:6/28/2026-7/11/2026 - No Bill Memo - $27,675.86 26BW13:6/14/2026-6/27/2026 - No Bill Memo - $3,012.78
26BW14:6/28/2026-7/11/2026 - No Bill Memo - $3,014.78
BD_SCE_072026 $91.32 SO CAL EDISON 58362-070726 FY 25/26 Electricity for 10341 Dale Ped for June 26 $91.32 64994-070826 FY 25/26 Electricity for Katella Linear Parkeast for June 26 $30.12 29190-070826 Electric Svcs/HA/Tina Pacific 6/8/26 - 7/7/26 - FY 25/26 $94.03 BD_SCG_072126 $38.90 SOCAL GAS 53641-063026 FY 25/26 Gas services for City Yard for Jun 26 $38.90 72455-070926 FY 25/26 Electricity for City Yard for June 26 $4,079.95 11235-071026 FY 25/26 Electricity for 10350 Fern for June 26 $1,203.71 BD_UAL_072226 $50,000.00 CA ST PERS 103 100000018363492 Additional Unfunded Accrued Liability payment $50,000.00 140409 $62,000.63 TUSTIN BUICK GMC 405224 purchase of Black 2026 GMC Sierra EV Elevation $62,000.63 140410 $62,000.63 TUSTIN BUICK GMC 408058 purchase of white 2026 GMC Sierra EV Elevation $62,000.63 140411 $323.19 ALEXANDER MARTINEZ GARCIA 106371435 Security Refund $323.19 140412 $88.92 AMERICAN RENTALS, INC 608596 FY 25/26 Tiller rental for Park clean up $88.92 140413 $123.20 ANAHEIM FAMILY YMCA YMCA71626 Instructor payment for Summer 2026 season, classes through June 30, FY 25/26. $123.20 140414 $32.14 AT&T 25469877 FY 25/26 Calnet for Cerritos/Dale for June 26 $32.14 0112251 Repairs to City Yard gate $3,175.00
0112711 Repairs to City Yard gate $370.00
140416 $26.09 AUTOZONE INC. 04072816187 FY 25/26 Antifreeze $26.09 140417 $328.57 BLUETRITON BRANDS INC 06F8710320775 Breakroom Water Delivery Svc 5/19/26 - 6/18/26 - FY 25/26 $328.57 140418 $970.33 BRAVO SIGN AND DESIGN INC. 260190S Installation of new city logo at Stanton Central Park $970.33 140420 $6,900.00 CAL STAR MOBILE HOME CONSTRUCTION INC 070926 CDBG Sr. Housing Rehabilitation Grant - Holguin Residence $6,900.00 IN425291 Renewal of the electrical vehicle charging stations for FY 26/27 $2,920.00 N231720 FY 25/26 parts for Charge point stations $2,045.00 140422 $5,437.93 COUNTY OF ORANGE COUNTY TREA-TAX COLLECTOR GA26270030 GA26270030 (LAFCO Costs - Stanton, City of) $5,437.93 140423 $7,268.42 CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. B260996 Bldg plan review svcs 6/1-6/30/26 $7,268.42 140424 $207.20 CYNTHIA BINOYA HARGROVE CB71626 Instructor payment for Summer 2026 season, classes through June 30, FY 25/26. $207.20 140425 $43.50 CYPRESS ENGRAVING 74023 OCSD Name Badges (2) - FY 25/26 $43.50 140426 $377.68 DAVID J. SHAWVER Shawver - SCAG May-2026 SCAG 2026 Regional Conf & General Assembly Reimb/D. Shawver - FY 25/26 $377.68 140427 $2,000.00 DISABILITY ACCESS CONSULTANTS, LLC 26-228 Annual DACTrak Subscription Invoice Fy 26/27 $2,000.00 140428 $66.17 FRONTIER 21308-070126 Frame relay service for July 26 $66.17 1029548800 LAN Lines/SCP 6/20/26 - 6/30/26 - FY 25/26 $26.81 1029548800A LAN Lines/SCP 7/1/26 - 7/19/26 - FY 26/27 $53.64 140430 $210.00 GARY I. KUSUNOKI - HEARING EXAMINERS 1827 Admin Hearing 6/3/26 - FY25/26 $210.00 505909 Rake and glasses $42.13
505903 Supplies for crew for repairs $47.51
140432 $26.10 HILL'S BROS LOCK & SAFE INC 95419 Duplicate keys $26.10 140433 $4,950.00 HIRSCH & ASSOCIATES, INC 2417.2 FY 25/26 Prepare SCE Demolition Plan for Staton Park Restrooms $4,950.00 Permit #2026-016 C&D Deposit for Bldg Permit 2026-016 $855.00 Permit #2026-022 C&D Deposit for Bldg Permit 2026-022 $600.00 140435 $103.00 JOSE M RAMIREZ 108016701 Deposit Refund $103.00 140436 $75.00 KARINA HORTA 107381915 Class Refund $75.00 26-093 Work done FY 25/26: Design Services for FY 25/26 Citywide Alley Resurfacing Project $7,000.00 26-089 Design Services for FY 25/26 Citywide Street Resurfacing (June 2026) $8,123.50 140438 $3,600.00 MAD SCIENCE 2312 Payment for week 2 of Stanton Summer Camp running July 6-July 10. $3,600.00 140439 $105.00 MAI BENNETT MB71626 Instructor payment for Summer 2026 season, classes through June 30, FY 25/26. $105.00 140440 $2,000.00 MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP, LTD #5 Development Impact Fee Nexus Study/Approved by City Council 11-25-2025 $2,000.00 140441 $374.91 MAYRA HERNANDEZ 105056853 Security Refund $374.91 140442 $196.65 MINUTEMAN PRESS 47988 New Business Cards (1,000)/Rebrand - FY 25/26 $196.65 140443 $500.00 OC CITY MANAGERS ASSOCIATION FY 2026-27 OCCMA Membership Renewal/City Manager/FY 26-27 $500.00 140444 $7,002.46 ORACLE AMERICA, INC. 102578806 Implementation of Oracle NSG- 48.5 hours 05/26/26-06/18/26 $7,002.46 140445 $8,400.00 ORANGE COUNTY CONSERVATION CORPS 06112026-2523 FY 25/26 Graffiti, Litter & Weed Abatement $8,400.00 26-126-05 Professional Consulting services for July 26 $756.18 26-126-04 Professional Consulting services for June 26 $8,138.54 140447 $7,766.25 PRISCILA DAVILA & ASSOCIATES, INC. Invoice #1 CDBG Labor Compliance for Task Code 2026-603;Fiscal Year 2025-2026 $7,766.25 140448 $501.00 PROFESSIONAL ROOFING Permit #2026-165 C&D Deposit for Bldg Permit 2026-165 $501.00 140449 $52,996.33 PSOMAS 237140 Orangewood Complete Streets Design (June 2026) $52,996.33 Q2432133 Postage Meter Lease 5/3/26 - 6/30/26 - FY 25/26 $507.72 Q2432133A Postage Meter Lease 7/1/26 - 8/2/26 - FY 26/27 $283.98 140451 $6,125.00 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS SCAG FY27 0168 SCAG Membership Renewal FY 2026-27 $6,125.00 38659 Remove & Replace REAR AC ACTUATOR DOOR 2008 Ford Truck E350 Super $610.13 38660 Repair flat on 2019 Honda Clarity $25.00
38581 Repair flat tire on 2025 Toyota Tacoma $25.00
38614 Replace two tires on 2026 TRAILER $234.88
38613 Fix flat on 2022 Ford F250 $25.00
48841 Parking Citation Processing/MAY-2026 - FY 25/26 $1,263.25 49024 Handheld Ticketwriter Envelopes (5,000) $761.25
49023 TPM Parking Citation Rolls (63) rolls (80/roll=5K) - FY25/26 $614.44 48842 Admin Citation Processing/MAY-2026 - FY 25/26 $1,263.86 140454 $2,042.45 VERIZON WIRELESS 6146244872 Mobile/Data Plans/Hotspots 5/17/26 - 6/16/26 - FY 25/26 $2,042.45 140455 $1,025.00 VERNE'S PLUMBING 12470899 FY 25/26 Jetting Pipes at Sheriff station $1,025.00 140456 $240.00 WINNIPESAUKEE DRUG CONSORTIUM 306585 Drug Screen for Sr. Transportation Staff $240.00 140457 $9,120.00 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES INC 72534 FY 26/27 Admin Fees $9,120.00 BD_CALPERS_072326 $31,651.19 CA ST PERS 103 26BW14:6/28/2026-7/11/2026 - No Bill Memo - $31,651.19 26211-070126 FY 25/26 Water service for Village Center & Beach Irr for June 26 $216.14 69352-070126 FY 25/26 Water service for 11822 Santa Paula Irr for June 26 $438.34 40657-070126 FY 25/26 Water service for 8181 Chapman Irr for June 26 $286.92 00000104/1 $7,980.00 A2Z CONSTRUCT INC CentralParkPayApp4 June 2026 - PO26000016: Stanton Central Park Tennis Courts Renovation Project $7,980.00 00000104/10 $138,347.00 CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY PROP00234 All Risk Property Insurance Program Annual Premiums $138,347.00 2026037 CDBG Housing Rehab. Services - May 2026 $1,732.50 2026034 CDBG Housing Rehab. Services - April 2026 $2,090.00 2026055 CDBG Housing Rehab. Services - June 2026 $276.50 26-0285 FY 25/26 On-Call Traffic Operation Services June 26 $2,080.00 26-0286 FY 25/26 Plan-Check Review of Western Ave Signing & Striping Plan for June 26 $680.00 26-0286 FY 26/27 Plan-check Review of Western Ave Signing & Striping This work is related to PO 1307 $510.00 00000104/13 $2,780.08 INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP, INC 4141082A Tina-Pacific Relocation Services/JUN-2026 - FY25/26 $2,780.08 00000104/14 $15,678.52 LEDDY POWER SYSTEMS, INC 3307-13 Retainage for City Hall Backup Generator Project $15,678.52 00000104/15 $897.27 MERCEDES REBELLON CERNEKA MR71626 Instructor payment for Summer 2026 season, classes through June 30, FY 25/26. $897.27 00000104/16 $12,125.00 MSW CONSULTANTS, INC 1094 FY 25/26 Solid Waste Consulting FY 2025-26 - Program Funded $12,125.00 00000104/17 $35,362.48 NATIONAL PLANT SVCS. INC 022832 Sewer Cleaning - Jun 2026 $35,362.48 00000104/18 $1,332,487.09 OC TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR (EFT) SH 74669 SH 74669 (OCSD Contract Svcs. Jul. 26) $1,332,487.09 00000104/19 $1,286.73 PUBLIC AGENCY RISK SHARING AUTHORITY OF CALIFORNIA 26BW14:6/28/2026-7/11/2026 104790895775 $1,286.73 00000104/2 $1,441.53 ABSOLUTE SECURITY INTERNATIONAL INC 2020114532 Security Services for June - FY 25/26 $1,441.53 00000104/20 $542.50 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY LLC SSA71626 Instructor payment for Summer 2026 season, classes through June 30, FY 25/26. $542.50 7/24/2026 EFT
140453 $3,902.80 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS INC
BD
BD_GSW_072326 $941.40 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY
00000104/11 $4,099.00 CIVICSTONE, INC
00000104/12 $3,270.00 HARTZOG & CRABILL INC

KREUZER CONSULTING GROUP
140446 $8,894.72 PADILLA & ASSOCIATES INC
140450 $791.70 QUADIENT LEASING USA, INC
140452 $920.01 SOUTHLAND AUTOMOTIVE WORKS
7/22/2026 BD BD_SCE_072226 $5,283.66 SO CAL EDISON
7/23/2026 CK
140415 $3,545.00 AUTOMATED GATE SERVICES, INC
140421 $4,965.00 CHARGEPOINT, INC
140429 $80.45 FUSION CONNECT, INC.
140431 $89.64 GOLDENWEST LAWNMOWERS
140434 $1,455.00 JIM MURRAY
140437 $15,123.50
7/20/2026 BD
BD_MIS_072026 $6,027.56 MISSIONSQUARE
7/21/2026 BD BD_SCE_072126 $124.15 SO CAL EDISON
7/14/2026 BD BD_SCE_071426 $12,464.35 SO CAL EDISON
7/15/2026 BD
7/17/2026 BD
BD_UAL_071726 $1,004,358.00 CA ST PERS 103
00000100/5 $2,500.00 BI DAN YU
Check Date Bill Payment Type Check Number Check Amount Vendor Bill Number Bill Memo Total Bill Amount (Sum) 00000104/21 $47.04 THE RINKS FOUNDATION TR71626 Instructor payment for Summer 2026 season, classes through June 30, FY 25/26. $47.04 2779 KnowBe4 Mngmnt/Platform & Campaigns/AUG-2026 $250.00 2391 KnowBe4 Mngmnt/Platform & Campaigns/JUL-2026 $250.00 00000104/3 $3,070.08 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SVCS, INC. PS-INV107176 FY 25/26 Summer school crossing guard $3,070.08 00000104/4 $2,359.00 ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC 04050626 Special Event Ins. 2nd Quarter /April-June 2026 $2,359.00 00000104/5 $1,478.40 ARACELY VILLARRUEL AV71626 Instructor payment for Summer 2026 season, classes through June 30, FY 25/26. $1,478.40 00000104/6 $198.00 BACKSTREET SURVEILLANCE 77583 Monthly Cellular Data Service for Trailers 7/8/26 - 8/7/26 $198.00 00000104/7 $5,000.00 BEGINNERS EDGE SPORTS TRAINING, LLC 2210 Payment for week 2 of Stanton Summer Camp running July 6-July 10. FY 26/27 $5,000.00 00000104/8 $207.90 BI DAN YU YR71626 Instructor payment for Summer 2026 season, classes through June 30, FY 25/26. $207.90 9843165 FY 25/26 Fix main line at SCP- PO 0000001303 $1,394.00 9842231 FY 25/26 Repairs to infield at SCP -PO 0000001303 $42,369.20 63566-070226 FY 25/26 Water service for 0350 Fern for June 26 $4,587.66 72239-070226 Water Svc/HA/Tina Pacific/JUN-2026 - FY 25/26 $383.65 97284-070226 Water Svc/HA/Tina Pacific/JUN-2026 - FY 25/26 $389.73 45970-070226 Water Svc/HA/Tina Pacific/JUN-2026 - FY 25/26 $365.42 73992-070226 Water Svc/HA/Tina Pacific/JUN-2026 - FY 25/26 $335.06 46996-070226 Water Svc/HA/Tina Pacific/JUN-2026 - FY 25/26 $310.76 17960-070226 Water Svc/HA/Tina Pacific/JUN-2026 - FY 25/26 $237.88 7/27/2026 BD BD_SCE_072726 $8.42 SO CAL EDISON 97824-0714/26 Electricity for 10775 Beach for July 26 $8.42 91646-070626 FY 25/26 Water service for Pacific Bewt Court anf Fm Irr for June 26 $536.62 14128-070626 FY 25/26 Water service for 8180 Cerritos Irr for June 26 $167.56 98865-070626 FY 25/26 Water service for 8100 Pacific Irr for June 26 $177.76 79865-070626 FY 25/26 Water service for 8100 Pacific FP for June 26 $70.37 09159-070726 FY 25/26 Water service for 10971 Chestnut Irr for June 26 $381.14 26129-070726 FY 25/26 Water service for 11401 Court Irr for June 26 $345.76 BD_SCE_072926 $15.47 SO CAL EDISON 76801-071626 FY 25/26 Electricity for 11401 Court for June 26 $15.47 EFT 00000107/1 $4,772.00 ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC 3600645 26/27 ACIP Crime Renewal $4,772.00 75841-070826 FY 25/26 Water service for 10894 Date Irr for June 26 $904.09 93128-070826 FY 25/26 Water service for 10983 Date Irr for June 26 $545.15 39851-070826 FY 25/26 Water service for 11521 Stanton Irr for June 26 $223.28 68159-070826 FY 25/26 Water service for 10972 Rose Irr for June 26 $405.43 79851-070826 FY 25/26 Water service for 11732 Stanton Irr for June 26 $159.63 04128-070826 FY 25/26 Water service for 10952 Cedar Irr for June 26 $460.11 Grand Total $5,497,086.62
7/30/2026 BD BD_GSW_073026 $2,697.69 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY

GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY
7/28/2026 BD BD_GSW_072826 $952.31 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY 7/29/2026 BD BD_GSW_072926 $726.90 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY 00000104/22 $500.00 XCEPTIONAL NETWORKS INC
00000104/9 $43,763.20 BRIGHTVIEW LANDSCAPE SERVICES, INC BD BD_GSW_072426 $6,610.16
DRAFT
Special and Joint Regular Meeting – July 14, 2026 - Page 1 of 13

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING

MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL / SUCCESSOR AGENCY / HOUSING AUTHORITY

OF THE CITY OF STANTON
SPECIAL AND JOINT REGULAR MEETING JULY 14, 2026

1. CALL TO ORDER / CLOSED SESSION
The City Council / Successor Agency / Housing Authority meeting was called to order at 5:32 p.m. by Mayor / Chairman Shawver.

2. ROLL CALL

Present: Council/Agency/Authority Member Torres, Council/Agency/Authority Member Warren, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chairman Taylor, and
Mayor/Chairman Shawver.

Absent: None.

Excused: Council/Agency/Authority Member Barrios.

3. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS None.

4. CLOSED SESSION
The members of the City Council / Successor Agency / Housing Authority of the City of Stanton proceeded to closed session at 5:33 p.m. for discussion regarding:
4A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1)
Number of cases: 1
Case Name: Tina-Pacific Residents Association et al. v. City of Stanton et al.

Case Number: G065384, CA Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three
4B. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6)
Title: City Attorney

5. CALL TO ORDER / SUCCESSOR AGENCY / STANTON HOUSING AUTHORITY

MEETING
The City Council / Successor Agency / Housing Authority reconvened in open session at 6:37 p.m.

Item: 9C
Click here to return to the agenda.

DRAFT
Special and Joint Regular Meeting – July 14, 2026 - Page 2 of 13

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING

6. ROLL CALL

Present: Council/Agency/Authority Member Torres, Council/Agency/Authority Member Warren, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chairman Taylor, and
Mayor/Chairman Shawver.

Absent: None.

Excused: Council/Agency/Authority Member Barrios.

7. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Led by Ms. Crystal Landavazo, Community & Economic Development Director.

The City Attorney / Agency Counsel reported that the City Council / Successor Agency / Housing Authority met in closed session from 5:33 to 6:37 p.m.

The City Attorney / Agency Counsel reported that there was no reportable action.

8. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS AND AWARDS
A. The City Council proclaimed the month of July 2026 to be Parks and Recreation Month within the City of Stanton and presented a proclamation to the Roundy Family.

B. Presentation by Mr. Ryan McCarthy, Associate and Ms. Andy Ketsiri, Grant Analyst, Townsend Public Affairs, providing the City Council with an update on State and Federal Legislation.

C. Ms. Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager, presented an update on the City’s homeless outreach activities.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion/Second: Shawver/Warren
Motion carried by the following vote:

AYES: 4 (Shawver, Taylor, Torres, and Warren)
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: 1 (Barrios)
Motion unanimously carried:

DRAFT
Special and Joint Regular Meeting – July 14, 2026 - Page 3 of 13

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING

CONSENT CALENDAR
9A. MOTION TO APPROVE THE READING BY TITLE OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. SAID ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS THAT APPEAR ON

THE PUBLIC AGENDA SHALL BE READ BY TITLE ONLY AND FURTHER

READING WAIVED
The City Council/Agency Board/Authority Board waived reading of Ordinances and Resolutions.
9B. APPROVAL OF WARRANTS
The City Council approved demand warrants dated June 11, 2026 – June 30, 2026, in the amount of $3,664,132.22.
9C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. The City Council/Successor Agency/Housing Authority approved Minutes of Joint Regular Meeting June 23, 2026; and

2. The City Council approved Minutes of Special Meeting June 25, 2026. 9D. MAY 2026 INVESTMENT REPORT
The Investment Report as of May 31, 2026, has been prepared in accordance with the City’s Investment Policy and California Government Code Section 53646.

1. The City Council finds that this item is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15378(b)(5) (Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment); and

2. Received and filed the Investment Report for the month of May 2026. 9E. MAY 2026 INVESTMENT REPORT (SUCCESSOR AGENCY)
The Investment Report as of May 31, 2026, has been prepared in accordance with the City’s Investment Policy and California Government Code Section 53646.

1. The Successor Agency finds that this item is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15378(b)(5) (Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment); and

2. Received and filed the Investment Report for the month of May 2026.

DRAFT
Special and Joint Regular Meeting – July 14, 2026 - Page 4 of 13

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING
9F. MAY 2026 GENERAL FUND REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT; HOUSING AUTHORITY REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT; STATUS OF

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The Revenue and Expenditure Reports for the month end May 31, 2026, have been provided to the City Manager in accordance with Stanton Municipal Code Section

2.20.080 (D) and are being provided to the City Council. This report includes information on both the City’s General Fund and the Housing Authority Fund.

2. Received and filed the May 31, 2026 financial reports for the General Fund and Housing Authority Fund and Status of Capital Improvement Projects. 9G. AWARD A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR THE STANTON

COMMUNITY AND SENIOR CENTER (BANQUET HALL) UPGRADES PROJECT The City obtained a Community Development Block Grant from the County of Orange for improvements to the City’s Community/Senior Center. City staff released a “Request for Proposals” (RFP) soliciting proposals to provide design services for the Community and Senior Center (Banquet Hall). City staff recommends awarding a Professional Services Agreement to Black O’Dowd and Associates, Inc. dba BOA Architecture to provide professional design services for the Stanton Community and Senior Center (Banquet Hall) Upgrades Project.

1. The City Council declared this project to be categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, Class 1, Section 15301(a) as operation, repair, and minor interior or exterior alterations of existing public facilities; and

2. Awards a Professional Services Agreement to Black O’Dowd and Associates, Inc. for Professional Design Services for the Stanton Community and Senior Center (Banquet Hall) Upgrades Project in the amount of $37,200; and

3. Authorized the City Manager to bind the City of Stanton and Black O’Dowd and Associates, Inc. in an Agreement to provide the services; and

4. Authorized the City Manager to approve a contingency in the amount of $3,720 to Black O’Dowd and Associates, Inc.

DRAFT
Special and Joint Regular Meeting – July 14, 2026 - Page 5 of 13

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING
9H. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT, HOME INVESTMENT

PARTNERSHIP AND EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT PROGRAMS
COOPERATION AGREEMENT – AMENDMENT SEVEN
The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 requires cities with a population under 50,000 to enter into a cooperation agreement with counties or the State in order to be part of the Urban County Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME), Emergency Solutions Grant Program (ESG) and any subsequent United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Program (HUD), which may become available to the counties to be used for eligible housing and community development activities.

Approval of Resolution No. 2026-32 would extend the life of the existing Cooperative Agreement. The current Agreement (Amendment Number Six to the Cooperation Agreement) covers Fiscal Years (FY) 2024-2025 and 2025-2026.

1. The City Council declared that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under Section 15061(b)(3) as the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA; and

2. Approved Resolution No. 2026-32 approving Amendment Seven to the City’s Cooperation Agreement with the County of Orange entitled:
“A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

STANTON, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ACCEPTING A

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT, HOME

INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP AND EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS

GRANT PROGRAMS COOPERATION AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
SEVEN”; and

3. Authorized the City Manager to execute Amendment Seven to the City’s Cooperation Agreement with the County of Orange on behalf of the City. 9I. RESPONSE TO THE 2025-2026 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT DATED MAY 19, 2026, ENTITLED, “WILDFIRES HIT HOME”
On May 19, 2026, the Orange County Grand Jury released a report entitled “Wildfires Hit Home” (Attachment A). The report aimed 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. California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require DRAFT
Special and Joint Regular Meeting – July 14, 2026 - Page 6 of 13

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING
any public agency that the Grand Jury reviews respond to the findings and recommendations of the Grand Jury Report. The City’s proposed response letter responds to each of the applicable findings and recommendations (Attachment B).

1. The City Council finds that this item is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15378(b)(5)(Organizational or administrative activities or governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment); and

2. Authorized the Mayor to sign the response letter to the Orange County Grand Jury related to the findings and recommendations contained in the May 19, 2026, report entitled “Wildfires Hit Home”.
9J. CONTINUANCE OF THE PROCLAMATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL

1. The City Council declared that the proposed actions are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) because they do not qualify as a “project” under CEQA Receive and file; and

2. Received and filed the report.
9K. AUTHORITY TO ADVERTISE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE FY 2026/27

CITYWIDE SIDEWALK REPAIR PROJECT
The plans, specifications, and necessary documents for the FY 2026/27 Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project are complete. The City Engineer is recommending City Council approve the specifications and plans for bidding, subject to revision by the City Engineer and the City Attorney, to ensure the construction contract is awarded in an efficient and timely manner. The Project plans and specifications are available in the City Engineer’s Office for review.

1. The City Council finds that this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Class 1, and 15301(c) as repair, maintenance, and minor alteration of existing streets, sidewalks, gutters, and similar facilities; and

2. Approved the bid specifications and plans, subject to revisions required by the City Engineer and the City Attorney; and
DRAFT
Special and Joint Regular Meeting – July 14, 2026 - Page 7 of 13

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING

3. Authorized and advertise for bids the FY 2026/27 Citywide Sidewalk Repair Project.
9L. AUTHORITY TO ADVERTISE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE FY 2025/26

SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT
The plans, specifications, and necessary documents for the FY 2025/26 Sewer Rehabilitation Project are complete. The City Engineer is recommending City Council approve the specifications and plans for bidding, subject to revision by the City Engineer and the City Attorney, to ensure the construction contract is awarded in an efficient and timely manner. The Project plans and specifications are available in the City Engineer’s Office for review.

1. The City Council declared this project to be exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Class 1, Section 15301(b) as maintenance, repair and minor alteration of existing publicly owned sewer utilities and Class 1, Section 15301(c) as repair, maintenance, and minor alteration of existing streets, sidewalks, gutters, and similar facilities; and

2. Approved the bid specifications and plans, subject to revisions required by the City Engineer and the City Attorney; and

3. Authorized and advertise for bids the FY 2025/26 Sewer Rehabilitation Project.

END OF CONSENT CALENDAR

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
10A. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

FOR CITY PROGRAMS AND SERVICES TO ADD FIVE NEW FEES AND

UPDATE ONE FEE
State law allows cities to recover some or all costs associated with providing specific discretionary services through user fees. A discretionary service is one in which the customer is identifiable, and the service provided is measurable. The City Council will conduct a public hearing to consider amendments to the Master Fee Schedule to establish the following five new fees and update one fee:
• Community Development
o ADU Permit Processing Fee: $500
• Public Safety Services
o Vacant Parcel Application Processing Fee (one-time): $45 o Vacant Parcel Annual Registration Fee – Stable: $300
o Vacant Parcel Annual Registration Fee – At-Risk: $5,000 o Vacant Parcel Annual Registration Fee – Failed: $9,600 DRAFT
Special and Joint Regular Meeting – July 14, 2026 - Page 8 of 13

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING
• Public Works
o Permit Parking Fee (update): $30 per permit
If Resolution No. 2026-15 is adopted by the Council, the new and updated fees will go into effect on September 12, 2026.

Staff report by Ms. Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager.

The public hearing was opened.

No one appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed.

Motion/Second: Torres/Taylor
ROLL CALL VOTE: Council Member Barrios ABSENT
Council Member Torres AYE
Council Member Warren AYE
Mayor Pro Tem Taylor AYE
Mayor Shawver AYE
Motion unanimously carried.

1. The City Council conducted a public hearing; and

2. The City Council finds that this item is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15378(b)(5) (Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment); and

3. Adopted Resolution No. 2026-15, entitled:
“A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

STANTON, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE CITY OF STANTON

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR CITY PROGRAMS AND SERVICES

TO ADD NEW FEES RELATING TO ACCESSORY DWELLING

UNIT PERMIT PROCESSING, VACANT PARCEL APPLICATION
AND REGISTRATIONS, AND PERMIT PARKING.”
DRAFT
Special and Joint Regular Meeting – July 14, 2026 - Page 9 of 13

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING
10B. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CHAPTER 20.250 AND AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 20 OF THE STANTON MUNICIPAL

CODE ALLOWING GROUP HOMES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE DISABLED The City Council is asked to hold a public hearing before considering adoption of Ordinance No. 1174 which proposes to establish Chapter 20.250 and amend various sections of the Stanton Municipal Code (“SMC”) allowing group homes for the benefit of the disabled. The Ordinance helps establish new regulations and refine other code sections related to group homes to ensure compliance with State and Federal laws.

Staff report by Mr. Irving Anaya, Planning Manager.

The public hearing was opened.

No one appearing to speak, the public hearing was closed.

Motion/Second: Warren/Shawver
ROLL CALL VOTE: Council Member Barrios ABSENT
Council Member Torres AYE
Council Member Warren AYE
Mayor Pro Tem Taylor AYE
Mayor Shawver AYE
Motion unanimously carried.

1. The City Council conducted a public hearing, waived the full reading, and introduced for first reading by title only, Ordinance 1174, entitled:
“AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
STANTON, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING CHAPTER 20.250 AND
AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 20 OF THE STANTON

MUNICIPAL CODE ALLOWING GROUP HOMES FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE DISABLED”; and

2. Finds that the adoption of the proposed ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061(b)(3) (“common sense exemption”) applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment; and

3. Set said Ordinance No. 1174 for second reading at the regular City Council meeting of August 11, 2026.

DRAFT
Special and Joint Regular Meeting – July 14, 2026 - Page 10 of 13

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING

11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None.

12. NEW BUSINESS
12A. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1171 AMENDING ARTICLE 3, VACANT

PROPERTY AND FORECLOSED PROPERTY REGISTRATION, OF CHAPTER

9.16 OF THE STANTON MUNICIPAL CODE
The City Council will consider adopting Ordinance No. 1171, which, if adopted, would amend Article 3 Chapter 9.16 of Stanton’s Municipal Code, updating the regulation of vacant properties in the City of Stanton. The goals of the amendment are to strengthen the City's vacant property registration program through updated registration requirements, enhanced maintenance and security standards, riskbased property classifications, and improved enforcement tools.

Staff report by Ms. Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager.

Motion/Second: Torres/Warren
ROLL CALL VOTE: Council Member Barrios ABSENT
Council Member Torres AYE
Council Member Warren AYE
Mayor Pro Tem Taylor AYE
Mayor Shawver AYE
Motion unanimously carried.

1. The City Council finds this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and

2. Introduced and waived first reading of Ordinance No. 1171, entitled:
“AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
STANTON, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ARTICLE 3 (VACANT AND
FORECLOSED PROPERTY REGISTRATION) OF CHAPTER 9.16
(PROPERTY MAINTENANCE, GENERAL) OF TITLE 9 (PEACE,

SAFETY AND MORALS) OF THE STANTON MUNICIPAL CODE,

RELATED TO PROVIDING ENFORCEMENT AND MONITORING OF
VACANT AND FORECLOSED PROPERTIES”; and

3. Set said ordinance for adoption at the August 11, 2026, regularly scheduled City Council meeting.

DRAFT
Special and Joint Regular Meeting – July 14, 2026 - Page 11 of 13

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING
12B. AUTHORIZATION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT TO

UTILIZE THE DRONE AS FIRST RESPONDER (DFR) PROGRAM WITHIN THE

CITY OF STANTON
The City Council will consider authorizing the Orange County Sheriff's Department (OCSD) to deploy its Drone as First Responder (DFR) program within the City of Stanton. The DFR program utilizes remotely operated unmanned aerial systems (UAS) to provide deputies with real-time aerial information during emergency incidents, improving situational awareness, officer safety, and emergency response while allowing more efficient deployment of Sheriff's resources.

OCSD recently completed a successful pilot program in the cities of San Juan Capistrano and Dana Point. Based on the positive operational outcomes of the pilot, OCSD is proposing to expand the program to additional contract cities, including Stanton.

Staff report by Ms. Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager.

In-Person Public Comment:
• Mr. Doug Makino, resident, spoke in opposition to the deployment of the Drone as First Responder (DFR) Program within the City of Stanton. • Mr. Marlon-Ray Velasco, resident, spoke in opposition to the deployment of the Drone as First Responder (DFR) Program within the City of Stanton.

Written Public Comment:
• Mai Nguyen Do, Harbor Institute for Immigrant & Economic Justice spoke in opposition to the deployment of the Drone as First Responder (DFR) Program within the City of Stanton.

Motion/Second: Shawver/Taylor
ROLL CALL VOTE: Council Member Barrios ABSENT
Council Member Torres ABSTAIN
Council Member Warren AYE
Mayor Pro Tem Taylor AYE
Mayor Shawver AYE
Motion carried.

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING

2. Authorized the Orange County Sheriff's Department to deploy and operate its Drone as First Responder (DFR) Program within the City of Stanton in accordance with applicable federal regulations, California law, and Orange County Sheriff's Department policies and procedures.

13. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS – PUBLIC
• Mr. Steve Freedman, business owner, spoke regarding parking concerns related to the cannabis businesses operating adjacent to his business, including blocked driveways, streets, and business access areas.
• Mr. Doug Makino, resident, spoke regarding the use of surveillance technology including its differences, impacts, and consequences.

14. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None.

15. MAYOR/CHAIRMAN/COUNCIL/AGENCY/AUTHORITY INITIATED BUSINESS 15A. COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL/AGENCY/AUTHORITY ANNOUNCEMENTS • Council Member Torres reported on his attendance at the Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernadino counties, grand opening of the new WIC (Women, Infants and Children) Center located within the City of Stanton, which was held on July 7, 2026.
• Council Member Warren reported on his attendance, along with Mayor Shawver, Council Member Barrios, and Council Member Taylor at the grand reopening of the City’s tennis courts, which was held on July 8, 2026, at Stanton Central Park. • Mayor Pro Tem Taylor reported that the Orange County Mosquito and Vector Control District (OCMVCD) reported that there have been confirmed mosquito samples testing positive for West Nile virus in several Orange County cities and stated that residents should take precautions.
• Ms. Zenia Bobadilla, Assistant City Manager, reported on the success of the City’s Movies Under the Stars series, which began on July 10, 2026, at Stanton Central Park.
• Council Member Warren expressed his gratitude to City staff on the City’s successful State of the City event, which was held on June 25, 2026, at Stanton Central Park.
• Ms. Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager, reported that the City’s SAFE Skies:

Stanton Aerial Fireworks Enforcement (SAFE) Program has been recognized with the Golden Hub of Innovation Award for its proactive approach to addressing illegal fireworks by the Association of California Cities – Orange County (ACC-OC).

DRAFT
Special and Joint Regular Meeting – July 14, 2026 - Page 13 of 13

THESE MINUTES ARE ISSUED FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO

AMENDMENT AND APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING
15B. COUNCIL/AGENCY/AUTHORITY INITIATED ITEMS FOR A FUTURE COUNCIL

MEETING
Mayor Shawver requested to agendize discussion regarding the purchase of bike racks for Sheriff's vehicles to support bicycle transportation. 15C. COUNCIL/AGENCY/AUTHORITY INITIATED ITEMS FOR A FUTURE STUDY

SESSION
None.

16. ITEMS FROM CITY ATTORNEY/AGENCY COUNSEL/AUTHORITY COUNSEL None.

17. ITEMS FROM CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
• Ms. Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager, reminded the City Council that there would be no second meeting in July as the City Council will go dark for a summer recess and that the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting will be held on August 11, 2026.
• Ms. Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager, reported on the City’s upcoming 2026 National Night Out event, which is scheduled to be held on August 7, 2026, beginning at 6:00 PM at Stanton Central Park.
17A. ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY
At this time the Orange County Fire Authority will provide the City Council with an update on their current operations.

Division Chief Matthew Schuetz provided the City Council with an update on their current operations.

18. ADJOURNMENT Motion/Second: Shawver/
Motion carried at 9:03 p.m.
________________________________

MAYOR/CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
________________________________

CITY CLERK/SECRETARY

CITY OF STANTON

REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
DATE: August 11, 2026
SUBJECT: RECEIVE AND FILE CITY OF STANTON QUALIFIED CONTRACTORS

LIST FOR CALIFORNIA UNIFORM PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION COST

ACCOUNTING ACT
REPORT IN BRIEF:

The City of Stanton’s Qualified Contractors List has been prepared in accordance with the California Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act (CUPCCAA) guidelines and associated Public Contract Codes.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

2. Receive and file the Qualified Contractors List.

BACKGROUND:

The California Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act (CUPCCAA) is legislation that was enacted in 1983 to help promote “uniformity of the cost accounting standards and bidding procedures on construction work performed or contracted by public entities in the state” (Section 22001). The Act is a voluntary program available to all public entities in the State, but it applies only to those public agencies that have “opted in” to the provisions set forth by the Act using the processes outlined in the Act. The entirety of the Act is found at Sections 22000-22045. In 2011, the City adopted Municipal Code Section 2.58.010 to opt in.

The CUPCCAA allows for public works projects in the amount of $75,000 or less to be performed by a public agency’s force account using the public agency’s own resources, or by negotiated contract, or by purchase order. Public Projects in the amount of $220,000 or less may use the informal or formal bidding procedures set forth in the Act. Public Projects at a cost of more than $220,000 must use formal bidding procedures pursuant to Public Contract Codes Section 22032(c).

Item: 9D
Click here to return to the agenda.

On May 21, 2026, a “Notice Inviting Interested Contractors” was released soliciting applications to interested contractors to be placed on the City’s 2026 Contractors List. This list is designed so contractors can receive “Notice Inviting Bids” for informal projects under $200,000 in their work category per California Public Contract Code 22032. Only qualified contractors will be notified and eligible to bid on these Informal Bid Projects per Public Contract Code Section 22034.

Utilizing the City’s Business License report, businesses with active business licenses with the City of Stanton were also notified to participate and be included in the City’s Contractors List.

ANALYSIS/JUSTIFICATION:

Utilizing this program offers several advantages, including increased flexibility in the execution of public works projects under a specified dollar amount; streamlined award process; expedited project delivery; reduced time, effort, and expense associated with bidding projects under $200,000; and simplified project administration.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The recommended actions are categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15378(b)(5) – Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

LEGAL REVIEW:

None.

STRATEGIC GOAL:

Goal 3. Provide quality infrastructure
Goal 5. Maintain and promote a responsive, high-quality and transparent government.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:

Notifications were performed through normal agenda process.

Prepared by: Daniel Herrera, Engineering Assistant
Reviewed by: Cesar Rangel P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer Approved by: Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager
ATTACHMENT:

A. Qualified Contractors List
Qualified Contractors List
Company Name DBA Name CSLB Classification License #
Pro-Craft Construction, Inc C-36,C-34,B,A,C-42,C-2,C-16 467234 RG General Engineering, Inc. A 1086241
A2Z Construct, Inc. A,B 739539
Century Paving, Inc. C12,A,C32 311456
Big Ben, Inc. A,B,C-8,C27,C31 774444
Golden Coast Construction A,B,C-13 1074709
Hanna Construction, Inc. Hanna Construction B,C-8 242846 Integrated Demolition and Remediation, Inc. A,B,C-21,C-22,HAZ,ASB 1003504 Alpha Traffic Services, Inc. C31 936627
Platinum Construction, Inc. A,B,C35,C9,C36 870864
Armstrong Cal Builders Inc A,B,C10 990992
Prestige Prime Engineering A 1126217
Hill's Bros Lock & Safe, Inc. C7,C28,C61/D16 736871
Verne's Plumbing, Inc B,C34, C36 674077
Mel Smith Electric, Inc A,B,C-7,C10,C12,C21,HAZ 394741
Dulux Painting Depot Painting C-33 780020
GK LUX GROUP HVAC, INC. C20 1072851
ALEXSTAR2002 ELECTRIC INC. C10 1130749
As of: July 22, 2026
Attachment: A
Click here to return to the agenda.

CITY OF STANTON

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
DATE: August 11, 2026
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO THE 2025-2026 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT DATED MAY 27, 2026, ENTITLED, “CALIFORNIA HOUSING

MANDATES, THE UNINTENDED RESHAPING OF ORANGE COUNTY
NEIGHBORHOODS”
REPORT IN BRIEF:

On May 27, 2026, the Orange County Grand Jury released a report entitled “California Housing Mandates, The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods” (Attachment A). This report examines how California's Housing Mandates operate in practice within Orange County, evaluating both their intended objectives and their unintended consequences for cities, neighborhoods, and local governance. It assesses the feasibility, effectiveness, and equity of current state housing policies, identifies areas where state requirements intersect with local capacity, infrastructure, funding, and community needs, and analyzes how recent legislative changes have affected the balance between state authority and local decision-making. The report also proposes a strategic framework for strengthening Orange County's influence within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) through a more effective role for the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) as the region enters the next housing planning cycle. California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require any public agency that the Grand Jury reviews respond to the findings and recommendations of the Grand Jury Report. The City’s proposed response letter responds to each of the applicable findings and recommendations (Attachment B).

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Item: 9E
Click here to return to the agenda.

BACKGROUND:

The Grand Jury report states the following under the Reason for Study section:

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.

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.

The Grand Jury’s investigation 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. The scope of the Grand Jury Report includes the thirty-four cities in Orange County.

The Grand Jury’s Method of Study was as follows:
• Conducted extensive background research using publicly available sources • Conducted interviews with representatives from various stakeholder organizations and groups
• Conducted guided site visits and observations of housing and mixed-use developments
• Attended public forums, events, and government meetings • Conducted a document review
• Developed and distributed written survey questions to Orange County cities The Orange County Grand Jury released the “California Housing Mandates, The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods” report on May 27, 2026.

ANALYSIS AND JUSTIFICATION:

California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require any public agency that the Grand Jury reviews respond to the findings and recommendations of the Grand Jury report. The City is required to respond because it is reviewed in the report along with the other 33 Orange County cities, OCCOG, OCTA, SCAG, and the County of Orange. The proposed response letter responds to each of the applicable findings and recommendations listed on pages 34-39 of the report.

The Grand Jury report contained findings for which the City is required to respond. The original Grand Jury findings are repeated below in italics. The City’s responses are in bold, with additional explanation and commentary in regular typeface. References to the “City” refer to the City of Stanton.

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.

The City of Stanton 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.

The City of Stanton agrees with this finding.

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

The City of Stanton agrees partially with this finding.

The City actively participates in both OCCOG and SCAG and believes that these forums provide valuable opportunities to share local perspectives. However, it is difficult to determine the extent to which local perspectives expressed through OCCOG and SCAG are ultimately considered during the development and implementation of housing mandate policies.

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

The City of Stanton 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.

The City of Stanton agrees with this finding.

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

The City of Stanton agrees with this finding.

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

The City of Stanton disagrees with this finding.

While permit processing and development impact fees contribute to the overall cost of housing development, they represent only one component of a project's total costs and are generally small relative to land acquisition, construction, labor, materials, and financing costs. Furthermore, the City's permit processing and development impact fees are established in accordance with State law and are limited to recovering the reasonable cost of providing public services and infrastructure.

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.

The City of Stanton agrees partially with this finding.

The City of Stanton agrees that the development of new low-income housing is generally not financially feasible without public subsidy. However, the City does not have sufficient data to verify the stated range for the typical cost of constructing an affordable housing unit in California and, therefore, cannot affirm that portion of the 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.

The City of Stanton agrees with this finding.

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

The City of Stanton agrees partially with this finding.

The City agrees that limited and highly competitive public subsidy often requires jurisdictions to consider private development incentives to facilitate the production of affordable housing. However, the extent to which private development incentives, increased residential densities, or unit counts exceeding a jurisdiction's RHNA allocation are necessary depends on a variety of local factors, including land availability, market conditions, existing zoning, development economics, and the characteristics of individual projects. Accordingly, while this approach may be appropriate or necessary in some jurisdictions and for some developments, it should not be characterized as a universal requirement for producing meaningful quantities of low-income housing.

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.

The City of Stanton agrees with this finding.

The Grand Jury report contains recommendations for which the City is required to respond. Cities are required to respond based on statutorily identified responses.

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.

The recommendation will not be implemented.

The City of Stanton will not implement this recommendation because it lacks the authority to do so. The recommendation is directed to OCCOG, all Orange County cities, and the County of Orange, and no single jurisdiction has the authority to require the collective reassessment of OCCOG's dues structure. The City is willing to consider any proposal by OCCOG to reevaluate its dues structure along with information demonstrating how additional funding would improve OCCOG's representation of Orange County jurisdictions in SCAG processes, including RHNA methodology development and appeals.

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.

The recommendation will not be implemented.

The City of Stanton will not implement this recommendation because it lacks the authority to do so. The recommendation is directed to the Orange County Board of Supervisors in partnership with Orange County cities, and no individual city has the authority to initiate or require the proposed countywide evaluation or regional planning effort. However, the City supports regional coordination and would consider participating in any county-led effort to evaluate infrastructure capacity and develop a regional plan.

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 developmentfeasibility factors.

The recommendation will not be implemented.

The City of Stanton will not implement this recommendation because it lacks the authority to do so. The recommendation is directed to the Orange County Board of Supervisors.

The recommendation will be implemented.

The City of Stanton consistently participates in SCAG and OCCOG meetings.

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

The recommendation will be implemented.

The City of Stanton has assigned a staff member (the Director of Community & Economic Development or her delegate) to monitor RHNA-related committees.

R14 By April 30, 2027, the County of Orange and each city should publish annual monitoring dashboards showing (a) entitlement pipeline conditions, (b) realistic site yield, (c) assembled funding sources for affordable units, and (d) conversion rates from planned capacity to issued permits and completed units, ensuring that County and city-determined capacity assumptions remain aligned with actual production.

The recommendation will not be implemented.

The City of Stanton will not implement this recommendation because the information it seeks is already substantially reported through existing State requirements. The City annually submits comprehensive housing data to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) as part of its General Plan Annual Progress Report, including information related to housing production and Housing Element implementation. These reports are publicly available through both the City and HCD. Additionally, HCD maintains statewide reporting tools and dashboards that compile and present housing data submitted by jurisdictions.

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.

The recommendation will be implemented.

The City has continuously explained the RHNA process and Housing Element compliance in Planning Commission and City Council meetings and provides information on the City’s website. Each Housing Element Cycle includes a significant effort in public outreach and education to provide residents with a clear understanding of the RHNA and Housing Element Implementation, so the process remains transparent. The City will continue to highlight the impacts of RHNA and encourage public participation throughout the current and upcoming cycle.

However, the City highly encourages regional education from OCCOG as well so that there is a consistent regional effort.

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.

The recommendation will be implemented.

The City has existing relationships with not-for-profit affordable housing developers who have successfully completed projects within the community. The City has maintained regular communication with these groups to discuss potential future projects. The City understands the importance of these relationships and will continue to foster them through continued conversations and meetings.

Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the City’s response to the Grand Jury is due on August 18, 2026.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

This item is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15378(b)(5)(Organizational or administrative activities or governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment).

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:

Public notification provided through the regular agenda process.

LEGAL REVIEW:

None.

STRATEGIC GOAL:

Goal 5: Maintain and promote a responsive, high quality and transparent government.

Prepared by: Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager
Reviewed by: Crystal Landavazo, Community & Economic Development Director Approved by: Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

A. Grand Jury Report “California Housing Mandates, The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods”
B. City Response to Report
California State Housing Mandates

Page 1 of 67 ends

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
Attachment: A
Click here to return to the agenda.

California State Housing Mandates

Page 2 of 67 ends

This page left intentionally blank!
California State Housing Mandates

Page 3 of 67 ends

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026

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

Page 4 of 67 ends

Responsibilities of SCAG .............................................................................................................. 66 Responsibilities of HCD................................................................................................................ 66 California State Housing Mandates

Page 5 of 67 ends

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026

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

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

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

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

Page 6 of 67 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 7 of 67 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 8 of 67 ends

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

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

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

Page 9 of 67 ends

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.

California State Housing Mandates

Page 10 of 67 ends

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

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

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

Page 11 of 67 ends

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

Page 12 of 67 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 13 of 67 ends

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

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

Page 14 of 67 ends

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

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

Page 15 of 67 ends

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

Page 16 of 67 ends

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

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

Page 17 of 67 ends

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

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

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

Page 18 of 67 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Page 19 of 67 ends

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

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

Page 20 of 67 ends

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

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

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

Page 21 of 67 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 22 of 67 ends

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

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

In practice, Housing Mandates alone do not build homes.

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

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

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

Page 23 of 67 ends

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

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

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

Page 24 of 67 ends

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

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

Page 25 of 67 ends

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

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

Page 26 of 67 ends

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

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

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

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

Page 27 of 67 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Page 28 of 67 ends

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

For example:

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

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

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

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

Page 29 of 67 ends

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

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

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

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

Page 30 of 67 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

Page 31 of 67 ends

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

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

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

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

Page 32 of 67 ends

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

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

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

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

Page 33 of 67 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

Page 34 of 67 ends

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.

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

Page 35 of 67 ends

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.

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

Page 36 of 67 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 37 of 67 ends

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

Page 38 of 67 ends

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

Page 39 of 67 ends

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

Page 40 of 67 ends

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

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

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

Page 41 of 67 ends

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

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

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

Page 42 of 67 ends

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

Page 43 of 67 ends

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

Page 44 of 67 ends

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

Page 45 of 67 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 46 of 67 ends

segregation, and balances disproportionate household income distributions across jurisdictions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 47 of 67 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

Page 48 of 67 ends

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

Page 49 of 67 ends

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

Page 50 of 67 ends

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

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

Page 51 of 67 ends

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

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

Page 52 of 67 ends

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

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

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

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

Page 53 of 67 ends

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

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

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

Page 54 of 67 ends

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

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

Page 55 of 67 ends

Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 56 of 67 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

Page 57 of 67 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

Page 58 of 67 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

Page 59 of 67 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

Page 60 of 67 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

Page 61 of 67 ends

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

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

Applies general-plan challenge rules to charter cities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

Page 62 of 67 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

Page 63 of 67 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California State Housing Mandates

Page 64 of 67 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does not authorize projects inconsistent with state housing laws.

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

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

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

Page 65 of 67 ends

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

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

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

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

Applies statewide, including charter cities.

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

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

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

Core Responsibilities:

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

California State Housing Mandates

Page 66 of 67 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 67 of 67 ends

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 City of Stanton
Pride. Purpose. Progress.
7800 Katella Avenue, Stanton, CA | Phone (714) 379-9222 | F ax (714) 890-1443 | StantonCA.gov August 12, 2026
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Dear Honorable Judge Sheila F. Hanson,
The City of Stanton received the 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury report entitled “Wildfires Hit Home”. As required by California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the City of Stanton is responding to the findings and recommendations included in the report.

Note: The original Grand Jury findings are repeated below in italics. The City’s responses are in bold, with additional explanation and commentary in regular typeface.

References to the “City” refer to the City of Stanton, California.

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.

The respondent agrees partially with the finding.

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

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

The respondent agrees with the finding.

Attachment: B
Click here to return to the agenda.

Wildfires Hit Home
City of Stanton Response
July 15, 2026

Page 2 ends

7800 Katella Avenue, Stanton, CA | Phone (714) 379-9222 | F ax (714) 890-1443 | StantonCA.gov F3 Expanded engagement with the community to raise awareness and provide support regarding home hardening and defensible space will increase effectiveness of wildfire risk mitigation and insurance risk reduction efforts.

The respondent agrees with the finding.

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

The respondent agrees partially with the finding.

While the City of Stanton agrees that community-level and property-level wildfire risk mitigation designations lessens wildfire risk, the City of Stanton does not have the data to evaluate the impact of those designations on 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.

The respondent agrees with the finding.

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.

The respondent agrees partially with the finding.

While the City of Stanton agrees that grant funding related to home hardening and defensible space measures activities is an important and valuable resource for homeowners, cities, counties, and special districts, the City of Stanton does not have the data to evaluate the impact of those funds on insurability.

Wildfires Hit Home
City of Stanton Response
July 15, 2026

Page 3 ends

7800 Katella Avenue, Stanton, CA | Phone (714) 379-9222 | F ax (714) 890-1443 | StantonCA.gov Recommendations
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.

The recommendation will be implemented.

Upon notification of a county-wide annual wildfire prevention fair hosted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors, City of Stanton staff will attend and participate to support applicable wildfire prevention outreach programs for the Stanton community.

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.

The recommendation will be implemented.

City of Stanton staff will coordinate with the OCFA to provide information and other wildfire risk reduction resources through the City’s various communication channels and will establish a direct contact person for City of Stanton residents.

Should you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager, at (714) 890-4277 or via email at [email protected].

Respectfully,
David J. Shawver
Mayor
City of Stanton
Cc: Orange County Grand Jury
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
1 CITY OF STANTON

REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
DATE: August 11, 2026
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF THE STANTON CENTRAL PARK TENNIS COURT

RENOVATION PROJECT BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

STANTON, CALIFORNIA
REPORT IN BRIEF:

The Stanton Central Park Tennis Court Renovation Project consisting of resurfacing, restriping, lighting improvements, and installation of site furnishings at the tennis courts and installation of additional lights around the playground area at Stanton Central Park has been completed. The final construction cost for the project was $389,165.00, above the contract award amount. The City Engineer, in his judgment, certifies that the work was satisfactorily completed as of July 14, 2026, and recommends that the City Council accept the completed work performed on this project.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

3. Approve the final construction contract amount of $389,165.00 with A2Z Construct, Inc.; and

4. Direct the City Clerk within ten (10) days from the date of acceptance to file the Notice of Completion (Attachment) with the County Clerk-Recorder of the County of Orange; and

5. Direct City staff, after thirty-five (35) days has elapsed from the filing of the “Notice of Completion” with the County Clerk-Recorder, to make the retention payment to A2Z Construct, Inc. in the amount of $19,458.25; and
Item: 9F
Click here to return to the agenda.
2 6. Direct the City Manager to submit the 2026 Grant Accountability Form to the United States Tennis Association (USTA) for reimbursement of the Grant 25CA32148 in the amount of $20,000.

BACKGROUND:

The City undertook efforts to revamp the tennis courts and add lighting around the playground at Stanton Central Park.

The renovation efforts included the installation of new partition fencing, perimeter fencing improvements, increased lighting (new light fixtures), transforming one (1) existing tennis court into two new pickleball courts with removable netting, crack sealing courts, resurfacing, striping, signage, site furnishings, and adding lighting to the existing playground area.

On December 10, 2024, RHA Landscape Architects-Planners, Inc. (RHA) was awarded the Professional Services Agreement for the design of the Stanton Central Park Renovation Project.

To ensure the design reflects community priorities, the Community Services Department launched a public engagement process that included a Tennis Court Renovation Survey, and a community meeting held on Wednesday, March 19, 2025. Residents had the opportunity to review two conceptual designs and provide input directly to City staff and project designers, RHA.

On May 16, 2025, the Community Services Director provided an update on this project and presented the conceptual design plan to the Community Services Commission.

On August 26, 2025, the City Council authorized staff to advertise this project for construction and approved the plans and specifications.

On November 25, 2025, A2Z Construct, Inc. was awarded the construction contract for this project as the lowest, responsive bidder in the amount of $380,100.00 and the City Council authorized the City Manager to approve contract change orders up to $38,010.00.

As of February 2026, construction was underway.

On March 24, 2026, the City Council accepted the United States Tennis Association (USTA) Grant 25CA32148 for the Stanton Central Park Tennis Court Renovation Project in the amount of $20,000.00.

ANALYSIS/JUSTIFICATION:

One change order was issued during construction, in the amount of $9,065.00, approximately 24% of the contingency amount, for the installation of cross bars/pipes along the bottom of the tennis court and pickleball fence perimeter instead of the proposed tension rod specified on plans. The total construction cost for this project was $389,165.00.
3 The Stanton Central Park Tennis Court Renovation Project has been completed in conformance with the project plans and specifications and has been accepted by the City Engineer.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Capital Improvement Budget included $565,000.00 for the Stanton Central Park Tennis Court Renovation Project (Task Code No. 2025-202), with the primary source of funding coming from the Public Benefit Fees Fund (104). The total amount paid to A2Z Construct, Inc. for construction is $389,165.00. This Project is partially grant funded by the United States Tennis Association (USTA) Grant in the amount of $20,000.00. The City will be reimbursed the grant funds after acceptance of the 2026 Grant Accountability Form.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, Class 1, Section 15301(a) as operation, repair, and minor interior or exterior alterations of existing public facilities.

LEGAL REVIEW:

None.

STRATEGIC GOAL:

Goal 3. Provide quality infrastructure.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:

Notifications were performed through the normal agenda process.

Prepared by: Daniel Herrera, Engineering Assistant
Reviewed by: Cesar Rangel, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer Fiscal Impact Reviewed by: Sharon del Rosario, Finance Director Approved by: Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

A. Notice of Completion
B. 2026 Accountability Form
Recording requested by and
when recorded mail to:

CITY OF STANTON
ATTN: CITY CLERK
7800 KATELLA AVE.

STANTON, CA 90680

EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEES PER
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 27383

NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Notice pursuant to Civil Code Section 3093, must be filed within 10 days after completion.

Notice is hereby given that:

1. The undersigned is owner or corporate officer of the owner of the interest or estate stated below in the property hereinafter described:

2. The full name of the owner is the City of Stanton.

3. The full address of owner is 7800 Katella Avenue, Stanton, CA 90680.

4. The nature of the interest or estate of the owner is: Public Facility.

5. A work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was completed on July 14, 2026. The work was the Stanton Central Park Tennis Court Renovation Project.

6. The name of the contractor for such work of improvement was: A2Z Construct, Inc.

7. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of: Stanton, County of Orange, and State of California.

Dated:______________________ ___________________________________, City of Stanton Verification for Individual Owner Cesar Rangel, City Engineer

VERIFICATION
I, the undersigned, say: I am the City Engineer of the City of Stanton, the declarant of the foregoing Notice of Completion; I have read said Notice of Completion and know the contents thereof; the same is true of my own knowledge. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on _______________________________, 2026, at Stanton, California. _________________________________________, City of Stanton Cesar Rangel, City Engineer
(Space above this line for Recorder’s use)
Attachment: A
Click here to return to the agenda.
2026 GRANT ACCOUNTABILITY FORM
CATEGORY 2 FUNDING
With the acceptance of funding through USTA Tennis Venue Services, the grant recipient is responsible for providing the necessary documentation to demonstrate the improvements proposed by the applicant and accepted by the USTA. Funding disbursements shall be contingent on the applicant providing this information to the USTA in a timely manner and the USTA’s approval of work completion.

Name of Facility: Stanton Central Park
USTA TPA Number: 25CA32148
Facility Director: Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager
Address: 10660 Western Avenue Stanton CA 90680
street city state zip
Phone: (714) 379-9222 e-mail address: [email protected] Description of Improvements: The project comprises of court resurfacing, restriping, windscreen replacement, fencing, and lighting improvements.

Total Renovation Costs: $389,165.00 Project Completion Date: 7/14/2026 Construction Completion Level to Date (percentage): 100% Please detail the grant expenditures with dollar figures below.

Sponsorship Funds Amount Fund Allocation Amount
USTA National: 25CA32148 $20,000 A2Z Construct, Inc. $389,165.00 City of Stanton: $369,165.00 Total: $389,165.00 Total: $389,165.00
Attachment: B
Click here to return to the agenda.

Final Court Counts
Total Lined 36 Foot Courts 0
Total Permanent 36 Foot Courts 0
Total Lined 60 Foot Courts 3
Total Permanent 60 Foot Courts 0
Total Number of 78 Foot Courts 3
Note: Lined courts are courts that have been created by painting blended lines on a 78’ court (full size court) and permanent courts are stand-alone 36’ and 60’ courts with dedicated net post and nets.

Any questions? Call or email your Facility Consultant
Funding Disbursement Requirements:

1. Executed Contractor Requisition (invoice) with Proof of Payment showing the work was completed and the contractor was paid.

2. Photographs of the work completed.

3. W9. Please verify all information before submitting. Be sure the name and address accurately reflect where the funds should be sent. We cannot resubmit payment.

Certification:

The undersigned certifies to the best of the applicant’s knowledge, information and belief, the work covered by this funding disbursement request has been completed in accordance with the approved funding application and generally accepted industry standards for applicable tennis court construction, and that the information submitted is true and correct.

Applicant Name: __________________________________ Date: ________________ Signature: ____________________________________
Please e-mail these documents to your facility consultant. 1 CITY OF STANTON

REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
DATE: August 11, 2026
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF THE LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF

STANTON AND THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY (OCTA) FOR OCTA RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY
REPORT IN BRIEF:

The City Engineer recommends that the City Council approve the License Agreement with the Orange County Transportation Authority in order to improve Monroe Avenue (approximately 150’ east of the centerline of Rose Street to Flower Avenue). Executing the License Agreement would allow the City to install concrete infrastructure (curb & gutters, sidewalks, and drive approach) and restore the asphalt pavement for a comprehensive rehabilitation / restoration of this section of Monroe Avenue. Additionally, the operator of the “ShareMyCoach” facility north of the project location, has agreed to donate $10,000 to the City to help fund the improvements on Monroe Avenue.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

2. Approve the License Agreement with the Orange County Transportation Authority and allow the City Attorney to make minor edits as necessary prior to the execution of the Amendment; and

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute the License Agreement with the Orange County Transportation Authority; and

Item: 9G
Click here to return to the agenda.
2 BACKGROUND:

During construction of the FY 23/24 Citywide Street Resurfacing Project, staff removed a portion of Monroe / Flower Avenue (approximately 150’ east of the centerline of Rose Street to Flower Avenue) from the scope of work for this project. The decision to remove this portion of work from the Project was made due to the existing drainage concerns in this area. To provide comprehensive rehabilitation / restoration of this section, resurfacing of Monroe Avenue was to be included in a future project that will incorporate appropriate drainage solutions and necessary concrete improvements.

Approximately 849 square feet of the area (the “Licensed Property”) is owned by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), and no improvements or work can be carried out without their approval. Staff worked collaboratively with OCTA to develop a License Agreement that would grant the City a non-exclusive license to use the property.

ANALYSIS/JUSTIFICATION:

The License Agreement between the City of Stanton and OCTA will allow the Licensed Property to be solely used for the limited purpose of construction, installation, operation, alteration, maintenance, reconstruction and/or removal of the Licensed Property. The improvements on Monroe Avenue are part of the FY 25/26 Citywide Street Resurfacing Project and will include installation of curb & gutter to address drainage concerns, sidewalk to connect path-of-travel, driveway approach for emergency access, and restoration of the asphalt pavement.

On July 22, 2026, City staff met with some of the residents in the area and presented the proposed improvements.

Joe Hill, who operates the “ShareMyCoach” facility north of the project location, has agreed to donate $10,000 to the City to help fund the improvements on Monroe Avenue.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The total cost for the License Agreement is a one-time fee of $500. The Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Operating Budget includes sufficient funds in Account No. 101-3100-606110.

The current Capital Improvement Budget includes a budget of $2,050,000 for this project (Task Code No. 2026-101), sources of funding for this Project being the Gas Tax (#211), RMRA (#215) and Measure M (#220) Funds. Staff is requesting approval for a budget adjustment to increase the project budget by $10,000 for a total of $2,060,000 offset by a donation in the same amount of $10,000 accounted for in the donation account within the General Fund (Account No. 101-0000-437125) as additional funding for the FY 25/26 Citywide Street Resurfacing Project (Task Code No. 2026-101). The additional funding will be transferred to the CIP fund (305) upon receipt. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The recommended actions are exempt from CEQA as it is not considered a project per Section15378(b)(5), as the [Project does not include]: organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney has reviewed the Agreement.

STRATEGIC GOAL:

Goal 3. Provide quality infrastructure
Goal 5. Maintain and promote a responsive, high-quality and transparent government.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:

Notifications were performed through the normal agenda process.

Prepared by: Han Sol Yoo, P.E., Principal Civil Engineer Reviewed by: Cesar Rangel, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer Fiscal Impact Reviewed by: Sharon del Rosario, Finance Director Approved by: Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager
ATTACHMENT:

A. License Agreement PE02-217
FILE: PE02-217

Page 1 of 14 ends

ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

LICENSE AGREEMENT
This LICENSE AGREEMENT ("Agreement") dated June 15, 2026, for reference purposes only, is made and entered into by and between the ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, a public entity ("OCTA"), and CITY OF STANTON ("Licensee"), upon and in consideration of the agreements, covenants, terms and conditions below:

PART I - BASIC LICENSE PROVISIONS

1. Description of License Property: The “License Property” shall be defined as that portion of the OCTA railroad right of way located West of Beach Blvd. and North of Central Avenue, more particularly centered upon both Monroe and Flower Avenues in the City of Stanton as shown on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein and as otherwise may further be defined and limited in Part II, Section 1.1 of this Agreement.

Approximate area: 849 ± square feet

2. Use of License Property: Soley for the installation, repair and maintenance of both Monroe and Flower Avenues and subject to all the terms, conditions and limitations as set forth in Part II of this Agreement.

3. Commencement Date: Notwithstanding the Effective Date set forth above, the Term of the license provided by this Agreement shall commence only upon the date all parties have signed this Agreement.

4. Term: Perpetual, subject to termination as provided herein.

5. License Fees:

A. Base License Fee: Waived
B One-Time Fee: $500.00

6. Insurance Requirements: Insurance requirements are detailed in Section 16, Insurance.

7. OCTA's Address:

ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
550 S. Main Street
P. O. Box 14184
Orange, CA 92863-1584
Attn: Real Property Department

8. Licensee's Address:

CITY OF STANTON
7800 Katella Avenue
Stanton, CA 90680-3162
Attachment: A
Click here to return to the agenda.

FILE: PE02-217

Page 2 of 14 ends

9. Facility: The “Facility” shall be defined as any improvements made to the License Property by a Licensee, which should be limited to the improvement of both Monroe and Flower Avenues including pavement, curb and gutters of both avenues. The “Facility” shall not include any existing improvements on the License Property prior to the Commencement Date.

10. Right to Possession. Licensee’s right to possession and use of the License Property shall be effective and take place upon the Commencement Date.

11. The License Agreement. The BASIC LICENSE PROVISIONS (Part I) above and the GENERAL LICENSE PROVISIONS (Part II) set forth below are incorporated into the other and taken as a whole constitute this Agreement. If any conflict exists between Part I and Part II of this Agreement then Part I shall control.

PART II - GENERAL LICENSE PROVISIONS

1. LICENSE/TERM.

1.1 License. OCTA hereby grants to Licensee a non-exclusive license to use the real property owned by OCTA described on the attached Exhibit “A”, which is incorporated herein by reference, and described in Item 1 of the Basic License Provisions (the "License Property"). The License Property shall be used solely for the limited purpose of construction, installation, operation, alteration, maintenance, reconstruction and/or removal of the Facility described in Item 9 of the Basic License Provisions, and any usual, necessary and related appurtenances thereto, for the purposes described in Item 2 of the Basic License Provisions, together with rights for access and entry onto the License Property as necessary or convenient for the use of the Facility.

1.2 Licensee Party. In connection with this Agreement, Licensee, its officers, directors, employees, agents, customers, visitors, invitees, licensees and contractors (collectively, "Licensee Party"), subject to the provisions of this Agreement, may have reasonable rights of entry and access onto the License Property and use thereof. The License Property together with any adjoining real property (or any interest therein) of OCTA or personal property of OCTA located thereon, shall hereinafter collectively be defined and referred to as “OCTA Property.”

1.3 Term of Agreement. The term (“Term”) of this Agreement shall commence on the "Commencement Date" specified in Item 3 of the Basic License Provisions. This Agreement shall continue in full force and effect as provided in item 4 of the Basic License Provisions until terminated by either party as more particularly set forth herein..

2. PAYMENTS – Intentionally Omitted

3. TAXES. Licensee shall be liable for and agrees to pay promptly and prior to delinquency, any tax or assessment, including but not limited to any possessory interest tax, levied by any governmental authority: (a) against the Facility and its operations, the License Property, and/or any personal property, fixtures or equipment of Licensee used in connection therewith, or (b) as a result of any Licensee Party’s’ use of the License Property, or the Facility.

4. CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITY AND RESTORATION.

4.1 Work on License Property. All construction work performed or caused to be performed by Licensee on the Facility or the License Property shall be performed in accordance with and any and all applicable laws, rules and regulations (including the OCTA's rules and regulations), and in a manner which FILE: PE02-217

Page 3 of 14 ends

Stanton City CouncilAugust 11, 2026

Stanton City Council
August 11, 2026