California State Housing Mandates
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
SB 786 (2025): Clarifies Housing Element Law and Strengthens Court Remedies Against Noncompliant Cities
Problem addressed: Conflicts between General Plan elements, vague housing-element rules, and slow litigation processes create uncertainty for cities, courts, and developers—leading to delays, stalled rezoning, and litigation bottlenecks that block housing production.
Solution: Establishes clear hierarchy rules: when General Plan elements conflict—including quantified development standards—the most recently adopted, HCD-certified Housing Element controls. Tightens judicial timelines in Housing-Element challenges:
• Limits continuances to 60 days,
• Requires temporary relief whenever continuances occur, • Requires HCD to conduct substantial-compliance reviews when local jurisdictions miss required Housing-Element deadlines,
• Extends rezoning compliance timelines to 120 days and mandates sanctions if jurisdictions fail to comply.
Applies general-plan challenge rules to charter cities.
Role: A statewide governance-and-compliance tool ensuring that Housing Elements actually function as the controlling document, reducing litigation gamesmanship, and compelling jurisdictions to implement rezoning and Housing-Element obligations on enforceable timelines. Complements AB 712 and SB 808 as part of the Attorney General’s statewide enforcement strategy.
SB 340 (2025): Expands Emergency Shelter Requirements in Housing Elements Problem addressed: Emergency shelter planning requirements were outdated and limited, failing to reflect modern shelter models (e.g., navigation centers, recuperative care) and the full range of onsite supportive services needed for effective homelessness response.
Solution: Updates the definition of “emergency shelter” to require housing with supportive services (not minimal services) and requires Housing Elements to account for all onsite services consistent with written, objective standards. Imposes new obligations on cities/counties in shelter planning and broadens the Emergency Housing and Assistance Program definition.
Role: A homelessness-response modernization tool ensuring jurisdictions plan realistically for service-rich shelter models within their Housing Elements and zoning designations.
AB 610 (2025): Requires Disclosure of New Local Governmental Constraints in Housing Elements Problem addressed: Cities and counties were adopting new land-use constraints (fees, ordinances, zoning rules) during Housing-Element cycles without disclosure, undermining RHNA compliance and increasing barriers to housing production.
Solution: Requires a governmental constraints disclosure statement in each Housing Element (7th Cycle onward), identifying all new or amended constraints adopted since the last Housing Element. Prohibits adoption of new constraints unless they were disclosed and the jurisdiction has completed all required programs to remove past constraints (except when mandated by state/federal law). Applies to charter cities.
Role: A transparency and anti-backsliding tool ensuring local governments cannot quietly increase barriers to housing once RHNA obligations are set.
AB 670 (2025): Allows Converted Affordable Units to Count Toward RHNA Reporting Problem addressed: Cities lacked credit in their Annual Progress Reports (APRs) for preserving or converting multifamily buildings into long-term deed-restricted affordable housing, despite this being a major preservation strategy.
California State Housing Mandates
Solution: Expands APR reporting starting in 2027 to allow units converted to affordable housing—with 55-year covenants for low, very low, extremely low, or acutely low income households—to count toward a jurisdiction’s RHNA-creditable progress, if they meet specified criteria. Includes detailed new reporting requirements for demolitions, replacement units, and affordable conversions.
Role: A preservation-credit tool aligning RHNA reporting with long-term affordable housing conversion strategies, encouraging cities to preserve expiring-affordability stock.
AB 726 (2025): Allows Cities to Count Substantial Rehabilitation of Affordable Units in APRs Problem addressed: Deeply affordable older units (often 15+ years old) need major rehabilitation but cities receive zero RHNA/APR credit for investing in repairs—causing cities to prioritize new construction instead of preserving aging stock.
Solution: Allows jurisdictions to include substantially rehabilitated deed-restricted affordable units (≥15 years old, ≤45% AMI average affordability, ≥$60k local investment per unit) in APRs. These units cannot be counted toward eligibility for streamlining under SB 35. Updates references to the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation.
Role: A preservation-incentive tool enabling cities to earn APR credit for rehabilitating deeply affordable units, helping maintain long-term housing quality and prevent affordable-stock losses.
AB 1275 (2025): Extends RHNA Timelines and Aligns Housing Needs with Transportation Plans Problem addressed: Regional Housing Needs Determinations (RHND) were rushed due to tight timelines (2-year lead time), leading to disputes, insufficient data review, and disconnects between transportation planning and housing allocations.
Solution: Extends RHND timeline from 2 to 3 years before a Housing-Element update (with special rules for 2027–2029 cycles), requires earlier consultation between HCD and councils of governments (COGs), and mandates that RHNA methodology be informed by Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) patterns in regional transportation plans. Strengthens integration of job-housing balance, mobility patterns, and fair housing objectives.
Role: A regional-planning alignment tool ensuring RHNA allocations better reflect transportation, climate, and job-housing realities, improving the planning accuracy of future housing cycles.
SB 233 (2025): Requires Earlier State–Regional Consultation for RHNA Determinations Problem addressed: During prior RHNA cycles, HCD provided regional housing need numbers too late (26-month timeline), leaving councils of governments (COGs) and cities with insufficient time to plan, contributing to widespread late Housing-Element adoption.
Solution: Requires HCD to meet and consult with each COG at least 38 months before a Housing-Element revision (one year earlier than prior law), with special rules for the 7th Cycle. Ensures earlier agreement on RHNA assumptions, methodologies, and data inputs.
Role: A regional-planning coordination tool that expands the planning window for local governments, reducing delays, improving RHNA accuracy, and increasing likelihood of timely Housing-Element compliance.
AB 920 (2025): Requires Centralized Online Portals for Housing Permit Applications Problem addressed: Local permitting processes were opaque, slow, and inconsistent across cities; applicants could not easily track housing development permits, resulting in delays, confusion, and high administrative burdens.
Solution: Requires cities/counties with populations ≥150,000 to create a centralized online application portal for housing development projects, allowing electronic submissions and real-time status tracking.
California State Housing Mandates
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
Jurisdictions may delay implementation until 2030 only if they begin procurement by 2028. Applies to charter cities.
Role: A statewide digital-permit modernization tool that increases transparency, reduces processing delays, and standardizes how applicants navigate housing approvals.
SB 358 (2025): Reduces Traffic Impact Fees for Transit-Oriented Housing Problem addressed: Traffic impact fees—often 20% of project cost—were applied using outdated auto-trip assumptions, inflating costs for infill and transit-oriented housing that generates fewer vehicle trips.
Solution: Reforms the Mitigation Fee Act to:
• Require at least 50% fee reductions for qualifying transit-oriented housing, • Update eligibility criteria (parking maximums, proximity to ≥3 amenities, transit-priority locations), • Require fee-denial findings to be supported by substantial evidence, • Remove outdated convenience-retail requirements and proportional-fee provisions.
Role: A cost-reduction and TOD-incentive tool that aligns traffic fees with actual impacts, supporting infill and climate-oriented housing production.
AB 752 (2025): Makes Child Daycare Centers in Multifamily Housing a Use-by-Right Problem addressed: Cities treated daycare centers co-located with multifamily housing as commercial uses—triggering zoning barriers, business license fees, CEQA review, and inconsistent local requirements, reducing childcare capacity near where families live.
Solution: Makes daycare centers co-located with multifamily housing or community amenities a residential use by right; prohibits business license fees; exempts such centers from CEQA; bars stricter standards on them than those applied to the co-located housing or amenity. Maintains all California licensing and safety requirements.
Role: A childcare-access and land-use integration tool that reduces barriers to collocated daycare centers, supporting housing-adjacent amenities and family-serving communities.
SB 415 (2025): Refines Statewide Warehouse & Logistics Development Standards (Not a housing production bill but affects land-use and zoning environments related to freight-adjacent communities.)
Problem addressed: AB 98 (2024) established statewide warehouse standards but included ambiguous definitions and inconsistent requirements, creating confusion for local governments, developers, and environmental-justice communities in logistics-heavy regions.
Solution: SB 415 clarifies key definitions (“logistics use development,” “sensitive receptor”), narrows exemptions, updates siting and truck-route standards, refines buffer requirements, and ensures 21st-century warehouses meet applicable sustainable-design standards at permit issuance. Also clarifies where warehouse concentration regions apply.
Role: A land-use-governance and environmental-mitigation tool improving clarity and enforceability of statewide logistics-facility regulations—reducing conflicts between freight operations, housing, and community health.
AB 98 (2024–2025): Establishes Statewide Design, Siting & Environmental Standards for Logistics Facilities
Problem addressed: Warehouse and logistics developments—especially in the Inland Empire—were producing severe air-quality, noise, traffic, and public-health impacts on nearby residential areas, schools, and other sensitive receptors, while local regulations were inconsistent or ineffective.
California State Housing Mandates
Solution: Creates California’s first statewide design, siting, and operational standards for logistics facilities, including:
• Mandatory buffers (500–900 feet) from sensitive receptors, • Truck-route and loading-bay orientation requirements, • Anti-idling measures and cold-storage plug-ins,
• Title 24–level building efficiency standards (solar, EV-readiness), • 2:1 replacement requirement for recently occupied affordable units demolished, • Applicability to large new facilities and expansions ≥20% of floor area.
Compliance required for applications submitted after Sept. 30, 2024, with most standards fully effective Jan. 1, 2026.
Role: A statewide environmental-mitigation and freight-land-use tool aimed at protecting communities while aligning logistics growth with sustainability and public-health goals. AB 98 is foundational to later cleanup legislation (SB 415).
AB 1007 (2025): Cuts Responsible-Agency Permit Deadlines in Half Problem addressed: Even after cities approved housing projects, state and regional “responsible agencies” (e.g., air districts, water boards) could take months to issue secondary permits, causing ballooning timelines and costs. Shot-clocks for these agencies (90 days) were much longer than those for lead agencies.
Solution: Amends the Permit Streamlining Act to require responsible agencies to approve/disapprove residential, mixed-use, supportive, or farmworker housing permits within 45 days of project approval or application completeness—cutting the prior 90-day deadline in half. Applies statewide, including charter cities.
Role: A permitting-acceleration tool ensuring faster post-entitlement approvals and reducing interagency delays that frequently stall housing construction.
AB 1050 (2025): Allows Removal of Private Covenants Blocking Housing on Commercial Properties
Problem addressed: Commercial parcels often have old CC&Rs and reciprocal easement agreements (REAs) that prohibit residential uses or limit density, preventing commercial-to-housing adaptive-reuse projects—even when allowed under State housing laws like AB 2011.
Solution: Expands existing restrictive-covenant-modification law (previously limited to affordable housing) to all qualifying housing developments located on commercial sites, allowing developers to:
• Invalidate covenants that restrict residential use, density, unit count, or occupancy, • Apply the process to REAs as well as CC&Rs,
• Record a Restrictive Covenant Modification Document after county counsel review.
Does not authorize projects inconsistent with state housing laws.
Role: A statewide barrier-removal tool enabling adaptive reuse of commercial corridors and shopping centers into housing by preempting private land-use restrictions.
SB 92 (2025): Closes Loopholes in the Density Bonus Law for Mixed-Use Projects Problem addressed: Developers exploited the Density Bonus Law to exceed commercial FAR and build oversized hotel-heavy or visitor-serving mixed-use projects with minimal housing (e.g., San Diego “Project Vela”).
Solution: Reforms Density Bonus Law by:
• Limiting commercial FAR increases under DBL to ≤2.5× base zoning, • Prohibiting incentives/waivers for transient lodging (hotels, motels, B&Bs) except residential hotels,
California State Housing Mandates
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
• Requiring ≥2/3 of mixed-use square footage to be residential to qualify, • Maintaining full affordability thresholds for bonus eligibility.
Effective Jan. 1, 2026 (with grandfathering for pre-application projects).
Role: A guardrail tool ensuring Density Bonus Law is used to build actual housing—not oversized hotel or commercial space leveraged through affordable-unit “tokenism.” AB 87 (2025): Prevents Density Bonus Incentives for Hotel Components of Mixed-Use Projects Problem addressed: Developers were using DBL concessions (height, FAR, parking waivers) to benefit hotel components of mixed-use projects, diluting the State’s housing incentives and enabling visitor-serving developments that undermined local zoning.
Solution: Clarifies that DBL incentives may not be applied to hotel/motel/visitor-serving portions of a mixed-use project. Makes parallel conforming amendments to align with SB 92 if both bills are enacted.
Applies statewide, including charter cities.
Role: A housing-priority tool reinforcing that density bonuses are for residential production—not for hospitality or tourism development.
APPENDIX B: Orange County Housing Mandate Survey Questions Q1 What is your city’s 6th-cycle RHNA allocation, and does your Housing Element plan exceed that number? If so, by how much, and what factors influenced the decision to exceed the allocation? Q2 If the RHNA mandate were not in place, how would your housing plan differ? Would it still meet the demand for low-income housing?
Q3 What strategies has your city used to inform and engage residents about the state housing mandate? How do you measure the effectiveness of these outreach efforts? Q4 What are the implications of recent state legislation on R-1 single-family zoning for your city’s land-use policies and community character?
Q5 What are the most significant challenges your city faces in meeting RHNA requirements? In what ways has OCCOG supported your efforts to overcome these challenges? Q6 Do you anticipate achieving your approved Housing Element goals by the end of the 6th cycle in 2030? What factors will most influence your success or shortfall? Q7 What additional information would you like to provide us regarding this topic? APPENDIX C: Responsibilities
Responsibilities of OCCOG
Mission Statement:
The Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG) convenes jurisdictions throughout Orange County to collaboratively address land use, housing, mobility, energy, air quality, and water issues, and to ensure that Orange County is effectively represented in regional and state decision-making. Through sound governance, impartial analysis, and regional coordination, OCCOG delivers value to its member agencies and the residents of Orange County.
Core Responsibilities:
1. Sub-Regional Planning and Coordination
a. Serves as Orange County’s official sub-regional planning organization within the six-county SCAG region.
California State Housing Mandates
b. Leads the preparation of required regional and sub-regional planning documents that allow Orange County jurisdictions to compete for state and federal funding. [occog.com], [occog.com]
2. Regional Representation and Advocacy
a. Ensures Orange County’s interests are represented in regional policy development by coordinating the county’s representation on the SCAG Regional Council and committees. b. Works to align countywide perspectives on policy issues affecting transportation, housing, sustainability, and infrastructure.
3. Housing, Transportation, and Sustainable Communities Planning a. Supports housing and transportation planning coordination, including RHNA-related activities and implementation discussions.
b. May serve as the lead agency for a sub-regional Sustainable Communities Strategy if Orange County elects to pursue one under SB 375, consistent with SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan.
4. Technical Analysis, Studies, and Data Support
a. Conducts countywide and sub-regional studies, prepares technical reports, and provides data-driven analysis to support policymaking by member agencies. b. Develops best-practice guidance (e.g., Complete Streets, mobility and infrastructure tools) for voluntary adoption by cities and the County.
5. Intergovernmental Collaboration and Consensus-Building a. Functions as a forum for cooperation among cities, the County, and special districts on issues of shared concern.
b. Facilitates coordination on funding strategies, infrastructure planning, and policy alignment without supplanting local land-use authority.82
Responsibilities of SCAG
Mission Statement
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) serves as the regional planning agency for Southern California, coordinating among local, regional, state, and federal partners to advance transportation, housing, land-use, and environmental planning that supports sustainable growth, economic vitality, social equity, and improved quality of life for the region’s diverse communities.
SCAG’s mission is to lead collaborative regional planning by developing and implementing integrated transportation, housing, and sustainability strategies; allocating regional housing needs; ensuring compliance with state and federal planning requirements; and providing data, technical assistance, and policy guidance to its member jurisdictions to address Southern California’s long-term growth challenges.83
Responsibilities of HCD
Mission Statement (Primary)
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) works to ensure safe, affordable, and sustainable housing opportunities for Californians by administering housing programs, 82 Orange County Council of Governments
83 Home | Southern California Association of Governments
California State Housing Mandates
Orange County Grand Jury 2025-2026
shaping statewide housing policy, and enforcing housing laws to promote equity, environmental quality, and community stability across the state.
HCD’s mission is to lead and implement California’s housing policy by determining regional housing needs, reviewing and enforcing Housing Element compliance, administering state and federal housing funds, and holding local jurisdictions accountable for fulfilling their obligations under state housing law.84 84 California Department of Housing and Community Development
August 18, 2026
The Honorable Sheila F. Hanson
Presiding Judge
Orange County Superior Court
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
RE: Response to the 2025–26 Orange County Grand Jury Report, "California Housing Mandates: The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods" Dear Honorable Judge Sheila F. Hanson:
As required by California Penal Code §933 and 933.05, the City of Yorba Linda is responding to the findings and recommendations included in the report. Should you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Peter Grant, City Manager, at (714) 961-7110, or via email at [email protected].
Respectfully,
Carlos Rodriguez
Mayor
City of Yorba Linda
Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report, “California Housing Mandates: The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods”
August 19, 2026
Findings
F1: In recent years, the California Legislature has enacted an unusually large and burdensome volume of housing-related laws intended to strengthen compliance with State Housing Mandates.
The City agrees with the finding. The volume and complexity of recent housing legislation have increased City staff workloads, legal review, consultant costs, reporting requirements, and administrative burdens. Furthermore, many of these laws have eroded local control, removed local input on planning and zoning, and have significantly impacted the character of local neighborhoods. The Legislature has taken a one-size-fits-all approach that does not account for the unique character of individual communities.
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 agrees with the finding. The RHNA process is developed through consultation among HCD, SCAG, and local jurisdictions. However, that consultation occurs within a compressed Housing Element cycle, often without sufficient time or opportunity for cities to review and independently evaluate the data, assumptions, formulas, and methodology before decisions become final.
During the 6th Cycle, SCAG considered multiple methodologies and made significant changes during the development process. Those changes substantially affected individual city allocations, including Yorba Linda’s. The complexity of the methodology, the number of technical inputs, and the timing of revisions made it difficult for cities and the public to understand how the final allocations were calculated or to meaningfully evaluate their impacts.
Although SCAG provided opportunities for public participation and appeal, the methodology remained difficult to independently verify, and cities had limited ability to challenge the assumptions underlying their allocations. The City supports a more transparent 7th Cycle process that provides jurisdictions with timely access to the underlying data, formulas, assumptions, methodology alternatives, and projected jurisdiction-level impacts before final decisions are made.
F4: Meaningful participation by Orange County cities in both OCCOG and SCAG meetings is critical to ensuring that local perspectives are represented during the development and implementation of Housing Mandates policies.
Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report, “California Housing Mandates: The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods”
August 19, 2026
The City agrees with the finding. Participation in OCCOG and SCAG is important for communicating local conditions and providing regional input. However, individual cities do not control state legislation, HCD determinations, or final regional decisions.
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 partially agrees with the finding. Yorba Linda actively participated in the 6th Cycle RHNA process and formally appealed its allocation. The methodology initially recommended by SCAG’s RHNA Subcommittee and supported by the Community, Economic and Human Development Committee would have resulted in an allocation of approximately 200 units for Yorba Linda. A different methodology was later adopted by the Regional Council, increasing the City’s allocation to approximately 2,415 units.
The City’s appeal raised concerns regarding the methodology’s consistency with SCAG’s Sustainable Communities Strategy, its treatment of local land-use constraints, and the population, vacancy, overcrowding, cost-burden, jobs-accessibility, and other assumptions used to distribute the regional housing need. The appeal was denied.
The City supports a transparent and technically sound RHNA methodology that appropriately considers local conditions.
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 agrees with the finding. The City has adopted a compliant Housing Element and completed the required planning and zoning actions. Actual construction, however, depends on property-owner decisions, market conditions, financing, construction costs, infrastructure, and developer interest outside the City’s control.
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 agrees with the finding. The City actively participated in development of the 6th Cycle RHNA methodology and formally appealed its allocation. The methodology recommended by SCAG’s RHNA Subcommittee and unanimously supported by the Community, Economic and Human Development Committee would have assigned Yorba
Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report, “California Housing Mandates: The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods”
August 19, 2026
Linda approximately 200 units. A last-minute methodology change adopted by the Regional Council increased the City’s draft allocation to approximately 2,415 units.
Yorba Linda’s appeal asserted that the allocation was inconsistent with the development pattern in SCAG’s Sustainable Communities Strategy. Yorba Linda had no designated Priority Growth Areas, nearly 80 percent of the City was identified as constrained, and the assigned RHNA was nearly three times the City’s projected growth through 2045. The City also argued that SCAG applied a one-size-fits-all approach to the existing-need portion of RHNA without adequately considering local land-use constraints and that the COVID-19 pandemic warranted reevaluation of jobs-accessibility assumptions. Based on these concerns, the City requested that its allocation be significantly reduced.
The City continues to support a transparent and thoroughly evaluated RHNA methodology that is consistent with SCAG’s adopted regional growth strategy and meaningfully accounts for local planning constraints.
F8: California’s regulatory construction costs (i.e. permitting fees) present substantial challenges for private housing developers—particularly those delivering affordable units.
The City partially agrees with the finding. Permit and development-impact fees are only one component of overall housing costs. Land, construction, labor, financing, insurance, utilities, and other regulatory requirements are generally more significant.
City fees are established to recover the cost of processing and reviewing development applications and, where authorized, to fund infrastructure and public facilities needed to serve new development. Development impact fees help address a project’s proportional share of impacts on facilities such as streets, traffic improvements, parks, public safety facilities, drainage, and other public infrastructure so that the cost of accommodating new growth is not borne entirely by existing residents.
These fees are intended to ensure that new development contributes toward the additional infrastructure and service demands it creates while maintaining appropriate levels of service for the existing community.
F9: The cost of constructing a single affordable housing unit in California typically ranges from approximately $500,000 to $800,000 per unit when fully complying with current state regulations. New low-income housing is generally not financially feasible without public subsidy.
Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report, “California Housing Mandates: The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods”
August 19, 2026
The City partially agrees with the finding. Affordable housing is generally difficult to construct without subsidies, tax credits, favorable land terms, or development incentives.
Actual per-unit costs vary significantly, and the City has not independently verified that the stated range applies uniformly throughout California.
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 agrees with the finding. The dissolution of redevelopment agencies removed an important local source of affordable housing funding and land assembly authority. Later programs have not fully replaced those tools.
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 partially agrees with the finding. Limited public funding may require affordable projects to rely on multiple funding sources, density bonuses, or other incentives.
However, project feasibility is site-specific, and increased density does not guarantee affordable housing production.
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 agrees with the finding. The 6th Cycle RHNA methodology relied on numerous demographic projections, housing-need adjustments, planning assumptions, datasets, weighting factors, and distribution formulas developed by HCD and SCAG. Although information was published throughout the process, the volume and complexity of the material made it difficult for jurisdictions to determine how individual inputs affected their final allocations.
Yorba Linda reviewed the methodology and raised concerns regarding population projections, vacancy assumptions, overcrowding and cost-burden adjustments, jobs accessibility, local land-use constraints, and consistency with SCAG’s Sustainable Communities Strategy. However, the City did not have access to all underlying information in a form that allowed staff to independently reproduce or verify the allocation calculation.
Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report, “California Housing Mandates: The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods”
August 19, 2026
The methodology also changed during the process, substantially increasing Yorba Linda’s allocation from the level anticipated under the methodology recommended by the RHNA Subcommittee. Cities were given limited time to evaluate these changes and their jurisdiction-specific impacts before the methodology and allocations were finalized.
The City supports providing complete datasets, formulas, assumptions, methodology alternatives, and jurisdiction-level calculations early enough for cities to independently review and meaningfully comment on the 7th Cycle methodology.
Recommendations
R7: OCCOG, all Orange County cities and the County of Orange should reassess the current dues structure, by September 30, 2026, to ensure that OCCOG has the resources necessary to effectively represent Orange County jurisdictions in SCAG processes, including RHNA methodology development and appeals.
The recommendation requires further analysis. The City supports OCCOG evaluating whether it has sufficient resources to represent Orange County effectively. Any proposed dues change should identify staffing needs, services, benefits, fiscal impacts, and an equitable allocation of costs. The City will participate in OCCOG’s review of this matter.
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 by the City because it is outside the City’s unilateral authority. A countywide infrastructure plan would need to be initiated by the County and involve the agencies responsible for water, wastewater, transportation, utilities, schools, flood control, and public safety. Yorba Linda would participate in an appropriately scoped County-led effort.
R9: By September 30, 2026, the Orange County Board of Supervisors should strengthen its engagement with OCCOG and increase staff support to develop a shared, countywide database of potential housing sites and key developmentfeasibility factors.
The recommendation will not be implemented by the City because the principal action is assigned to the County. The City would cooperate with a County- or OCCOG-led
Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report, “California Housing Mandates: The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods”
August 19, 2026
database effort, provided it avoids duplicating information already reported to HCD and other agencies.
R11: The County of Orange and each city should ensure consistent participation in SCAG and OCCOG committees by September 30, 2026, including the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), to strengthen regional representation during RHNAmethodology development.
The recommendation has been implemented. The City participates in OCCOG and relevant regional planning activities and will continue to assign appropriate elected officials and staff to represent Yorba Linda.
R12: The County of Orange and each city should designate a single technical representative, by September 30, 2026, along with an alternate, for all RHNA-related SCAG and OCCOG committees to ensure continuity of participation and eliminate gaps in representation across multiple decision-making bodies.
The recommendation has been implemented. The City designates appropriate staff to serve as its primary and alternate technical representatives for RHNA-related regional coordination.
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 requires further analysis. The City already submits the required Housing Element Annual Progress Report. The City will evaluate whether existing information can be made more accessible without creating duplicative reporting, software, or staffing obligations.
R15: By September 30, 2026, and ongoing, the County Board of Supervisors and all city councils should make a coordinated and sustained effort to educate their constituents about the RHNA process—its requirements, its impact on local planning and community character, and the role residents can play in shaping outcomes. Public education efforts should also include guidance on how community members can effectively engage with the California Legislature and advocate for more realistic, data-driven housing policies.
Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report, “California Housing Mandates: The Unintended Reshaping of Orange County Neighborhoods”
August 19, 2026
The recommendation has been implemented. The City provides public information through workshops, public notices, Planning Commission and City Council reports, and its website. The City will continue providing information regarding housing laws, RHNA, and opportunities for public participation.
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 has been implemented. The City communicates with affordable housing developers and maintains Housing Element programs intended to facilitate affordable housing. The City will continue engaging qualified developers when viable sites, funding, and project opportunities are available.
PLANNING COMMISSION | AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
MEETING DATE | JULY 29, 2026
Community Development Department
Planning Division
Community Development Director
Nate Farnsworth
4.1 APPROVAL OF JUNE 24, 2026, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES A motion by Commissioner Bernstein, second by Commissioner Chavez Marquez, to approve the minutes as drafted. The motion carried (3-0-1-1) with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Bernstein, Chavez Marquez, Goldfarb
NOES: None
ABSENT: Masterson
ABSTAIN: Behura
7.1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2026-10 – ANGELICA’S TABLE
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 18246 Imperial Highway
A request to allow the sale and on-site consumption of beer, wine, and distilled spirits (Type-47 ABC license) as an accessory use to the newly established restaurant (d.b.a “Angelica’s Table”) and a request to allow live entertainment.
A motion by Commissioner Behura, second by Commissioner Bernstein, adopting Resolution No. 5678 approving Conditional Use Permit 2026-10 Angelica’s Table, subject to attached conditions.
The motion carried (4-0-1-0) with the following roll call vote:
Speakers in favor: 0
Speakers in opposition: 0
AYES: Behura, Bernstein, Chavez Marquez, Goldfarb
NOES: None
ABSENT: Masterson
ABSTAIN: None
7.2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2026-14 – THE ARTISAN
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 4893 Main Street
A request to allow the sale of beer and wine for consumption off the premises (Type – 20 ABC License) for a newly established market/eatery (d.b.a. The Artisan by Terra).
A motion by Commissioner Behura, second by Commissioner Bernstein, adopting Resolution No. 5679 approving Conditional Use Permit 2026-14 The Artisan, subject to attached conditions. The motion carried (4-0-1-0) with the following roll call vote:
Speakers in favor: 0
Speakers in opposition: 0
AYES: Behura, Bernstein, Chavez Marquez, Goldfarb
NOES: None
ABSENT: Masterson
ABSTAIN: None
8.1 SIGN REQUEST 2026-01 MESSIAH LUTHERAN
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 4861 Liverpool Street
A request to review a new Messiah Lutheran Church electronic message board sign on a previously approved perimeter wall of the new residential project.
A motion by Commissioner Chavez Marquez, second by Commissioner Behura, to continue the item to a date uncertain. The motion carried (4-0-1-0) with the following roll call vote:
Speakers in favor: 0
Speakers in opposition: 0
AYES: Behura, Bernstein, Chavez Marquez, Goldfarb
NOES: None
ABSENT: Masterson
ABSTAIN: None
Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. to August 26, 2026, Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m.
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
DATE: AUGUST 18, 2026
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MARCIA BROWN, CMC, CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND AGENCY REPORTS
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file this report.
DISCUSSION
City Council members serve on a number of outside committees and agencies. Attached are updates received recently from these agencies.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Reports from City Council Organizations, Agencies and Committees
QUARTER
REPORT
Presented to the Bridges at
Kraemer Place Community
Advisory Board
APRIL - JUNE 2026
1 Reporting Period
April 1, 2026 – June 30,2026 (Quarter)
July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2026 (Current Fiscal Year)
July 1, 2024 – June 30, 2025 (Previous Fiscal Year)
Number Served
Quarter Current FY FY 2024-25
Number of Unduplicated Clients 42 439 586
Number of Exits*
235 439 393
% of Service Capacity Goal (480 annual) 91% 122%
* Includes 183 active participants that were exited from the program under Mercy House and transitioned to PATH.
Coordinated Entry System (CES) Statistics
*CES Chart represents clients active at the end of the reporting period Bed Nights
Current FY
Total number of shelter bed nights 70,347
Program Exits - Summary
Number of Active Clients on Community Queue 184
% of Active Clients on Community Queue 98%
Number of Active Clients Matched to a Housing Opportunity 1 % of Active Clients Matched to a Housing Opportunity <1% Total number of unduplicated individuals served current fiscal year who have received Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) or Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) through the Coordinated Entry System
6 Total number of unduplicated individuals served current fiscal year who have received Rapid Re-Housing (RRH) through the Coordinated Entry System 0
2 Quarter Current FY FY 2024-25
Positive Exits
Permanent, Temporary, Institutions except Jail/Prison
4 30 46
Negative Exits*
Emergency Shelter, Streets, Jail/Prison
197 240 7
Unknown Exits
Unknown, Deceased
34 169 340
* Includes 183 active participants whose exit destination was Emergency Shelter as part of the transition to PATH.
Program Exits – Destination Detail
Benchmark: 30% of clients who exit to a known destination will exit to permanent housing.
Progress toward benchmark: 20% of clients who have exited to a known destination have exited to permanent housing.
Note: Percentage above removes 183 participants that were batch exited to emergency shelter during transition of operators.
Exits to Permanent Housing Quarter Current FY FY 2024-25 3 17 36
Rental by client, no ongoing housing subsidy 1 9 6
VASH Housing Subsidy 0 0 5
Rental by client, with other ongoing housing
subsidy 0 0 0
Permanent Supportive Housing 0 0 5
Rental by client, with HCV (tenant or project
based) 2 6 10
Staying or living with family, permanent tenure 0 1 5
Staying or living with friends, permanent tenure 0 1 2
Rental by client, with RRH or equivalent subsidy 0 0 3
Other permanent housing dedicated for formerly
homeless persons 0 0 0
3 Exits to Temporary Housing Quarter Current FY FY 2024-25 0 4 8
Staying or living with family, temporary tenure 0 2 2
Staying or living with friends, temporary tenure 0 1 3
Host Home (non-crisis) 0 0 0
Transitional housing for homeless persons 0 1 2
Hotel or motel paid for without emergency shelter
voucher 0 0 0
Residential project or halfway house with no
homeless criteria 0 0 1
Exits to Institutions Quarter Current FY FY 2024-25
1 10 4
Foster care home or group foster care home 0 0 0
Psychiatric hospital or other psychiatric facility 0 0 0 Substance abuse treatment facility or detox center 0 3 2 Hospital or other residential non-psychiatric
medical facility 0 2 0
Jail, prison, or juvenile detention facility 0 1 2
Long-term care facility or nursing home 1 4 0
Exits to Homelessness* Quarter Current FY FY 2024-25
197 239 5
Emergency shelter, including hotel or motel paid
for with emergency shelter voucher 183 186 0
Place not meant for habitation (e.g., a vehicle, an
abandoned building, bus / train / subway station
/ airport or anywhere outside)
14 53 5
*Includes 183 active participants that were exited from the program under Mercy House and transitioned to PATH.
Exits to Other Destinations Quarter Current FY FY 2024-25 34 169 340
Deceased 3 3 2
Client Doesn't Know/Client Refused 12 70 111
No exit interview completed 19 96 227
Increased Income
Quarter Current FY FY 2024-25
Participants with Increased Income
(at Annual Assessment and/or Exit) 7 42 23
4
5 Length of Stay – Current FY
Benchmark: Between July 2017 to June 2025, the average shelter stay at Bridges is 245 days.
Progress toward benchmark: Shelter average is 308 days for the year.
Benchmark: Between July 2017 to June 2025, the average shelter stay at Bridges for a permanent housing placement is 245 days.
The average length of stay for a permanent housing placement is currently: 970 days *The chart above may include duplicate client enrollments Set Aside Beds
Beds
Available
Quarter
Average
Utilization
MHSA Beds 10 100%
Law Enforcement Beds 16 63%
0 26
68 95
63 74
135
< 24 hours 1-7 days 8-30 days 31-90 days 91-180 days 181-365 days > 366 days Number of Clients
Length of Stay
6 Client Demographics - YTD
Age
Race and Ethnicity
19 72
115
96 94
43 0
20 40
60 80
100
120
140
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Number of Clients
Age Range
85 165
1 2
11 2
1 2
80 5
57 1
15 11
1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
White & Hispanic/Latina/o
White
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander & Hispanic/Latina/o Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
Multi-Racial & not Hispanic/ Latina/e/o
Multi-Racial & Hispanic/ Latina/e/o
Middle Eastern or North African & Hispanic/Latina/o
Middle Eastern or North African
Hispanic/Latina/o
Black, African American, or African & Hispanic/Latina/e/o Black, African American, or African
Asian or Asian American & Hispanic/Latina/e/o
Asian or Asian American
American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous &…
American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous
Number of Clients
Race
7 Gender
Veteran Status
306
129
4 Man Woman Non-Binary
11 428
Veteran Non-Veteran
8 Chronically Homeless
Physical and Mental Health Conditions
162
277
Chronically Homeless Non-Chronically Homeless
12 22
28 40
78 138
169
227
0 50 100 150 200 250
HIV/AIDS
Both Alcohol and Drug Use Disorders
Alcohol Use Disorder
Drug Use Disorder
Developmental Disability
Physical Disability
Chronic Health Condition
Mental Health Disorder
Number of Clients
Health Conditions
9 City Prior to Entry
The chart above may include duplicate client enrollments. 229
8 30
4 62
5 1
0 81
16 21
0 4
0 50 100 150 200 250
Anaheim
Brea
Buena Park
Cypress
Fullerton
La Habra
La Palma
Los Alamitos
Orange
Placentia
Stanton
Villa Park
Yorba Linda
Number of Clients
City
10 Racial Equity Analysis – YTD
Populations Served
19%
38%
0%
0%
<1%
0%
<1%
<1%
18%
<1%
13%
<1%
3%
3%
0%
20%
39%
<1%
1%
2%
<1%
<1%
1%
21%
<1%
8%
<1%
4%
2%
2%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
White & Hispanic/Latina/e/o
White
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander & Hispanic/ Latina/e/o Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
Multi-Racial & not Hispanic/ Latina/e/o
Multi-Racial & Hispanic/ Latina/e/o
Middle Eastern or North African & Hispanic/Latina/e/o
Middle Eastern or North African
Hispanic/Latina/e/o
Black, African American, or African & Hispanic/Latina/e/o Black, African American, or African
Asian or Asian American & Hispanic/Latina/e/o
Asian or Asian American
American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous &
Hispanic/Latina/e/o
American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous
2024 PIT (Unsheltered and Sheltered total) Racial Representation of Bridges at Kraemer Place Guests (YTD)
11 Exit Destination Type by Racial Categories compared to Racial Representation of Bridges at Kraemer Place Shelter Population
The charts below may include duplicate client exits
24%
12%
24%
18%
12%
12%
19%
38%
0%
0%
<1%
0%
<1%
<1%
18%
<1%
13%
<1%
3%
3%
0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
White & Hispanic/Latina/e/o
White
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander & Hispanic/ Latina/e/o Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
Multi-Racial & not Hispanic/ Latina/e/o
Multi-Racial & Hispanic/ Latina/e/o
Middle Eastern or North African & Hispanic/Latina/e/o
Middle Eastern or North African
Hispanic/Latina/e/o
Black, African American, or African & Hispanic/Latina/e/o Black, African American, or African
Asian or Asian American & Hispanic/Latina/e/o
Asian or Asian American
American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous &…
American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous
Permanent Destinations
Racial Representation of Bridges at Kraemer Place Guests (YTD) Racial Representation of Guests Exiting to Destination Type 50%
25%
25%
19%
38%
0%
0%
<1%
0%
<1%
<1%
18%
<1%
13%
<1%
3%
3%
0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
White & Hispanic/Latina/e/o
White
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander & Hispanic/ Latina/e/o Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
Multi-Racial & not Hispanic/ Latina/e/o
Multi-Racial & Hispanic/ Latina/e/o
Middle Eastern or North African & Hispanic/Latina/e/o
Middle Eastern or North African
Hispanic/Latina/e/o
Black, African American, or African & Hispanic/Latina/e/o Black, African American, or African
Asian or Asian American & Hispanic/Latina/e/o
Asian or Asian American
American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous &…
American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous
Temporary Destinations
Racial Representation of Bridges at Kraemer Place Guests (YTD) Racial Representation of Guests Exiting to Destination Type
12 19%
39%
0%
1%
2%
0%
0%
1%
18%
1%
13%
3%
2%
0%
19%
38%
0%
0%
<1%
0%
<1%
<1%
18%
<1%
13%
<1%
3%
3%
0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
White & Hispanic/Latina/e/o
White
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander & Hispanic/ Latina/e/o Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
Multi-Racial & not Hispanic/ Latina/e/o
Multi-Racial & Hispanic/ Latina/e/o
Middle Eastern or North African & Hispanic/Latina/e/o
Middle Eastern or North African
Hispanic/Latina/e/o
Black, African American, or African & Hispanic/Latina/e/o Black, African American, or African
Asian or Asian American & Hispanic/Latina/e/o
Asian or Asian American
American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous &…
American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous
Homeless Destinations
Racial Representation of Bridges at Kraemer Place Guests (YTD) Racial Representation of Guests Exiting to Destination Type 22%
38%
1%
3%
16%
1%
13%
0%
3%
3%
1%
19%
38%
0%
0%
<1%
0%
<1%
<1%
18%
<1%
13%
<1%
3%
3%
0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
White & Hispanic/Latina/e/o
White
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander & Hispanic/ Latina/e/o Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
Multi-Racial & not Hispanic/ Latina/e/o
Multi-Racial & Hispanic/ Latina/e/o
Middle Eastern or North African & Hispanic/Latina/e/o
Middle Eastern or North African
Hispanic/Latina/e/o
Black, African American, or African & Hispanic/Latina/e/o Black, African American, or African
Asian or Asian American & Hispanic/Latina/e/o
Asian or Asian American
American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous &…
American Indian, Alaska Native, or Indigenous
Unknown Destinations
Racial Representation of Bridges at Kraemer Place Guests (YTD) Racial Representation of Guests Exiting to Destination Type
MONTHLY REPORT:
July
Monthly Year to Date (YTD) County Monthly County YTD
Service Requests Completed 22 84 751 2,368
Mosquitoes 20 79 663 1,995
Rats 2 2 57 258
RIFA 0 3 14 71
Number of Swimming Pools Inspected/Treated 19 164 839 5,493 Hours Spent Treating/Inspecting Gutters 35.33 81 1175.15 2,739.1 Acres of Flood Channels Treated 0.05 0.1 105.6354 216.9966 Acres Treated for RIFA 160 668 2,423 14,669
IT (inspection/treatment) Sites Serviced 27 269 1,524 9,828 Adult Mosquitoes Collected 64 374 42,939 158,660
Mosquito Pools (Samples) Tested 5 15 1,245 3,324
WNV Positive Samples 0 0 269 304
Other Positive Samples 0 0 0 0
WNV Positive Birds 0 0 2 2
Outreach Events Attended 0 0 4 31
General Presentations 0 0 4 19
Educational Program Presentations 0 0 0 116
Service Requests & Miscellaneous Calls Received 26 106 1,079 3,687 Fleas, Ticks, and Others Tested - - - 1,372
Number of Disease Investigations 0 0 5 17
WNV Investigations 0 0 0 0
Dengue Investigations 0 0 2 4
Typhus Investigations 0 0 3 13
Other Investigations 0 0 0 0
Underground Storm Systems Treated 146 319 5,773 15,144
Public Insect ID Completed - - 51 204
COUNTY WIDE PROJECTS / INFORMATIONAL UPDATE
Yorba Linda
CONTROL
SURVEILLANCE
COMMUNICATIONS / OUTREACH
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT
DATE: AUGUST 18, 2026
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: PETER GRANT, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: RECEIVE THE 2026-29 STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVES
RECOMMENDATION
Receive the 2026-29 Strategic Plan objectives.
SUMMARY
On June 16, 2026, the City Council adopted the 2026-29 Strategic Plan, establishing a vision, mission, and multiyear goals for the organization. This plan serves as the foundation for budget development, departmental work planning, and performance accountability. The goals reflect a facilitated dialogue between the City Council and the executive leadership team, aligning long‑ term direction with current operational needs and community priorities.
The attached objectives translate these goals into actionable work: programs, policies, initiatives, and projects undertaken by departments in addition to the essential, ongoing services provided to the community. These objectives represent discretionary efforts designed to advance Strategic Plan goals over each six‑ month planning cycle.
DISCUSSION
Strategic planning remains one of the City Council’s most effective tools for strengthening municipal services and preserving Yorba Linda’s exceptional quality of life. The Strategic Plan centers on six core areas: service delivery, financial sustainability, public safety, economic vitality, infrastructure investment, and community engagement.
Given existing staffing levels and service demands, departments generally cannot devote more than ten percent of their workload to Strategic Plan objectives unless additional staffing or funding is authorized. While the City maintains a stable fiscal outlook, resources are not unlimited; accordingly, the number, scope, and timing of objectives must align with both available resources and departmental capacity. As a practical guideline, departments can reliably carry two to five objectives in any six‑ month period, alongside their regular responsibilities.
RECEIVE THE 2026-29 STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVES
P a g e | 2
These objectives represent the second step of the City’s Strategic Plan lifecycle:
Who What When
City Council and executive
leadership team Review and refine goals Annually
Executive leadership team Develop objectives to advance goals Every six months City Manager Report progress to the City Council
at a public meeting Every two months
City Council and executive
leadership team
Revisit goals and adopt new
Strategic Plan 2029
For the July to December 2026 cycle, departments have identified 30 objectives across the six Strategic Plan goals. Most goals also include significant future objectives often tied to development of the 2027-29 Budget. These future items reflect emerging priorities or initiatives previously discussed with the City Council and will transition into active objectives in upcoming planning periods.
It is important to note that the City Council is not being asked to approve any objectives at this meeting. Many objectives represent substantial internal or operational commitments included in the Strategic Plan to keep the City Council and community informed of the organization’s ongoing efforts to enhance customer service and efficiency. Objectives requiring City Council action or appropriations will return as agenda items with detailed reports, presentations, and recommendations. However, the introduction of each new six‑ month objective list offers Councilmembers an appropriate opportunity to ask questions or raise concerns.
The attachment lists each objective’s leader, target completion date, and current progress.
Department directors, the City Clerk, and the City Attorney are identified as leaders for clarity, though managers and team members play essential roles in implementation. Some objectives involve multiple departments, and more than one director may be listed. The City Manager appears frequently because functions housed within the City Manager’s Office (particularly human resources, communications and information technology) provide significant support for objectives across the organization.
Highlights from the current Strategic Planning period include:
Strategic Goal: Promote civic engagement and participation in local decision-making Update the Commission recruitment process and manual
Evaluate the 311 MyCivic app and Notify Me tool and potentially recommend enhancements
RECEIVE THE 2026-29 STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVES
P a g e | 3
Strategic Goal: Ensure long-term prosperity by expanding economic activity and supporting local businesses
Hold a community conversation about the future of the City-owned West Bastanchury property adjacent to Vista del Verde Park
Review progress and options to support Main Street vitalization with the Economic Development subcommittee
Strategic Goal: Sustain and enhance the City’s long-term financial position Conduct a City Council workshop regarding strategies to address pension and retiree health liabilities
Issue a Request for Proposals for a new audit firm
Strategic Goal: Invest in parks, trails, facilities, and infrastructure Recommend strategies to address the rising costs of maintaining City streets in good condition to the Finance subcommittee
Conduct video assessments of Phase 1 (at-risk) storm drains Strategic Goal: Ensure a safe community through continued public safety and emergency preparedness efforts
Conduct summer e-bike enforcement on trails
Support OCFA’s replacement of Fire Station 10
Strategic Goal: Preserve, protect, and advance Yorba Linda’s quality of life through exceptional service delivery, high quality programs, and innovation Conduct the HR and Innovation Director recruitment
Recommend adjustments to the pickleball court reservation system at Las Palomas Park
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ALTERNATIVES
Do not approve the recommended action and provide alternative direction.
ATTACHMENTS
1. June 16, 2026 City Council report: Approve 2026-29 Strategic Plan Goals
RECEIVE THE 2026-29 STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVES
P a g e | 4
2. City Council adopted Strategic Plans Goals and Mission Statement, Vision Statement, Guiding Values, and Theme
3. July to December 2026 Strategic Plan Objectives
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT
DATE: JUNE 16, 2026
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: PETER GRANT, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: APPROVE 2026-29 STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the 2026-29 Strategic Plan Goals.
DISCUSSION
The Strategic Plan articulates the City Council’s vision, mission, core strategies, and multiyear goals, serving as the primary framework for budget development, organizational work planning, and performance accountability. It is one of the City Council’s most effective tools for enhancing services and maintaining Yorba Linda’s exceptional quality of life.
On May 13, the City Council conducted a Strategic Planning session to review progress, discuss the City’s strengths and accomplishments over the past six months, and establish six goals for the 2026–29 Strategic Plan. Consistent with the 2020–25 Strategic Plan, the proposed goals focus on service delivery, financial sustainability, public safety, economic vitality, infrastructure investment, and community engagement.
These goals reflect the outcome of a facilitated dialogue between the City Council and the City’s executive leadership team. They are aligned with current operational needs and community priorities and will guide the development of specific objectives and performance measures to ensure effective implementation and transparent reporting.
Recommended Strategic Plan Goals (not in priority order) Goal: Preserve, protect, and advance Yorba Linda’s quality of life through exceptional service, high quality programs, and innovation.
Goal: Ensure a safe community through continued public safety and emergency preparedness efforts.
Goal: Sustain and enhance the City’s long-term financial position.
ADOPT 2026-29 STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
P a g e | 2
Goal: Ensure long-term prosperity by expanding economic activity and supporting local businesses.
Goal: Promote civic engagement and participation in local decision-making.
Goal: Invest in parks, trails, facilities, and infrastructure.
Strategic Plan Process, Reporting and Accountability
Communities are best served when they take a disciplined approach to strategic planning - planning their work and working their plan. Ongoing reporting and refinement ensure the Strategic Plan remains active and relevant, advancing its goals, promoting meaningful community engagement, and preserving its role as a living, guiding document. To accomplish this, the City has developed a Strategic Plan lifecycle:
Who What When
City Council and executive
leadership team Review and refine goals Annually
Executive leadership team Develop objectives to advance goals Every six months City Manager Report progress to the City Council
at a public meeting Every two months
City Council and executive
leadership team
Revisit goals and adopt new
Strategic Plan 2029
If the City Council approves the Strategic Plan goals, the executive leadership team will develop objectives to advance them. These objectives represent discretionary work - programs, policies, initiatives, and projects - that departments undertake in addition to the recurring services they provide to the community.
Given existing staffing levels and service demands, Strategic Plan objectives generally cannot exceed more than ten percent of a department’s overall workload unless the City Council allocates additional staffing or financial resources. While the City maintains a sound fiscal position, resources remain limited; consequently, the number of objectives and the pace of their completion must align with available resources and a department’s capacity.
As a practical guideline, departments can successfully carry two to five objectives during any six‑ month planning cycle, alongside their ongoing responsibilities.
The first Strategic Plan update, including departmental objectives, will be presented at the August 18 City Council meeting.
ADOPT 2026-29 STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
P a g e | 3
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ALTERNATIVES
Do not approve the recommended action and provide alternative direction.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended Strategic Plan Goals
2. Mission Statement, Vision Statement, Guiding Values, and Theme
STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS
Ensure a safe
community through
continued public safety
and emergency
preparedness efforts.
Preserve, protect, and
advance Yorba Linda’s
quality of life through
exceptional service
delivery, high quality
programs, and innovation.
Sustain and enhance
the City’s long-term
financial position.
QUALITY
OF LIFE
PUBLIC
SAFETY
FINANCIAL
SUSTAINABILITY
Promote civic
engagement and
participation in local
decision-making.
Ensure long-term
prosperity by expanding
economic activity and
supporting local
businesses.
Invest in parks, trails,
facilities, and
infrastructure.
INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENT
ECONOMIC
VITALITY
COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT
1
STRATEGIC PLAN
2 MISSION STATEMENT
The City of Yorba Linda enhances
quality of life by providing exceptional
services and amenities in a transparent
and financially responsible manner that
responds to and exceeds community
expectations.
GUIDING VALUES
Excellence
Exceeding the standard and striving to maximize performance.
Honesty and Integrity
Displaying honesty, ethics, and good character while always demonstrating sound judgment.
Stewardship
Managing resources and assets of the City in a responsible, accountable, and transparent manner.
Dependability and Dedication
Being reliable and committed to serving others.
Professionalism
Exhibiting professional conduct and carrying out duties that display technical and interpersonal excellence in a manner that exceeds the community’s expectations.
Caring and Kindness
Commitment to serve the community by displaying compassion and empathy in a friendly manner.
VISION STATEMENT
The City of Yorba Linda is a
welcoming, gracious, and prestigious
community that remains safe and
financially sound, where families and
businesses thrive.
STRATEGIC PLAN THEME Yorba Linda...Exceptional!
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Promote civic engagement and participation in local decision-making.
LEADER OBJECTIVE BY WHEN PROGRESS
City Clerk, City Atty,
City Manager
City Clerk
City Clerk + Directors
CD Director
City Manager
City Clerk
City Manager
Aug 18, 2026
Oct 20, 2026
Sept 9, 2026
Dec 15, 2026
Dec 31, 2026
FUTURE
Jan 2027
FUTURE
May 2027
Update City Council and Commission meeting
formats and agendas to comply with new
State requirements
Update the Commission recruitment process
and manual
Begin the transition to paperless
Commission meetings
Review temporary commercial/campaign
signs regulations and recommend
improvements
Evaluate the 311 MyCivic app and Notify Me
tool and potentially recommend
enhancements
Begin the transition to paperless
City Council meetings
Recommend a community satisfaction survey
as part of the FY 2027-29 Proposed Budget
Complete
In place for
Library and P&R
1
ECONOMIC VITALITY
Ensure long-term prosperity by expanding economic activity and supporting local businesses.
City Manager
Deputy City Manager
P&R Director
Deputy City Manager
Deputy City Manager
CD Director
Sept 10, 2026
Sept 30, 2026
Dec 1, 2026
Dec 31, 2026
FUTURE
March 30, 2027
FUTURE
May 2027
Hold a community conversation about the
future of the City-owned West Bastanchury
property adjacent to Vista Del Verde Park
Launch the inaugural session of Yorba Linda
Small Business University
Initiate a long-range plan and capital
investment strategy for Black Gold Golf Club
Review progress and options to support Main
Street vitalization with the Economic
Development subcommittee
Recommend a process for reimaging Savi
Ranch to ensure its ongoing economic vitality
Recommend an AI plan check pilot program as
part of the FY 2027-29 Recommended Budget
LEADER OBJECTIVE BY WHEN PROGRESS
Program approved
July 21, 2026
2
FINANCIAL STABILITY
Sustain and enhance the City’s long-term financial position.
Finance Director
Finance Director
Finance Director
Finance Director
Finance Director
Finance Director
Nov 17, 2026
Dec 31, 2026
Dec 31, 2026
Jan 8, 2027
FUTURE
May 2027
FUTURE
May 2027
Conduct a City Council workshop regarding
strategies to address pension and retiree
health liabilities
Assess the City’s financial system’s
capabilities as the first phase of preparing a
citywide training program and continuity plan
Recommend a budgeting system for
FY 2027-29
Issue a Request for Proposals for a
new audit firm
Develop a performance measurement system
as part of the 2027-29 Budget
Recommend updates to the Reserve Policy as
part of the FY 2027-29 Proposed Budget
LEADER OBJECTIVE BY WHEN PROGRESS
3
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT
Invest in parks, trails, facilities, and infrastructure.
PW Director
PW Director
PW Director
PW Director
Dec 15, 2026
Dec 31, 2026
Dec 31, 2026
Dec 31, 2026
Recommend strategies to address the rising costs
of maintaining City streets in good condition to the
Finance subcommittee
Complete Savi Ranch widening
right-of-way acquisition
Conduct video assessments of
Phase 1 (at-risk) storm drains
Expand the grant identification database
from PW to all departments
LEADER OBJECTIVE BY WHEN PROGRESS
4
PUBLIC SAFETY
Ensure a safe community through continued public safety and emergency preparedness efforts.
OCSD
OCSD + City Manager
City Manager
OCSD + Library Dir
OCSD + City Manager
P&R Director
OCSD + PR Director
City Manager + CD Dir
CD Director
OCSD + City Manager
Sept 8, 2026
Sept 30, 2026
Oct 1, 2026
Nov 3, 2026
Nov 3, 2026
Nov 15, 2026
Ongoing
Ongoing
FUTURE
Feb 2027
FUTURE
May 2027
Two enforcement
operations were
conducted in July
Conduct summer e-bike enforcement on trails
Deliver e-bike education at middle schools
Incorporate vendors into the annual
community fire season preparedness meeting
Conduct active shooter response training at
YL Public Library
Conduct safety training for employees
Install anti-climb fencing at the YL Town
Center parking structure
Implement OCSD security recommendations
at city facilities and include funding in the FY
2027-29 Proposed Budget
Support OCFA’s replacement of
Fire Station 10
Improve/accelerate the annual weed
abatement process to ensure it is complete
before the start of Summer and recommend
strategies to address noncompliant properties
Develop an anti-impaired driving program
at YLHS with PYLUSD
LEADER OBJECTIVE BY WHEN PROGRESS
Complete at
City Hall
5
QUALITY OF LIFE
Preserve, protect, and advance Yorba Linda’s quality of life through exceptional service delivery, high quality programs, and innovation.
CD Dir + Finance Dir
+ City Manager
City Manager + City Clerk
City Manager
P&R Director
Library Director
CD Dir + PW Dir
Dec 31, 2026
Dec 31, 2026
Dec 31, 2026
Dec 15, 2026
Dec 15, 2026
FUTURE
May 2027
Recommend a plan to integrate the City’s
development permit and financial systems to
the City Manager
Recommend an electronical document and
contract management and approval system
Conduct the HR and Innovation Director
recruitment
Recommend adjustments to the pickleball court
reservation system at Las Palomas Park
Recommend an agreement for a new
Integrated Library System
Recommend an electronic plan submittal
system as part of the FY 2027-29
Recommended Budget
LEADER OBJECTIVE BY WHEN PROGRESS
City Manager Recommend a City technology master plan as part of the FY 2027-29 Recommended Budget
FUTURE
May 2027
6