Orange County Grand Jury

2025-2026

10 reports

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings
F1: Commercial and industrial chemical manufacturers are a major source of PFAS contamination. Settlement litigation funds are available for community water systems to make claims.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: By September 30, 2026, Orange County Water District (OCWD), in coordination with state and federal agencies, should pursue cost recovery efforts against PFAS manufacturers to offset treatment, monitoring, and long-term remediation costs incurred by local water agencies and ratepayers. [F1, F5]
F2: PFAS is widespread, and contamination has been detected in Orange County groundwater sources. Community water systems are required to report PFAS monitoring results in their annual Consumer Confidence Reports.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: By July 1, 2029, OCWD and its member agencies should monitor PFAS in groundwater and surface water sources and promptly implement PFAS treatment when response levels are exceeded. [F2, F4]
F3: PFAS exposure is associated with potential adverse human health effects.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: By September 30, 2026, OCWD, in collaboration with the Orange County Health Care Agency, should update public education and guidance continually as scientific understanding and regulatory standards evolve. [F3]
F4: OCWD has taken a proactive leadership role in addressing PFAS in the Orange County Groundwater Basin, though PFAS treatment implementation varies across local cities and water districts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: By July 1, 2029, all Orange County water retailers should consistently include a PFAS advisory, treatment facilities status, and compliance information in consumer confidence reports and on agency websites, using clear and understandable language for the public. [F2, F8]
F5: Groundwater supplies must either be treated to remove PFAS or must be replaced with imported water supplies that are significantly more expensive than groundwater. Over $500 million is being spent on construction, operations, and maintenance of PFAS treatment facilities in Orange County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: By September 30, 2026, OCWD and all Orange County water retailers should enhance coordinated public education efforts to reassure their customers about drinking water safety. [F6, F8]
F6: Orange County drinking water meets or exceeds state and federal standards and is safe for consumption without additional home filtration.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: By September 30, 2026, OCWD should continuously monitor national and international PFAS research developments and incorporate new findings into future groundwater management, treatment planning, and regulatory compliance strategies. [F7] -2026
F7: Research on newer PFAS compounds and long-term exposure effects is ongoing.
F8: There are limited online PFAS education and outreach programs among Orange County water retailers. Most retailers rely on OCWD for PFAS education and outreach. PFAS advisories were included in approximately 55% of the Orange County water retailers’ annual water quality reports in 2025. of 62
Findings & Recommendations 9 findings
F1: Elected County officials exercise substantial autonomy in managing their departments while administering functions involving significant public financial responsibilities.
F2: The County lacks sufficient authority, structures and internal controls to ensure effective oversight and accountability of elected officials.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1: The Board of Supervisors should draft one or more of the proposed amendments to the County charter to be submitted to voters in order to strengthen the Board’s ability to exercise appropriate governance oversight of elected officials by December 31, 2026. Amendments: • Authorization for the Board of Supervisors to remove an elected official for cause by a four-fifths supermajority vote. • Authorization for the Board of Supervisors to convert an elected office to an appointed position. • Authorization to consolidate compatible County departments and merge two elected or appointed offices into one elected position.
R2: The Board of Supervisors should adopt a policy mandating regularly scheduled audits or performance reviews of elected officials by December 31, 2026.
R3: The Board of Supervisors should direct the County Internal Audit Department to develop standardized procedures for publicly reporting corrective actions taken in response to audit findings involving offices of elected officials by December 31, 2026.
R4: The Board of Supervisors should establish a formal process for periodic public reporting and discussion of internal audit findings involving departments administered by elected officials, including presentation of audit results at Board meetings to promote transparency and accountability to Orange County residents by December 31, 2026.
F3: The Orange County Charter does not provide the Board of Supervisors with authority to address misconduct or performance deficiencies involving elected officials.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Board of Supervisors should draft one or more of the proposed amendments to the County charter to be submitted to voters in order to strengthen the Board’s ability to exercise appropriate governance oversight of elected officials by December 31, 2026. Amendments: • Authorization for the Board of Supervisors to remove an elected official for cause by a four-fifths supermajority vote. • Authorization for the Board of Supervisors to convert an elected office to an appointed position. • Authorization to consolidate compatible County departments and merge two elected or appointed offices into one elected position.
F4: Some counties in California have amended their charters to strengthen oversight and implement internal controls for elected officials.
F5: Several counties in California have transitioned specific non-constitutional county offices from elected to appointed positions to ensure better accountability.
F6: Consolidating compatible County elected offices can improve efficiency, reduce duplication, and strengthen oversight.
F7: Independent audits provide an effective mechanism for identifying operational weaknesses, governance concerns, and compliance issues within departments administered by elected officials.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Board of Supervisors should adopt a policy mandating regularly scheduled audits or performance reviews of elected officials by December 31, 2026.
F8: The County Internal Audit Department is an important entity that functions as independent oversight reporting directly to the Board of Supervisors and conducts audits in accordance with recognized professional auditing standards.
F9: The Board of Supervisors has expanded Internal Audit Department’s responsibilities to include performance auditing; however, sufficient staffing and resources are required to support this expanded role. -2026
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: The Board of Supervisor should ensure that the County Internal Audit Department maintains sufficient staffing and budgetary resources to carry out its expanded responsibilities for operational performance reviews and oversight of departments administered by elected officials by December 31, 2026.
Findings & Recommendations 8 findings
F1: Commercial and industrial chemical manufacturers are a major source of PFAS contamination. Settlement litigation funds are available for community water systems to make claims.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: By September 30, 2026, Orange County Water District (OCWD), in coordination with state and federal agencies, should pursue cost recovery efforts against PFAS manufacturers to offset treatment, monitoring, and long-term remediation costs incurred by local water agencies and ratepayers. [F1, F5]
F2: PFAS is widespread, and contamination has been detected in Orange County groundwater sources. Community water systems are required to report PFAS monitoring results in their annual Consumer Confidence Reports.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: By July 1, 2029, OCWD and its member agencies should monitor PFAS in groundwater and surface water sources and promptly implement PFAS treatment when response levels are exceeded. [F2, F4]
F3: PFAS exposure is associated with potential adverse human health effects.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: By September 30, 2026, OCWD, in collaboration with the Orange County Health Care Agency, should update public education and guidance continually as scientific understanding and regulatory standards evolve. [F3]
F4: OCWD has taken a proactive leadership role in addressing PFAS in the Orange County Groundwater Basin, though PFAS treatment implementation varies across local cities and water districts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: By July 1, 2029, all Orange County water retailers should consistently include a PFAS advisory, treatment facilities status, and compliance information in consumer confidence reports and on agency websites, using clear and understandable language for the public. [F2, F8]
F5: Groundwater supplies must either be treated to remove PFAS or must be replaced with imported water supplies that are significantly more expensive than groundwater. Over $500 million is being spent on construction, operations, and maintenance of PFAS treatment facilities in Orange County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: By September 30, 2026, OCWD and all Orange County water retailers should enhance coordinated public education efforts to reassure their customers about drinking water safety. [F6, F8]
F6: Orange County drinking water meets or exceeds state and federal standards and is safe for consumption without additional home filtration.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: By September 30, 2026, OCWD should continuously monitor national and international PFAS research developments and incorporate new findings into future groundwater management, treatment planning, and regulatory compliance strategies. [F7] -2026
F7: Research on newer PFAS compounds and long-term exposure effects is ongoing.
F8: There are limited online PFAS education and outreach programs among Orange County water retailers. Most retailers rely on OCWD for PFAS education and outreach. PFAS advisories were included in approximately 55% of the Orange County water retailers’ annual water quality reports in 2025. of 62
Findings & Recommendations 6 findings
F1: Headcount and discretionary spending over the recent budget years for the Board far exceeds inflation and outpaces the demographic changes that would typically justify increased staffing or budgets.
Related Recommendations (5)
R1: Starting with the budget for Fiscal Year 2027-2028 (and ongoing), zero-based budgeting should be used by the Board to require justification for all Board of Supervisors departmental positions and expenditures. (F1, F2, F4, F5)
R2: Starting with the budget for Fiscal Year 2027-2028 (and ongoing), an audit of municipal service workload in the unincorporated areas should be conducted to determine the appropriate level of Board staffing necessary to support the 4% of County residents still directly governed by the Board. (F1, F2, F3, F5)
R3: Starting with the budget for Fiscal Year 2027-2028 (and ongoing), the Board’s discretionary funds should be eliminated with the funds redirected to County public-facing services such as public safety, infrastructure, and health and human service programs. (F1, F4)
R4: Starting October 31, 2026 (and ongoing), if discretionary funds are retained by the Board, the Board should limit discretionary grants to County-related purposes within its direct service and governance responsibilities and adopt uniform eligibility and reporting standards to ensure transparency and eliminate the appearance of political favoritism. (F1, F2, F4)
R7: Starting with the budget for Fiscal Year 2027-2028, the Board should adopt a formal policy that governs their future departmental headcount and the elimination of discretionary spending that meets the above Recommendations. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6) -2026 Board of Supervisors – Headcount and Discretionary Spending
F2: The Board’s municipal governance responsibilities have dwindled as the unincorporated population of Orange County shrank yet staffing and expenditures have increased.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1: Starting with the budget for Fiscal Year 2027-2028 (and ongoing), zero-based budgeting should be used by the Board to require justification for all Board of Supervisors departmental positions and expenditures. (F1, F2, F4, F5)
R2: Starting with the budget for Fiscal Year 2027-2028 (and ongoing), an audit of municipal service workload in the unincorporated areas should be conducted to determine the appropriate level of Board staffing necessary to support the 4% of County residents still directly governed by the Board. (F1, F2, F3, F5)
R4: Starting October 31, 2026 (and ongoing), if discretionary funds are retained by the Board, the Board should limit discretionary grants to County-related purposes within its direct service and governance responsibilities and adopt uniform eligibility and reporting standards to ensure transparency and eliminate the appearance of political favoritism. (F1, F2, F4)
R7: Starting with the budget for Fiscal Year 2027-2028, the Board should adopt a formal policy that governs their future departmental headcount and the elimination of discretionary spending that meets the above Recommendations. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6) -2026 Board of Supervisors – Headcount and Discretionary Spending
F3: Staffing expansions within Board offices are not tied to demonstrable needs.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2: Starting with the budget for Fiscal Year 2027-2028 (and ongoing), an audit of municipal service workload in the unincorporated areas should be conducted to determine the appropriate level of Board staffing necessary to support the 4% of County residents still directly governed by the Board. (F1, F2, F3, F5)
R7: Starting with the budget for Fiscal Year 2027-2028, the Board should adopt a formal policy that governs their future departmental headcount and the elimination of discretionary spending that meets the above Recommendations. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6) -2026 Board of Supervisors – Headcount and Discretionary Spending
F4: The expansion of district-level discretionary spending, including grants to individuals and organizations located within incorporated cities, extends the Board’s influence into areas that fall under municipal responsibilities, not the County’s direct jurisdictional responsibilities.
Related Recommendations (4)
R1: Starting with the budget for Fiscal Year 2027-2028 (and ongoing), zero-based budgeting should be used by the Board to require justification for all Board of Supervisors departmental positions and expenditures. (F1, F2, F4, F5)
R3: Starting with the budget for Fiscal Year 2027-2028 (and ongoing), the Board’s discretionary funds should be eliminated with the funds redirected to County public-facing services such as public safety, infrastructure, and health and human service programs. (F1, F4)
R4: Starting October 31, 2026 (and ongoing), if discretionary funds are retained by the Board, the Board should limit discretionary grants to County-related purposes within its direct service and governance responsibilities and adopt uniform eligibility and reporting standards to ensure transparency and eliminate the appearance of political favoritism. (F1, F2, F4)
R7: Starting with the budget for Fiscal Year 2027-2028, the Board should adopt a formal policy that governs their future departmental headcount and the elimination of discretionary spending that meets the above Recommendations. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6) -2026 Board of Supervisors – Headcount and Discretionary Spending
F5: The significant growth in Board office staffing has led to the appearance of an administrative structure that parallels work already performed by the County Executive Office and department heads.
Related Recommendations (5)
R1: Starting with the budget for Fiscal Year 2027-2028 (and ongoing), zero-based budgeting should be used by the Board to require justification for all Board of Supervisors departmental positions and expenditures. (F1, F2, F4, F5)
R2: Starting with the budget for Fiscal Year 2027-2028 (and ongoing), an audit of municipal service workload in the unincorporated areas should be conducted to determine the appropriate level of Board staffing necessary to support the 4% of County residents still directly governed by the Board. (F1, F2, F3, F5)
R5: Starting October 31, 2026 (and ongoing), staffing levels within Board offices should be reviewed for redundancy relative to the County Executive Office and department-level subject-matter expertise. Positions that duplicate existing County functions should be eliminated. (F5)
R6: Starting October 31, 2026, the Board should realign their engagement with the County Executive Team and department heads on policy matters to enhance collaboration. (F5, F6)
R7: Starting with the budget for Fiscal Year 2027-2028, the Board should adopt a formal policy that governs their future departmental headcount and the elimination of discretionary spending that meets the above Recommendations. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6) -2026 Board of Supervisors – Headcount and Discretionary Spending
F6: The widening distance between Supervisors and the Executive Team undermines the value of the County Executive Team and complicates coordination, slows policy implementation, and contributes to fragmented decision-making. of 23 Board of Supervisors – Headcount & Discretionary Spending
Related Recommendations (2)
R6: Starting October 31, 2026, the Board should realign their engagement with the County Executive Team and department heads on policy matters to enhance collaboration. (F5, F6)
R7: Starting with the budget for Fiscal Year 2027-2028, the Board should adopt a formal policy that governs their future departmental headcount and the elimination of discretionary spending that meets the above Recommendations. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6) -2026 Board of Supervisors – Headcount and Discretionary Spending
Findings & Recommendations 22 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.
Related Recommendations (2)
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)
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) -
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
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)
F3: OCCOG coordinates RHNA regional planning in partnership with the SCAG for Orange County. OCCOG lacks adequate influence with SCAG.
Related Recommendations (6)
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) - -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)
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)
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)
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.
Related Recommendations (5)
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) - -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)
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 e-ach 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)
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10: By June 30, 2-027, 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) -2026
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.
Related Recommendations (3)
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) -
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)
R10: By June 30, 2-027, 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) -2026
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.
Related Recommendations (2)
R10: By June 30, 2-027, 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) -2026
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) -
F8: California’s regulatory construction costs (i.e. permitting fees) present substantial challenges for private housing developers—particularly those delivering affordable units. -2026
Related Recommendations (1)
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)
F9: The cost of constructing a single affordable housing unit in California typically ranges from approximately $500,000 to $800,000 per unit when fully complying with current state regulations. New low-income housing is generally not financially feasible without public subsidy.
F10: Prior to their dissolution in 2012, redevelopment agencies served as a primary mechanism for cities and counties to finance affordable housing and related infrastructure. The loss of redevelopment has reduced cities’ ability to support construction of affordable units.
Related Recommendations (1)
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)
F11: Because public subsidy is limited and highly competitive, cities seeking to produce meaningful quantities of low-income housing must rely in part on private development incentives, often resulting in higher overall development densities and unit counts than the RHNA allocation.
F12: The 6th Cycle RHNA methodology included numerous technical inputs published by SCAG and HCD; however, these inputs were highly complex and difficult for cities to interpret or independently verify.
Related Recommendations (1)
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)
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
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) -
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.
Related Recommendations (5)
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)
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, 2-027, 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) -2026
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)
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.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4: OCCOG should create a pu-blic 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)
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. -2026
Related Recommendations (1)
R13: OCTA sh-ould 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)
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
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)
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
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) -2026
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
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
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
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)
F22: Improved transparency and communication regarding RHNA methodology would enhance public confidence in the process and reduce misunderstandings among member jurisdictions.
Findings & Recommendations 6 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.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: By December 31, 2026, the Orange County Board of Supervisors should plan to host a county-wide annual wildfire prevention fair for the County and all cities and fire service agencies, including Orange County Fire Authority, to showcase respective wildfire outreach programs, and for the first annual wildfire prevention fair to be scheduled no later than December 31, 2027. [F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6]
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: By December 31, 2026, cities and fire service agencies, including Orange County Fire Authority should commit to participation in a county-wide annual wildfire prevention fair planned by the Orange County Board of Supervisors to showcase wildfire prevention outreach programs. [F1, F2,
F3: 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.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: By December 31, 2026, cities, unincorporated areas, special districts, and fire service agencies in High and Very-High Fire Hazard Severity Zones should initiate planning activities to achieve community-level wildfire risk mitigation designations and/or establish a local Fire Safe Council within one year. [F4, F5, F6]
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.
Related Recommendations (1)
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
F5: All county residents should be made aware that Safer from Wildfire regulation requires insurers to provide discounts to homeowners and communities that implement home hardening and defensible space measures regardless of whether a property is located within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
F6: AB888, California Safe Homes Grant Program, provides financial assistance to eligible homeowners, cities, counties, and special districts for home hardening and defensible space measures. Applying for and using these grant funds will reduce wildfire losses and improve insurability and resilience of vulnerable communities. of 74
Findings & Recommendations 6 findings
F1: Several Orange County locations meet the criteria for express bus pick-up sites, being approximately twenty-five miles from LAX and near major freeways. These locations are Fullerton Park & Ride, Buena Park Mall, and former Westminster Mall.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: By September 30, 2026, the City of Fullerton should direct its Planning Department to collaborate with Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) on a business case study for FlyAway® or similar services from Fullerton Park & of 54 (Orangethorpe Transit Village) to LAX, with a case study submitted to LAWA. This study should include projected ridership, financial sustainability, infrastructure readiness, and community benefits to support funding of the proposed service. [F1]
F2: The Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center presents a viable option for express bus service to LAX due to its location near Orange 27 Southern California Association of Governments. SoCal Airport Access and Mobility Study. https://scag.ca.gov/aviation-program -2026 County attractions and multimodal connectivity, despite being forty miles from LAX.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: By September 30, 2026, the Buena Park City Council should direct its Planning Department to collaborate with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) on a business case study for FlyAway® or similar services from the Buena Park Mall site (Village at Buena Park) to LAX, with a case study submitted to LAWA. This study should include projected ridership, financial sustainability, infrastructure readiness, and community benefits to support funding of the proposed service. [F1]
F3: The Irvine Transportation Center is a viable potential location for direct bus service to LAX due to its location near South Orange County, freeway access, and multimodal connectivity, despite being fifty miles from LAX.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: By September 30, 2026, the Westminster City Council should direct its Planning Department to collaborate with Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) on a business case study for FlyAway® or similar services from the former Westminster Mall site (Bolsa Pacific at Westminster) to LAX, with a case study submitted to LAWA. This study should include projected ridership, financial sustainability, infrastructure readiness, and community benefits to support funding of the proposed service. [F1]
F4: Public transit options to LAX that offer travel times comparable to private automobiles have several limitations. • The Orange County Transportation Authority has never operated direct transit service to LAX due to federal regulations prohibiting transit bus service to a single destination such as LAX. • Metrolink OC Line lacks direct connections to LAX, as stations such as Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs do not provide a seamless link to the airport. • Southern California Association of Governments planning documents that discuss regional airport ground access neglect cross-county mobility challenges.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: By September 30, 2026, the Anaheim City Council should direct its Planning Department to collaborate with Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) on a business case study for FlyAway® or similar services from the Anaheim Regional Transit Intermodal Center to LAX, with a case study submitted to LAWA. This study should include projected ridership, financial sustainability, infrastructure readiness, and community benefits to support funding of the proposed service. [F2]
F5: Metrolink provides less frequent service on weekends. Weekend travel times often exceed three hours due to reduced train schedules and longer transfer wait times.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: By September 30, 2026, the Irvine City Council should direct its Transportation Department to review the previous FlyAway® service that ended in 2012, engage the LAWA Mobility Unit or any other express bus service of their choice, and, upon receiving City Council approval, submit a business case study to LAWA or other express bus service(s). This study should include projected ridership, financial sustainability, infrastructure readiness, and community benefits to support funding of the proposed service. [F3]
F6: Metrolink offers the most dependable connection at Union Station, linking travelers to bus and light rail services to LAX. These routes require transfers, and variable freeway conditions can affect overall travel times.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: By September 30, 2026, Southern California Association of Governments should reach out to all Orange County cities to engage and understand ]
Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R7: By March 31, 2026, Metrolink should increase Metrolink OC Line weekend train service to support public transportation trips from Orange County through Union Station to LAX. [F5]
R8: By June 30, 2026, OCTA and Metrolink should promote the appropriate services that offer convenient connections to LAX, aiming to inform and guide travelers who are ready to choose public transit for their airport commute. [F6]
Findings & Recommendations 5 findings
F1: On June 24, 2025, the Orange County Board of Supervisors (“Board”) approved an ordinance granting themselves salary increases with minimal public notice and limited discussion, embedding the language deep within the details of an otherwise complex annual budget.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: By March 31, 2026, the Board should rescind the ordinance No. 25-012 or parts thereof, which authorized the most recent salary increase, or take other appropriate steps to rescind the salary increase with the intent to restore institutional trust and demonstrate a genuine commitment to transparency and accountability. [F3]
F2: The County of Orange lacks a formal established, independent review process for evaluating or recommending changes to the Board of Supervisors’ compensation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: By March 31, 2026, the Board of Supervisors should implement one of the following accountability measures: • Request an Independent Compensation Review in accordance with California Penal Code §927, immediately petitioning the Orange County Grand Jury to conduct an impartial review of Board compensation. This would provide a credible, third-party assessment and help restore public confidence. • Schedule a Voter Oversight Referendum consistent with Proposition 12 (California, 1970), California Constitution Article XI, Section 1(b), and Orange County Charter Section 201 for public review and approval. [F3]
F3: One Supervisor voted “no” on the Salary Increase. Two other Supervisors pledged to donate their salary increases to charity in response to public outcry. The Board has not reversed or reconsidered the decision to increase their salaries.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: By March 31, 2026, the Board should establish a new County ordinance that clearly defines the procedures for proposing, reviewing, and approving future salary adjustments for Board members. This framework should include public hearings and documentation requirements to ensure accountability. [F1, F2] -2026
F4: The ongoing lack of transparency and apparent self-enrichment among Board members have deeply disappointed many Orange County residents and county employees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: By March 31, 2026, the Board should align its salary deliberations with the County’s annual budget process, including a public review period. This timeline allows for early and sustained community engagement, ensuring that compensation decisions are made in full view of the public. [F4]
F5: The Grand Jury’s investigation was impeded by repeated meeting postponements, the invocation of attorney-client privilege, and a lack of cooperation from some executive and support staff, who were unable or unwilling to recall key events. of 37
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: By March 31, 2026, the Board should require by ordinance that any future salary adjustments for Board members be accompanied by a clear and accessible public notice which outlines the referendum process and provides a minimum 90-day window for public challenge, in accordance Orange County Charter Section 201. [F1, F2]
Findings & Recommendations 5 findings
F1: On June 24, 2025, the Orange County Board of Supervisors (“Board”) approved an ordinance granting themselves salary increases with minimal public notice and limited discussion, embedding the language deep within the details of an otherwise complex annual budget.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: By March 31, 2026, the Board should rescind the ordinance No. 25-012 or parts thereof, which authorized the most recent salary increase, or take other appropriate steps to rescind the salary increase with the intent to restore institutional trust and demonstrate a genuine commitment to transparency and accountability. [F3]
F2: The County of Orange lacks a formal established, independent review process for evaluating or recommending changes to the Board of Supervisors’ compensation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: By March 31, 2026, the Board of Supervisors should implement one of the following accountability measures: • Request an Independent Compensation Review in accordance with California Penal Code §927, immediately petitioning the Orange County Grand Jury to conduct an impartial review of Board compensation. This would provide a credible, third-party assessment and help restore public confidence. • Schedule a Voter Oversight Referendum consistent with Proposition 12 (California, 1970), California Constitution Article XI, Section 1(b), and Orange County Charter Section 201 for public review and approval. [F3]
F3: One Supervisor voted “no” on the Salary Increase. Two other Supervisors pledged to donate their salary increases to charity in response to public outcry. The Board has not reversed or reconsidered the decision to increase their salaries.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: By March 31, 2026, the Board should establish a new County ordinance that clearly defines the procedures for proposing, reviewing, and approving future salary adjustments for Board members. This framework should include public hearings and documentation requirements to ensure accountability. [F1, F2] -2026
F4: The ongoing lack of transparency and apparent self-enrichment among Board members have deeply disappointed many Orange County residents and county employees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: By March 31, 2026, the Board should align its salary deliberations with the County’s annual budget process, including a public review period. This timeline allows for early and sustained community engagement, ensuring that compensation decisions are made in full view of the public. [F4]
F5: The Grand Jury’s investigation was impeded by repeated meeting postponements, the invocation of attorney-client privilege, and a lack of cooperation from some executive and support staff, who were unable or unwilling to recall key events. of 37
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: By March 31, 2026, the Board should require by ordinance that any future salary adjustments for Board members be accompanied by a clear and accessible public notice which outlines the referendum process and provides a minimum 90-day window for public challenge, in accordance Orange County Charter Section 201. [F1, F2]
Findings & Recommendations 5 findings
F1: On June 24th, 2025, the Orange County Board of Supervisors (“Board”) approved an ordinance authorizing salary increases for themselves with minimal public notice, limited discussion, and no meaningful opportunity for community input without explicitly listing the item as “salary increase” on the meeting agenda.
F2: The County of Orange lacks a formal established, independent review process for evaluating or recommending changes to the Board of Supervisors’ compensation.
F3: Although one Supervisor voted “no” and two others pledged to donate their salary increases to charity in response to public outcry, the Board has not reversed or reconsidered the decision to increase their salaries.
F4: The ongoing lack of transparency and apparent self-enrichment among Board members have deeply disappointed many Orange County residents and county employees.
F5: The Grand Jury’s investigation was impeded by repeated meeting postponements, the invocation of attorney-client privilege, and a lack of cooperation from executive and support staff, who were unable or unwilling to recall key events. As a result, the Grand Jury was prevented from obtaining answers to critical questions.
Additional Recommendations 5

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: By March 31, 2026, the Board of Supervisors should implement one of the following accountability measures: • Request an Independent Compensation Review in accordance with California Penal Code §927, immediately petitioning the Orange County Grand Jury to conduct an impartial review of Board compensation. This would provide a credible, third-party assessment and help restore public confidence. • Schedule a Voter Oversight Referendum consistent with Proposition 12 (California, 1970), California Constitution Article XI, Section 1(b), and Orange County Charter Section 201 for public review and approval. [F3] OR
R2: By March 31, 2026, the Board should rescind the ordinance No. 25-012 or parts thereof, which authorized the most recent salary increase, or take other appropriate steps to rescind the salary increase with the intent to restore institutional trust and demonstrate a genuine commitment to transparency and accountability. [F3]
R3: By March 31, 2026, the Board should establish a new County ordinance that clearly defines the procedures for proposing, reviewing, and approving future salary adjustments for Board members. This framework should include public hearings and documentation requirements to ensure accountability. [F1, F2]
R4: By March 31, 2026, the Board should align its salary deliberations with the County’s annual budget process, including a public review period. This timeline allows for early and sustained community engagement, ensuring that compensation decisions are made in full view of the public. [F4]
R5: By March 31, 2025, The Board should require by ordinance that any future salary adjustments for Board members be accompanied by a clear and accessible public notice which outlines the referendum process and provides a minimum 90- day window for public challenge, in accordance Orange County Charter Section 20. [F1, F2]