Orange County Grand Jury • 2025-2026

2025-2026-Grand Jury Final Report

Published: July 06, 2026 382 pages Consolidated Report
Ver PDF original

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F11, F12, F13

Findings and Recommendations 19 findings

F1
On June 24th, 2025, the Orange County Board of Supervisors (“Board”) approved an ordinance authorizing salary increases for themselves with minimal public OR notice, limited discussion, and no meaningful opportunity for community input
Related Recommendations (2)
R10
By June 30, 2-027, the Orange County Board of Supervisors should of noncompliance. (F1, F2, F3, F4) evaluate whether the County should pursue its own independent
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
The County of Orange lacks a formal established, independent review process appropriate steps to rescind the salary increase with the intent to restore for evaluating or recommending changes to the Board of Supervisors’ institutional trust and demonstrate a genuine commitment to transparency and compensation. accountability. [F3]
Related Recommendations (1)
R10
By June 30, 2-027, the Orange County Board of Supervisors should of noncompliance. (F1, F2, F3, F4) evaluate whether the County should pursue its own independent
F3
Although one Supervisor voted “no” and two others pledged to donate their R3 By March 31, 2026, the Board should establish a new County ordinance that salary increases to charity in response to public outcry, the Board has not clearly defines the procedures for proposing, reviewing, and approving future reversed or reconsidered the decision to increase their salaries. salary adjustments for Board members. This framework should include public hearings and documentation requirements to ensure accountability. [F1, F2]
Related Recommendations (2)
R10
By June 30, 2-027, the Orange County Board of Supervisors should of noncompliance. (F1, F2, F3, F4) evaluate whether the County should pursue its own independent
R11
The County of Orange and each city should ensure consistent R19 By September 1, 2026, SCAG should conduct a formal review of its RHNA participation in SCAG and OCCOG committees by September 30, 2026, allocation methodology and clearly document, in understandable including the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), to strengthen regional language, the inputs, assumptions, weighting, and decision points used in representation during RHNA methodology development. (F3, F4, F15) the allocation algorithm. This documentation should be publicly released and designed to improve transparency, reduce perceptions of political
F4
The ongoing lack of transparency and apparent self-enrichment among Board members have deeply disappointed many Orange County residents and county R4 By March 31, 2026, the Board should align its salary deliberations with the employees. County’s annual budget process, including a public review period. This timeline allows for early and sustained community engagement, ensuring that
Related Recommendations (3)
R10
By June 30, 2-027, the Orange County Board of Supervisors should of noncompliance. (F1, F2, F3, F4) evaluate whether the County should pursue its own independent
R11
The County of Orange and each city should ensure consistent R19 By September 1, 2026, SCAG should conduct a formal review of its RHNA participation in SCAG and OCCOG committees by September 30, 2026, allocation methodology and clearly document, in understandable including the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), to strengthen regional language, the inputs, assumptions, weighting, and decision points used in representation during RHNA methodology development. (F3, F4, F15) the allocation algorithm. This documentation should be publicly released and designed to improve transparency, reduce perceptions of political
R12
The County of Orange and e-ach city should designate a single technical influence, and enhance public understanding of how allocations are representative, by September 30, 2026, along with an alternate, for all determined. (F21) RHNA related SCAG and OCCOG committees to ensure continuity of participation and eliminate gaps in representation across multiple R20 By September 1, 2026, SCAG should revise its RHNA appeals process to - decision making bodies. (F4) improve procedural transparency and responsiveness by clearly defining appeal criteria, documenting staff analyses and recommendations,
F5
The Grand Jury’s investigation was impeded by repeated meeting compensation decisions are made in full view of the public. [F4] postponements, the invocation of attorney-client privilege, and a lack of cooperation from executive and support staff, who were unable or unwilling to R5 By March 31, 2025, The Board should require by ordinance that any future salary recall key events. As a result, the Grand Jury was prevented from obtaining adjustments for Board members be accompanied by a clear and accessible answers to critical questions. public notice which outlines the referendum process and provides a minimum 90- day window for public challenge, in accordance Orange County Charter Section
No recommendations for this finding
F6
AB888, California Safe Homes Grant Program, provides financial Reducing wildfire risk in the wildland-urban interface helps ensure that insurance assistance to eligible homeowners, cities, counties, and special districts coverage remains accessible. California’s wildfire and insurance crisis demands for home hardening and defensible space measures. Applying for and coordinated action from local governments and fire authorities, communities, and using these grant funds will reduce wildfire losses and improve insurability homeowners to reduce risk of wildfire. and resilience of vulnerable communities. Cohen, The Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Problem, 23. Gammanco, The Return of Conflagration, 34. Orange OCroaunngtey CGoraunndty J Gurray n2d0 2J5u-r2y0 22062 5-2026 of 74 Wildfires Hit Home Wildfires Hit Home events, and local contact functions are effective means to help homeowners achieve FFIINNDDIINNGGSS awareness and ability to plan and take actions necessary to reduce wildfire and insurance risk. In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2025-2026 HOAs often have significant responsibility for large open space areas of Orange County Orange County Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each that can total hundreds of acres of fuel modification zones. The HOAs’ collaborative role agency affected by the findings presented in this section. The responses are to be with local fire service agencies in managing these fuel modification zones is as submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. important as their role with HOA residents in the shared responsibilities for wildfire and Based on its investigation “Wildfires Hit Home” the 2025-2026 Orange County Grand insurance risk reduction. Jury has arrived at the following six findings: Homeowners are Responsible for Reducing Home Ignition Potential
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Residents in Orange County consistently express a desire for local requires high-quality, early-released datasets from OCTA; however, these planning decisions to reflect community priorities, including but not limited datasets are not currently consolidated or formally adopted for use in the to neighborhood character, safety considerations, the environment and 7th Cycle methodology. open-space preservation.
Related Recommendations (1)
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 involved in SCAG and OCCOG’s RHNA processes promotes broad substantial challenges for private housing developers—particularly those participation but diffuses accountability, making it difficult to determine who delivering affordable units. is responsible for specific analytic inputs or process decisions. Orange County Grand Jury -2026 The cost of constructing a single affordable housing unit in California typically ranges from approximately $500,000 to $800,000 per unit when In accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, the 2025-2026 Orange fully complying with current state regulations. New low-income housing is County Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency and generally not financially feasible without public subsidy. city affected by the “Findings” presented in this section. Responses are to be submitted
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 Board of Supervisors has expanded Internal Audit Department’s accountability to Orange County residents by December 31, 2026. responsibilities to include performance auditing; however, sufficient staffing and F7, F8, F9 resources are required to support this expanded role. Orange County Grand Jury -2026 and 933.05, the 2025-2026 In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each Orange County Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the findings presented in this section. The responses are to be agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation described herein, the 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury Based on its investigation described herein, the 2025-2026 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at the following principal findings. makes the following recommendations:
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Prior to their dissolution in 2012, redevelopment agencies served as a to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. primary mechanism for cities and counties to finance affordable housing Based on its investigation “California Housing Mandates” the 2025-2026 Orange County and related infrastructure. The loss of redevelopment has reduced cities’ Grand Jury has arrived at 22 findings as follows: 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)
F14
OCCOG’s current resources and organizational structure are insufficient to
No recommendations for this finding
F15
Demands on HCD are anticipated to materially alter methodology for the
Related Recommendations (1)
R11
The County of Orange and each city should ensure consistent R19 By September 1, 2026, SCAG should conduct a formal review of its RHNA participation in SCAG and OCCOG committees by September 30, 2026, allocation methodology and clearly document, in understandable including the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), to strengthen regional language, the inputs, assumptions, weighting, and decision points used in representation during RHNA methodology development. (F3, F4, F15) the allocation algorithm. This documentation should be publicly released and designed to improve transparency, reduce perceptions of political
F16
The reliance on transit accessibility as a major RHNA consideration
No recommendations for this finding
F17
The large number of committees, subcommittees, and advisory groups
Related Recommendations (1)
R13
OCTA sh-ould provide an official, data frozen countywide transit dataset providing written explanations for appeal decisions, and ensuring (GTFS + GIS), by September 30, 2026, to meet OCCOG’s analytical - jurisdictions have meaningful opportunities to present and respond to staff needs for 7th Cycle RHNA planning. (F17)
F18
The City of Huntington Beach has been unsuccessful in its attempts to R3 OCCOG should develop and publish a comprehensive RHNA Inputs contest Housing Mandates. To date, Huntington Beach lacks an approved Catalog, by April 30, 2027, prior to drafting the 7th Cycle methodology, General Plan Housing Element related to RHNA Allocation. documenting all datasets used, their sources, methodological assumptions, and a version controlled record of changes. (F3, F4)
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 R4 OCCOG should create a pu-blic facing RHNA Accountability Dashboard, threatens the historical nature of a master plan community with substantial by April 30, 2027, displaying deadlines, responsible agencies, dataset - infrastructure challenges. readiness, and upcoming SCAG decision points, to ensure transparency and timely action by jurisdictions. (F16)
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) Orange County Grand Jury -2026 -2026 California State Housing Mandates California State Housing Mandates
F20
Cities and other stakeholders encounter difficulty explaining RHNA outcomes to elected officials and the public due to a lack of clear, R5 OCCOG should request that SCAG and HCD, by December 31, 2026, consolidated documentation describing how allocation decisions are provide written guidance explaining how HCD’s recommendations will be derived from the underlying data. applied in shaping the 7th Cycle RHNA methodology so that jurisdictions can prepare proactively. (F16)
No recommendations for this finding
F21
The absence of a clearly articulated and easily understandable description of the RHNA allocation algorithm contributes to perceptions that R6 OCCOG should convene a 7th Cycle Technical Working Group, by discretionary or political considerations may influence outcomes, even December 31, 2026, composed of planners, data analysts, and transit when allocations are made in compliance with state housing laws. experts to pre evaluate methodology scenarios and deliver unified, countywide recommendations to SCAG. (F3, F6, F15)
Related Recommendations (1)
R12
The County of Orange and e-ach city should designate a single technical influence, and enhance public understanding of how allocations are representative, by September 30, 2026, along with an alternate, for all determined. (F21) RHNA related SCAG and OCCOG committees to ensure continuity of participation and eliminate gaps in representation across multiple R20 By September 1, 2026, SCAG should revise its RHNA appeals process to - decision making bodies. (F4) improve procedural transparency and responsiveness by clearly defining appeal criteria, documenting staff analyses and recommendations,
F22
Improved transparency and communication regarding RHNA methodology - would enhance public confidence in the process and reduce R7 OCCOG, all Orange County cities and the County of Orange should 4 misunderstandings among member jurisdictions. 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 RREECCOOMMMMEENNDDAATTIIOONNSS development and appeals. (F3, F15)
No recommendations for this finding

Additional Recommendations 9

These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.