Agenda packet — Costa Mesa City Council, February 1, 2022 (part 3 of 8)

July 23, 2021
Minoo Ashabi
City of Costa Mesa
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Native American Consultation, Pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB18), Government Codes §65352.3 and §65352.4, as well as Assembly Bill 52 (AB52), Public Resources Codes §21080.1, §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2, Costa Mesa 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Project, Orange County
Dear Ms. Ashabi:

Attached is a consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within the boundaries of the above referenced counties or projects.

Government Codes §65352.3 and §65352.4 require local governments to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to cultural places when creating or amending General Plans, Specific Plans and Community Plans.

Public Resources Codes §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2 requires public agencies to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to tribal cultural resources as defined, for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) projects.

The law does not preclude local governments and agencies from initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction. The NAHC believes that this is the best practice to ensure that tribes are consulted commensurate with the intent of the law.

Best practice for the AB52 process and in accordance with Public Resources Code §21080.3.1(d), is to do the following:

Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section.

The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that lead agencies include in their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential affect (APE), such as:

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

SECRETARY
Merri Lopez-Keifer
Luiseño

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk

COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache

COMMISSIONER
Julie Tumamait-
Stenslie
Chumash

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
381

Page 2 of 2 ends

1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:
• A listing of any and all known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites;
• Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response; • Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and
• If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.

2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.

All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code Section 6254.10.

3. The result of the Sacred Lands File (SFL) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission was positive. Please contact the tribes on the attached list for more information.

4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the potential APE; and

5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the potential APE.

Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS is not exhaustive, and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.

This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event, that they do, having the information beforehand well help to facilitate the consultation process.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance we can assure that our consultation list remains current.

If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].

Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
382
Campo Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
Ralph Goff, Chairperson
36190 Church Road, Suite 1
Campo, CA, 91906
Phone: (619) 478 - 9046
Fax: (619) 478-5818
[email protected]
Diegueno
Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay
Indians
Robert Pinto, Chairperson
4054 Willows Road
Alpine, CA, 91901
Phone: (619) 445 - 6315
Fax: (619) 445-9126
[email protected]
Diegueno
Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay
Indians
Michael Garcia, Vice Chairperson
4054 Willows Road
Alpine, CA, 91901
Phone: (619) 445 - 6315
Fax: (619) 445-9126
[email protected]
Diegueno
Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians - Kizh Nation
Andrew Salas, Chairperson
P.O. Box 393
Covina, CA, 91723
Phone: (626) 926 - 4131
[email protected]
Gabrieleno
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel
Band of Mission Indians
Anthony Morales, Chairperson
P.O. Box 693
San Gabriel, CA, 91778
Phone: (626) 483 - 3564
Fax: (626) 286-1262
[email protected]
Gabrieleno
Gabrielino /Tongva Nation
Sandonne Goad, Chairperson
106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St.,
#231
Los Angeles, CA, 90012
Phone: (951) 807 - 0479
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
Robert Dorame, Chairperson
P.O. Box 490
Bellflower, CA, 90707
Phone: (562) 761 - 6417
Fax: (562) 761-6417
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
Christina Conley, Tribal
Consultant and Administrator
P.O. Box 941078
Simi Valley, CA, 93094
Phone: (626) 407 - 8761
[email protected]
u
Gabrielino
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
Charles Alvarez,
23454 Vanowen Street
West Hills, CA, 91307
Phone: (310) 403 - 6048
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Juaneno Band of Mission
Indians Acjachemen Nation -
Belardes
Matias Belardes, Chairperson
32161 Avenida Los Amigos
San Juan Capisttrano, CA, 92675
Phone: (949) 293 - 8522
[email protected]
Juaneno
La Posta Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
Javaughn Miller, Tribal
Administrator
8 Crestwood Road
Boulevard, CA, 91905
Phone: (619) 478 - 2113
Fax: (619) 478-2125
[email protected]
Diegueno
1 of 2
This list is current only as of the date of this document and is based on the information available to the Commission on the date it was produced. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is applicable only for consultation with Native American tribes under Government Code Sections 65352.3, 65352.4 et seq. and Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1 for the proposed Costa Mesa 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Project, Orange County.

PROJ-2021-
004111
07/23/2021 02:59 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Tribal Consultation List
Orange County
7/23/2021
383
La Posta Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
Gwendolyn Parada, Chairperson
8 Crestwood Road
Boulevard, CA, 91905
Phone: (619) 478 - 2113
Fax: (619) 478-2125
[email protected]
Diegueno
Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay
Nation
Angela Elliott Santos, Chairperson
P.O. Box 1302
Boulevard, CA, 91905
Phone: (619) 766 - 4930
Fax: (619) 766-4957
Diegueno
Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians
Michael Linton, Chairperson
P.O Box 270
Santa Ysabel, CA, 92070
Phone: (760) 782 - 3818
Fax: (760) 782-9092
[email protected]
Diegueno
Pala Band of Mission Indians
Shasta Gaughen, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
PMB 50, 35008 Pala Temecula
Rd.

Pala, CA, 92059
Phone: (760) 891 - 3515
Fax: (760) 742-3189
[email protected]
Cupeno
Luiseno
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 659 - 2700
Fax: (951) 659-2228
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson
P. O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 654 - 5544
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
2 of 2
This list is current only as of the date of this document and is based on the information available to the Commission on the date it was produced. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

PROJ-2021-
004111
07/23/2021 02:59 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Tribal Consultation List
Orange County
7/23/2021
384
Native American Tribal Consultation under AB 52 are between tribal representatives and the Lead Agency (City of Costa Mesa). AB 52 requires that any information – not just documents– submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public consistent with Gov. Code Sections 6254, subd.(r) and 6254.10. (Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3, subd. (c)(1)). Unless the tribe agrees, in writing, to public disclosure, the project applicant or the project applicant’s legal advisors, using a reasonable degree of care, shall maintain the confidentiality of the information exchanged for the purposes of preventing looting, vandalism or damage to a tribal cultural resource and shall not disclose the information to a third party. (Pub.

Resources Code § 21082.3, subd. (c)(2)(A)). For more information, please contact the Planning Division at the City of Costa Mesa. No formal request for consultation was received during the preparation of the Initial Study.
385

Candidate Housing Sites Inventory

Appendix B

386

DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-2
Costa Mesa Housing Element

6th Cycle – 2021-2029
Table 1: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA Note: This table is sorted by unique identifier (Unique ID). The unique identifiers were established at the beginning of the sites analysis process.

Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites.

APN Unique

Approximately half of the parcel is surface
parking and property abuts a major
transportation corridor (19th Street) and
existing multi-family. Shopping Center shows
no recent sign of renovation.
424-202-02 12 719 W
19th St

PANGE MARC C

TR PANGE

REVOC TR
C1 4 19 West 1.29 50 Yes 12 6 12 34
Small commercial uses in a strip mall center.

Approximately half of the parcel is surface
parking and property abuts a major
transportation corridor (19th Street).

Shopping Center shows no recent sign of
renovation.
424-202-03 13 707 W
19th St

MUNOZ FAMILY
PROPERTIES LLC C1 4 19 West 2.00 50 19 9 19 52
Existing single-user (Smart&Final) with large
surface parking lot. Potential to redevelop for
mixed-use adjacent to major transportation
corridor (19th Street).
424-211-01 14 695 W
19th St

CITY OF COSTA
MESA C1 5 19 West
(Senior) 2.66 50 40 20 0 0 Proposed Senior Center Housing project. 424-281-20 16
1710
Pomona
Ave

PACIFIC MESA
PROPERTIES MG 5 19 West 1.08 50 10 5 10 28
Existing self-storage facility in close proximity
to new residential uses and major
transportation corridor (17th Street).
424-281-21 17 670 W
17th St

PACIFIC MESA
PROPERTIES MG 5 19 West 1.06 50 10 5 10 28
Existing 2-story office and commercial uses in
close proximity to new residential uses and
major transportation corridor (17th Street).
424-281-22 18 660 W
17th St

PACIFIC MESA
PROPERTIES MG 5 19 West 2.22 50 22 11 22 55
Existing self-storage facility and light
industrial/commercial use in close proximity
to new residential uses and major
transportation corridor (17th Street).
425-431-02 19
1680
Superior
Ave
B D INNS INC CL 6 19 West 2.11 50 21 10 21 53
Existing hotel use (Ramada) with large surface
parking lot. Property is directly adjacent to
Newport Boulevard and next to new multi-
family development. 387

Costa Mesa Housing Element

Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites.

APN Unique

SCHWARTZ
PAUL D 2007 TR MG 6 19 West 0.29 50 A 2 1 2 9
Collection of existing warehouse and industrial
uses adjacent to new multi-family
development. The Housing Element
anticipates this property may be redeveloped
with adjacent uses as indicated in this table.
425-431-04 21 116 E
16th St

SHEEHAN
MICHAEL W TR MG 6 19 West 0.73 50 A 7 3 7 19
Collection of existing warehouse and industrial
uses adjacent to new multi-family
development. The Housing Element
anticipates this property may be redeveloped
with adjacent uses as indicated in this table.
425-431-05 22 126 E
16th St
126 PROPERTIES
LLC MG 6 19 West 0.42 50 A 4 2 4 10
Collection of existing warehouse and industrial
uses adjacent to new multi-family
development. The Housing Element
anticipates this property may be redeveloped
with adjacent uses as indicated in this table.
425-431-06 23 126 E
16Th St
126 PROPERTIES
LLC C1 6 19 West 0.35 50 A 3 1 3 10
Collection of existing warehouse and industrial
uses adjacent to new multi-family
development. The Housing Element
anticipates this property may be redeveloped
with adjacent uses as indicated in this table.
425-431-07 24
1601
Newport
Blvd
WINKAL
HOLDINGS L L C C1 6 19 West 0.79 50 7 3 7 22
Collection of existing warehouse and industrial
uses adjacent to new multi-family
development. The Housing Element
anticipates this property may be redeveloped
with adjacent uses as indicated in this table.
420-012-16 38 2476
Mark St

STATE OF

CALIFORNIA
I&R-
MLT 1 Fairview
Developmental 108.91 60 575 345 690 690
Fairview Developmental Center property. See
analysis in Appendix B for additional
information on potential to redevelop.
141-361-06 39
2700
Harbor
Blvd

FEMINO JAMES

J THE J J & S

FEMINO LIVING
TR
C1 3 Harbor Mixed-
Use 0.68 50 6 3 6 19 Mixed us building with first floor retail and offices
388

Costa Mesa Housing Element

Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites.

APN Unique

ID ADDRESS OWNER ZONING COUNCIL
DISTRICT Specific Plans Size (Ac) Density Vacant Potential Consolidation
Used
in 5th
Cycle
Very
Low
(20%)
Low
(10%)
Moderate
(20%)
Above
Moderate
(50%)
Notes
141-361-11 40
2666
Harbor
Blvd
HARBOR CM LLC C1 3 Harbor Mixed-
Use 2.41 50 24 12 24 60
Former Ace Hardware store, now for lease
after Ace went out of business. Large big box
structure with surface parking along a major
transportation corridor (Harbor Blvd)
141-361-21 41
2790
Harbor
Blvd

LEFEBVRE

MAUREEN

ELIZABETH
C1 3 Harbor Mixed-
Use 0.75 50 7 3 7 20
Mixed use building with retail and offices on
first floor and offices on 2nd and 3rd floor.

Building is partially vacant with large surface
parking lot adjacent to major transportation
corridor (Harbor).
141-361-22 42
2750
Harbor
Blvd

SRS COLLEGE
CENTER C1 3 Harbor Mixed-
Use 1.71 50 17 8 17 43
Existing older commercial shopping center
adjacent to major transportation corridor
(Harbor). Uses range from commercial to
office and restaurants. Large surface parking
lot.
141-361-23 43
2730
Harbor
Blvd

SRS COLLEGE
CENTER C1 3 Harbor Mixed-
Use 0.68 50 6 3 6 18
Existing older commercial shopping center
adjacent to major transportation corridor
(Harbor). Uses range from commercial to
office and restaurants. Large surface parking
lot.
141-361-27 44
2710
Harbor
Blvd

JOHNSON

GREGORY A &

JACLYN H
C1 3 Harbor Mixed-
Use 0.67 50 6 3 6 18
Existing older commercial shopping center
adjacent to major transportation corridor
(Harbor). Uses range from commercial to
office and restaurants. Large surface parking
lot.
141-361-28 45
2706
Harbor
Blvd

MESA VERDE
CENTER LLC C1 3 Harbor Mixed-
Use 0.97 50 9 4 9 26 Vacant Pier 1 Imports box store and surface parking lot. Building is currently for lease.
419-031-08 52
2200
Harbor
Blvd
GRAY
ENTERPRISES C1-S 5 Harbor Mixed-
Use 0.75 50 7 3 7 20
Surface parking lot within large retail shopping
center. Potential for mixed-use
redevelopment. Retail center has major big
box tenants which have permanently closed,
leaving an excess of surface parking.
419-031-09 53
2200
Harbor
Blvd
GRAY
ENTERPRISES C1-S 5 Harbor Mixed-
Use 1.17 50 11 5 11 31
Former K-Mart box store which has
permanently closed. Shopping center is
adjacent to multi-family residential and may
redevelop for mixed- use.
389

Costa Mesa Housing Element

Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites.

APN Unique

ID ADDRESS OWNER ZONING COUNCIL
DISTRICT Specific Plans Size (Ac) Density Vacant Potential Consolidation
Used
in 5th
Cycle
Very
Low
(20%)
Low
(10%)
Moderate
(20%)
Above
Moderate
(50%)
Notes
419-031-12 54
2200
Harbor
Blvd
GRAY
ENTERPRISES C1-S 5 Harbor Mixed-
Use 3.16 50 31 15 31 81
Former K-Mart box store which has
permanently closed. Shopping center is
adjacent to multi-family residential and may
redevelop for mixed- use.
419-171-58 56
2150
Harbor
Blvd
2150 HARBOR
BLVD LLC C1 5 Harbor Mixed-
Use 1.17 50 11 5 11 31
Norms restaurant with large surface parking
lot adjacent to major transportation corridor
(Harbor Blvd).
422-021-09 57
2131
Harbor
Blvd

SHERMAN
DONALD L H C2 4 Harbor Mixed-
Use 0.83 50 8 4 8 21
Auto parts store, retail store, and pet
grooming store, with large surface parking
area adjacent to major transportation corridor
(Harbor Blvd).
422-091-11 58
2075
Harbor
Blvd

LEWIS JOHN T &
LEWIS MARY K C2 5 Harbor Mixed-
Use 0.63 50 6 3 6 16 Tools and equipment rental yard adjacent to major transportation corridor (Harbor Blvd).
422-091-12 59
2069
Harbor
Blvd
TANNER DALE A C2 5 Harbor Mixed-
Use 0.54 50 5 2 5 14 Auto repair shop with large yard adjacent to major transportation corridor (Harbor Blvd).
422-091-14 61
2049
Harbor
Blvd

C M HARBOR
CM LLC C2 5 Harbor Mixed-
Use 0.54 50 5 2 5 14 Auto repair shop with large yard adjacent to major transportation corridor (Harbor Blvd).
422-091-24 62
2015
Harbor
Blvd

NEWPORT

MESA AUTO

CENTER LLC
C2 5 Harbor Mixed-
Use 0.62 50 6 3 6 15
Newport Mesa Auto Center with car repair
and car wash uses adjacent to major
transportation corridor (Harbor Blvd).
422-091-26 63
2007
Harbor
Blvd
949 STORAGE
LLC C2 5 Harbor Mixed-
Use 0.83 50 8 4 8 21
Self-storage facility with surface parking lot
and access to major transportation corridor
(Harbor Blvd).
422-101-03 64
1989
Harbor
Blvd
JUNEAU

PAULINE
BRECHT
C2 5 Harbor Mixed-
Use 0.56 50 5 2 5 15
Budget Truck Rental yard which is largely a
paved surface parking lot with a small
building. Site is adjacent to major
transportation corridor (Harbor Blvd).
422-101-06 65 1974
Charle St

CHARLE ST
REALTY LLC C2 5 Harbor Mixed-
Use 0.53 50 5 2 5 14 Existing low-intensity light industrial and warehouse uses.
422-193-23 66
2215
Harbor
Blvd

CHEN-RONG
PROPERTIES LLC C2 4 Harbor Mixed-
Use 0.58 50 5 2 5 16
Aging furniture store structure with surface
parking lot adjacent to major transportation
corridor (Harbor Blvd).
390

Costa Mesa Housing Element

Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites.

APN Unique

ID ADDRESS OWNER ZONING COUNCIL
DISTRICT Specific Plans Size (Ac) Density Vacant Potential Consolidation
Used
in 5th
Cycle
Very
Low
(20%)
Low
(10%)
Moderate
(20%)
Above
Moderate
(50%)
Notes
422-193-24 67
2205
Harbor
Blvd
AQUA 26 LLC C2 4 Harbor Mixed-
Use 0.58 50 5 2 5 16
Aging motel use with large surface parking lot
adjacent to major transportation corridor
(Harbor Blvd).
422-282-11 68
2044
Placentia
Ave
SAA 2 LLC MG 4 Mesa West 1.18 40 9 4 9 25
Auto repair shop and light industrial uses with
surface parking adjacent to recently
developed townhouses and apartments.

Building shows little sign of recent renovation.

422-291-04 69
2065
Placentia
Ave
PUBLIC

STORAGE

PARTNERS LTD
MG 4 Mesa West 1.85 40 14 7 14 38
Self-storage facility adjacent to recently
developed townhouses and apartments.

Building shows little sign of recent renovation.
422-291-05 70
2065
Placentia
Ave
PUBLIC
STORAGE INC MG 4 Mesa West 0.92 40 7 3 7 19
Self-storage facility adjacent to recently
developed townhouses and apartments.

Building shows little sign of recent renovation.
422-291-06 71
2051
Placentia
Ave

PLACENTIA AVE
PROPERTIES LLC MG 4 Mesa West 0.92 40 7 3 7 19
Existing office/light industrial uses adjacent to
recently developed townhouses and
apartments.
422-301-01 72
1987
Placentia
Ave
HARTLEY CO MG 4 Mesa West 2.31 40 18 9 18 47
Warehouses with large surface parking lot.

Two buildings on the site. Adjacent to
recently developed townhouses and
apartments. Building shows little sign of
recent renovation.
422-454-28 74
2101
Placentia
Ave
CASACOS LLC MG 4 Mesa West 0.91 40 7 3 7 19 Restaurant with large surface parking lot.

Potential for mixed-use development.
424-061-01 75 885 W
18th St

MONROVIA
AVENUE

PARTNERS LLC
MG 5 Mesa West 1.25 40 9 4 9 27 Warehouses with large surface parking lot.

One building on the site.
424-061-03 76 859 W
18th St

CRANK FAMILY
2007 LLC MG 5 Mesa West 0.81 40 6 3 6 17 Auto repair shop with surface parking lot. 424-061-04 77 851 W
18th St SEA PROPERTIES MG 5 Mesa West 1.79 40 14 7 14 36 Auto body shop with large surface parking lot. 424-061-05 78
1791
Placentia
Ave

BOYD WILLIS
BLAIR SR TR MG 5 Mesa West 4.27 40 34 17 34 85
Single-story warehouses with large surface
parking lot and drive aisles. Five buildings on
the site which show little sign of recent
renovation.
391

Costa Mesa Housing Element

Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites.

APN Unique

BOYD WILLIS
BLAIR SR TR MG 5 Mesa West 4.70 40 37 18 37 95
Single-story warehouses with large surface
parking lot and drive aisles. Seven buildings on
the site which show little sign of recent
renovation.
424-241-11 96 610 W
18th St

COSTA MESA
WOMEN'S CLUB R2-HD 5 Mesa West 0.58 40 4 2 4 13
Costa Mesa Women's Club with large surface
parking lot. Property is adjacent to new park
and civic center uses and in a residential
setting with both single-family and multi-
family uses. Property is underutilized.
424-281-01 97
1730
Pomona
Ave
C & K PARTNERS MG 5 Mesa West 0.99 40 7 3 7 22 Warehouses with surface parking lot. One building on the site.
424-281-19 98
424
Pomona
Ave

PACIFIC MESA
PROPERTIES MG 5 Mesa West 1.19 40 9 4 9 25 Warehouses with large surface parking lot.

One building on the site.
424-281-23 99 660 W
17th St

PACIFIC MESA
PROPERTIES MG 5 Mesa West 2.26 40 18 9 18 45 Large single-story self-storage facility adjacent to existing multi-family residential.
424-321-17 100
1882
Whittier
Ave

AYRES SELF

STORAGE

COSTA MESA
LLC
R2-MD 5 Mesa West 1.08 40 8 4 8 23 Large single-story self-storage facility adjacent to existing multi-family residential.
139-031-39 131
3303
Harbor
Blvd

SDCO COSTA
MESA

COMMERCE

PARK INC
PDI 1 North Costa
Mesa 10.00 90 180 90 180 450
Existing single-story light industrial/office uses
on large site. The City has received interest in
the potential future redevelopment of the site
for residential uses.
139-031-42 132
1575
Sunflower
Ave
RREEF CPIF 1575

SUNFLOWER
LLC
MP 1 North Costa
Mesa 8.03 90 144 72 144 362
Existing single-story light industrial/office uses
on large site. The City has received interest in
the potential future redevelopment of the site
for residential uses.
139-031-67 133
3333
Harbor
Blvd

BEG HOLDINGS
LP MP 1 North Costa
Mesa 10.00 90 180 90 180 450
Sofia University site (former Whittier Law
School site) with large surface parking lot and
largely underdeveloped land. The City has
received interest in the potential future
redevelopment of the site for residential uses.
392

Costa Mesa Housing Element

Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites.

APN Unique

ID ADDRESS OWNER ZONING COUNCIL
DISTRICT Specific Plans Size (Ac) Density Vacant Potential Consolidation
Used
in 5th
Cycle
Very
Low
(20%)
Low
(10%)
Moderate
(20%)
Above
Moderate
(50%)
Notes
140-041-38 134
3390
Harbor
Blvd
HARBOR
ASSOCIATES MP 1 North Costa
Mesa 5.78 90 104 52 104 260
National University site. Analysis assumes
potential redevelopment of the entire site as
National University has vacated the existing
lease. The City has received interest in the
potential future redevelopment of the site for
residential uses.
140-041-63 136
3390
Harbor
Blvd
C J

SEGERSTROM &
SONS
MP 1 North Costa
Mesa 1.69 90 30 15 30 77
National University site. Analysis assumes
potential redevelopment of the surface
parking area. The City has received interest in
the potential future redevelopment of the site
for residential uses.
140-041-82 137
3315
Fairview
Rd
C J

SEGERSTROM &
SONS
PDC 1 North Costa
Mesa - HR 7.58 90 Vacant C 44 22 44 333
Home Ranch property. See analysis in
Appendix B for additional information on
potential to redevelop.
140-041-93 138
1201
South
Coast Dr

HENRY T

SEGERSTROM

PROP LLC
PDC 1 North Costa
Mesa - HR 30.30 90 Vacant C 177 88 177 1,330
Home Ranch property. See analysis in
Appendix B for additional information on
potential to redevelop.
410-051-48 139 3400
Bristol St

SOUTH COAST
PLAZA TC 2 North Costa
Mesa 0.53 90 G 9 4 9 25
Existing office uses. The City has discussed the
potential future redevelopment of this site for
high-density residential uses with the property
owner.
410-051-51 140
685
Sunflower
Ave

SOUTH COAST
PLAZA TC 2 North Costa
Mesa 0.88 90 G 15 7 15 41
Vacant portion of parcel adjacent to parking
structure. The City has discussed the potential
future redevelopment of this site for high-
density residential uses with the property
owner.
410-051-52 141 3410
Bristol St

SOUTH COAST
PLAZA TC 2 North Costa
Mesa 1.35 90 G 24 12 24 61
Existing office uses. The City has discussed the
potential future redevelopment of this site for
high-density residential uses with the property
owner.
410-441-17 142
14850
Sunflower
Ave

ROY K SAKIOKA
& SONS PDC 2 North Costa
Mesa - SL2 30.93 90 Vacant 120 60 120 900
Sakioka Lot 2 property. See analysis in
Appendix B for additional information on
potential to redevelop. 393

Costa Mesa Housing Element

Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites.

APN Unique

ID ADDRESS OWNER ZONING COUNCIL
DISTRICT Specific Plans Size (Ac) Density Vacant Potential Consolidation
Used
in 5th
Cycle
Very
Low
(20%)
Low
(10%)
Moderate
(20%)
Above
Moderate
(50%)
Notes
410-501-31 144 N/A JKS-CMFV LLC PDC 2 North Costa
Mesa 3.39 90 61 30 61 153
Large surface parking lot. Analysis assumes
only redevelopment of the surface parking lot
area. The City has discussed the potential
future redevelopment of this site for high-
density residential uses with the property
owner.
412-491-07 145 3333
Bristol St

SOUTH COAST
PLAZA PDC 2 North Costa
Mesa 6.41 90 115 57 115 288
This parcel is and existing surface parking lot
within South Coast Plaza. See analysis in
Appendix B for additional information on
potential to redevelop.
412-491-11 146 0 SOUTH COAST
PLAZA PDC 2 North Costa
Mesa 5.37 90 96 48 96 243
This parcel is and existing surface parking lot
within South Coast Plaza. See analysis in
Appendix B for additional information on
potential to redevelop.
412-501-06 147 3333
Bristol St S-TRACT LLC PDC 2 North Costa
Mesa 10.00 90 180 90 180 450
This parcel is and existing surface parking lot
within South Coast Plaza. See analysis in
Appendix B for additional information on
potential to redevelop.
418-161-06 176
2957
Randolph
Ave

ZELDEN ALICE
WILLER MG 2 SoBECA 0.72 60 8 4 8 23
Existing light industrial/brewery with large
surface parking lot. Site is within the SoBECA
Urban Plan redevelopment area.
418-162-02 177
2968
Randolph
Ave

PALANJIAN
JERRY O MG 2 SoBECA 0.72 60 8 4 8 23
Warehouses with surface parking lot. Site is
within the SoBECA Urban Plan redevelopment
area.
418-163-05 178 2064
Bristol St PEP BOYS C1 2 SoBECA 1.47 60 17 8 17 46 Tire shop with large surface parking lot. Site is
within the SoBECA Urban Plan redevelopment
area.
418-171-02 179 752 Saint
Clair St

PURCILLY GAY
WHEELER C2 2 SoBECA 0.26 60 B 3 1 3 8 School yard for learning center. Site is within the SoBECA Urban Plan redevelopment area.
418-191-04 180 766 Saint
Clair St
766 ST CLAIR
LLC C2 2 SoBECA 0.67 60 8 4 8 20
Gym with large surface parking lot. Site is
within the SoBECA Urban Plan redevelopment
area.
418-202-01 181 845 Baker
St RMAFII LOC LLC C1 2 SoBECA 0.87 60 10 5 10 27
Small strip mall with large surface parking lot.

Site is within the SoBECA Urban Plan
redevelopment area.
418-202-02 182 841 Baker
St

BAKER STREET
PROPERTIES LLC C1 2 SoBECA 0.33 60 D 3 1 3 12
Nightclub with large surface parking lot. Site is
within the SoBECA Urban Plan redevelopment
area.
394

Costa Mesa Housing Element

Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites.

APN Unique

BAKER STREET
PROPERTIES LLC C1 2 SoBECA 0.60 60 D 7 3 7 18
Nightclub with large surface parking lot. Site is
within the SoBECA Urban Plan redevelopment
area.
418-202-04 184 801 Baker
St

RED MOUNTAIN

ASSET FUND
ILLC
C1 2 SoBECA 0.86 60 10 5 10 26
Strip mall with large surface parking lot. Site is
within the SoBECA Urban Plan redevelopment
area.
418-202-05 185 2969
Century Pl
ECHAN
BARBARA TRUST C1 2 SoBECA 0.09 60 E 1 0 1 3 Surface parking lot. Site is within the SoBECA Urban Plan redevelopment area.
418-202-06 186 2969
Century Pl
ECHAN
BARBARA TRUST MG 2 SoBECA 0.68 60 E 8 4 8 20
Gym with large surface parking lot. Site is
within the SoBECA Urban Plan redevelopment
area.
418-202-07 187 2959
Century Pl

GRAYBAR

ELECTRIC CO
INC
MG 2 SoBECA 0.50 60 6 3 6 15
Electrical equipment
manufacturer/distributor. Site is within the
SoBECA Urban Plan redevelopment area.
418-202-10 188 2942
Century Pl
SCM
ENTERPRISES MG 2 SoBECA 0.87 60 10 5 10 27
Coworking office with large surface parking.

Site is within the SoBECA Urban Plan
redevelopment area.
418-202-11 189 2952
Century Pl
GRAHAM
GORDON T TR MG 2 SoBECA 0.90 60 10 5 10 29 Warehouse with large yard. Site is within the SoBECA Urban Plan redevelopment area.
418-202-12 190 2972
Century Pl PROJECT C LLC MG 2 SoBECA 0.94 60 11 5 11 29 Auto repair shop with surface parking. Site is
within the SoBECA Urban Plan redevelopment
area.
418-202-13 191 2972
Century Pl PROJECT C LLC MG 2 SoBECA 0.91 60 10 5 10 29 Warehouse with large yard. Site is within the SoBECA Urban Plan redevelopment area.
418-202-14 193 765 Baker
St PROJECT C LLC C2 2 SoBECA 0.67 60 8 4 8 20 Existing auto repair shop use. Site is within the SoBECA Urban Plan redevelopment area.
419-041-02 194
2180
Harbor
Blvd

FISHER REAL
ESTATE

PARTNERS
(COSTA MESA) L
P
C1 5 Harbor Mixed-
Use 0.77 50 7 3 7 21
Existing aging strip mall with multiple tenants
and large surface parking lot area. Site is
adjacent to a major transportation corridor
(Harbor Blvd).
419-041-06 195
2180
Harbor
Blvd

FISHER REAL
ESTATE

PARTNERS
(COSTA MESA) L
P
C1 5 Harbor Mixed-
Use 2.50 50 25 12 25 63
99 cent store with large surface parking. Site
is adjacent to a major transportation corridor
(Harbor Blvd).
395

Costa Mesa Housing Element

Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites.

APN Unique

THE HIVE

CREATIVE

OFFICE INC
PDI 1 North Costa
Mesa 4 90 72 36 72 252
Current Chargers practice field facility. The
City has discussed the potential for future
redevelopment of this site for high-density
residential uses with the property owner.
418-101-05 197 1425
Baker St 1425 BAKER LLC C1 2 Harbor Mixed-
Use 1.90 60 22 11 22 59 Existing auto dealer with large surface parking. 140-041-83 198 N/A
C J

SEGERSTROM &
SONS
PDC 1 North Costa
Mesa - HR 0.23 80 C 0 0 0 0
Home Ranch property. See analysis in
Appendix B for additional information on
potential to redevelop.
418-101-03 199 1491
Baker St

PURCILLY GAY
WHEELER TR C1 2 Harbor Mixed-
Use 1.27 60 B 14 7 14 39
Restaurant and barbershop. Site is
anticipated to redevelop with adjacent parcels
as shown in this table.
424-202-01 200 745 W
19th St

PANGE MARC C
REVOC TR C1 4 19 West 0.63 50 6 3 6 15
Strip mall with surface parking lot adjacent to
major transportation corridor (19th St.). Site
has the potential to redevelop for mixed-use.
410-481-05 201 3201 Park
Center Dr

THE IRVINE
COMPANY LLC TC 2
North Costa
Mesa - Pac
Arts

6.27 90 H 18 9 18 141
Pacific Arts Center property. See analysis in
Appendix B for additional information on
potential to redevelop.
410-491-07 202 601 Anton
Blvd

THE IRVINE
COMPANY LLC TC 2
North Costa
Mesa - Pac
Arts

12.07 90 H 35 18 35 261
Pacific Arts Center property. See analysis in
Appendix B for additional information on
potential to redevelop.
139-313-21 203
1590
Adams
Ave
C J

SEGERSTROM &
SONS
C1 1 Harbor Mixed-
Use 0.19 50 F 1 0 1 7
Existing Post Office site with lease expiring
during the planning period. Property owner
has indicated interest in redeveloping the site
for residential uses.
139-313-30 204
1590
Adams
Ave
C J

SEGERSTROM &
SONS
C1 1 Harbor Mixed-
Use 2.40 50 F 24 12 24 60
Existing Post Office site with lease expiring
during the planning period. Property owner
has indicated interest in redeveloping the site
for residential uses.
410-051-46 205 3420
Bristol St

SOUTH COAST
PLAZA TC 2 North Costa
Mesa 0.79 90 G 14 7 14 35
Existing office uses and surface parking lot.

The City has discussed the potential future
redevelopment of this site for high-density
residential uses with the property owner.
396

Costa Mesa Housing Element

Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites.

APN Unique

ID ADDRESS OWNER ZONING COUNCIL
DISTRICT Specific Plans Size (Ac) Density Vacant Potential Consolidation
Used
in 5th
Cycle
Very
Low
(20%)
Low
(10%)
Moderate
(20%)
Above
Moderate
(50%)
Notes
410-501-25 206 545 Anton
Blvd JKS-CMFV LLC PDC 2 North Costa
Mesa 0.75 130 19 9 19 48
Small commercial out parcel uses. Property
owner has indicated interest in redeveloping
the site for residential uses.
410-501-36 207 N/A JKS-CMFV LLC PDC 2 North Costa
Mesa 1.82 170 61 30 61 157
Surface parking lot. Property owner has
indicated interest in redeveloping the site for
residential uses.
418-171-01 208 754 Saint
Clair St

PURCILLY GAY
WHEELER TR C2 1 SoBECA 0.27 60 B 3 1 3 8
Existing learning center use. Site is
anticipated to redevelop with adjacent parcels
as shown in this table.

397

CITY OF COSTA MESA 2021 -2029 HOUSING

ELEMENT UPDATE

MITIGATION MONITORING

AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Prepared for City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, California 92626

Prepared by Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.
1100 W Town and Country Road, Suite 700
Orange, California 92868

Date: January 2022

398
Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all public agencies establish monitoring and/or reporting procedures for mitigation adopted as conditions of approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant environmental impacts. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been developed to provide a vehicle by which to monitor mitigation measures (MMs) outlined in The City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). The City of Costa Mesa 2021 -2029 Housing Element Update MMRP has been prepared in conformance with Public Resources Code §21081.6 and City of Costa Mesa Monitoring Requirements.

Specifically, Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 states:
(a) When making findings required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21080, the following requirements shall apply:
(1) The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure com pliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that age ncy shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program.
(2) The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based.
(b) A public agency shall provide that measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Conditions of project app roval may be set forth in referenced documents which address required mitigation measures or incase of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or other public project, by incorporating the mitigation measures into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design. (c) Prior to the close of the public review period for a draft environmental impact report or mitigated negative declaration, a responsible agency, or a public agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, shall either submit to the lead agency complete and detailed performance objectives for mitigation measures which would address the significant effects on the environment identified by the responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources aff ected by the project, or refer the lead a gency to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference documents. Any mitigation measures submitted to a lead agency by a responsible agency or an agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project shall be limited to measures which mitigate impacts to resources which are subject to the statutory authority of, and definitions applicable to, that agency.

Compliance or noncompliance by a responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction 399
Costa Mesa Housing Element Update
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

2 over natural resources affected by a project with that requirement shall not limit the authority of the responsible agency or an agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project, or the authority of the lead agency, to approve, condition, or deny projects as provided by this division or any other provision of law.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 provides clarification of mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements and guidance to local lead agencies on implementing strategies. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during projec t implementation. The City of Costa Mesa is the Lead Agency for The City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Project and is therefore responsible for ensuring implementation of the MMRP. The MMRP has been drafted as a fully enforceable monitoring program to meet Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requirements.

The MMRP is comprised of the Mitigation Program and includes measures to implement and monitor the Mitigation Program. The MMRP defines the following for each MM:
▪ Definition of Mitigation. The Mitigation Measure contains the criteria for mitigation, either in the form of adherence to certain adopted regulations or identification of the steps to be taken in mitigation.
▪ Responsible Party or Designated Representative. Unless otherwise indicated, an applicant would be the responsible party for implementing the mitigation, and the City of Costa Mesa or designated representative is responsible for monitoring the performance and implementation of the mitigation measures. To guarantee that the mi tigation will not be inadvertently overlooked, a supervising public official acting as the Designated Representative is the official who grants the permit or authorization called for in the performance. Where more than one official is identified, permits or authorization from all officials shall be required. ▪ Time Frame. In each case, a time frame is provided for performance of the mitigation or the review of evidence that mitigation has taken place. The performance points selected are designed to ensure tha t impact-related components of project implementation do not proceed without establishing that the mitigation is implemented or ensured. All activities are subject to the approval of all required permits from agencies with permitting authority over the specific activity.

The MM numbering system in the table corresponds with the MM numbering system in the IS/MND. The MMRP table’s last column will be used by the parties responsible for documenting when MM implementation has been completed. The ongoing documentation and monitoring of mitigation compliance will be completed by the City of Costa Mesa . The completed MMRP and supplementa l documents will be kept on file at the City of Costa Mesa Planning Division. 400
The City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

3 THE CITY OF COSTA MESA 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures (MMs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
Biological Resources
Threshold (a) Would the project
have a substantial effect, either
directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department
of Fish and Game of U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
MM BIO-1: Biological Survey:

Applications for future housing
development facilitated by the
HEU, where the City has
determined a potential for
impacts to special-status wildlife
and plants species, shall be
required to comply with the
following mitigation framework:

Prior to the issuance of any
permit for future development
consistent with the HEU, a site-
specific general biological
resources survey shall be
conducted on sites that contain
the presence of any sensitive
biological resources, including
any sensitive plant or wildlife
species. A biological resources
report shall be submitted to the
City to document the results of
the biological resources survey.

The report shall include (1) the
methods used to determine the
presence of sensitive biological
resources; (2) vegetation
mapping of all vegetation
communities and/or land cover
Prior to Building Permit
Issuance
Completed Biological
Resources Survey
Planning and Building
Divisions

401
The City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

4 Mitigation Measures (MMs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
types; (3) the locations of any
sensitive plant or wildlife
species; (4) an evaluation of the
potential for occurrence of any
listed, rare, and narrow endemic
species; and (5) an evaluation of
the significance of any potential
direct or indirect impacts from
the proposed project. If
potentially significant impacts to
sensitive biological resources are
identified, future project-level
grading and site plans shall
incorporate project design
features required by the
applicant to minimize direct
impacts on sensitive biological
resources to the extent feasible,
and the report shall also
recommend appropriate
mitigation to be implemented by
the applicant to reduce the
impacts to below a level of
significance.

MM BIO-2: Pre-Construction
Nesting Bird Survey: Applications
for future housing development
facilitated by the HEU, where
the City has determined a
potential for impacts to
migratory birds, shall avoid the
bird breeding season (typically
January through July for raptors
Prior to ground disturbing
activities
Verify Requirements
Included on Grading and
Construction Plans

Verify Pre-Construction
Nesting Bird Survey
Conducted and Nesting
Planning and Building
Divisions

Qualified Biologist

402
The City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

5 Mitigation Measures (MMs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
and February through August for
other avian species), if feasible.

If breeding season avoidance is
not feasible, the applicant shall
be responsible for a qualified
biologist to conduct a pre-
construction nesting bird survey
prior to the commencement of
any ground disturbing activities
to determine the
presence/absence, location, and
status of any active nests on or
adjacent to the survey area. The
extent of the survey buffer area
surrounding each site shall be
established by the qualified
biologist to ensure that direct
and indirect effects to nesting
birds are avoided. To avoid the
destruction of active nests and
to protect the reproductive
success of birds protected by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and
the California Fish and Game
Code and minimize the potential
for project delay, nesting bird
surveys shall be performed by
the qualified biologist prior to
project commencement. In the
event that active nests are
discovered, a suitable buffer
(distance to be determined by
the biologist or overriding
Bird Plan Prepared, If
Required
403
The City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

6 Mitigation Measures (MMs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
agencies) shall be established
around such active nests, and no
construction within the buffer
shall allowed until the biologist
has determined that the nest(s)
is no longer active (i.e., the
nestlings have fledged and are
no longer reliant on the nest).

Cultural Resources
Threshold (a) Would the project
cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to
in Section 15064.5?
MM CR-1: Historical Resource
Evaluation: Applications for
future development facilitated
by the HEU, where the City has
determined a potential for
impacts to historic resources,
shall be required to comply with
the following mitigation
framework: For any
building/structures in excess of
50 years of age having its
original structural integrity
intact, the applicant shall retain
a qualified professional historian
to determine whether the
affected building/structure is
historically significant. The
evaluation of historic
architectural resources shall be
based on criteria such as age,
location, context, association
with an important person or
event, uniqueness, or structural
integrity, as indicated in State
Retention of a Qualified
Professional; Evaluate
Significance of Historical
Findings
Planning and Building
Divisions

Qualified Professional
Historian

404
The City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

7 Mitigation Measures (MMs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5. A historical resource
report shall be submitted by the
applicant to the City and shall
include the methods used to
determine the presence or
absence of historical resources,
identify potential impacts from
the proposed project, and
evaluate the significance of any
historical resources identified.

Threshold (b) Would the project
cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
MM CR-2: Archaeological Survey
Evaluation: Applications for
future development consistent
with the HEU, where the City has
determined a potential for
impacts to archeological
resources, shall be required to
comply with the following
mitigation framework: Prior to
the issuance of any permit for
future development located on a
previously undisturbed site, the
applicant shall retain a qualified
archaeologist to conduct an
archaeological survey to
evaluate the presence of cultural
resources and the need for
project impact mitigation by
preservation, relocation, or
other methods. An
archaeological resource report
shall be submitted by the
applicant to the City and shall
During Excavation and
Grading Activities, If
Resources are Unearthed
Verify Requirements on
Construction Plans

Submitted
Archaeological Resource
Report
Planning and Building
Divisions

Qualified Professional
Archaeologist

405
The City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

8 Mitigation Measures (MMs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
include the methods used to
determine the presence or
absence of archaeological
resources, identify potential
impacts from the proposed
project, and evaluate the
significance of any
archaeological resources
identified. If there are
potentially significant impacts to
an identified
archaeological/cultural resource,
the report shall also recommend
appropriate mitigation required
by the applicant to reduce
impacts to below a level of
significance.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Threshold (b) Would the project
create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
MM HAZ-1: Unanticipated
Discovery of Hazardous
Materials: Applications for
future housing development
facilitated by the HEU, where
the City has determined a
potential for impacts to Hazards
and Hazardous Materials, the
applicant or applicant’s
contractor shall complete the
following if unknown wastes or
suspect materials are discovered
that are believed to involve
hazardous waste or materials:

During Construction
Activities
Written Notification to
Environmental Hazard
Professional
Documentation of
Implementation
Measures
Planning and Building
Divisions

Certified
Environmental
Hazards Contractor

406
The City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

9 Mitigation Measures (MMs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials

1. Immediately cease work in the
suspected contaminant’s
vicinity, remove workers and the
public from the area, and secure
the area.

2. Notify the applicant’s
Environmental Professional and
immediately implement proper
remedial activities as
recommended.

3. Notify the City Engineer and
Planning and Community
Development Director and
implement measures to further
secure the area.

4. The Hazardous
Waste/Materials Coordinator
shall advise the responsible
party of further actions that shall
be taken, if required
Noise
Threshold (a) Would the
project result in the generation
of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of
the project in excess of
standards established in the
local general plan or noise
ordinances, or applicable
standards of other agencies?

MM NOI-1: Noise Reduction
Program: Applications for
future housing development
facilitated by the HEU, where
the City has determined a
potential for impacts noise
standards, the Applicant shall
require construction
contractors to implement a
site-specific Noise Reduction
Program, which includes the
following measures, ongoing
During Construction
Activities
Noise Reduction
Program and
Requirements Included
on Grading and
Construction Plans; Site
Inspections
Planning and Building
Divisions

407
The City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

10 Mitigation Measures (MMs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
through demolition, grading,
and/or construction to reduce
construction-related noise
impacts, where construction
activities would exceed the
standards established in in the
City’s Noise Ordinance:
-Equipment and trucks used for
project construction shall utilize
the best available noise control
techniques (e.g., improved
mufflers, equipment redesign,
use of intake silencers, ducts,
engine enclosures, and
acoustically attenuating shields
or shrouds), wherever feasible.
-Impact tools (e.g., jack
hammers, pavement breakers,
and rock drills) used for
construction shall be
hydraulically or electronically
powered wherever possible to
avoid noise associated with
compressed air exhaust from
pneumatically powered tools.

However, where use of
pneumatic tools is unavoidable,
an exhaust muffler shall be
used (this muffler can lower
noise levels from the exhaust
by up to approximately 10
dBA). External jackets on the
tools themselves shall be used
408
The City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

11 Mitigation Measures (MMs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
where feasible (this can achieve
an approximately 5.0-dBA
reduction. Quieter procedures
shall be used, such as drills
rather than impact equipment,
whenever feasible.
-Stationary construction-related
noise sources shall be located
as far from adjacent receptors
as possible, and they shall be
muffled and incorporate
insulation barriers, or other
measures to the extent
feasible.

MM NOI-2: Noise Compliant
Response and Tracking:

Applications for future housing
development facilitated by the
HEU, where the City has
determined a potential for
impacts to substantial excess of
noise standards, prior to
demolition, grading, or building
permit approval, the Applicant
shall submit to the Planning
Department a list of measures
to respond to and track
complaints pertaining to
construction noise, ongoing
throughout demolition, grading,
and/or construction. At
Prior to Demolition,
Grading, or Building Permit
Approval
Verify Requirements on
Construction Plans;
Conduct Inspections

Planning and Building
Divisions

409
The City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

12 Mitigation Measures (MMs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
minimum, these measures shall
include the following:
-A procedure to the public for
notifying the City’s Code
Enforcement Officer and Police
Department (during regular
construction hours and off-
hours);
-A requirement for a sign to be
posted by the Applicant on-site
specifying the permitted
construction days and hours,
and notification procedure, and
who to notify in the event of a
noise-related concern. The sign
shall also include the
construction contractor’s
telephone numbers (during
regular construction hours and
off-hours); and
-A requirement for a
preconstruction meeting to be
held with the Applicant and
general contractor/on-site
project manager to confirm
that noise measures and
practices (including
construction hours,
neighborhood notification,
posted signs, etc.) are
completed
410
The City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

13 Mitigation Measures (MMs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
Threshold (b) Would the
project result in the generation
of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise
levels?

MM NOI-3: Vibration Impact
Response Plan: Applications for
future housing development
facilitated by the HEU, where
the City has determined a
potential for impacts to
vibration-sensitive structures
(i.e., non-engineered timber and
masonry buildings) located
within a 50-foot radius of pile
driving activities, prior to
demolition, grading, or building
permit approval, the applicant
shall provide for the following
measures to be specified on the
project plans and implemented
prior to and during construction:
- The applicant shall utilize
temporary noise attenuation
curtain suitable for pile driving
equipment as needed. This noise
attenuation device should be
installed directly between the
equipment and the nearest
noise sensitive receptor to the
construction site.
-Pile driving within a 50-foot
radius of identified vibration-
sensitive structures shall utilize
alternative installation methods
(e.g., pile cushioning, jetting,
predrilling, cast-in-place
systems, resonance-free
Prior to Demolition,
Grading, or Building Permit
Approval
Verify Requirements on
Construction Plans;
Conduct Inspections

Planning and Building
Divisions

411
The City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

14 Mitigation Measures (MMs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
vibratory pile drivers) such that
vibration velocities from the
alternative construction activity
would fall below the 0.2 the
inch/second threshold.

Construction hours, allowable
workdays, and the phone
number of the job
superintendent shall be clearly
posted at all construction
entrances to allow for
surrounding owners and
residents to contact the job
superintendent. If the City or the
job superintendent receives a
complaint, the superintendent
shall investigate, take
appropriate corrective action,
and report the action taken to
the reporting party.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold (a) Would the project
cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined
in Public Resources Code
Section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural
MM TCR-1: Unanticipated
Discovery of Tribal Cultural and
Archaeological Resources:

Applications for future housing
development facilitated by the
HEU, where the City has
determined a potential for
impacts to tribal resources,
including discovery of any tribal,
cultural, or archaeological
resources during ground-
During Ground Disturbing
Activities
Retention of an
Approved Native
American Monitor;
Executed Monitoring
Agreement

Monitoring During
Ground Disturbance
Activities; Pre-
Construction Sensitivity
Planning and Building
Divisions

Native American
Monitor

412
The City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

15 Mitigation Measures (MMs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is: i)
Listed or eligible for listing in
the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical
resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or ii) A resource
determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe.
disturbing activities, the
Applicant shall immediately
cease such activities in the
immediate vicinity. The find will
then be assessed by a qualified
archeologist retained by the
Applicant and a tribal
monitor/consultant approved by
the consulting tribe. The
applicant shall promptly notify
the Director of Economic and
Development Services to the
discovery of resources. If the
resources are Native American
in origin, the consulting tribe
shall coordinate with the
landowner regarding treatment
and curation of these resources.

Typically, the tribe will request
preservation in place or recovery
for educational purposes. At the
direction of the qualified
archaeologist and tribal
monitor/consultant, and in
coordination with the
Development Services
Department, work may continue
on other parts of the affected
site while evaluation and, if
necessary, additional protective
measures are completed at the
affected portion of the site
pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5 [f]. If
413
The City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

16 Mitigation Measures (MMs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
a resource is determined by the
qualified archaeologist to
constitute a “historical resource”
or “unique archaeological
resource,” time and funding to
allow for sufficient
implementation of avoidance
measures must be made
available. The treatment plan
established for the resources
shall be in accordance with State
CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5(f) for historical
resources. Preservation in place
(i.e., avoidance) is the preferred
manner of treatment upon
identification of unique
archeological resources (Public
Resources Code Section
21083.2(b)). If preservation in
place is not feasible, treatment
may include implementation of
archaeological data recovery
excavations to remove the
resource along with subsequent
laboratory processing and
analysis. All tribal cultural
resources shall be returned to
the consulting tribe. Any historic
archaeological material that is
not Native American in origin
shall be curated at a public, non-
profit institution with a research
interest in the materials.
414
The City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

17 Mitigation Measures (MMs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
Acceptance and curation of the
historic archeological materials
will be at the discretion of the
institution. If no institution
accepts the archaeological
material, they shall be offered to
the consulting tribe or the Costa
Mesa Historical Society for
educational purposes.

Standard Conditions (SCs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/ Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
Aesthetics
Threshold (d) Would the project
create a new source of
substantial light or glare, which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
SC AES-1: Lighting Plan and
Photometric Study: Applications
for future housing development
facilitated by the HEU, where
the City has determined a
potential for impacts to light and
glare, the Applicant shall submit
a Lighting Plan and Photometric
Study for the approval of the
City’s Development Services
Department prior to the
issuance of Building Permits. The
Lighting Plan shall demonstrate
compliance with the following:
(a) Lighting design and layout
shall limit spill light to no more
than 0.5-foot candle at the
Prior to Permit Issuance Submittal of Plans Planning and Building Division

415
The City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

18 Standard Conditions (SCs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/ Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
property line of the surrounding
neighbors, consistent with the
level of lighting that is deemed
necessary for safety and security
purposes on site. (b) Glare
shields may be required for
select light standards
Air Quality
Threshold (b) Would the project
result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-
attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
SC AQ-1: Dust Control:

Applications for future housing
development facilitated by the
HEU, where the City has
determined a potential for
impacts to air quality during
construction, construction
contractors shall comply with
South Coast Air Quality
Management District’s (South
Coast AQMD’s) Rules 402 and
403 to minimize construction
emissions of dust and
particulates. South Coast AQMD
Rule 402 requires that air
pollutant emissions not be a
nuisance off-site. Rule 402
prohibits the discharge from any
source whatsoever such
quantities of air contaminants or
other material which cause
injury, detriment, nuisance, or
annoyance to any considerable
number of persons or to the
public, or which endanger the
During Construction Verify Requirements
Included on Grading and
Construction Plans; Site
Inspections
Planning and Building
Divisions

416
The City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

19 Standard Conditions (SCs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/ Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
comfort, repose, health, or
safety of any such persons or the
public, or which cause, or have a
natural tendency to cause, injury
or damage to business or
property.

South Coast AQMD Rule 403
requires that fugitive dust be
controlled with Best Available
Control Measures so that the
presence of such dust does not
remain visible beyond the
property line of the emission
source. This rule is intended to
reduce PM10 emissions from
any transportation, handling,
construction, or storage activity
that has the potential to
generate fugitive dust. This
requirement shall be included as
notes on the contractor
specifications. Table 1 of Rule
403 lists the Best Available
Control Measures that are
applicable to all construction
projects. The measures include,
but are not limited to, the
following:
a. Portions of a construction site
to remain inactive longer than a
period of three months will be
seeded and watered until grass
417
The City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

20 Standard Conditions (SCs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/ Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
cover is grown or otherwise
stabilized.
b. All on-site roads will be paved
as soon as feasible or watered
periodically or chemically
stabilized.
c. All material transported off-
site will be either sufficiently
watered or securely covered to
prevent excessive amounts of
dust.
d. The area disturbed by
clearing, grading, earthmoving,
or excavation operations will be
minimized at all times.
e. Where vehicles leave a
construction site and enter
adjacent public streets, the
streets will be swept daily or
washed down at the end of the
workday to remove soil tracked
onto the paved surface.

SC AQ-2: Architectural Coatings:

Applications for future housing
development facilitated by the
HEU, where the City has
determined a potential for
impacts to air quality,
construction contractors shall
adhere to South Coast Air
Quality Management District
(South Coast AQMD) Rule 1113,
which requires manufacturers,
Prior to Construction Verify Requirements
Included on Construction
Plans
Planning and Building
& Safety Divisions

418
The City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

21 Standard Conditions (SCs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/ Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
distributors, and end-users of
architectural and industrial
maintenance coatings to reduce
reactive organic gas (ROG)
emissions from the use of these
coatings, primarily by placing
limits on the ROG content of
various coating categories.

Architectural coatings shall be
selected so that the volatile
organic compound (VOC)
content of the coatings is
compliant with South Coast
AQMD Rule 1113. This
requirement shall be included as
notes on contractor
specifications.

Biological Resources
Threshold (a) Would the
project have a substantial
effect, either directly or
through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California
Department of Fish and Game
of U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
SC BIO-1: Focused Survey for
Burrowing Owls on Vacant
Sites Two Acres or larger:

Applications for future
housing development
facilitated by the HEU, where
the City has determined a
potential for impacts to
sensitive species (Burrowing
Owl), the Applicant shall
initiate preparation of a
focused survey for burrowing
owls, conducted by a qualified
professional biologist for any
Prior to ground disturbing
activities

Verify Pre-Construction
Survey Conducted
Planning and Building
Divisions

Qualified Biologist

419
The City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

22 Standard Conditions (SCs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/ Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
new development project
proposed on a vacant site of
two acres or larger and with a
landscape of annual and
perennial grasslands, desert,
or arid scrubland with low-
growing vegetation or
agricultural use or vegetation.

The purpose of the survey is to
determine if burrowing owls
are foraging or nesting on or
adjacent to the project site. If
surveys confirm that the site is
occupied habitat, mitigation
measures to minimize impacts
to burrowing owls, their
burrows, and foraging habitat
shall be identified. The results
of this survey, including any
mitigation recommendations,
shall be incorporated into the
project-level CEQA compliance
documentation. Owl surveys
and approaches to mitigation
shall be in accordance with
the Staff Report on Burrowing
Owl Mitigation, issued by the
California Department of Fish
and Wildlife on March 7, 2012
(CDFW 2012).

Cultural Resources
420
The City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

23 Standard Conditions (SCs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/ Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
Threshold (c) Would the
project disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
SC CR-1: Unanticipated
Discovery of Human Remains:

Applications for future
development consistent with
the HEU, where the City has
determined a potential for
impacts to human remains,
shall be required to comply
with the following mitigation
framework: In the event that
human remains are discovered
or unearthed, all earth-
disturbing work within a 100-
meter radius of the location of
the human remains shall be
temporarily suspended or
redirected by the applicant until
a forensic expert retained by
the applicant has identified and
evaluated the nature and
significance of the find, in
compliance with State CEQA
Guidelines 15064.5(f). If human
remains of Native American
origin are discovered or
unearthed, the applicant shall
contact the consulting tribe, as
detailed in MM TCR-1,
regarding any finds and provide
information after the
archaeologist makes his/her
initial assessment of the nature
of the find, so as to provide
During Excavation and
Grading Activities
Retention of a Qualified
Professional, If Cultural
Resources are
Unearthed; Evaluate
Significance of Findings
Planning and Building
Divisions

Qualified
Professional
Paleontologist

421
The City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

24 Standard Conditions (SCs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/ Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
Tribal input concerning
significance and treatment.

After the find has been
appropriately mitigated, as
determined, and documented
by a qualified archaeologist,
work in the area may resume.

Geology and Soils
Threshold (a.ii) Would the
project directly or indirectly
cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death
involving strong seismic ground
shaking?
SC GEO-1: California Building
Code Conformance: Applications
for future housing development
facilitated by the HEU, where
the City has determined a
potential for impacts related to
seismic ground shaking, design,
grading, and construction shall
be performed in accordance
with the requirements of the
California Building Code
applicable at the time of grading
as well as the appropriate local
grading regulations, and the
recommendations of the project
geotechnical consultant as
summarized in a final written
report, subject to review by the
City of Costa Mesa Building
official prior to the issuance of
grading permits.

Verify Requirements on
Construction Plans

Planning and Building
Divisions

422
The City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

25 Standard Conditions (SCs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/ Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Threshold (b) Would the project
create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
SC HAZ-1: Preparation of Phase
1 Environmental Site
Assessment: Applicants for new
development projects requiring
City discretionary approval shall
include the results of a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment
(ESA), prepared in accordance
with the latest ASTM protocol
for such assessments. If the
Phase I ESA indicates some
evidence that site contamination
exists that could require cleanup
to avoid danger to people or
damage to the environment, a
Phase II level review shall be
completed to fully characterize
the nature and extent of such
contamination, and the scope of
required clean up procedures.

The results of the Phase II
assessment shall be considered
as part of the CEQA compliance
process prior to any action on
the project.

Prior to Permit issuance
During CEQA review process
Completed Phase 1 ESA Planning and Building
Divisions

Threshold (d) Would the project
be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment?
Noise
Threshold (a) Would the project
result in the generation of a
substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the
SC NOI-1: Construction Noise
Limitation: Applications for
future housing development
facilitated by the HEU, where
the City has determined a
During Construction Verify Requirements on
Construction Plans;
Conduct Inspections

Planning and Building
Divisions

423
The City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

26 Standard Conditions (SCs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/ Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
project in excess of standards
established in the local general
plan or noise ordinances, or
applicable standards of other
agencies?
potential for impact to noise, all
noise-generating construction
activities shall be limited to 7:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. Saturday. Noise-
generating construction
activities shall be prohibited on
Sunday and the following federal
holidays: New Year’s Day,
Memorial Day, Independence
Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving
Day, and Christmas Day.

Recreation
Threshold (a) Would the project
increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be
accelerated?
SC REC-1: Payment of Park Fees:

Applications for future housing
development facilitated by the
HEU, where the City has
determined a potential impact
to recreational resources,
applicants of projects that do
not meet the City’s parkland
dedication requirements shall
pay park fees as established in
CMMC Title 13, Chapter XII,
Article 4 (Park and Recreation
Impact Fees) to provide park and
recreational facilities to serve
the future residents of proposed
new residential units, prior to
the issuance of building permits.

Prior to Building Permit
Issuance
Receipt of Payment of
Park Fees
Planning Division
424
The City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

27 Standard Conditions (SCs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/ Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
SC REC-2: Parkland Dedications:

Applications for future housing
development facilitated by the
HEU, where the City has
determined a potential impact
to recreational resources, every
residential subdivider who
creates a subdivision shall be
required to dedicate a portion of
the land, pay a fee in lieu
thereof, or do a combination of
both, as established in CMMC
Title 13, Chapter XI, Article 5
(Park and Recreation
Dedications) for the purpose of
providing park and recreational
facilities to serve future
residents of the subdivision. In
determining whether a
subdivider shall dedicate land,
pay a fee in lieu of land
dedication, or a combination of
both, the following procedure
shall be used:
(a) Subdividers required to or
desiring to dedicate property for
park and recreational purposes
shall, upon filing a tentative map
for approval, check with the city
to determine whether their
property has been designated
for a park site in the general
plan. If a subdivider’s property is
so designated, the subdivider
Prior to Building Permit
Issuance
Receipt of Payment of
Park In Lieu Fees
Park Site Designated on
Construction Plans
Planning Division
425
The City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

28 Standard Conditions (SCs) Implementation Timing
Monitoring/ Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/
Monitoring
Verification
Date Initials
shall coordinate with the
necessary departments to
incorporate the park site(s) into
the property’s development
plan.
(b) If the subdivider’s property is
not so designated, and a school
site is proposed within or in
proximity to the property, a park
site adjacent to the school site
shall be developed and the
subdivider shall coordinate with
the necessary departments to
incorporate the park site(s) into
the property’s development
plan.

Utilities and Service Systems
Threshold (a) Require or result
in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities,
the construction or relocation
of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
SC UT-1: Mesa Water District
Coordination: Applications for
future housing development
facilitated by the HEU, where
the City has determined a
potential impact to water utility
service providers, customer shall
contact the Mesa Water District
– Engineering Desk and submit
an application with plans for
project review. Customer must
obtain a letter of approval and a
letter of project completion
from Mesa Water District.

During Development Review
Process
Approval Letter or
Written Documentation
from Mesa Water District
Planning and Building
Division

426
Draft Costa Mesa Housing Element
6th Cycle - 2021-2029
427

DRAFT Costa Mesa Housing Element – 2021-2029 i

City of Costa Mesa
Housing Element
2021-2029

CITY COUNCIL HEARING DRAFT
FEBRUARY 2022

6th Cycle - 2021-2029
428

DRAFT Costa Mesa Housing Element – 2021-2029 ii
Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
A. Role of the Housing Element ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 1-1 B. State Policy and Authorization ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 1-1

1. Background ........................................................................................................................................................... 1-1

2. State Requirements .............................................................................................................................................. 1-1

3. Regional Housing Needs Assessment .................................................................................................................. 1-3

4. Relationship to Other General Plan Elements .................................................................................................... 1-4

5. Public Participation............................................................................................................................................... 1-4

6. Data Sources ......................................................................................................................................................... 1-5

7. Housing Element Organization ............................................................................................................................ 1-6

CHAPTER 2: COMMUNITY PROFILE
A. Population Characteristics ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 2-1

1. Population Growth ............................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2. Age Characteristics ............................................................................................................................................... 2-2

3. Race/Ethnicity Characteristics ............................................................................................................................. 2-3 B. Economic Characteristics ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 2-5

1. Employment and Wage Scale .............................................................................................................................. 2-5

2. Regional Affordable Housing Rates ..................................................................................................................... 2-7 C. Household Characteristics ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 2-9

1. Household Type and Size ..................................................................................................................................... 2-9

2. Household Income ............................................................................................................................................. 2-11 D. Housing Problems and Housing Needs ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 2-13

1. Overcrowding ..................................................................................................................................................... 2-14

2. Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Housing In Relation to Income ..................................................................... 2-16 E. Special Needs Groups ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 2-18

1. Seniors................................................................................................................................................................. 2-19

2. Persons with Physical and Developmental Disabilities..................................................................................... 2-20

3. Large Households ............................................................................................................................................... 2-22

4. Single-Parent Households .................................................................................................................................. 2-24

5. Farmworkers ....................................................................................................................................................... 2-24

6. Extremely Low-income Households and Poverty Status .................................................................................. 2-25

7. Persons Experiencing Homelessness................................................................................................................. 2-27

8. Students .............................................................................................................................................................. 2-28 F. Housing Stock Characteristics ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 2-29

1. Housing Growth.................................................................................................................................................. 2-29

2. Housing Type ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-29

3. Housing Availability and Tenure ........................................................................................................................ 2-30

4. Housing Age and Condition ............................................................................................................................... 2-32

5. Housing Costs and Affordability ........................................................................................................................ 2-33 Extremely Low-Income Households ....................................................................................................................... 2-34 Very Low-Income Households................................................................................................................................. 2-35 Low-Income Households ......................................................................................................................................... 2-35 Moderate Income Households................................................................................................................................ 2-35 G. Community Profile Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 2-38

429

DRAFT Costa Mesa Housing Element – 2021-2029 iii
CHAPTER 3: HOUSING CONSTRAINTS, RESOURCES, AND FAIR HOUSING A. Nongovernmental Constraints ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 3-2

1. Land Costs and Construction Costs ..................................................................................................................... 3-2

2. Available Financing ............................................................................................................................................... 3-3

3. Economic Constraints .......................................................................................................................................... 3-5

4. Applicant Requests to Develop Below the Maximum Density........................................................................... 3-5 B. Governmental Constraints ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 3-6

1. Land Use Controls ................................................................................................................................................ 3-6 Overlay Districts ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-6

2. State Density Bonus Law ...................................................................................................................................... 3-9 Concessions and Incentives ..................................................................................................................................... 3-12 Compliance with State Law ..................................................................................................................................... 3-12

3. Residential Development Standards ................................................................................................................. 3-13 Yard Requirements .................................................................................................................................................. 3-14 Site Coverage and FAR ............................................................................................................................................. 3-15 Open Space .............................................................................................................................................................. 3-15 Maximum Building Heights ..................................................................................................................................... 3-15 Parking Standards .................................................................................................................................................... 3-16

4. Variety of Housing Types Permitted .................................................................................................................. 3-18 Single-Family Dwelling ............................................................................................................................................. 3-20 Multi-Family Dwelling .............................................................................................................................................. 3-20 Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ............................................................................................................................... 3-20 Common Interest Development ............................................................................................................................. 3-20 Small Lot Subdivision, Residential ........................................................................................................................... 3-21 Manufactured Housing ............................................................................................................................................ 3-21 Boarding House ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-21 Residential Care Facility ........................................................................................................................................... 3-21 Group Homes ........................................................................................................................................................... 3-21 Transitional Housing ................................................................................................................................................ 3-21 Supportive Housing.................................................................................................................................................. 3-23 Referral Facility ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-23 Single Room Occupancy Residential Hotel (SRO) ................................................................................................... 3-23 Emergency Shelter ................................................................................................................................................... 3-23 Farmworker Housing ............................................................................................................................................... 3-26 Low Barrier Navigation Centers .............................................................................................................................. 3-26

5. Planned Development ........................................................................................................................................ 3-26 Site Design Concept ................................................................................................................................................. 3-28

6. Growth Management Measures - Measure Y .................................................................................................. 3-28

7. Specific Plans ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-29 East 17th Street Specific Plan ................................................................................................................................... 3-29 Newport Boulevard Specific Plan ............................................................................................................................ 3-30 North Costa Mesa Specific Plan .............................................................................................................................. 3-30 Costa Mesa Theater and Arts District Plan ............................................................................................................. 3-31

8. Housing for Persons with Disabilities ................................................................................................................ 3-32 Reasonable Accommodation .................................................................................................................................. 3-32 Definition of Family .................................................................................................................................................. 3-38

9. Development Fees.............................................................................................................................................. 3-38

10. On-/Off-Site Improvements .......................................................................................................................... 3-42 Subdivision Improvements ...................................................................................................................................... 3-43

11. Building Codes and Enforcement .................................................................................................................. 3-43

12. Local Processing and Permit Procedures ...................................................................................................... 3-44 430

DRAFT Costa Mesa Housing Element – 2021-2029 iv
Development Reviews ............................................................................................................................................. 3-48 Conditional Use Permits .......................................................................................................................................... 3-48 C. Infrastructure Constraints ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 3-48

1. Water Supply ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-48

2. Water Production ............................................................................................................................................... 3-49

3. Water Quality ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-49

4. Wastewater ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-49

5. Fire and Emergency Services ............................................................................................................................. 3-50 Fire Administration Division .................................................................................................................................... 3-50 Operations Division .................................................................................................................................................. 3-50 Community Risk Reduction Division ....................................................................................................................... 3-51

6. Police Services .................................................................................................................................................... 3-51 Administration Division ........................................................................................................................................... 3-52 Field Operations Division ......................................................................................................................................... 3-52 Support Services Division ........................................................................................................................................ 3-52 D. Environmental Constraints ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 3-53

1. Geologic and Seismic Hazards ........................................................................................................................... 3-53

2. Mineral Resources .............................................................................................................................................. 3-53

3. Seismic Hazards .................................................................................................................................................. 3-54

4. Flood Hazards ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-54

5. Dam Inundation .................................................................................................................................................. 3-57

6. Sea Level Rise...................................................................................................................................................... 3-57

7. Fire Hazards ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-57 E. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)................................ ................................ ............................... 3-59

1. Needs Assessment.............................................................................................................................................. 3-59 Analysis of Impediments Outreach FY 2019-2024 ................................................................................................. 3-59 Fair Housing Issues .................................................................................................................................................. 3-60 Local Contributing Factors....................................................................................................................................... 3-60 Lending Patterns ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-60 Hate Crimes .............................................................................................................................................................. 3-62 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity ................................................................................................ 3-62

2. Analysis of Federal, State, and Local Data and Local Knowledge .................................................................... 3-63 Summary of Local Data ............................................................................................................................................ 3-63 Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends ................................................................................................. 3-63 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) ............................................................................ 3-65 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence ......................................................................................... 3-69 Disparities in Access to Opportunity ....................................................................................................................... 3-72 California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) Opportunity Area Maps ....................................................... 3-78 Opportunity Areas – Education ............................................................................................................................... 3-80 Opportunity Indicators ............................................................................................................................................ 3-80 Access to Transit ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-82 Environmental Justice .............................................................................................................................................. 3-83

3. Discussion of Disproportionate Housing Needs ............................................................................................... 3-87 Existing Needs .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-87 Future Growth Need ................................................................................................................................................ 3-97

4. Displacement Risk .............................................................................................................................................. 3-97 Urban Displacement ................................................................................................................................................ 3-97 SB 330 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3-103 104

6. Assessment of Contributing factors to Fair Housing in Costa Mesa .............................................................. 3-105 Regionally Identified Contributing Factors ........................................................................................................... 3-105 431

DRAFT Costa Mesa Housing Element – 2021-2029 v
Locally Identified Contributing Factors ................................................................................................................. 3-106

7. Analysis of Sites Pursuant to AB 686 ............................................................................................................... 3-106

8. Analysis of Fair Housing Priorities and Goals .................................................................................................. 3-125 F. Housing Resources ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 3-125

1. Regional Housing Needs Allocation ................................................................................................................. 3-125 Residential Sites Inventory .................................................................................................................................... 3-126 Adequacy of Sites for RHNA .................................................................................................................................. 3-126 Summary of Sites Inventory and RHNA Obligations ............................................................................................ 3-134 G. Financial Resources ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 3-134

1. Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher.................................................................................................................. 3-134 Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) .................................................................................................. 3-134 HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME)................................................................................................ 3-135

2. Opportunities for Energy Conservation .......................................................................................................... 3-135 Energy Use and Providers...................................................................................................................................... 3-135 Energy Conservation .............................................................................................................................................. 3-136

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING PLAN
Regional Housing Needs Assessment ........................................................................................................................... 4-2 A. Guiding Principles ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 4-2 B. Housing Goals ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 4-4 C. Housing Policies and Programs ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 4-4 POLICIES HOU-1 ............................................................................................................................................................. 4-4 HOUSING GOAL 1 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS ........................................................................................................... 4-5 POLICIES HOU-2 ............................................................................................................................................................. 4-6 HOUSING GOAL 2 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS ........................................................................................................... 4-6 POLICIES HOU-3 ........................................................................................................................................................... 4-11 HOUSING GOAL 3 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS ......................................................................................................... 4-11 POLICIES HOU-4 ........................................................................................................................................................... 4-20 HOUSING GOAL 4 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS ......................................................................................................... 4-20 D. Summary of Quantified Objectives................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 4-23

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: REVIEW OF PAST PERFORMANCE
APPENDIX B: SITES ANALYSIS
APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
APPENDIX D: GLOSSARY OF HOUSING TERMS

432

DRAFT Costa Mesa Housing Element – 2021-2029 vi

433

DRAFT Costa Mesa Housing Element – 2021-2029 vii

434
Introduction
Chapter 1
435

DRAFT Chapter 1: Introduction 1‐1
A. Role of the Housing Element
The Housing Element is one of the seven State mandated elements included in the City of Costa Mesa’s General Plan. The purpose of the Housing Element is to identify a high‐level strategy and blueprint for addressing the City’s existing and projected housing needs over the eight‐year planning cycle. It contains a detailed work pr
ogram of the City’s housing goals, policies, quantified objectives, and actions or programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing for a sustainable future.

Each eight‐year planning cycle, the City is allocated a specific number of housing units called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) de termined by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The RHNA quantifies future housing growth within a City. Through research and analysis, the Housing Element identifies potential candidate housing sites and establishes the City’s official housing policies and programs to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation. As part of the Housing El ement, focus areas and corridors are identified where future housing may be appropriate. Candidate housing sites within those areas are identified in order to show that the City has or will have sufficient land with the appropriate zoning to facilitate the development of housing by the private market in sufficient quantity to mee t its RHNA allocation. The Housing Element is not a document that lays out specifically where future housing must go nor does it mandate housing construction. The Housing Element is an important tool for the City of Costa Mesa to plan for and accommodate current and future housing growth within the community, over th
e eight‐year planning cycle (2021‐2029).

B. State Policy and Authorization

1. Background
As a mandated element of the Costa Mesa General Plan, the Housing Element must meet all requirements of existing state laws. Goals, programs and policies, and quantified objectives developed within the Housing Element are consistent with state law and are implemented within a designated timeline to ensure the City accomplishes the id entified actions as well as maintains compliance with state law. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) reviews each Housing Element for substantial compliance with state law. HCD’s review is required before a local government can adopt its housing element as part of its overall General Plan.

2. State Requirements
California State Housing Element Law (California Government Code Article 10.6) establishes the requirements for the Housing Element. California Government Code Section 65588 requires that local governments review and revise the Housing Element of their comprehensive General Plans no less than once every eight years.

The California Legislature identifies overall housing goals for the State to ensur e every resident has access to housing and a suitable living environment; Section 65580 of the California Government Code states the following Housing Element goals:
436

DRAFT Chapter 1: Introduction 1‐2
a. The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farmworkers, is a priority of the highest order.
b. The early attainment of this goal requires cooperative participation of government and the private sector in an effort to expand housing opportunities and accommodate the housing needs of Californians in all economic leve
ls.
c. The provisions of housing affordable to low‐ and moderate‐income households requires the cooperation of all levels of the government.
d. Local and State governments have a responsibility to use the powers vested in the m to facilitate the improvement and development of housing to make adequate provision for housing needs of all economic segments of the community. The Legislature recognizes that in carrying out this responsibility, each local government also has the responsibility to consider economic, environmental, and fiscal factors and community goals set forth in the gen eral plan and to cooperate with other local governments and the state in addressing regional housing needs.

Table 1‐1 summarizes State Housing Element requirements and identifies location in this document where these requirements are addressed.

Table 1‐1: Housing Element Requirements
Housing Element Requirement(s) Gov. Code Section Reference in Housing Element
Analysis of employment trends. Section 65583.a Chapter 2.B.1 Projection and quantification of existing and projected housing needs for all income groups. Section 65583.a Chapter 3.F Analysis and documentation of the City’s housing
characteristics, including cost for housing compared to ability to pay, overcrowding, and housing condition.

Section 65583.a Chapter 2.C, D, F
An inventory of land suitable for residential development including vacant sites and sites having redevelopment
potential.

Section 65583.a Chapter 3.F.1
Analysis of existing and potential governmental
constraints upon the maintenance, improvement or
development of housing for all income levels.

Section 65583.a Chapter 3.B
Analysis of existing and potential nongovernmental
(private sector) constraints upon maintenance,
improvement or development of housing for all income
levels.

Section 65583.a Chapter 3.B
Analysis concerning the needs of the homeless. Section 65583.a Chapter 2.E.8 Analysis of special housing needs: handicapped, elderly, large families, farm workers, and female‐headed
households.

Section 65583.a Chapter 2.E
Analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with
respect to residential development. Section 65583.a Chapter 3.G.2 Identification of Publicly‐Assisted Housing Developments. Section 65583.a Chapter 3.E.3 Identification of Units at Risk of Conversion to Market Rate Housing. Section 65583.a Chapter 3.E.3
437

DRAFT Chapter 1: Introduction 1‐3
Table 1‐1: Housing Element Requirements
Housing Element Requirement(s) Gov. Code Section Reference in Housing Element
Identification of the City’s goal relative to the
maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. Section 65583.a Chapter 4 Analysis of quantified objectives and policies relative to the maintenance, improvement, and development of
housing.

Section 65583.b Chapter 4
Identification of adequate sites that will be made available through appropriate action with required public services and facilities for a variety of housing types for all income levels.

Section 65583.c(1) Appendix B
Identification of strategies to assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low and
moderate‐income households.

Section 65583.c(2) Chapter 3.E.1, 2, 3
Description of the Public Participation Program in the
formulation of Housing Element Goals, Policies, and
Programs.

Section 65583.d Appendix C
Description of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA) prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments.

Section 65583.e Chapter 3.F
Analysis of Fair Housing, including Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. Section 8899.50 Chapter 3.E
Review of the effectiveness of the past Element, including the City’s accomplishments during the previous planning period.

Section 65583.f Appendix A
Source: State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development.

Costa Mesa’s current Housing Element was adopted in January 2014 for the 5th cycle for the 2014 ‐ 2021 planning period. The 6th Cycle Housing Element will plan for the 2021‐2029 planning period. Multiple amendments have been made to Housing Element law since the adoption of the City’s 5th Cycle Housing Element; such amendments and subsequent housing laws change the required analysis, reporting and policies contained in the Housing Element. The contents of this updated Housing Element comply with these amendments to state housing law and all other federal, state and local requirements.

3. Regional Housing Needs Assessment
California’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is the basis for determining future housing need, by income category, within the state and is based on growth in population, households, and employment.

The statewide RHNA is determined under the administration of the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The quantified housing need is then alloc ated among the state’s 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). For the City of Costa Mesa’s case, this agency is the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).

In accordance with Section 65583 of the California Government Code, SCAG then delegates a “fair share” of housing need to its member jurisdictions. The City of Costa Me sa’s RHNA allocation is divided amongst four income categories, which are benchmarked on the County of Orange’s median income for a family of 438

DRAFT Chapter 1: Introduction 1‐4
four. Table 1‐2 below identifies the four income categories by which the City’s RHNA allocation is divided.

For the 2021‐2029 planning period the City of Costa Mesa is allocated a total of 11,760 units as shown below.

Table 1‐2: RHNA Income Categories
Income Category Percent of Median Family
Income (MFI)
Costa Mesa’s RHNA Allocation for
the 2021‐2029 Planning Period
Very Low Income 0‐50% MFI 2,919 units
Low Income 51‐80% MFI 1,794 units
Moderate Income 81‐120% MFI 2,088 units
Above Moderate Income >120% MFI 4,959 units
Total 11,760 units

4. Relationship to Other General Plan Elements
The goals, policies, actions, and programs within the Housing Element relate directly to, and are consistent with, all other elements in the City’s General Plan. The City’s Housing Element identifies programs and resources required for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing to meet the existing and projected needs of its population.

The Housing El
ement works in tandem with development policies contained in the Land Use Element, most recently amended in 2018. The Land Use Element establishes the location, type, intensity and distribution of land uses throughout the City, and defines the land use build‐out potential. By designating residential development, the Land Us e Element places an upper limit on the densities and types of housing units constructed in the City. The Land Use Element also identifies lands designated for a range of other uses, including employment creating uses, open space, and public uses. The presence and potential for jobs affects the cu rrent and future demand for housing at the various income levels in the City.

The City’s Transportation Element also affects the implementation of the Housing Element. The Transportation chapter establishes policies for a balanced circulation system in the City. Costa Mesa’s Circulation Element establishes policies governing the system of roadways, intersections, bik e paths, pedestrian ways, and other components of the circulations system, which collectively provide for the movement of persons and goods throughout the City. Consequently, the Housing Element must include policies and incentives that consider the types of infrastructure essential for residential housing units in addition to mitigating the effects of grow th in the City.

The Housing Element has been reviewed for consistency with the City’s other Community Plan Chapters, and the policies and programs in this Element are consistent with the policy direction contained in other parts of the General Plan. As portions of the General Plan are amended in th e future, the Housing Element will be reviewed to ensure that internal consistency is maintained.

5. Public Participation
Public participation is a vital component of the Housing Element update process. Public engagement creates opportunities for community members to provide their input and feedback, information which then directs the Housing Element’s goals, policies and programs. Section 65583 of the Government Code requires local governments to make diligent and continued efforts to ach ieve public participation of all 439

DRAFT Chapter 1: Introduction 1‐5
economic segments of the community. Meaningful community participation ensures that a variety of stakeholders and community members are offered a platform to engage in the City’s planning process.

The City of Costa Mesa engaged in an extensive community outreach process as part of the development of the 6th Cycle Housing Element. The outreach plan focused on reaching as many segments of the population as possible through a series of citywide meetings, district‐specific meetings, focused group meetings, and meetings with topical experts in the area of housing. These efforts were complemented by a series of online presentations, handouts, and c ommunity surveys.

Outreach for the 6th Cycle Housing Element to the community are outlined in detail in Appendix C:

Summary of Community Outreach, and includes the following actions:
 Housing Element Update webpage with all housing materials available in English and Spanish, located at : www.costamesaca.gov/housing‐element‐update  Virtual Townhall Meetings
 District Specific Meetings
 Stakeholder Meetings
 Online Community Survey
 City Council and Planning Commission Study Sessions
As required by Government Code Section 65585(b)(2), all written comments regarding the Housing Element made by the public have previously been provided to each member of the City C ouncil.

Appendix C contains a summary of all public comments regarding the Housing Element received by the City during the update process.
[Note: This section to be updated prior to adoption to include additional public meetings and outreach.]

6. Data Sources
The data used for the completion of this Housing Element comes from a variety of sources. These include, but are not limited to:
 2000 and 2010 Census
 American Community Survey
 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI)  Point‐in‐Time Homeless Census by the Regional Task Forc e on the Homeless, 2020  Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) lending data
 California Department of Economic Development
 California Employment Development Division Occupational Wage data, 2020  Department of Housing and Urban Development, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2013‐2017
The data sources represent the best data available at the tim e this Housing Element Update was prepared.

The original source documents contain the assumptions and methods used to compile the data.

440

DRAFT Chapter 1: Introduction 1‐6

7. Housing Element Organization
This Housing Element represents the City’s policy program for the 2021‐2029 6th Planning Period. The Housing Element is comprised of the following Chapters:

Chapter 1: Introduction contains as summary of the content, organization, and statutory considerations of the Housing Element;
Chapter 2: Community Profile contains an analysis of the City’s population, household and employment base, and the characteristics of the housing stock;
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing examines governmental and non‐ governmental constraints on production, maintenance, and affordability of housing and provides a summary of housing resources, including sites identification and funding and financial considerations; Chapter 4: Policy Plan addresses Costa Mesa’s identified housing needs, including housing goals, policies, and programs.

Appendices provides various appendices with supplementary background resources including:
 Appendix A – Review of Past Performance of 5th Cycle Programs  Appendix B – Summary of Adequate Sites Analysis
 Appendix C – Summary of Outreach
 Appendix D – Glossary of Housing Terms
441
Community Profile
Chapter 2
442

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-1
Community Profile
This Community Profile for the City of Costa Mesa provides an overview of the City’s housing and population conditions. The Community Profile serves as the foundation for the 2021-2029 Housing Element’s policies.

It describes and assess es the factors and characteristics that contribute to the supply and demand for housing in Costa Mesa. Specifically, the C ommunity Profile describes the community’s population, employment, economics, and household characteristics. Special n eeds groups and housing stock characteristics are also described. The C ommunity Profile provides baseline analysis to inform the goals, programs, and policies, included in the Housing Element.

The data used for this Community Profile has been collected using the most current available data from the Southern California Association of Govern ments (SCAG), 2010 U.S. Census, 2010- 2018 U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS), the California Department of Finance, the California Employment Development Department, the California Department of Education and other relevant available real estate and market data.

A. Population Characteristics
Population characteristics directly impact the current and future housing demand in a community. The type and extent of housing needs is often influenced by population growth, age composition of the community and the mix of race/ethnicity . These factors also determine the ability of the local population to afford housing costs. The following section describes and analyzes various population characteristics and local trends that affect housing needs.

1. Population Growth
Table 2-1 compares Costa Mesa’s forecasted population growth from 2010 to 2040 to the surrounding cities. The U.S. Census reported a population of 109,960 in 2010 . Costa Mesa’s population represents 3.7 percent of the total Orange County population.

Table 2-1 estimates a 2010-2040 population growth of 5.8 percent, or 6,440 persons. Population growth estimates for Orange County anticipated an increase of 8.7 percent between 2010 to 2020. A 5.8 percent growth is projected for Orange County between 2020 and 2040. Costa Mesa’s estimated future population growth rate during that time period is low er than surrounding cities. For example , Irvine’s population is estimated to increase 10.5% through 2040 and Newport Beach’s population is estimated to increase 3.8% over that same period. This is compared to 2.2% growth in Costa Mesa between 2020 and 2040.

443

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-2

2. Age Characteristics
Age composition of a community is a consideration when evaluating housing need – housing demand within the local real estate market may be influenced by the unique preferences of certain age groups. For example, young adults and seniors may favor apartments , low to moderate -cost condominiums, and smaller or more affordable single-family units. Young adults and seniors tend to have comparatively lower or fixed incomes and may have a smaller family size. In comparison, the middle-aged demographic typically represents the largest portion of local home buyers.

As these age cohorts move through different stages of life, housing needs and preferences will likely change. Creating a well-balanced community that provides for the individual housing needs of its residents will consider the changing housing needs of the current and projected future population.

Figure 2-1: Age Distribution in Costa Mesa, 2010-2018

Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2010, 2015, and 2018.

Under 5 years 5 to 19 years 20 to 34 years 35 to 49 years 50 to 64 years 65 years + 2010 6.90% 17.30% 28.00% 23.60% 15.70% 8.50%
2015 6.70% 17.20% 28.00% 21.60% 17.30% 9.50%
2018 5.70% 17.00% 27.40% 22.00% 17.20% 10.70%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%
Table 2-1: Population Growth Forecast, 2010-2040
Jurisdictions
Population Percent Change
2010
Actual
2012
Projected
2020
Projected
2035
Projected
2040
Projected 2010-2020 2020-2040
Newport Beach 85,186 86,300 89,300 92,300 92,700 4.8% 3.8% Costa Mesa 109,960 111,200 113,900 116,500 116,400 3.6% 2.2% Irvine 212,375 227,100 296,300 326,700 327,300 39.5% 10.5% Santa Ana 324,528 329,200 340,600 343,400 343,100 5% 0.7% Huntington
Beach 189,992 193,200 203,800 207,300 207,100 7.3% 1.6% Orange County 3,010,232 3,072,000 3,271,000 3,431,000 3,461,000 8.7% 5.8% Sources: Bureau of the Census (2010) and SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Growth Forecast by Jurisdiction Report. 444

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-3
Figure 2-1 shows age distribution of Costa Mesa residents from 2010 to 2018. Young adults 20 to 34 years were estimated to represent the largest age group in Costa Mesa in 2018 (27.4 percent). Children aged 5 years and under were estimated to represent 5.7 percent of the City’s population in 2018. Seniors aged 65 years and over experienced the largest percent change of all age groups between 2010 and 2018 (a 2.2% increase).

These data shown in Figure 2-1 indicate a slight aging trend in the City of Costa Mesa, with some decreases in the population aged 34 years and under and a larger increase for persons aged o ver 50 years. The population aged 65 and over experienced the most growth. An aging population may result in changing needs for different housing types, amenities, and accessibility to local services.

Table 2-2 displays estimated age characteristics in 2018 for Costa Mesa, Orange County, and adjacent cities.

Persons aged 25 to 44 represent the largest population age group in Costa Mesa. Teenagers aged 15 to 17 represent the smallest age group in Costa Mesa (3.2 percent of the total population). Just under 11 percent of Costa Mesa’s population are persons aged 65 years or older.

Table 2-2: Age Distribution by Jurisdiction, 2018
Jurisdiction Under 5 5 to 14 15 to 17 18 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 64 65 years + Newport Beach 3.9% 10% 3.5% 6.3% 23.4% 30.2% 22.7%
Costa Mesa 5.7% 11.4% 3.2% 9.6% 35.2% 24.3% 10.7%
Irvine 6.4% 12.4% 3.6% 13% 30.8% 23.9% 9.9%
Santa Ana 7.5% 15.2% 4.4% 11.3% 30.9% 22.1% 8.6%
Huntington Beach 5.2% 10.9% 3.5% 7.6% 27% 29% 16.9%
Orange County 6.0% 12.5% 4% 9.5% 27.4% 26.6% 13.9%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018

3. Race/Ethnicity Characteristics
Different racial and ethnic groups often represent a variety of household characteristics, income levels, and cultural backgrounds which may influence housing needs, housing choice s, and housing type s. Various cultures may also influence preferences for specific types of housing that need to be considered in future housing needs of a community.

Figure 2 -2 and Table 2 -3 compare racial and ethnic composition between Costa Mesa, adjacent communities, and Orange County. The White population represents the largest racial group (71.6 in Costa Mesa). The smallest racial groups, each representing less than 1 percent of the City and County populations, are the American Indian/ Alaska Natives and the Native Hawaiian /other Pacific Islanders. The Asian population in Costa Mesa represents 8.4 percent of the total population, compared to 20.1 percent of the total Orange County population. Persons identifying as of Hispanic or Latino origin represent 36.1 percent of entire Costa Mesa’s population, compared to 34.1 percent in Orange County . Persons identifying as being of Hispanic or Latino origin may be from any race. This is not additive to the racial composition information shown in Figure 2-2.

445

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-4
Figure 2-2: Percentage of Racial and Ethnic Composition, 2018

Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

Table 2-3: Racial and Ethnic Composition, 2018
Jurisdiction White Black
American
Indian and
Alaska
Native
Asian
Native
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
Some
Other
Race
Two or
More
Races
Persons of
Hispanic or
Latino
Origin (of
any race)
Newport Beach 85.3% 0.8% 0.3% 8.3% 0.2% 2.1% 3.1% 9%
Costa Mesa 71.6% 1.9% 0.4% 8.4% 0.7% 13% 4% 36.1%
Irvine 47.6% 1.9% 0.2% 42.3% 0.2% 2.8% 5.2% 10.3%
Santa Ana 44.2% 1.1% 0.6% 11.8% 0.2% 40.1% 1.9% 76.8%
Huntington
Beach 72.4% 1.4% 0.6% 12.1% 0.4% 7.7% 5.4% 20.0%
Orange County 61.7% 1.7% 0.5% 20.1% 0.3% 11.7% 4.1% 34.1% Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

Demographic analysis includes evaluating demographic changes over time. The U.S. Census and ACS report little change in racial and ethnic composition in Costa Mesa between 2010 and 2018, as displayed in Table 2-4. The greatest percent change was an increase of about 2 percent of the Hispanic and Latino population, regardless of race. The population of persons who identify as two or more races rose by 1.6 percent. The White population experienced the greatest percent decrease between 2010 and 2015 at 5.6 percent . In 2018 the White population increased by 5 percent. Those identifying as Some Other Race increased by 4 percent in 2015 and then decrease by 5.2 percentage points in 2018.

White
Black or
African
American
American
Indian and
Alaska
Native
Asian
Native
Hawaiian
and Other
Pacific
Islander
Some
Other Race
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic or
Latino
Costa Mesa 71.6% 1.9% 0.4% 8.4% 0.7% 13.0% 4.0% 36.1%
Orange County 61.7% 1.7% 0.5% 20.1% 0.3% 11.7% 4.1% 34.1% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
446

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-5
Table 2-4: Racial and Ethnic Composition, 2010-2018
Race/Ethnicity 2010 2015 2018
Percent
Change 2010
to 2015
Percent
Change 2015
to 2018
White 72.3% 66.7% 71.6% -5.6% 4.9%
Black 1.2% 1.6% 1.9% 0.4% 0.3%
American Indian and
Alaska Native 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% -0.1% 0.1%
Asian 9% 9% 8.4% 0% -0.6%
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander 0.6% 0.5% 0.7% -0.1% 0.2%
Some Other Race 14.1% 18.2% 13% 4.1% -5.2%
Two or More Races 2.4% 3.6% 4% 1.2% 0.4%
Hispanic or Latino 34.2% 35.7% 36.1% 1.5% 0.4%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2010, 2015, and 2018.

B. Economic Characteristics
Economic characteristics of a community provide valuable insight into a community’s ability to access the housing market. Different job types, income levels and the number of workers in a household could also affect housing affordability and choice. Therefore, a healthy balance between jobs and housing is important when evaluating the economic characteristics of a community.

1. Employment and Wage Scale
The SCAG Growth Forecast Report estimate s employment growth for the City of Costa Mesa and nearby cities, as summarized in Table 2-5. From 2012 to 2040, Orange County forecasts a net gain of 373,000 new jobs – a 23.2 percent increase over 28 years. Santa Ana and Newport Beach are estimated to experience the smallest percent growth of approximately 7 percent. Irvine has the fastest growing job market with an estimated increase of almost 40 percent , or 95,600 new jobs. In contrast , Costa Mesa has a forecasted employment growth of 9.9 percent through 2040.

Table 2 -6 shows how employment has changed amongst different sectors for Costa Mesa residents between 2010 and 2018. In 2010, the majority of the working population in the City was employed in education services, health care, and social assistance. In 2018, the majo rity of employed persons were estimated to be in the professional, scientific, management, and administrative services sector. This sector is estimated to have increased by 2.7 percent between 2010 and 2018. Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining represents the sector with the lowest rates of employment for all cities in Orange County.
447

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-6
Table 2-5: Employment Growth Trends, 2012-2040
Jurisdiction 2012 2020 2035 2040
%
Change
2012-
2020
%
Change
2020-
2040
# Change
2012-
2040
Total %
Change
Newport
Beach 76,000 77,900 78,900 79,100 2.5% 1.5% 3,100 4.1%
Costa Mesa 84,600 89,600 92,700 93,200 5.9% 4.0% 8,600 10.2% Irvine 224,400 280,600 314,000 320,000 25.0% 14.0% 95,600 42.6% Santa Ana 154,800 160,600 165,200 166,000 3.7% 3.4% 11,200 7.2% Huntington
Beach 75,800 82,900 86,400 87,000 9.4% 4.9% 11,200 14.8% Orange
County 1,526,000 1,730,000 1,870,000 1,899,000 13.4% 9.8% 373,000 24.4% Source: SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Growth Forecast by Jurisdiction Report.

Table 2-6: Employment in Costa Mesa by Sector, 2018
Industry Sector
2010 2018 Percent
Change
2010-2018
# of people
employed
% of City
Employment
# of people
employed
% of City
Employment
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and
hunting, and mining 231 0.4% 557 0.9% 0.5%
Construction 3,831 6.4% 3,783 5.9% -0.5%
Manufacturing 5,768 9.6% 5,869 9.2% -0.4%
Wholesale trade 2,562 4.3% 2,005 3.2% -1.1%
Retail trade 6,643 11.1% 7,224 11.3% 0.2%
Transportation and warehousing,
and utilities 1,493 2.5% 1,850 2.9% 0.4%
Information 1,385 2.3% 1,216 1.9% -0.4%
Finance and insurance, and real
estate and rental leasing 6,076 10.2% 5,713 9% -1.2%
Professional, scientific,
management, and administrative
services
9,150 15.3% 11,436 17.9% 2.7%
Education services, health care,
and social assistance 10,210 17.1% 10,360 16.3% -0.8%
Arts, entertainment, recreation,
accommodation, and food
services
7,828 13.1% 8,623 13.5% 0.5%
Other services (except public
administration) 3,582 6% 3,698 5.8% -0.2%
Public Administration 1,126 1.9% 1,406 2.2% 0.3%
Total 59,885 100.0% 63,740 100.0% 6.4%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2010 and 2018. 448

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-7
The unemployment rate is essential to understand the current and projected housing needs and affordability. According to the 2018 ACS survey data in Table 2-7, Costa Mesa was estimated to have an unemployment rate of 4.8 percent, or 4,445 individuals unemployed in the City. This percentage is slightly less than Orange County’s rate of 5.1 percent.

Table 2-7: Unemployment Rate, 2018
Jurisdiction Unemployment Rate*
Newport Beach 3.4%
Costa Mesa 4.8%
Irvine 4.9%
Santa Ana 5.6%
Huntington Beach 4.3%
Orange County 5.1%
*Population 16 years and over
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

Table 2-7 shows approximately 4.8 percent of the population in Costa Mesa was estimated to be without work in 2018 and would therefore be more likely to need affordable housing options.

2. Regional Affordable Housing Rates
Income levels can determine affordability and choice of housing types offered in Costa Mesa. According to SCAG’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), housing needs are defined by the following four income categories:
• Very Low Income (less than 50 percent of the Orange County’s median family income) • Low Income (50-80 percent of Orange County’s median family income) • Moderate Income (81-120 percent of Orange County’s median family income) • Above Moderate Income (120 percent and above of Orange County’s median family income) Included in the very low-income category is the extremely low-income group. Extremely low incomes are less than 30 percent of the County’s median family income. Orange County’s 2020 median family income, based on an assumed family of four, is $103,000. Table 2 -8 provides a summary of median salary by occupation in Costa Mesa in 2018.

449

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-8
Table 2-8: Median Salary by Occupation in Costa Mesa, 2018 Occupation Salary
Management $84,842
Legal $154,293
Computer and Mathematical $73,170
Architecture and Engineering $93,000
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical $84,833
Business and Financial Operations $66,708
Life, Physical and Social Sciences $75,833
Construction and Extraction $31,719
Education, Training and Library $52,786
Installation, Maintenance and Repair $42,193
Community and Social Service $63,750
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports and Media $62,693
Office and Administration Support $47,958
Protective Services $31,979
Healthcare Support $28,243
Sales $57,677
Production $41,490
Transportation $31,950
Material Moving $27,401
Building, Grounds Cleaning, and Maintenance $25,534
Farming, Fishing and Forestry $31,090
Food Preparation and Serving Related $26,465
Personal Care and Service $34,167
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

450

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-9
C. Household Characteristics
A household is defined by the U.S. Census as all persons who occupy a housing unit. This may include single persons living alone, families related through marriage, blood or adoption, domestic partnerships and unrelated individuals living together. Not all housing is considered a housing unit including, nursing facilities, residential care facilities, dormitories, and other group living; the persons living with them also do not constitute a household.

Information on household characteristics assists in understanding growth and determining the housing needs of a community. Income and affordability are best measured at the household level . The special needs of certain groups, such as large families, single parent households, or low , very low, and extremely low-income households must also be assessed to identify potential housing needs . For example, if a city has a predominately aging population of homeowners who may have fixed incomes, the City may consider implementing a home rehabilitation or maintenance assistance program to assist in deferred maintenance due to lack of disposable income.

1. Household Type and Size
The City of Costa Mesa had an estimated 41,019 households in 2018. Married-couple families are the largest household type in Costa Mesa, representing 42.8 percent of the City’s population (Table 2-9). The percentage is lower by comparison to nearby cities. Just under 55 percent of all Orange County residents live in married-couple households. Households of this type typically occupy single family residences with multiple bedrooms. Non-family households are the second largest household type in Costa Mesa , representing 40.2 percent of all households. When combined with senior householders over the age of 65 and living alone, (as shown in Figure 2-3), it represents 46.8 percent of all households. Persons aged 65 or older tend to occupy apartments or smaller age-centric living.

Table 2-9: Household Characteristics by Jurisdiction, 2018 Jurisdiction
Married-couple Family
Households

Female Household, No
Spouse Present

Non-Family
Household1

Total Households
2010 2018 2010 2018 2010 2018 2010 2018
Newport Beach 44.8% 50.1% 5.7% 4.9% 46.7% 42.5% 37,803 37,870 Costa Mesa 42.7% 42.8% 10.5% 10.2% 40.4% 40.2% 40,104 41,019 Irvine 52.8% 54.2% 9.3% 8.8% 34.0% 33.2% 71,680 95,371
Santa Ana 53.7% 54.3% 16.3% 18.0% 19.5% 18.7% 74,381 76,521 Huntington
Beach 48.7% 48.9% 10.0% 10.8% 36.4% 35.1% 75,220 76,821 Orange County 54.2% 54.7% 11.4% 11.8% 29.0% 28.2% 984,503 1,032,373

1. A nonfamily household consists of a householder living alone (a one-person household) or where the householder shares the home exclusively with people to whom he/she is not related.

Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

451

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-10
Figure 2-3: Costa Mesa Household Characteristics, 2010 and 2018

Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2010 and 2018.

Table 2 -10 summarizes changes in household types between 2010 and 2018. Over this time period, households in Costa Mesa increased by 915. The changes in household types have remained generally constant for all housing types. The two largest percent changes between 2010 and 2018 were a 0.3% decrease for female households and a 0.3% increase for male households.

Table 2-10: Changes in Household Types, 2010-2018
Household Types 2010 Percent 2015 Percent 2018 Percent
Married-couple
Family Households 17,127 42.7% 17,039 41.7% 17,568 42.8% Female Household,
No Spouse Present 4,196 10.5% 4,746 11.6% 4,191 10.2%
Male Household, No
Spouse Present 2,564 6.4% 2,371 5.8% 2,751 6.7%
Nonfamily
Household 16,217 40.4% 16,752 41% 16,509 40.2%
Total Households 40,104 100% 40,908 100% 41,019 100%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2010, 2015, 2018.

Table 2-11: Average Household Size
Jurisdiction Average Persons per
Household
Newport Beach 2.3
Costa Mesa 2.7
Irvine 2.7
Santa Ana 4.3
Huntington Beach 2.6
Orange County 3.0
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

Married-Couple
Households
Female Households,
No Spouse Present
Male Households,
No Spouse Present
NonFamily
Households
Householder Age 65
or above
2018 42.8% 10.2% 6.7% 40.2% 6.6%
2010 42.7% 10.5% 6.4% 40.4% 4.7%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
452

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-11
The average household size in Costa Mesa is estimated to be 2.7 persons per household, as shown in Table 2-11. This is less than Orange County’s average household size of 3 .0 persons per household. Of Costa Mesa’s adjacent communities, the smallest average household size is in Newport Beach ( 2.3 persons per household), and the largest household size is in Santa Ana (4.3 persons per household).

2. Household Income
Household income is directly connected to housing affordability and housing choice. As household income increases, it is more likely that the household can aff ord market rate housing units, larger units , and/or pursue ownership opportunities . As household income decreases, households may spend a disproportionate amount of their income on housing. State and federal guidance suggests that households paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing are considered overpaying. Household income and overpayment influences a household’s housing cost burden and may influence increased incidences of overcrowding and substandard living conditions in the area. A high housing cost burden may also influence a household’s available income for reinvestment in the local economy, education, and other similar investments.

The data for Table 2-12 comes from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)’s 2020 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) estimates which are based on 2013-2017 American Community Survey (ACS) data and area median family income (AMFI). A total of 52.8 percent of the Costa Mesa population qualify for the moderate -income category. About 29 percent qualify for very low or extremely low income - this is about 11,842 Costa Mesa households that make less than $42,699 annually.

Table 2-12: Households by Income Category, 2020
Income Category (% of Orange County’s AMFI) No. of Households Percent Extremely Low (30% AMFI or less) 6,610 16.3%
Very Low (31 to 50% AMFI) 5,220 12.9%
Low (51 to 80% AMFI) 7,325 18.1%
Moderate or Above (over 80% AMFI) 21,405 52.8%
Total 40,555 100%
Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2013- 2017.

The median household income in Costa Mesa is $6,191 lower than Orange County’s median household income. Figure 2-4 compares Costa Mesa’s median household income to that of Orange County and the City’s neighboring communities . This figure shows that Costa Mesa households have a lower median household income comparatively.

453

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-12
Figure 2-4: Median Household Income by City, 2018

Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

Table 2-13 presents the median income for Costa Mesa and its adjacent cities in comparison to the regional median for Orange County in 2018. Costa Mesa households have a median income 7.2 percent below the regional median. The City’s median household income is higher than that of Santa Ana at $61,774. Aside from Costa Mesa and Santa Ana, the other nearby cities have a median income above the regional median.

Newport Beach has a significantly higher median household income at $122,709 annually , approximately and 64.5 percent higher than the Costa Mesa’s median household income.

Table 2-13: Median Household Income, 2018
Jurisdiction Median Income
Percent
Above/Below
Regional Median
Newport Beach $122,709 43.7%%
Costa Mesa $79,207 -7.2%
Irvine $100,969 18.2%
Santa Ana $61,774 -27.7%
Huntington Beach $91,318 6.9%
Orange County $85,398 --
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

$122,709
$79,207
$100,969
$61,774
$91,318
$85,398
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
Newport Beach Costa Mesa Irvine Santa Ana Huntington Beach Income Orange County
454

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-13
Figure 2-5: Costa Mesa Income Breakdown by Income Category

Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

D. Housing Problems and Housing Needs
The 2020 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) provides detailed information on housing needs by income level for different types of households in Costa Mesa . The most recent available CHAS data for Costa Mesa was published in August 2020 and is based on 2013-2017 American Community Survey (ACS) data (Table 2-14). Housing problems considered by CHAS include:
• Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom); • Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room – excluding bathrooms and kitchens);
• Housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income; and • Severe housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income.

The types of housing problems in Costa Mesa vary according to household income, housing type, and tenure. Renters make up the greatest percentage of households at about 60 percent. Renters experiencing at least one of the four housing problems listed above represent 33.4 percent of all households and about 55 percent of all renters . Households who do not have any of the four housing problems are similar for both owners and renters (25.7 percent and 26.6 percent, respectively). For the City as a whole, 46.5 percent of households have at least one of the four housing problems.

The severe housing problems category relates to the livability of a residence and critically affects the quality of life of the occupants. These are important to analyze as it may reveal an aging h ousing stock, as well as a need for affordable housing. Severe housing problems include incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1.5 persons per room (rate of severe overcrowding), and a cost burden greater than 50 percent of a household’s annual income . Table 2-14 shows that at 70.6 percent or the Less than $25,000
14%
$25,000 to
$34,999
7%
$35,000 to
$49,999
10%
$50,000 to
$74,999
16%
$75,000 to
$99,999
14%
$100,000 to
$149,999
19%
$150,000 or more
20%
455

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-14
majority of Costa Mesa households do not have any of the four severe housing problems. However, 28.2 percent of households do experience at least one of these problems. Renters with at least one severe housing problem represent 21.5 percent of all Costa Mesa households. Owners with at least one severe housing problem represent 6.7 percent of all households.

Table 2-14: Housing Assistance Needs of Lower Income Households, 2013-2017 Housing Problem
Overview* Owner % of total
HH Renter % of
total HH Total
% of
total
HH
Household has at least
1 of 4 Housing
Problems
5,330 13.1% 13,540 33.4% 18,870 46.5%
Household has none of
4 Housing Problems 10,425 25.7% 10,785 26.6% 21,210 52.3% Cost Burden not
available, no other
problems
95 0.2% 380 0.9% 475 1.2%
Total 15,850 39.0% 24,705 60.9% 40,555 100.0%
Severe Housing
Problem Overview** Owner % of total
HH Renter % of
total HH Total
% of
total
HH
Household has at least
1 of 4 Severe Housing
Problems
2,720 6.7% 8,715 21.5% 11,435 28.2%
Household has none of
4 Severe Housing
Problems
13,040 32.2% 15,610 38.5% 28,650 70.6%
Cost Burden not
available, no other
problems
95 0.2% 380 0.9% 475 1.2%
Total 15,855 39.1% 24,705 60.9% 40,560 100.0%
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) 2013-2017.
* The four housing problems are: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1 person per room, and cost burden greater than 30%.
** The four severe housing problems are: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1.5 persons per room, and cost burden greater than 50%.

1. Overcrowding
“Overcrowding” is generally defined as a housing unit occupied by more than one person per room in a house (including living room and dining rooms, but excluding hallways, kitchen, and bathrooms). An overcrowded household results from either a lack of affordable housing and/or a lack of housing units of adequate size. The combination of lower incomes and high housing costs can result in households living in overcrowded housing conditions. Additionally, overcrowding can indicate that a community does not have an adequate supply of affordable housing, especially for larger families.

Overcrowded and severel y overcrowded households can contribute to neighborhood deterioration. This can be due to more intensive use leading to excessive wear and tear , and/or the potential cumulative 456

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-15
overburdening of community infrastructure and service capacity. Generally, o vercrowding in neighborhoods could contribute to overall decline in social cohesion and environmental quality. Such decline may spread geographically and impact the quality of life, the economic value of property, and the vitality of commerce within a city.

Table 2-15 summarizes the overcrowding condition in Costa Mesa. Data from the 2018 ACS reports an estimated 6 percent overcrowded housing units and 3 percent severely overcrowded housing units. About 1 percent of owner-occupied housing units are overcrowded and just under 8 percent of renter -occupied housing units are overcrowded. Renters living in overcrowded housing units represent 5.1 percent of all occupied housing units and renters living in severely overcrowded housing units represent 2.8 percent of all occupied housing units.

Table 2-15: Overcrowding by Tenure, 2018
Tenure
Overcrowded Housing Units
(1.0 to 1.50 persons/room)
Severely Overcrowded Housing
Units (>1.51 persons/room)
Total Overcrowded Occupied
Housing Units
Count
Percent of
Total Occupied
Housing Units
Count
Percent of
Total Occupied
Housing Units
Count Percent of
Total Occupied
Housing Units
Owner
Occupied 361 0.9% 74 0.2% 435 1.1%
Renter
Occupied 2,082 5.1% 1,169 2.8% 3,251 7.9%
Total 2,443 6% 1,243 3% 3,686 9%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

Costa Mesa has one of the largest estimated percentages of renters living in overcrowded housing units compared to nearby cities and Orange County (Table 2-16). With 88 percent of renter -occupied housing units overcrowded, Costa Mesa is slightly less than Newport Beach; however, Newport Beach reports 505 overcrowded renter-occupied units while Costa Mesa reports 3,251. Santa Ana has the lowest percentage of renters living in overcrowded units, but at 27 percent it has the highest rate of owner-occupied housing units experiencing overcrowding (15 percent more than Costa Mesa). Overcrowding in Costa Mesa is 12 percent below the regional percentage for owners and 12 percent above the regional percentage for renters. In comparison, Costa Mesa has one of the lowest rates of overcrowding in owner-occupied housing units (12 percent) behind Newport Beach. Table 2-17 shows the combination of renter occupied and owner occupied indicating that the City of Costa Mesa has the second highest rate of overcrowding in this area of Orange County (9 percent) which is 0.1 percent above the regional total.

457

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-16
Table 2-16: Overcrowded Housing Units by Tenure, 2018
Jurisdiction
Owner Occupied Overcrowded Units
(>1.0 persons/room)
Renter Occupied Overcrowded Units
(>1.0 persons/room)
Count
Percent of Total
Overcrowded
Units
Count
Percent of Total
Overcrowded
Units
Newport Beach 65 11% 505 89%
Costa Mesa 435 12% 3,251 88%
Irvine 958 16% 4,921 84%
Santa Ana 6,470 27% 17,375 73%
Huntington Beach 557 20% 2,291 80%
Orange County 21,800 24% 69,713 76%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

Table 2-17: Overcrowded Housing Units
Jurisdiction Total Overcrowded
Units
Percent of
Jurisdiction’s Total
Housing Units
Newport Beach 570 1.5%
Costa Mesa 3,686 9%
Irvine 5,879 6.2%
Santa Ana 23,845 31.2%
Huntington Beach 2,848 3.7%
Orange County 91,513 8.9%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

2. Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Housing In Relation to Income Overpayment is an important consideration when evaluating housing need and affordability. State and federal guidance suggests that households paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing are considered overpaying. Overpayment for housing can cause an imbalance for overall household budgets.

Table 2-18 and Table 2-19 provides a summary of housing overpayment in Costa Mesa and a comparative analysis between homeowners and renters. In general, renters are more prone to overpayment th an homeowners due to lower incomes that do not allow them to qualify for purchasing a home with a fixed mortgage payment or at an affordable price. In Costa Mesa, 48.8 percent of renters are estimated to spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing. In comparison, 31.8 percent of homeowners spend that same amount. For renters, as their household income rises so does their ability to afford rent. Renters who earn an Area Median Family Income (AMFI) of 30 percent or less have much greater cost burdens than homeowners with the same income; 17.5 percent of renters spend 30 percent or more of their income and

16.3 percent spend over 50 percent. By comparison, homeowners who also earn an AMFI of 30 percent or less, 7.3 percent spend 30 percent of more of their income on housing and 6.2 percent spend over 50 percent. Table 2-18 also shows that homeowners who earn a low to moderate income are the most likely to experience a cost burden of 30 percent or more.
458

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-17
Table 2-18: Summary of Housing Overpayment for Homeowners Income by Cost
Burden*

Cost Burden >
30%
% of Owner
HH
Cost Burden >
50%
% of Owner
HH
Household Income is
less-than or = 30% 1,165 7.3% 990 6.2%
Household Income
>30% to less-than or
= 50% AMFI
770 4.9% 505 3.2%
Household Income
>50% to less-than or
= 80% AMFI
1,230 7.8% 540 3.4%
Household Income
>80% to less-than or
= 100% AMFI
670 4.2% 185 1.2%
Household Income
>100% AMFI 1,200 7.6% 115 0.7%
Total 5,035 31.8% 2,335 14.7%
* Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is "select monthly owner costs", which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes.

Note: AMFI = Area Median Family Income, this is the median family income calculated by HUD for each jurisdiction, to determine Fair Market Rents (FMRs) and income limits for HUD programs. AMFI will not necessarily be the same as other calculations of median incomes (such as a simple Census number), due to a series of adjustments that are made.

Source: Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) 2013-2017.

Table 2-19: Summary of Housing Overpayment for Renters
Income by Cost
Burden
Cost Burden >
30%
% of Renter
HH
Cost Burden >
50%
% of Renter
HH
Household Income is
less-than or = 30% 4,325 17.5% 4,020 16.3%
Household Income
>30% to less-than or =
50% AMFI
3,390 13.7% 1,790 7.2%
Household Income
>50% to less-than or =
80% AMFI
3,100 12.5% 605 2.4%
Household Income
>80% to less-than or =
100% AMFI
725 2.9% 15 0.1%
Household Income
>100% AMFI 505 2.0% 10 0.0%
Total 12,045 48.8% 6,440 26.1%
Source: Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) 2013-2017.

459

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-18
E. Special Needs Groups
State law recognizes certain households may have more difficulty in finding adequate and affordable housing due to special circumstances. Special needs populations include seniors, persons with disabilities, female-headed households, large households, and farm workers. Based on the analysis included within this section the City of Costa Mesa has developed Program 2C which describes how the City will expend available CDBG funds to support residents with special housing needs.

Special circumstances may be related to one’s employment and income, family characteristics, disability and household characteristics, or other factors. Consequently, certain Costa Mesa residents may experience higher incidences of housing overpayment (cos t burden), overcrowding, or other housing problems. The special needs groups analyzed in the Housing Element include the elderly, persons with disabilities (including persons with developmental disabilities), individuals experiencing homeless ness, single parents, large households, and farmworkers (
Table 2 -20). These groups may also overlap, for
example some elderly people may have a disability of some type. The majority of these special needs groups could be assisted by an increase in affordable housing.

The following sections provide a detailed discussion of the housing needs facing each particular group in Costa Mesa as well as programs and services available to address their housing needs.

Table 2-20: Special Needs Groups in Costa Mesa
Special Needs Groups # of People or
Households
Percent of Total
Households
Percent of Total
Population
Senior Population 12,138 people -- 10.7%
Senior Headed Households 9,757 people -- 8.6%
Seniors Living Alone 3,075
households 7.5% --
Persons with Disabilities 9,224 people -- 8.1%
Large Households (5 or more
persons per household)
3,926
households 9.6% --
Single-Parent Households 3,787
households 9.2% --
Single-Parent, Female Headed
Households with Children (under 18
years)
2,304
households 5.7% --
People Living in Poverty1 14,554 people -- 12.9%
Farmworkers 557 people -- 0.5%
Migrant Farmworkers 340 people -- --
Seasonal Farmworkers 666 people -- --
Permanent Farmworkers 1,106 people -- --
Persons Experiencing Homelessness 193 people -- 0.2%

1. The Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family's total income is less than the family's threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty.

Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018; Orange County Point in Time County /Homeless Count, 2019.
460

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-19

1. Seniors
The senior population is generally defined as those over 65 years of age. Seniors have a high likelihood of limited and fixed incomes, higher health care costs, greater mobility challenges and self-care limitations, transit dependency, and commonly live alone. Specific housing needs of the senior population include affordable housing, supportive housing, co -living, multi-generational settings such as Accessory Dwelling Units and other housing options that include a planned service component.

Table 2-21 shows that Costa Mesa has a low er senior population compared to some nearby cities and Orange County, in general. Seniors over the age of 65 comprise 10.7 percent of the Costa Mesa population.

Costa Mesa seniors represent a greater population percentage than those in Irvine (9.9 percent) and Santa Ana (8.6 percent). Newport Beach has the largest senior population of the area compared at 22.7 percent (12 percent more than Costa Mesa) . The senior population of the County of Orange (13.9 percent) is 3.2 percent greater than that of Costa Mesa.

Table 2-21: Persons Age 65 and Over in Costa Mesa
Jurisdiction Population
Count Percent
Newport Beach 19,574 22.7%
Costa Mesa 12,138 10.7%
Irvine 26,228 9.9%
Santa Ana 28,621 8.6%
Huntington
Beach 34,002 16.9%
Orange County 440,488 13.9%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

Table 2-22 illustrates the tenure of senior households in the City of Costa Mesa. The majority of senior households are owner-occupied with 58.8 percent of all senior households.

Table 2-22: Senior Households by Tenure
Tenure Senior
Households
Percent of Total
Senior
Households
Owner Occupied 5,143 58.8%
Renter Occupied 3,611 41.2%
Total 8,754 100.0%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

Federal housing data defines the household type as ‘elderly family’ if it consists of two persons with either or both age 62 or over. Table 2-23 summarizes the income and tenure of elderly family households in Costa Mesa. Of elderly households in Costa Mesa, 24.5 percent earn less than 30 percent of the surrounding area income, 39.4 percent earn less than 50 percent of the surrounding area. 461

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-20
Table 2-23: Elderly Households by Income and Tenure
Income Category, relative to
surrounding area Owner Renter Total
Percent of
Total Elderly
Households
Extremely Low (30% HAMFI or less) 905 955 1,860 24.5%
Very Low (30% to 50% HAMFI) 840 290 1,130 14.9%
Low (50% to 80% HAMFI) 1,090 555 1,645 21.7%
Moderate (80% to 100% HAMFI) 465 195 660 8.7%
Above Moderate (100% HAMFI or more) 1,720 580 2,300 30.3% Total 5,020 2,575 7,595 --
Source: HUD CHAS, 2012-2016, (Reported by the Southern California Association of Governments Per-Certified Local Housing Data for 2021).

In addition to overpayment problems faced by seniors due to their relatively fixed incomes, seniors may be faced with various disabilities. In 2018 , the American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimate reported 4,064 Costa Mesa seniors with a disability . Among these disabilities, the most common were ambulatory disabilities, independent living disabilities and hearing disabilities. Based on this analysis, the City has developed Program 2D to identify opportunities for Senior Housing developments within Costa Mesa.

Actions include outreach and collaboration with the senior housing development community to understand needs and opportunities.

2. Persons with Physical and Developmental Disabilities Physical and developmental disabilities may hinder access to traditionally designed housing units. Physical, mental, and/or developmental disabilities may deprive a person from earning an income, restrict one’s mobility, or make self -care difficult. Some r esidents may also have disabilities that require living in a supportive or institutional setting. Thus, persons with disabilities generally have special housing needs that must be provided with the City’s housing stock.

No current comparisons of disability with income, household size, or race/ethnicity are available. However, it is reasonable to assume that a substantial portion of persons with disabilities would have annual incomes within Federal and State income limits, especially households not in the labor force. Furthermore, lower income persons with disabilities are likely to require housing assistance and services. Housing needs for disabled persons are further compounded by costly design issues and location factors such as proximity to transit, medical services, and retail. For example, special needs households with wheelchair-bound or semi- ambulatory individuals may require ramps, holding bars, special bathroom designs, wider doorways, lower cabinets, elevators, and other interior and exterior design features.

The 2018 ACS identifies six disability types: hearing disability, vision disability, cognitive disability, ambulatory disability, self -care disability , and independent living disability. The Census and the ACS provides clarifying ques tions to determine persons with disabilities and to differentiate between disabilities. The ACS defines a disability as a report of one of the six disabilities identified by the following questions:

462

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-21
• Hearing Disability: Is this person deaf or does he/she have serious difficulty hearing? • Visual Disability: Is this person blind or do they have serious difficulty seeing even when wearing glasses?
• Cognitive Difficulty: Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition, does this person have serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions? • Ambulatory Difficulty: Does this person have serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs? • Independent Living Difficulty: Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition, does this person have difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping? Table 2-24: Disability Status in Costa Mesa
Disability Type
Under 18
with a
Disability
18 to 64
with a
Disability
65 years
and Over
with a
Disability
Total
Percent of
Population
with
Disability
Percent of
Total
Population
Population with a
Hearing Difficulty 93 904 1,592 2,589 28.1% 2.3%
Population with a
Vision Difficulty 112 894 905 1,911 20.7% 1.7%
Population with a
Cognitive Difficulty 371 2,159 1,489 4,019 43.6% 3.6%
Population with an
Ambulatory Difficulty 48 1,670 2,571 4,289 46.5% 3.8%
Population with a Self-
care Difficulty 96 591 1,069 1,756 19% 1.6%
Population with an
Independent Living
Difficulty
-- 1,403 1,993 3,396 36.8% 3%
Total 535 4,625 4,064 9,224* 100%* 8.2%*
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018. *This number may include persons reporting having one or more disabilities. Percentages include persons reporting having more than one disability and are not additive.

State law requires that the Housing Element discuss the housing needs of persons with developmental disabilities. As defined by federal law, “developmental disability” means a severe, chronic disability of an individual that:
• Is attribu ted to a mental or physical impairment or combination of mental and physical impairments;
• Is manifested before the individual attains age 22;
• Is likely to continue indefinitely;
• Results in substantial functional limitations in three or more of the following areas of major life activity: a) self-care; b) receptive and expressive language; c) learning; d) mobility; e) self-direction; f) capacity for independent living; or g) economic self- sufficiency; and • Reflects the individual’s need for a combination and sequence of special, interdisciplinary, generic services, individualized supports, or other forms of assistance that are of lifelong or extended duration and are individually planned and coordinated.
463

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-22
Per Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, a "developmental disability" means a disability that originates before an individual attains the age of 18, continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual . A developmental disability include s intellectual disability, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. This term also includes disabling conditions found to be closely related to intellectual disability or to require treatment like that required for individuals with intellectual disability. This term does not include other handicapping conditions that are solely physical in nature.

According to the Regional Center of Orange County’s (RC OC) Total Annual Expenditures and Authorized Services for Fiscal Year 2019-2020, a total of 25,163 individuals living in Orange County received services.

RCOC represents the fifth largest regional center in California and has over 300 service coordinators.

Diagnosis reported by the individuals who received services include 37.6 percent with an intellectual disability, 31 percent with Autism, 2.5 percent with Cerebral Palsy, 1 percent with Epilepsy, 3.9 percent with a Category 5 disability, and 24.1 percent reported “Other”. Of those who received services, 31.6 percent reported their race as White, 16 percent reported Asian, 16.1 percent reported Other Ethnicity or Race/Multi-Cultural, and 2 percent reporter Black/African American. Approximately 34 percent of those who received services also reported their ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino. Ages of the 25,163 individuals includes 21.1 percent 2 years or younger, 39.9 percent 3 to 21 years, and 39 percent over the age of 22.

The majority of those who received services lived at the home of a parent or guardian (82.3 percent), but

6.8 percent live in a Community Care Facility and 5.6 percent live in Independent Living or Supported Living.

People with developmental disabilities may live and work independently within a conventional housing environment. Individuals with more severe developmental disabilities may require a supervised group living environment. The most severely affected individuals may require an environment where medical attention and physical therapy services are provided. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for persons with developmental disabilities is the transition from the person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult.

There are several housing types and assistance programs appropriate for people living with a development disability: rent subsidized homes, licensed single -family homes, Section 8 vouchers, special programs for home purchase, HUD housing, and SB 962 (veterans) homes. The design of housing -accessibility modifications, the proximity to services and transit, and the availability of housing opportunities represent some of the types of considerations that are important in serving the need s of this group. Incorporating ‘barrier-free’ design in all new, multi-family housing (as required by California and Federal Fair Housing laws) is especially important to provide the widest range of choices for residents with disabilities. Special consideration should also be given to the affordability of housing as people with disabilities may be living on a fixed income.

3. Large Households
Large households are defined as those consisting of five or more members. These households comprise a special need group because many communities have a limited supply of adequately sized and affordable housing units. To save for other basic necessities such as food, clothing, and medical care, it is common for lower income large households to reside in smaller units with a low number of bedrooms, which may result in overcrowding and can contribute to fast rates of deterioration. 464

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-23
Securing housing large enough to accommodate all members of a household is generally more challenging for renters as multi-family rental units are generally physically smaller with limited bedrooms than single- family ownership units. While apartment complexes offering two and thre e bedrooms are common, apartments with four or more bedrooms are rare; housing units with 4 or more bedrooms account for approximately 15 percent of housing units in the City. Therefore, it is more likely that large households will experience overcrowding in comparison to smaller households. Additionally, single -family homes with higher bedroom counts, whether rental or ownership units, are rarely affordable to lower income households in the region.

According to the 2018 ACS 5- year estimates, there is a much greater amount of large renter households than large owner-occupied households (Table 2-25). Approximately, 63 percent of large households are renter households, of which 56 percent are 5 -person households. As Table 2 -25 also shows a revers e relation between household size and overcrowding; as the total number of large households decreases, the household size increases. Therefore, 58.3 percent of large households are 5 -person households compared to 17.1 percent 7-person households.

Table 2- 25: Large Households by Tenure in Costa Mesa
Household Size Owner Renter Total
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
5-Person Household 944 62.1% 1,441 56% 2,385 58.3%
6-person household 278 18.3% 728 28.3% 1,006 24.6%
7-or-more person
Households 298 19.6% 402 15.6% 700 17.1%
Total 1,520 37.2% 2,571 62.8% 4,091 100%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018 Table 2-26 provides comparisons of large households between Costa Mesa and its neighboring cities. At ten percent, Costa Mesa has a lower total number of large households than Orange County (14.2 percent).

Of the neighboring cities, Santa Ana has the greatest number of large households (25 percent more than Costa Mesa). In comparison, Costa Mesa has approximately 5 percent more large households than Newport Beach. While lower than the County percentage as a whole, ten percent of the total households containing five or more persons is a lar ge portion of the Costa Mesa community. In response, Program 2E describes actions the City will take to encourage the development of additional housing options for large -family households.

Table 2-26: Percent of Large Households by Jurisdiction 5-Person
Households
6-Person
Households
7-or-More Person
Households
Total Large
Households
Newport Beach 3.6% 1.3% 0.3% 5.1%
Costa Mesa 5.8% 2.5% 1.7% 10.0%
Irvine 5.3% 1.9% 0.6% 7.8%
Santa Ana 14.2% 9.4% 11.4% 35.0%
Huntington Beach 5.3% 1.6% 0.9% 7.8%
Orange County 7.9% 3.5% 2.8% 14.2%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018. 465

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-24

4. Single-Parent Households
Single-parent households often require special consideration and assistance due to their greater need for affordable and accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services. Many female -headed households with children are susceptible to having lower incomes than similar two-parent households.

Table 2 -27 shows a breakdown of single parent households and poverty status. Of the single parent households in Costa Mesa, the majority are estimated to be female households with no spouse present (60.7 percent) and 39.3 percent are estimated to be male households with no spouse present. With 3,110 single parent households, Costa Mesa is only 0.2 percentage points over Orange County’s percentage. Over a quarter of these Costa Mesa single-parent households live under the poverty line (27.4 percent).

Table 2-27: Single Parent Households in Costa Mesa
Jurisdiction
Single Parent-Male,
No Spouse Present
Single Parent-Female,
No Spouse Present
Single Parent
Households Living in
Poverty
Single Parent
Households
Percent of
Total
Households
Count
% of
Single
Parent
HH
Count
% of
Single
Parent
HH
Count
% of
Single
Parent
HH
Count Percent
Costa Mesa 1,223 39.3% 1,887 60.7% 851 27.4% 3,110 7.6% Orange County 22,456 29.5% 53,659 70.5% 22,999 30.2% 76,115 7.4% Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

5. Farmworkers
Farmworkers are traditionally defined as persons whose primary incomes are earned through permanent or seasonal agricultural labor. Permanent farm laborers work in the fields, processing plants, or support activities on a generally year-round basis. When workload increases during harvest periods, the labor force is supplemented by seasonal workers, often supplied by a labor contractor. For some crops, farms may hire migrant workers, defined as those whose travel prevents them from returning to their primary residence every evening. Farm workers have special housing needs because they earn lower incomes than many other workers and move throughout the year from one harvest location to the next.

The United States Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics provides data on hired farm labor across the United States. The data is compiled at both a State and County level. Within Orange County, a total of 99 farms reportedly hired 1,772 workers in 2017. Permanent workers, those who work 150 days or more, represent the largest category of workers with 1,106 workers (62 percent). A total of 666 workers (38 percent) are considered seasonal and work less than 150 days. Orange County reported 340 migrant workers (19 percent) with full time hired labor in 2017. In addition, the County reported 176 unpaid workers.

The median annual salary for the agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining industry in Costa Mesa is $ 31,023, which is 36 percent of the Orange County median income and is considered as a very-low income (2018).

466

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-25

6. Extremely Low-income Households and Poverty Status
The 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) indicates that there are approximately 7,325 low-income households and 5,230 very low -income households in the City of Costa Mesa. Very low -income households are those households that earn less than 50 percent of the Orange County area median family income (AMFI). Extremely low- income households are those which earn less than 30 percent of the AMFI. There are approximately 6,610 extremely low -income households in Costa Mesa, including renters and homeowners. Table 2-28 includes data characterizing affordability and cost burden for various income groups. The housing problems identified by CHAS include the following:
• Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom); • Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room); • Housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income; or • Severe housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income.

As the t able below shows, there is a disparity between homeowners and renters who experience a cost burden. There are an estimated 8,210 more renter households than owner-occupied households who have a cost burden. Amongst renters, lower income households bear most of the burden. Specific ally, 46.5 percent of renter households are both of a lower income and experience a housing burden. Extremely low- income renter households have the highest rate of cost burden at 17.5 percent.

Figure 2-6 compares poverty levels by race and ethnicity in order to identify disparities amongst people in Costa Mesa. Residents who report Some Other Race have the highest percentage of poverty in the City (24.7 percent). About 20 percent of people living under th e poverty line are of Hispanic or Latino origin.

Combined, the Black and American Indian/Alaska Native populations account for 28.2 percent of those below the poverty level, despite representing a total of just 2.3 percent of the entire population. Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander community members have the lowest percentage of poverty, but only represent 0.7 percent of the total City population. The White population is the largest racial group in the City and is estimated to have one of the lower poverty percentages at 11.5 percent.

Figure 2-6: Percent below Poverty Level, by Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin

Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

11.5%

15.5%

12.7%

10.4%

3.6%

24.7%

7.1%

19.5%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%
White Black or
African
American
American
Indian and
Alaska
Native
Asian Native
Hawaiian
and Other
Pacific
Islander
Some other
race
Two or
more races
Hispanic or
Latino
Origin
467

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-26
Table 2-28: Housing Problems for All Households by Income Category, 2013-2017* Income Category
Owner
Household has at
least 1 of 4 Housing
Problems
% of
Owner
HH
Household has none
of 4 Housing
Problems
% of
Owner
HH
Cost Burden not
available, no other
Housing Problem
% of
Owner
HH
Household Income is
less-than or = 30% 1,210 7.6% 250 1.6% 95 0.6%
Household Income
>30% to less-than or
= 50% AMFI
780 4.9% 590 3.7% 0 0%
Household Income
>50% to less-than or
= 80% AMFI
1,285 8.1% 1,135 7.2% 0 0%
Household Income
>80% to less-than or
= 100% AMFI
695 4.4% 805 5.1% 0 0%
Household Income
>100% AMFI 1,365 8.6% 7,645 48.2% 0 0%
Total 5,330 33.6% 10,425 65.8% 95 0.6%
Income Category
Renter
Household has at
least 1 of 4 Housing
Problems
% of
Renter
HH
Household has none
of 4 Housing
Problems
% of
Renter
HH
Cost Burden not
available, no other
Housing Problem
% of
Renter
HH
Household Income is
less-than or = 30% 4,400 17.5% 275 1.1% 380 1.5%
Household Income
>30% to less-than or
= 50% AMFI
3,595 14.3% 265 1.1% 0 0%
Household Income
>50% to less-than or
= 80% AMFI
3,700 14.7% 1,205 4.8% 0 0%
Household Income
>80% to less-than or
= 100% AMFI
1,040 4.1% 1,470 5.9% 0 0%
Household Income
>100% AMFI 805 3.2% 7,575 30.1% 0 0%
Total 13,540 53.9% 10,785 42.9% 380 1.5%
Total Households
(Owner and Renter) 18,870 46.5% 21,210 52.3% 475 1.2%
Note: AMFI = Area Median Family Income, this is the median family income calculated by HUD for each jurisdiction, to determine Fair Market Rents (FMRs) and income limits for HUD programs. AMFI will not necessarily be the same as other calculations of median incomes (such as a simple Census number), due to a series of adjustments that are made.

Source: Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) 2013- 2017.

468

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-27

7. Persons Experiencing Homelessness
Throughout the Southern California region, homelessness has become an increasingly important issue.

Factors contributing to the rise in homelessness include increased unemployment and underemployment, limited affordable housing available to lower and moderate -income persons (especially extremely low - income hou seholds), reductions in public subsidies to lower income persons, and legislative impacts pertaining to the behavioral health system of care and correctional reform mandates.

State law mandates that cities address the special needs of persons experiencing homelessness within their jurisdictional boundaries. “Homelessness” as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has recently been updated to include the following descriptions:
• People who are living in a place not meant for h uman habitation, in emergency shelter, in transitional housing, or are exiting an institution where they temporarily resided. The only significant change from existing practice is that people will be considered homeless if they are exiting an institution where they resided for up to 90 days (previously 30 days) and were in shelter or a place not meant for human habitation immediately prior to entering that institution. • People who are losing their sleeping quarters, which may include a motel or hotel or a doubled-up situation, within 14 days and lack resources or support networks to remain in housing. HUD had previously allowed people who were being displaced within 7 days to be considered homeless. The proposed regulation also describes specific documentation requirements for this category. • Families with children or unaccompanied youth who are unstably housed and likely to continue in that state. This category applies to families with children or unaccompanied youth who have not had a lease or ownership interest in a housing unit in the last 60 or more days, have had two or more moves in the last 60 days, and who are likely to continue to be unstably housed bec ause of disability or multiple barriers to employment.
• People who are fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, have no other residence, and lack the resources or support networks to obtain other permanent housing. This category is similar to the current practice regarding people who are fleeing domestic violence.

This definition does not include persons living in substandard housing (unless it has been officially condemned); persons living in overcrowded housing (for example, doubled up with others); persons being discharged from mental health facilities (unless the person was homeless when entering and is considered to be homeless at discharge); or persons who may be at risk of homelessness (for example, living temporarily with family or friends.)
The Point in Time Count is required to be conducted every two years by the local Continuum of Care (CoC) jurisdiction led by the County of Orange Health Care Agency in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines to provide information on where individuals experiencing homelessness are located in the county. On January 22, 2019, 1,167 volunteers across Orange County counted 6,860 individuals experiencing homelessness; of those, 2,899 were sheltered and 3,961 were unsheltered. The 2021 Point in Time count was deferred to the COVID-19 pandemic and is anticipated to occur in January 2022. The 2019 Point In Time Count individual city results are shown in Table 2-29.

Costa Mesa reported a total of 193 individuals experiencing homelessness (187 unsheltered and 6 sheltered); this represents 2.8 percent of the total homeless population for Orange County. This percentage is greater than that of the neighboring cities of Newport Beach and Irvine as both counted under 2 percent. 469

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-28
Santa Ana reported the largest population of people experiencing homelessness as a quarter of the total number for Orange County reside there (23 percent more than Costa Mesa).

Table 2-29: Homeless Count by Jurisdiction – January 22, 2019 Jurisdiction Unsheltered Sheltered Total % of County
Newport Beach 64 0 64 0.9%
Costa Mesa 187 6 193 2.8%
Irvine 127 3 130 1.9%
Santa Ana 830 939 1,769 25.8%
Huntington Beach 289 60 349 5.1%
Orange County 3,961 2,899 6,860 100%
Source: Orange County Point in Time Count, Everyone Counts Report 2019.

The City of Costa Mesa opened an emergency Bridge Shelter at a temporary location in April 2019 with 50 beds, while constructing a permanent shelter location with 72 beds which opened in April 2021. The Bridge Shelter assists persons experiencing homeless with temporary housing along with a variety of programs including:
• Collaborative Case Management
• Housing Related Support Services (including Coordinated Entry System housing assignments, Housing Search Assistance, linking clients to rental assistance programs and other general housing services)
• Legal Services
• Basic Needs (including food, clothing, and housing/emergency services) • Social Services
• Transportation
The permanent Bridge Shelter publishes bi-weekly reports in which they regularly assist approximately 60 to 110+ persons over a two-week span.

8. Students
The need for student housing is another factor that affects housing demand. Student housing often only produces a temporary housing need based on the duration of the educational institution. The impact upon housing demand is important in areas that surround universities and colleges. Costa Mesa is home to a number of private and public universities and colleges. Located in Costa Mesa are Vanguard University (2,200 students), California Southern University (online), and Orange Coast Community College (24,000 students). Orange Coast Community College is primarily a commuter school serving students local to the south Orange County area. During pre -pandemic conditions when classes were fully in person, OCC had approximately 20,000 students, 39.1% of which were full-time. As OCC had very little on-campus housing, the majority of students commuted into campus. While data is not readily available, it is a fair assumption that the majority of these students live at home with family and do not require separate housing. OCC has recently built on-campus housing which may house up to 800 students. 470

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-29
Typically, students are low-income and may therefore require affordable housing options, especially within easy commuting distance from campuses . To reduce living cost, s tudents may seek shared housing situations to decrease expenses, which may lead to overcrowding. Affordable housing may also influence choices students make after graduating, which may affect the region’s economy. College graduates provide a specialized pool of skilled labor that contributes to the region’s economy; however, the lack of affordable housing may lead to their departure from the region.

F. Housing Stock Characteristics
Characteristics of the housing stock (growth, type, availability and tenure, age and condition, housing costs, and affordability) may affect the housing needs for the community. This section details the Costa Mesa housing stock characteristics to identify how well the current housing stock meets the needs of its current and future residents.

1. Housing Growth
According to the American Community Survey (ACS), between 2010 and 2018 the Costa Mesa housing stock grew by 0.6 percent, or 1,233 units , as shown in Table 2-30. This is the smallest percent increase for the area. The City of Irvine experienced the largest housing surge of the area during this time with an addition of 25,250 more units (an increase of 30.4 percent more than Costa Mesa). Orange County as a whole saw an increase of 4.6 percent of its total housing stock.

Table 2-30: Housing Unit Growth Trends, 2010-2018
Jurisdiction 2010 2015 2018 Percent Change
2010 to 2015
Percent Change
2015 to 2018
Newport Beach 43,503 43,690 44,801 0.4% 2.5%
Costa Mesa 42,867 43,030 43,100 0.4% 0.2%
Irvine 76,184 91,938 101,434 20.7% 10.3%
Santa Ana 77,796 77,192 78,597 -0.8% 1.8%
Huntington Beach 79,166 78,252 81,396 -1.2% 4.0%
Orange County 1,042,254 1,064,642 1,091,376 2.1% 2.5%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2010, 2015, and 2018.

2. Housing Type
Table 2-31 is a breakdown of housing units in the City by type in comparison to Orange County. Costa Mesa is estimated to be predominantly made up of multi-family housing (50.3 percent). The City has an estimated

37.7 percent single-family detached housing and 9.6 percent attached single-family units. This differs from the rest of the region as Orange County reports an estimated 50.7 percent single-family detached units and

34.3 percent multi -family housing. The percentage of mobile homes in Costa Mesa is estimated t o be comparable to that of Orange County (2.4 percent and 2.8 percent, respectively) . Single-family attached units are less prevalent in Costa Mesa (9.6 percent) than County as a whole (12.2 percent). 471

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-30
Table 2-31: Total Housing Units by Type
Jurisdiction
Single- Family
Detached Single-Family Attached Multi-Family Mobile Homes* Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Costa Mesa 16,236 37.7% 4,119 9.6% 21,692 50.3% 1,053 2.4% Orange County 553,164 50.7% 133,326 12.2% 374,176 34.3% 30,710 2.8% *Includes mobile homes, boats, RVs, vans, etc.

Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

3. Housing Availability and Tenure
Housing tenure and vacancy rates generally influence the supply and cost of housing. Housing tenure defines if a unit is owner-occupied or renter-occupied, and it relates to the availability of housing product types and length of tenure. The tenure characteristics in a community can indicate aspects of the housing market such as affordability, household stability, and availability of unit types, among others. T enure distribution may correlate with household income, composition, and age of the householder.

In 2018, owner-occupied housing units accounted for 40.4 percent of the housing stock and 59.6 percent were rental occupied units (Table 2-32). At 88.7 percent, the large majority of single-family units are owner- occupied. Multi -family housing units are conversely predominantly occupied by renters (77.1 percent).

Mobile homes in Costa Mesa are estimated to be occupied by mostly owners than renters (4.6 percent and

0.8 percent, respectively).

Table 2-32: Occupied Housing Units by Type and Tenure
Tenure
Single-
Family
Detached
Single-Family
Attached Multi-Family Mobile
Homes
Total
Occupied
Units
Owner
Occupied 76.1% 12.6% 6.6% 4.6% 40.4%
Renter
Occupied 14.1% 7.9% 77.1% 0.8% 59.6%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

Table 2 -33 compares estimated average household sizes and tenure amongst cities surrounding Costa Mesa. Aside from Santa Ana, all of the cities included below have household sizes that are below that of Orange County and fairly similar amongst owner -occupied households. The average household size for Santa Ana is estimated to be nearly double that of the other cities for both renters and owners and is an average of about 1.6 persons per household more than Costa Mesa. Figure 2-7 illustrates vacancy rates by city and shows that Costa Mesa has the second lowest vacancy rate in the area (4.8 percent). Orange County’s vacancy rate is 0.6 percent above that of Costa Mesa.

472

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-31
Table 2-33: Average Household Size by Tenure, 2018
Jurisdiction Owner Occupied
Household Size
Renter Occupied
Household Size
Average
Household Size
Newport Beach 2.46 2.02 2.27
Costa Mesa 2.8 2.66 2.71
Irvine 2.81 2.61 2.7
Santa Ana 4.28 4.32 4.3
Huntington Beach 2.58 2.62 2.6
Orange County 2.99 3.06 3.02
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

Vacancy rates may reveal the degree of housing choice available. High vacancy rates generally indicate low demand and/or high supply conditions in the housing market. Low vacancy rates typically indicate high demand and/or low supply conditions in the housing market. Too low of a vacancy rate can force prices up making it more difficult for lower and moderate-income households to find housing. Vacancy rates between two to three percent are usually considered healthy for housing that is owned, and rates of five to six percent are usually considered healthy for rental housing. Costa Mesa’s vacancy rate indicates a healthy demand for housing within the City and a potential lack of available housing units at all income categories.

Figure 2-7: Vacancy Rates by Jurisdiction, 2018

Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

Based on 2018 ACS estimates, the most common reason for vacancies in Costa Mesa is due to units being up for rent (37.8 percent), as shown in Table 2-34. Another 566 units (31.5 percent) are vacant in the City because they are for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. Homes that have been sold and are not yet occupied represent the lowest vacancy type (4.1 percent).

15.5%

4.8%

6.0%

2.6%

5.6% 5.4%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
Newport Beach Costa Mesa Irvine Santa Ana Huntington
Beach
Orange County
473

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-32
Table 2-34: Vacant Housing Units by Type in Costa Mesa
Type of Housing Estimate Percent
For rent 786 37.8%
Rented, not occupied 191 9.2%
For sale only 115 5.5%
Sold, not occupied 86 4.1%
For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 656 31.5% Other vacant 247 11.9%
Total 2,081 100%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

4. Housing Age and Condition
Housing age can be an important indicator of housing condition within a community. For example, housing that is over 30 years old may be in need of rehabilitation, such as a new roof, seismic retrofit, foundation, plumbing, etc. Many federal and state programs use housing age as one factor to determine housing rehabilitation needs.

Figure 2-8 shows the City of Costa Mesa ’s housing stock was mostly built prior to 1990 and is therefore more likely in need of certain renovations. Almost a quarter of the housing stock was built around the time the City was incorporated in 1953. About 2.6 percent of housing stock was built after 2010. In comparison to neighboring cities, the Cities of Costa Mesa, Huntington Beac h, and Santa Ana experienced their peak unit growths between 1950 and 1979. Newport Beach experienced a growth similar to Costa Mesa until 1990 when Newport Beach housing unit growth picked up again. Unlike Costa Mesa, the City of Irvine experienced a housing boom in 1970 through 2009, and it continued building units at a greater rate than the other cities past 2014.

Much of Costa Mesa’s housing stock is greater than 30 years old. Many of these houses may have experienced some level of housing renovations since initial construction, but in general an aging housing stock may indicate the potential for substandard housing conditions or a housing stock in need of rehabilitation or maintenance. The City tracks code enforcement cases due to substandard housing conditions and has established a quantified target objective in Chapter 4 for housing rehabilitation goals
over the next 8 years.

474

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-33
Figure 2-8: Age distribution of Housing Stock

Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

5. Housing Costs and Affordability
Housing costs reflect the supply and demand of housing in a community. This section summarizes the cost and affordability of the Costa Mesa housing stock.

The median home value in Costa Mesa is estimated to be $707,600, as shown in Table 2-35. This is $54,700 above the median home value for Orange County and comparable to the home values in Irvine and Huntington Beach. The City of Santa Ana has the lowest home value at $455,300 and the City of Newport Beach has the greatest median home value at $1,787,300.

Table 2-35: Median Home Value by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Median Home Value
Newport Beach $1,787,300
Costa Mesa $707,600
Irvine $797,100
Santa Ana $455,300
Huntington Beach $728,200
Orange County $652,900
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

Table 2-36 outlines the average monthly price of rent by number of bedrooms in Costa Mesa and how it has changed between 2017 and 2020. This data is provided by the Zillow Rent Index Report for Costa Mesa Built
1939 or
earlier
Built
1940 to
1949
Built
1950 to
1959
Built
1960 to
1969
Built
1970 to
1979
Built
1980 to
1989
Built
1990 to
1999
Built
2000 to
2009
Built
2010 to
2013
Built
2014 or
later
Huntington Beach 1.5% 0.9% 5.1% 36.5% 29.5% 12.6% 6.6% 4.8% 1.0% 1.4% Irvine 0.4% 0.2% 0.8% 3.4% 20.4% 17.2% 16.4% 23.7% 10.0% 7.4% Newport Beach 4.3% 3.7% 11.7% 19.0% 22.3% 11.2% 14.2% 10.8% 1.6% 1.1% Santa Ana 7.3% 6.2% 20.1% 22.2% 24.5% 10.4% 5.2% 3.1% 0.6% 0.5% Costa Mesa 1.5% 2.7% 19.2% 25.4% 24.1% 12.9% 6.4% 5.2% 1.2% 1.4% 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Huntington Beach Irvine Newport Beach Santa Ana Costa Mesa 475

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-34
and shows that all units experienced increases in rates in the last three years ; for example, one-bedroom rentals rose by 5.1 percent. The price per square foot saw a much greater increase for the three types of units, with 17.9 percent being the greatest increase for 3 - or more bedroom units. This may indicate a higher demand and a need to plan for housing for large families within Costa Mesa.

Table 2-36: Average Monthly Rental Rates, 2017-2020
Unit Type January 2017 January 2018 January 2019 January 2020 % Change 2017-2020
1 Bedroom $2,055 $2,077 $2,091 $2,159 5.1%
2 bedrooms $2,553 $2,582 $2,579 $2,649 3.8%
3 Bedrooms $3,027 $3,044 $3,097 $3,160 4.4%
Price per Square Foot
Unit Type January 2017 January 2018 January 2019 January 2020 % Change 2017-2020
1 Bedroom $2.48 $2.57 $2.97 $2.83 14.1%
2 bedrooms $2.20 $2.25 $2.32 $2.36 7.3%
3+ Bedrooms $1.95 $2.15 $2.25 $2.30 17.9%
Source: Zillow Rent Index Report, January 2017-2020, accessed August 17, 2020.

Housing affordability can be inferred by comparing the cost of renting or owning a home in the City with the maximum affordable housing costs for households at different income levels. Taken together, this information can generally show who can afford what size and type of housing and indicate the type of households most likely to experience overcrowding and overpayment.

The Federal Department of Ho using and Urban Development (HUD) conducts annual household income surveys nationwide to determine a household’s eligibility for federal housing assistance. Based on this survey, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) develope d income limits, based on the Area Median Family Income (AMFI), which can be used to determine the maximum price that could be affordable to households in the upper range of their respective income category.

Households in the lower end of each category can afford less by comparison than those at the upper end.

The maximum affordable home and rental prices for residents in Orange County are shown in Table 2-37
and Table 2-38.

The data shows the maximum amount that a household can pay for housing each month without incurring a cost burden (overpayment). This amount can be compared to current housing asking prices (Table 2-35) and market rental rates ( Table 2-36) to determine what types of housing opportunities a household can afford.

Extremely Low-Income Households
Extremely low-income households earn less than 30 percent of the County AMFI – up to $26,950 for a one- person household and up to $41,550 for a five -person household in 2020 . Extremely low- income households cannot afford market -rate rental or ownership housing in Costa Mesa without assuming a substantial cost burden. An extremely low-income household at the maximum income limit can afford to pay approximately $1,039 in monthly rent, depending on household size.

476

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-35
Very Low-Income Households
Very low-income households earn between 31 percent and 50 percent of the County AMFI – up to $44,850 for a one -person household and up to $69,200 for a five -person household in 2020. A very low -income household cannot afford market -rate rental or ownership housing in Costa Mesa without assuming a substantial cost burden. A very low -income household at the maximum income limit can afford to pay approximately $1,121 to $1,730 in monthly rent, depending on household size. Given the high cost of housing in Costa Mesa, persons or households of very low -income could not afford to rent or purchase a home in the City.

Low-Income Households
Low-income households earn between 51 percent and 80 percent of the County’s AMFI - up to $71,750 for a one-person household and up to $110,650 for a five- person household in 2020. The affordable home price for a low-income household at the maximum income limit ranges from $308,500 to $454,000. Based on the asking prices of homes for sale in 2020 (Table 2-35), ownership housing would not be affordable to low-income households. A one-person low-income household could afford to pay up to $1,794 in rent per month and a five -person low -income household could afford to pay as much as $2,766. Low -income households in Costa Mesa would not be able to afford to rent apartment units.

Moderate Income Households
Persons and households of moderate income earn between 81 percent and 120 percent of the County’s AMFI – up to $133,500, depending on household size in 2020. The maximum affordable home price for a moderate-income household is $377,000 for a one -person ho usehold and $558,600 for a five -person family. Moderate income households in Costa Mesa would not be able to purchase a home in the City. In comparison to neighboring cities, at this affordable range, moderate income households would only be able to purchase a home in Santa Ana. The maximum affordable rent payment for moderate income households is between $2,163 and $3,338 per month. Appropriately sized market-rate rental housing is generally affordable to households in this income group.

477

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-36
Table 2-37: Affordable Housing Costs in Orange County, 2020 Annual Income Mortgage Utilities^1 Tax and
Insurance
Total
Affordable
Monthly
Housing Cost
Affordable
Purchase
Price
Extremely Low-income (30% of AMFI)
1-Person $26,950 $455 $118 $101 $674 $99,990
2-Person $30,800 $504 $151 $116 $770 $110,500
3-Person $34,650 $539 $197 $130 $866 $118,000
4-Person $38,450 $574 $243 $144 $961 $125,800
5-Person $41,550 $594 $289 $156 $1,039 $130,200
Very Low-Income (50% of AMFI)
1-Person $44,850 $835 $118 $168 $1,121 $183,000
2-Person $51,250 $938 $151 $192 $1,281 $205,500
3-Person $57,650 $1,028 $197 $216 $1,441 $225,400 4-Person $64,050 $1,118 $243 $240 $1,601 $245,000 5-Person $69,200 $1,182 $289 $260 $1,730 $259,000 Low-income (80% AMFI)
1-Person $71,750 $1,407 $118 $269 $1,794 $308,500 2-Person $82,000 $1,592 $151 $308 $2,050 $349,100 3-Person $92,250 $1,763 $197 $346 $2,306 $386,500 4-Person $102,450 $1,934 $243 $384 $2,561 $424,000 5-Person $110,650 $2,062 $289 $415 $2,766 $452,000 Moderate Income (120% AMFI)
1-Person $86,500 $1,720 $118 $324 $2,163 $377,000 2-Person $98,900 $1,951 $151 $371 $2,473 $427,800 3-Person $111,250 $2,167 $197 $417 $2,781 $475,000 4-Person $123,600 $2,384 $243 $464 $3,090 $522,700 5-Person $133,500 $2,548 $289 $501 $3,338 $558,600 Source: Orange County Housing Authority, 2020 Utility Allowance Schedule and California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2020 Income Limits and Kimley Horn and Associates Assumptions: 2020 HCD income limits; 30% gross household income as affordable housing cost; 15% of monthly affordable cost for taxes and insurance; 10% down payment; and 4.5% interest rate for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage loan. Utilities based on Orange County Utility Allowance.

1. Utilities includes basic electric, water, sewer/trash, refrigerator, and stove.

478

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-37
Table 2-38: Affordable Monthly Housing Cost for Renters, 2020 Annual Income Rent Utilities^1
Total Affordable
Monthly
Housing Cost
Extremely Low-income (30% of AMFI)
1-Person $26,950 $556 $118.00 $674
2-Person $30,800 $619 $151.00 $770
3-Person $34,650 $669 $197.00 $866
4-Person $38,450 $718 $243.00 $961
5-Person $41,550 $750 $289.00 $1,039
Very Low-income (50% of AMFI)
1-Person $44,850 $1,003 $118.00 $1,121
2-Person $51,250 $1,130 $151.00 $1,281
3-Person $57,650 $1,244 $197.00 $1,441
4-Person $64,050 $1,358 $243.00 $1,601
5-Person $69,200 $1,441 $289.00 $1,730
Low-income (80% AMFI)
1-Person $71,750 $1,676 $118.00 $1,794
2-Person $82,000 $1,899 $151.00 $2,050
3-Person $92,250 $2,109 $197.00 $2,306
4-Person $102,450 $2,318 $243.00 $2,561
5-Person $110,650 $2,477 $289.00 $2,766
Moderate Income (120% AMFI)
1-Person $86,500 $2,045 $118.00 $2,163
2-Person $98,900 $2,322 $151.00 $2,473
3-Person $111,250 $2,584 $197.00 $2,781
4-Person $123,600 $2,847 $243.00 $3,090
5-Person $133,500 $3,049 $289.00 $3,338
Source: Orange County Housing Authority, 2020 Utility Allowance Schedule and California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2020 Income Limits and Kimley Horn and Associates Assumptions: 2020 HCD income limits; 30% gross household income as affordable housing cost; 15% of monthly affordable cost for taxes and insurance; 10% down payment; and 4.5% interest rate for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage loan. Utilities based on Orange County Utility Allowance .

1. Utilities includes basic electric, water, sewer/trash, refrigerator, and stove.

This analysis shows that the moderate - and lower -income households in Costa Mesa generally cannot afford to own a home in Costa Mesa based on for sale housing costs. Lower income households generally cannot afford to rent or own in Costa Mesa based on for sale housing costs and rental prices. Long term, this trend may result in increased instances of overcrowding, an increased number of households with a high housing cost burden, and residents moving out of Costa Mesa for ownership opportunities. 479

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-38
G. Community Profile Summary
The Community Profile provide s an analysis of the Costa Mesa population and housing stock for policy considerations within this Housing Element. The Costa Mesa community’s housing needs are directly correlated to the demographic composition of the population and the conditions of existing housing within the City. The data analyzed in this Community Profile sets the baseline for the Housing Element goals, policies, and programs which are uniquely adapted to fit the needs of Costa Mesa.

The City will need to consider the following findings, but not limited to, based on the data presented in this Community Profile:
• The Costa Mesa population is showing aging trends – housing goals should consider the needs of seniors who may have less flexible income, need accessibility accommodations, or may seek assisted living options.

The City has established Housing Program 2D to address this finding. • Over a quarter of the Costa Mesa population identifies as Hispanic or Latino – housing needs should account for possible cultural needs such as larger or multigenerational housing units. Additionally, housing information should be made available in Spanis h to assist in the location of appropriate housing within the community. The City has established Housing Program s 2E and 4A to address this finding.
• Approximately 47 percent of the Costa Mesa population earn a lower income, indicating that production of and access to affordable housing including affordable rental options and entry level home ownership facilitation should be considered.

The City has established Housing Programs 2B,
4A, 4B, and 4C to address this finding.
• Approximately 48.8 percent of renters and 31.8 percent of homeowners are estimated to spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing, indicating a high housing cost burden overall with a higher proportion of renters compared to owners experiencing overpayment.

The City has
established Housing Programs 2B, 4A, 4B, and 4C to address this finding. • Based on for sale and rental housing prices, a moderate-income household cannot afford to own a home in Costa Mesa, while lower income households cannot afford to own or rent in Costa Mesa without experiencing overpayment.

The City has established Housing Programs 2B, 4A, 4B, and 4C to address this finding.
• The majority of housing units in Costa Mesa were built over 30 years ago – households in older homes may benefit from assistance in r enovating their homes and ensuring safe living environments with access to all utilities. The City has established Housing Programs 1A and 1B to address this finding.
• Costa Mesa has a relatively low vacancy rate, indicating high demand for housing and low availability of housing units within the City. The City has established Housing Programs 2B and 3A to address this finding.
• 46.5 percent of Costa Mesa households have at least one of the four identified housing problems, which include:
o Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom); o Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room – excluding bathrooms and kitchens);
480

DRAFT Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-39
o Housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income; and o Severe housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income.

The City has established Housing Programs 1A, 1B, and 4A to address this finding.

The Housing Element’s Chapter 4: Housing Plan provides goals, policies, and programs for the City of Costa Mesa based on the findings of this analysis. Policies established in the Housing Plan implement the goals and programs of the Housing Element and are reviewed on yearly-basis to identify progress and success. 481
Housing Constraints, Resources, and
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Chapter 3
482

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-2 Housing Constraints
A variety of factors could affect the number, type, and affordability of housing and housing development in a community. Governmental housing constraints are often specific to the requirements and regulations local governments enforce. Governmental constraints in Costa Mesa may include land use controls, residential development standards, development and permitting fees, and permitting processes, amongst other constraints. Nongovernmental and market constraints are directly related to the conditions of the local and regional construction and the development market. Nongovernmental constraints in Costa Mesa may include the cost of land, construction costs, including materials and labor, availability of financing, and the local economic conditions. These factors could incentivize or create barriers for the maintenance and addition of housing in Costa Mesa, and predominantly affordable housing. The focus of this section is recognizing the existing constraints. The following sections will analyze the extent of ea ch constraint on housing development.

A. Nongovernmental Constraints
Nongovernmental constraints are those associate with external market costs and rely predominantly on the economy and cost of land and construction. The availability and cost of land, labor costs, as well as financing, may pose barriers for housing developers and can often deter the development of housing, specifically affordable housing. The following sections highlights the primary market factors that affect the production of housing in Costa Mesa.

1. Land Costs and Construction Costs
Construction costs vary widely according to the type of development, with multi -family housing generally less expensive to construct than single -family homes due to square footage . However, there is wide variation within each construction type, depending on the size of the unit and the number and quality of amenities provided. An indicator of construction costs is Building Valuation Data compiled by the International Code Council (ICC). The ICC updates the estimated cost of construction at six-month intervals and provides estimates for the average cost of labor and materials for typical Type V -A wood -frame housing. Estimates are based on “good- quality” construction, providing for materials and fixtures well above the minimum required by state and local building codes. In August 2020, the ICC estimated that the average per square-foot cost for good-quality housing was approximately $118.57 for multi-family housing, $131.24 for single -family homes, and $148.44 for residential care/assisted living facilities. Construction costs for custom homes and units with extra amenities, run even higher. Construction costs are also dependent upon materials used and building height, as well as regulations set by the City’s adopted Building Code. For example, according to the ICC, an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or converting a garage using a Type V-B wood framed unit would costs about $123.68 per square foot. Although construction costs are a significant portion of the overall development cost, they are typically consistent throughout the region and, especially when considering land costs, are not considered a major constraint to housing production in Costa Mesa.
483

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-3 Land costs can also pose a significant constraint to the development of affordable and middle -income housing and represents a significant cost component in residential development. Land costs may vary depending on whether the site is vacant or has an existing use that must be removed. Similarly, site constraints such as environmental issues (e.g., steep slopes, soil stability, seismic hazards, flooding , and contamination) can also be factored into the cost of land. A September 2020 web search for vacant lots for sale in the City of Costa Mesa returned three lots for sale ranging in size from 0. 23 acres at $749,000 to

1.03 acres at $2,000,000. Based on current prices of for sale lots, the vacant lots cost an estimated average price per square foot of $68, or about 2.9 million dollars per acre.

Costa Mesa has the lowest cost of land in comparison to the neighboring cities of Santa Ana, Huntington Beach, and Irvine, based on an October 2020 Zillow search for vacant lots. The cost of land in these cities range from $73 per square to $304 per square foot. However, the cost of land in Costa Mesa is still very expensive and though it is consistent with neighboring jurisdictions and the region, it may create a constraint to the development of housing, specifically affordable housing. The City cannot control the cost of land in Costa Mesa or the region, however
Chapter 4 of this Housing Element outlines programs and policies to work with developers and interested parties to increase affordable housing options in the City.

2. Available Financing
The availability of financing in a community depends on a number of factors, including the type of lending institutions active in a community, lending practices, rates and fees cha rged, laws and regulations governing financial institutions, and equal access to such loans. Additionally, availability of financing affects a person’s ability to purchase or improve a home. Under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), lending institutions are required to disclose information on the disposition of loan applications and the income, gender, and race of loan applicants. The primary concern in a review of lending activity is to determine whether home financing is available to all residents of a community, regardless of income, sex, race, or ethnicity. The data presented in this section include the disposition of loan applications submitted to financial institutions for home purchase, home improvement, and refinancing in the Anaheim-Santa Ana- Irvine MSA.

Table 3-1 below displays the disposition of loan applications for the Anaheim -Santa Ana-Irvine MSA, per the 2016 Home Mortgage Discloser Act report. According to the data, applicants in the 120% MSA/MD median income or more had the highest rates of loans approved. Of that income category, applicants who reported White had the highest percentage of approval and the number of applications. Applicants in the less than 50% of the MSA/MD median income categories were showed higher percentages of denied loans than loans originated. According to the data, applicants who reported white were, on average, more likely to be approved for a loan than another race or ethnicity.

Given the relatively high rates of approval for home purchase, improvement, and refinance loans, home financing is generally available and not considered to be a significant constraint to the provision and maintenance of housing in Costa Mesa.

484

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-4 Table 3-1: Disposition of Loan Applications by Race/Ethnicity– Anaheim-Santa Ana-Irvine MSA Applications by Race/Ethnicity Percent
Approved
Percent
Denied
Percent
Other
Total
(Count)
LESS THAN 50% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 26.2% 52.3% 23.1% 65
Asian 33.9% 42.5% 26.7% 1,382
Black or African American 41.6% 33.7% 25.8% 89
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 25.0% 44.2% 30.8% 52 White 45.6% 31.2% 26.1% 5,240
Hispanic or Latino 37.9% 38.2% 26.8% 1,566
50-79% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 38.1% 34.0% 29.9% 97
Asian 53.3% 25.3% 29.4% 3,153
Black or African American 43.4% 19.1% 41.4% 152
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 49.4% 39.8% 16.9% 83 White 54.5% 23.3% 27.6% 8,677
Hispanic or Latino 47.6% 27.7% 29.3% 3,245
80-99% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 51.4% 25.7% 31.4% 35
Asian 59.5% 19.2% 29.3% 1,495
Black or African American 52.9% 22.1% 30.9% 68
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 43.5% 13.0% 43.5% 23 White 61.9% 17.2% 26.1% 3,873
Hispanic or Latino 54.0% 21.4% 29.1% 1,347
100-119% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 48.9% 22.7% 29.5% 88
Asian 62.3% 15.6% 28.8% 4,820
Black or African American 55.6% 20.1% 28.6% 234
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 49.4% 27.6% 31.0% 87 White 66.2% 13.8% 25.1% 12,607
Hispanic or Latino 60.8% 16.4% 26.8% 3,398
120% OR MORE OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 59.2% 13.0% 32.0% 169 Asian 62.8% 12.9% 29.0% 17,800
Black or African American 57.7% 17.3% 27.2% 624
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 64.2% 11.4% 26.8% 254 White 68.3% 11.3% 24.9% 49,811
Hispanic or Latino 64.6% 13.3% 26.7% 6,095
Source: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Disposition of loan applications, by Ethnicity/Race of applicant, 2019. 485

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-5

3. Economic Constraints
Market forces on the economy and the trickle-down effects on the construction industry can act as a barrier to housing construction and especially to affordable housing construction. It is estimated that housing price and development costs will continue to increase in the City and the region. Moving into 2020, the economy was growing, California was seeing a 1.6 percent growth in jobs from 2019 and experiencing all-time lows for unemployment rates. COVID- 19 had stalled much of the economy in early 2020, however, as the California economy regains momentum , housing stock and prices in the Costa Mesa community remain stable. A housing market analysis by Redfin reports the number of homes sold in August 2020 experienced a 16.1% growth in year -over-year trends and over doubled since the low in May 2020. The same report shows that the median sale price of homes in Costa Mesa is the largest it has been in five years, except for a peak in February 2021; the median number of days on the market was 41 in August 2020 in contrast to

86.5 in at the start of the year.

A 2020 California Association of Realtors ( CAR) report found that homes on the market in Orange County experienced a 10.2 percent year to year increase and cost an average of $915,000 in September 2020; over $250,000 higher than the Southern California median home price in the same month ($656,750). According to the CAR First Time Buyer Housing Affordability Index, the median value of a home in Orange County is $730,150 with monthly payments (including taxes and insurance) of $3,690, requiring an average qualifying income of $110,700.

Costa Mesa’s home value index ($881,064), which includes single-family residences and condos, has been on a steady increase since Spring 2012, according to Zillow data from September 2020. According to Zillow, this value is seasonally adjusted to remove outliers and only includes the middle price-tier of homes. Costa Mesa home values have gone up 4.9 percent over the past year and Zillow predicts they will rise 4.8 percent within the next year. Orange County by comparison has a median home value index of $775,797, which is $105,267 less than Costa Mesa. Due to the high costs and increasing values, the cost of land and home prices in Costa Mesa may be considered a constraint to the development of and access to housing, particularly affordable housing.

4. Applicant Requests to Develop Below the Maximum Density The City does not typically receive request to develop below the maximum density permitted for residential projects. Based on review of past projects and discussions with the development community, the existing development standards have not proved to be a constraint to meeting the maximum density. Programs 3B and 3C within the Housing Plan call for revis ions to the development standards associated with the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan and the City’s Urban Plans and Overlays , including the maximum density permitted. These densities are higher than what is currently permitted within Costa Mesa (with the exception of some areas in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan where densities have exceeded 90 du/ac for specific projects). Until those zoning changes are made to permit the higher densities identified in the housing element, the City will not be able to evalua te potential requests to develop below the maximum density. The City has committed to working with the community, including the local development community, to create development standards which promote development consistent with the identified densities.
486

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-6 B. Governmental Constraints
In addition to market constraints, local policies and regulations also affect the price and availability of housing and the provision of affordable housing. For example, State and Federal regulations affect the availability of land for housing and the cost of housing production, making it difficult to meet the demand for affordable housing and limiting supply in a region. Regulations related to environmental protection, building codes, and other related topics have significant, often adverse, impacts on housing cost and availability.

While the City of Costa Mesa has no control over State and Federal Laws that affect housing, local laws including land use controls, site improvement requirements, fees and exactions, permit processi ng procedures, and other factors can constrain the maintenance, development, and improvement of housing as well as, create barriers to housing development.

1. Land Use Controls
Cities in California are required by Law to prepare a comprehensive, long term General Plan to guide future development. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes permitted land uses and development density throughout the City of Costa Mesa . These land uses provide for a wide variety of housing types throughout the City, while also ensuring compatibility between neighboring uses. The following lists the land uses that permit residential developments and the maximum allowable density:
• Low-Density Residential: 8 dwelling units per acre
• Medium-Density Residential: 12 dwelling units per acre • High-Density Residential: 20 dwelling units per acre
• Commercial-Residential: 12 to 17.4 dwelling units per acre • Urban Center Commercial: 20 dwelling units per acre / 80 dwelling units per acre • Multi-Use Center: 6 dwelling units per acre / 40 dwelling units per acre Overlay Districts
Overlay districts are created in order to incentivize particular development types in an area and/ or to implement a Master Plan’s strategies and goals. Overlay districts are applied to the Zoning Map and provide a development option in addition to the underlying zoning regulations as they often require stricter and/or more specific standards. An overlay district could also be created to administer the goals of a Master Plan.

There are four overlay districts in Costa Mesa, which are detailed below.

Residential Incentive Overlay
The Residential Incentive Overlay District is intended to create opportunities for residential development at strategic locations along Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard. The designation allows for development of new higher-density residential uses in areas where limited residential with lower densities are currently allowed. Small-lot single-family subdivisions are also appropriate in the designated areas. The Residential Inc entive Overlay also expands development opportunities on residential and commercial 487

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-7 properties which are not currently developed to their full potential or supporting outdated buildings and underperforming uses.

The following are required for developments in the Residential Incentive Overlay District:

Residential Incentive Development Plan Screening Application – To provide initial feedback to developers, all residential and development projects proposed in this district must submit a screening application for review and approval by the City Council.

Master Plan – All developments proposed in this district require approval of a master plan by the Planning Commission. The master plan must be consistent with the General Plan and meet the intent and purpose of the overlay district. The project must include adequate resident-serving amenities in the common open space areas and private open space area; this may incl ude patios, balconies, roof terraces, walkways, and landscaped areas. The project must be consistent with the compatibility standards for residential development in that it provides adequate protection for residents from excessive noise, odors, vibration, light and glare, and toxic emanations. The residences must have adequate separation and screening from adjacent commercial uses through site planning considerations, structural features, landscaping, and perimeter walls.

Development Standards – This overlay designation allows for developments that meet the following:
• Minimum Lot Area: 0.5 acres
• Maximum Height: 4 stories (not including permitted roof top terraces) • Maximum Density: 40 units per acre
• Minimum Open Space: 40% of total site area
• Common Open Space : 50% of required open space. Recreational facilities for children are required for residential projects with 12 or more units. • Front Setback: 20 feet
• Side Setback: 20 feet (30 feet minimum for 4-story developments abutting R2-MD zones) • Rear Setback: 20 feet (30 feet minimum for 4-story developments abutting R2-MD zones) SoBECA Mixed-Use Overlay
The SoBECA Overlay District establishe s provisions for mixed -use development, including live/work development, in the 39-acre SoBECA plan area (located west of the Costa Mesa Freeway, east of the Corona Del Mar Freeway, and south of the San Diego Freeway). This overlay district allows for high -density residential developments with a maximum unit cap and is intended to allow a mix of housing, eclectic retail/services, creative studios, and entertainment/restaurant uses that attract local residents and visitors.

Development Standards – This overlay designation allows for developments that meet the following:
• Maximum Density: 40 units per acre
• Maximum Residential Cap: 450 units within the SoBECA Urban Plan 488

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-8 Harbor Mixed-Use Overlay
The Harbor Mixed-Use overlay district applies to select areas along Harbor Boulevard and between Wilson Street and 19th Street. The district is intended to introduce a diverse mix of uses to create a more integrated, walkable, and complementary balance of creative commercial and office spaces, neighborhood- serving retail and commercial services, and residential uses along the southern portion of Harbor Boulevard that intersects 19th Street. Since this overlay applies to a commercial corridor and is considered an extension of the 19 West Urban Plan (see below), Live/Work developments are not permitted in this overlay distric t.

The provisions of the 19 West Urban Plan applies to the overlay district.

Development Standards – This overlay designation allows for developments that meet the following:
• Maximum Density: 20 units per acre
• Maximum FAR: 1.25 for commercial and residential mixed uses Maximum Building Height: 4 stories
Westside Urban Plans
In 2005, the City of Costa Mesa approved three strategies based on the Westside Revitalization Oversight Committee’s (WROC) Final Report and Implementation Plan. Together these strategies make up the Westside Urban Plans and include the following three urban plans and their individual goals:
19 West Urban Plan – Improve the Urban Plan area by providing visual enhancement and facilitating development of mixed-use urban villages along the specified areas of West 17 th Street, West 19th Street, and Superior Avenue.

Mesa Wes t Bluffs Urban Plan – Improve the Urban Plan area by providing visual enhancement and encouraging the development of live/work units or residential development within the plan area.

Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan – Encourage the development of new owner -occupied condominiums and clustered homes by allowing a higher density than currently zoned.

These plans aim to attract investments and improvements to the west side of Costa Mesa and avoids strict architectural guidelines to welcome flexible projects. These three plans provide a framework for major private market reinvestment and improvements for the Westside.

2. State Density Bonus Law
Density bonuses are another way to increase the number of dwelling units allowed in a residentially zoned area. The City of Costa Mesa does not have its own Density Bonus Ordinance but defers to the Government Code Section 65915. However, the City’s Zoning Code identifies the purpose of a density bonus as providing incentives for the production of affordable housing, senior housing, and childcare facilities in compliance with State Government section 65915.

The City of Costa Mesa must grant one density bonus to housing developments which contain at least one of the following (excluding any units permitted by the density bonus awarded):
489

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-9 • 10 percent of the total units of a housing development for lower income households; • 5 percent of the total units of a housing development for very low-income households; • A senior citizen housing development or a mobile home park that limits residents based on age requirements for housing for older persons; or
• 10 percent of the total dwelling units in a common interest development for persons and families of moderate income, provide that all units the development are offered to the public for purchase;
In addition, a housing development which is awarded a density bonus must maintain an affordable cost for very low- and low-income rental units for a minimum of 55 years. Additional years may be required by the construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program.

The following provides the density bonus to be calculated for very low-income, low-income, and moderate- income households:

Table 3-2: Density Bonus for Very Low-Income Households Percent Very Low-Income Units Percent Density Bonus
5 20
6 22.5
7 25
8 27.5
9 30
10 32.5
11 35

Table 3-3: Density Bonus for Low-Income Households
Percent Low-Income Units Percent Density Bonus
10 20
11 21.5
12 23
13 24.5
14 26
15 27.5
17 30.5
18 32
19 33.5
20 35

Table 3-4: Density Bonus for Moderate-Income Households Percent Moderate-Income Units Percent Density Bonus
10 5
11 6
490

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-10 Table 3-4: Density Bonus for Moderate-Income Households Percent Moderate-Income Units Percent Density Bonus
12 7
13 8
14 9
15 10
16 11
17 12
18 13
19 14
20 15
21 16
22 17
23 18
24 19
25 20
26 21
27 22
28 23
29 24
30 25
31 26
32 27
33 28
34 29
35 30
36 31
37 32
38 33
39 34
40 35

In addition, the Government Code states that when an applicant for a tentative subdivision map, parcel map, or other residential development approval donates land to a city, county, or city and county in accordance with these subdivisions, the applicant sh all be entitled to a 15 percent increase above the otherwise maximum allowable residential density for the entire development, as shown in Table 3-5. This increase may be added to the density bonuses listed above but may not exceed 35 percent.

Table 3-5: Density Bonus for Land Donation
Percent Very Low-Income Percent Density Bonus
10 15
11 16
12 17
13 18
491

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-11 Table 3-5: Density Bonus for Land Donation
Percent Very Low-Income Percent Density Bonus
14 19
15 20
16 21
17 22
18 23
19 24
20 25
21 26
22 27
23 28
24 29
25 30
26 31
27 32
28 33
29 34
30 35

Concessions and Incentives
According to the State Government Code section 65915, an applicant for a density bonus may submit a proposal for a specific concession or incentive; a waiver or reduction of development standards may not affect the number of incentives or concessions to which the applicant is entitled. The following concessions and incentives must be provided to eligible applicants:
• One incentive or concession for projects that include 10 percent of the total units for lower income households, at least 5 percent for very low-income households, or at least 10 percent for persons and families of moderate income in a common interest development. • Two incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 20 percent of the total units for lower income households, at least 10 percent for very low -income households, or at least 20 percent for persons and families of moderate income in a common interest development. • Three incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 30 percent of the total units for lower income households, at least 15 percent for very low -income households, or at least 30 percent for persons and families with moderate income in a common interest development.

Compliance with State Law
Until 2021, under Government Code Section 65915, known as the Density Bonus Law, the maximum bonus was 35%. California state law AB 2345 states that all jurisdictions in California are required to process projects proposing up to 50% additional density , as long as those projects provide the additi onal Below Market Rate units (units affordable to low and very low- income households) in the original proposed project, unless the locality already allows a bonus above 35%. The City’s Density Bonus program allows a maximum of 35% density increase; however, AB 2345 requires an allowance of up to 50% density bonus 492

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-12 when the base BMR is proposed. The City has included a program in Chapter 4: Housing Plan to update the City’s Development Code in compliance with state legislation.

3. Residential Development Standards
The City of Costa Mesa established four residential districts to provide a range of housing types. These standards and regulations are intended to create the highest quality residential development, minimize land use conflicts, encourage the maintenance of residential neighborhoods, and implement the goals of the City’s General Plan. In addition to residential districts, Costa Mesa also includes three types of mixed - use designations to bring together residential and commercial developments. • Single-Family Residential District (R1) – Single-Family Residential is intended to promote the development of single- family detached units on lots measuring at least 6,000 square feet. The maximum density is 7.26 dwelling units per gross acre.
• Multiple-Family Residential District, Medium Density (R2 -MD) – Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential is intended to promote the development of multi-family properties on lots measuring a minimum of 12,000 square feet. The maximum density is 3,630 square feet per dwelling unit / 12 dwelling units per gross acre.
• Multiple-Family Residential District, High Density (R2 -HD) – High Density Multiple -Family Residential is intended to promote the development of multi-family properties with a minimum of 12,000 square feet. The maximum density is 3,000 square feet per dwelling unit / 14.25 dwelling units per gross acre.
• Multiple-Family Residential District (R3) – Multiple-Family Residential is intended to promote the development of multi — family properties with a minimum of 12,000 square feet. The maximum density is 2,178 square feet per dwelling unit / 20 dwelling units per gross acre. • Town Center District (TC) – Town Center is intended to allow intensely developed mixed commercial and residential uses within a limited geographical area located between Sunflower Avenue, I-405, Bristol Street, and Avenue of the Arts. Developments can range from one - to two- story office and retail buildings to mid- and high-rise buildings, including residential. • Planned Development Commercial (PDC) – Planned Development Commercial is intended for retail shops, offices, and service establishments, including but not limited to, hotels, restaurants, theaters, museums, financial institutions, and health clubs. These uses are intended to serve adjacent residential area and the entire community and region. Complementary residential uses may also be included in the planned development.

• Institutional and Recreational Multi-Use District – Institutional and Recreational Multi-Use is only applicable to the Fairview Development Center and is intended to allow the integration of a variety of land uses and intensities at a low to moderate density and intensity.

As mentioned above, t he City of Costa Mesa’s Zoning Code establishes standards which regulate development throughout the City. The development standards include minimum requirements for lot size, width, building setbacks, and open space. Table 3-6 provides the development standards applicable to each zoning district in Costa Mesa that permit residential development. 493

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-13

Yard Requirements
Yards provide light and air, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, emergency access, and general aesthetic improvements. The Costa Mesa Zoning Code establishes setback requirements in order to maintain yard area. Minimum setback requirements are consistent in residential districts , 5 feet, but they differ depending on type development in mixed-use districts. While it is possible that setback requirements may pose a constraint on reaching maximum permitted density in some cases, there is enough flexibility in the Table 3-6: Development Standards in Costa Mesa - Dimensions Zone
Dimensions Min. Yard Setbacks (ft) Construction Standards Min. Lot Size
(square feet)
Min. Lot
Width (feet)
Front
(feet)
Side
(feet) Rear (feet) Max.

Height*
Min. Open
Space
(square feet)
Max. Density
Residential Districts
R1 6,000 sq.ft.

Interior Lot:
50 ft.

Corner Lot:
60 ft.
20 ft. 5 ft. (3)
2-story: 20 ft.
1-story:
10 ft.
27 feet 40% 1 DU (1) per
6,000 sq.ft.

R2-MD 12,000 sq.ft. 100 ft. 20 ft. 5 ft. (3)
2-story: 20 ft.
1-story:
10 ft.
27 feet 40% 1 DU per
3,630 sq.ft.(2)
R2-HD 12,000 sq.ft. 100 ft. 20 ft. 5 ft. (3)
2-story: 20 ft.
1-story:
10 ft.
27 feet 40% 1 DU per
3,000 sq.ft.

R3 12,000 sq.ft. 100 ft. 20 ft. 5 ft. (3)
2-story: 20 ft.
1-story:
10 ft.
27 feet 40% 1 DU per
2,178 sq.ft.

Planned Development Standards
PDR-LD 5,500 sq.ft. 40 ft. 5 ft. (7) 0-10ft.
(8) 5 ft. 27 ft. 45% (6) 8 DUs per
acre
PDR-MD 5,500 sq.ft. - 5 ft. 0-10ft.
(8) 5 ft. 27 ft. 45% 12 DUs per
acre
PDR-HD 3,000 sq.ft. - 5 ft. 0-10ft.
(8) 5 ft. 27 ft. 42% 20 DUs per
acre (4)
PDR-
NCM 3,000 sq.ft. - - - - - 42% 35 DUs per
acre
PDC N/A - - - - - - 20 DUs per
acre (5)

PDI N/A - - - - - - N/A
Note:
(1): Dwelling Unit
(2): 1 unit per DU for legal lots existing as of March 16, 1992, that are less than 7,260 sq.ft. in area but not less than 6,000 sq.ft. in area. (3) Accessory structures that do not exceed 6.5 feet in height in the R1 zone or 15 feet in height in other residential zones may have a zero- side setback. Property line abutting a public street: 10 feet. Property line abutting an alley: 5 feet. (4): See North Costa Mesa Specific Plan for exceptions. The maximum density for 125 East Baker Street is 58 dwelling units per acre (C0- 13-02). The maximum density for 2277 Harbor Boulevard is 54 dwelling units per acre (C0-14-02). (5): The maximum density for 1901 Newport Boulevard is 40 dwelling units per acre. See North Costa Mesa Specific Plan for exceptions. No residential development is permitted within the 23.4-acre project site generally addressed as 1375 Sunflower Ave. and 3370 Harbor Blvd. (6): See section 13-60 required open space criteria for planned development residential. (7): For individual DUs.
(8): feet on one side; 10 feet combination of both sides.

Source: City of Costa Mesa Zoning code
494

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-14 current ordinances that setback requirements do not constitute a significant constraint on residential development.

Site Coverage and FAR
The City of Costa Mesa establishes site coverage requirements in order to maintain bulk, mass, and intensity of use. Site coverage is not used towards planning residential districts in Costa Mesa as open space and setback requirements ensure structures are located within an area of a lot to avoid massing and excessive density. Site coverage is considered in mixed-use developments when combined with commercial uses.

Floor Area Ratio (FAR) refers to the gross floor area allowed on a site divided by the total gross area of the site. FAR requirements limit the usable floor area to limit the bulk of a building in compari son to the land, other buildings, and public facilities in the area.

Open Space
Open space is used in conjunction with site coverage to control intensity of use and provide for an area that is intended to add light and air. Open space may include, but is not limited to, lawns, decorative planting, walkways, active and passive recreational area, playgrounds, fountains, swimming pools, and wooded areas. Also included are unenclosed patios, water courses, and surfaces covered by no more than 5 feet in depth by projections which are at least 8 feet above ground. Driveways, parking lots, surfaces designed for vehicular access, upper floor decks, balconies, and areas under projections which are less than 8 feet above ground are not considered open space.

Maximum Building Heights
A structure’s height is defined by the Zoning Code as the distance from the grade to the highest point on the roof, including roof -top mechanical equipment and screening. A standard 27 fee t maximum height is established for two-story residential developments in Costa Mesa in order to maintain compatibility with existing and proposed developments, however a planned development is permitted to be developed up to four stories. The City’s General Plan and Zoning Code permit up to four stories south of the 405 Freeway through planned development and in many of the City’s urban plan and overlay areas where higher densities are allowed, as well as additional height north of the 405 Freeway in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan area. Per the City’s development standards shown in Table 3-6, a 2-story 14,400 square -foot multi-
family development on a 12,000 square-foot lot could develop up to 14 potential 1,000 square-foot units, all while meeting the C ity’s setback, open space, and height requirements. The City’s 27 -foot height limit for all residential developments does not pose a constraint to meeting the City’s established densities and is not considered a constraint to the development of housing.

Parking Standards
The City of Costa Mesa mandates parking requirements be applied to all developments in the City. Table 3-7 provides the required parking for all housing types. The Zoning Code further identifies the number of parking spaces that must be covered and those that can remain uncovered. These requirements ensure that there is adequate parking provided for residents and for guests in both single-family and multi-family residences.

Table 3-7: Parking Requirements for Residential Uses
495

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-15 Unit Type Number of Spaces
Required
Single-Family Detached with 4
Bedrooms or Less
Without garage access from alley 4
With garage access from alley 3
Single-Family Detached with 5
Bedrooms of More
Without garage access from alley 5
With garage access from alley 4
Multi-Family Residential
Bachelor/Studio 2
1 Bedroom 2.5
2 Bedrooms 3
3 Bedrooms or more 4
Source: City of Costa Mesa Zoning Code
The cost associated with garage parking construction can be viewed as a constraint to affordable housing development, especially for multi -family housing. However, Costa Mesa’s parking regulations differ depending on the number of bedrooms proposed per unit. Affordable housing projects that qualify for a density bonus may also request application for additional incentives which can be provided in the form of reduction of parking requirements. While off -street parking requirements can affect planned residential density, particularly for small lots and in -fill are as, this potential constraint is mitigated by the f lexible standards shown above.

Furthermore, in comparison to neighboring jurisdictions (Table 3-8), the City of Costa Mesa has similar parking requirements. Where Costa Mesa differs in single-family parking requirements is in its count of open/driveway parking spaces. The City of Costa Mesa specifically requires 2 spaces in a garage and 2 spaces on a driveway for a single-family detached residence with 4 bedrooms or less; the other cities only provide requirements for the number of vehicles that must be included in a garage. In addition, the other cities require guest parking as a percentage of the total number of units or required spaces, while Costa Mesa requires a set number per unit.

Table 3-8: Parking Standards of Neighboring Communities Unit Type Number of Spaces Required
City of Newport Beach
Accessory Dwelling Unit 1 parking space, with exceptions (1) Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit No additional parking required Single-Unit Dwellings – Attached 2 per unit in a garage Single-Unit Dwellings – Detached and less than
4,000 sq. ft. of floor area 2 per unit in a garage
Single-Unit Dwellings – Detached and 4,000 sq. ft. of
floor area 3 per unit in a garage
Single-Unit Dwellings – Balboa Island 2 per unit in a garage Multi-Unit Dwellings – 3 units
2 per unit covered, plus guest parking
1-2 units, no guest parking required
3 units, 1 guest parking space
Multi-Unit Dwellings – 4 units or more 2 per unit covered, plus 0.5 space per unit for guest parking Two-Unit Dwellings 2 per unit; 1 in a garage and 1 covered or in a garage Live/Work Units 2 per unit in a garage, plus 2 for guest/customer parking Senior Housing – Market Rate 1.2 per unit
496

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-16 Table 3-8: Parking Standards of Neighboring Communities Unit Type Number of Spaces Required
City of Newport Beach
Senior Housing – Affordable 1 per unit
City of Irvine
Single Family 1-3 bedrooms 2 spaces
4+ bedrooms 3 spaces + visitor parking (2)
Attached Ownership
Studio 1 space + visitor parking (2)
1 bedroom 1.5 spaces + visitor parking (2)
2 bedroom 2 spaces + visitor parking (2)
Attached Rental
Studio 1 space + visitor parking (2)
1 bedroom 1.4 spaces + visitor parking (2)
2 bedroom 1.6 spaces + visitor parking (2)
3 bedroom 2 spaces + visitor parking (2)
City of Fountain Valley
Single-family, detached: up to 4 bedrooms 2 stalls in a garage Single-family, detached: 5+ bedrooms or homes
larger than 4,000 sq. ft. 3 stalls in a garage
Single-family, detached Same as single-family, detached Mobile home park 2 covered for unit, plus 0.2 visitor stall/unit provided independent of the unit
Accessory dwelling unit
No parking required beyond that which is required for the primary residence. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65852.2, replacement parking cannot be required if an existing garage is converted to an ADU.

Multi-family: duplex,
condos, other attached
dwellings
1 bedroom or less
1 covered stall + 0.5 uncovered + 25% of total required spaces for visitor parking
2 bedrooms 1 covered stall + 1 uncovered + 25% of total required spaces for visitor parking
3 bedrooms 2 covered stall + 0.5 uncovered + 25% of total required spaces for visitor parking
More than 3 bedrooms 2 covered stall + 0.5/room over 3 uncovered + 25% of total required spaces for visitor parking
Note:

1. Parking is waived for ADUs if the property is within ½ mile walking distance to transit (including ferry); within an architecturally or historically significant district; on-street parking permits are required and not provided to the occupant of the ADU; or within one block of a car-share vehicle pick-up/drop-off location

2. Visitor parking: 0.7 space/unit if project has resident garages or 0.4 spaces/unit if the project has resident carports.

Source: City of Newport Beach, Irvine, and Fountain Valley Municipal Codes Program 2M is included in Chapter 4: Housing Plan to review and revise the City’s residential off -street parking standards for multi-family residential projects in an effort to facilitate the development of multi - family developments, and specifically affordable housing projects.

4. Variety of Housing Types Permitted
California Housing Element Law mandates jurisdictions must make sites available through zoning and development standards to promote the development of a variety of housing types for all socioeconomic levels of the populations. Housing types include single -family homes, multi -family housing, accessory dwelling units, facto ry-built homes, mobile -homes, employee and agricultural work housing, transitional 497

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-17 and supportive housing, single-room occupancy (SROs), and housing for persons with disabilities. Table 3- 9 shows the various housing types permitted throughout the City of Costa Mesa.

Table 3-9: Housing Types Permitted in Costa Mesa
Housing
Types
Zones
Residential Commercial Industrial Planned Development
Institutio
nal &
Rec.

R1
R2-MD
R2-HD
R3
C1
C2
C1-S
TC
MG
MP
PDR-LD
PDR-MD
PDR-HD

PDR-NCM
PDC
PDI
I&R

I&R-MLT
Single-Family P P P P - - - - - - P P P P P P - P
Multi-Family - P P P - - - P - - P P P P P P - P
Accessory
Dwelling Unit P P P P - - - P - - P P P P P P - P
Common
Interest
Development
- P P P - - - P - - P P P P P P - P
Small Lot
Subdivision,
Residential
- P P P - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mobile Home
Park - C C C - - - - - - C C C C C C - -
Boarding
House, Small
(1)
- P P P - - - - - - P P P P P P - -
Boarding
House, Large
(1)
- C C C - - - - - - - C C C C C - -
Residential
Care Facility,
6 or Fewer
Persons

P P P P - - - - - - P P P P P P P P
Residential
Care Facility,
7 or More
- C C C - - - - - - - C C C C C C -
Group
Homes, 6 or
Fewer
Persons

S S S S - - - - - - S S S S S S P P
Group
Homes, 7 or
More
- C C C - - - - - - - C C C C C P -
498

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-18 Table 3-9: Housing Types Permitted in Costa Mesa
Housing
Types
Zones
Residential Commercial Industrial Planned Development
Institutio
nal &
Rec.

R1
R2-MD
R2-HD
R3
C1
C2
C1-S
TC
MG
MP
PDR-LD
PDR-MD
PDR-HD

PDR-NCM
PDC
PDI
I&R

I&R-MLT
Sober Living
Homes, 6 or
Fewer
Persons

S S S S - - - - - - S S S S S S P -
Sober Living
Homes, 7 or
More
- C C C - - - - - - - C C C C C P -
Referral
Facility - C C C - C - - - - - C C - - - - -
Single Room
Occupancy
Residential
Hotel (SRO)
- - - - C C - - - - - - - - - - - -
Emergency
Shelters - - - - - - - - - C - - - - - P - -
Low Barrier
Navigation
Centers

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Farmworker
Housing NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Source: City of Costa Mesa Zoning Code
Notes: (1) Small boardinghouses shall locate at least six hundred fifty (650) feet from any other small boardinghouse. Large boardinghouses shall be located at least one thousand (1,000) feet away from any other boardinghouse.

P – Permitted
C – Conditional Use Permit
S – Special Use Permit
(-) – Prohibited
Single-Family Dwelling
The Costa Mesa Zoning Code defines a Single-Family Dwelling as a building of permanent character which is designed or used for residential occupancy by one family. A single mobile home on a foundation system on a single lot is a single -family dwelling. A single -family dwelling may be attached or detached from another single -family dwelling, including but not limited to an accessory dwelling unit. Single Family dwelling units are permitted in the R1, R2-MD, R2-HD, and R3 residential zones, as well as the PDR-LD, PDR- MD, PDR-HD, PDR-NCM, PDC, PDI, and I&R-MLT zones.
499

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-19 Multi-Family Dwelling
A Multi-Family Dwelling is a building of a permanent character which is designed or used for residential occupancy or two or more families. This housing designation may include, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and apartments. The building is typically owned by a single person or agency and rented out to tenants.

Each dwelling unit within the structure is occupied by a single housekeeping unit. Multifamily dwelling units are permitted in the R2 -MD, R2-HD, and R3 residential zones, the TC commercial zone, an d the PDR -LD, PDR-MD, PDR-HD, PDR-NCM, PDC, and PDI zones, and the I&R-MLT Institution zone.

Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
An ADU is a second dwelling unit established in conjunction with and subordinate to the single -family dwelling unit existing on the property. The ADU may be a studio with no bedroom or contain any number of bedrooms and it may be attached to the single-family dwelling unit or detached and located on the same lot. An ADU may also be referred to as an “accessory apartment”, “granny unit”, “granny flat”, or “in-law apartment”. Refer to Costa Mesa City Ordinance 2021- 03 for ADU -specific development standards.

Accessory dwelling units are permitted in all zones where single-family residential units are also permitted.

Common Interest Development
The City Zoning Code defines Common Interest Developments as containing 2 or more common interest units, which may include, but is not limited to, a community apartment project, rights of exclusive occupancy, a stock cooperative, and/or exclusive occupancy. Common interest developments are permitted in all zones where multifamily developments and units are permitted.

Small Lot Subdivision, Residential
A Small Lot Subdivision refers to a residential development that contains a maximum o f 15 detached or townhome style units with no common walls where each unit is independently constructed on an individual parcel. In a small lot subdivision, the land is subdivided into fee simple parcels containing each unit and each individual lot is provid ed with either a direct access to a public street/alley or an easement access through a recorded subdivision map. Small Lot subdivision projects are permitted in the R2-MD, R2-HD, and R3 residential zones.

Manufactured Housing
Manufactured housing includes detached housing that is built to the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, including structures known as manufactured homes and mobile homes. A factory -built structure is considered a single -family home and shall be reviewed under the same standards as a site-built structure if it is manufactured under the authority of 42 U.S.C. section 5401 - National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act. Mobile homes are permitted conditionally in the R2-MD, R2-HD, R3 residential zones and PDR-LD, PDR-MD, PDR-HD, PDR-NCM, PDC, PDI zones. Boarding House A Boarding House is a residence or dwelling, other than a hotel, wherein rooms are rented under 2 or more separate written or oral rental agreements, leases, or subleases. The property owner, agent, or rental manager may or may not reside on the property. A small boarding house rents 2 or less rooms, while a large boarding house rents out 3 to 6 rooms. The City of Costa Mesa prohibits boarding houses that rent 500

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-20 more than 6 rooms. Small boarding house developments are permitted in all zones where manufactured/mobile homes are permitted, and large boarding house developments are conditionally permit in these zones.

Residential Care Facility
In Costa Mesa, a Residential Care Facility must be licensed by the State to provide care, services, or treatment to persons living in supportive community residential setting. Residential care facilities may include, but may not be limited to: intermediate care facilities for the developmentally disabled; community care facilities; residential care facilities for the elderly; residential care facilities for the chronically ill; alcoholism and drug abuse facilities; pediatric day health and respite care facilities; residential health care facilities, including congregate living health facilities; family care home, foster home, group home for the mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped persons or dependent and neglected children. Residential care facilities are permitted in all residential, planned development, and institutional zones.

Group Homes
A Group Home is a facility that is being used as a supportive living environment for persons who are considered handicapped under state or federal law. A group home operated by a single operator or service provider (whether State licensed or unlicensed) constitutes a single facility, whether the facility occupies one or more dwelling units. Small group homes are permitted with a special use permit in residential and planned development zones, and they are permitted as a primary use in institutional zones. Large group homes are conditionally permitted in residential and planned development zones and are permitted as a primary use in the I&R institutional zone.

Although there are several different housing types outlined in the zoning code including group homes, the City’s zoning code does not exclude group homes or more specifically housing for disabled people from any residential zones in the City. On the contrary, disabled individuals can live in any residential property in the City. The city’s code provisions regarding group homes have been upheld by numerous courts in both state and federal court, and have been found to be intended to and actually protective of persons with disabilities. Group homes are intended to be integrated into residential communities for the benefit of both the disabled and the non-disabled. The City’s code protects the disabled from being forced to live in multiple adjoining properties clustered together -- institutionalized settings -- in crammed quarters, subject to eviction without warning and left vulnerable and homeless in a City far from their actual homes. It also preserves the very character of residential neighborhoods which make them desirable places to live, by preventing unreasonably increased traffic, noise, parking difficulties, and drug -related activity when residents relapse during the recovery process. The recovery community, including industry associations like Sober Living Network and the National Alliance for Recovery Residences, acknowledged these issues, and recommend that group recovery homes – including sober living homes – adopt model operational standards to ensure proper care of their residents. Costa Mesa’s code does exactly that, reg ulating operators, not disabled individuals, and ensuring the disabled safe and appropriate residential environments. Numerous group homes for the disabled, including sober living homes have been approved and operate throughout the City. There is no shortage of options fo r those seeking to live in a recovery 501

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-21 home in low or high density areas of the City. Further, the City does not regulate state licensed homes of six or fewer residents, as that is preempted by state law.

Transitional Housing
The Costa Mesa Zoning Code defines Transitional Housing as a development with buildings configured as rental developments but operated under program requirements that call for the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at some predetermined future point in time, which may not be less than 6 months. Transitional housing that is provided in single family dwelling, multi-family dwelling units, residential care facilities, or boarding house uses, shall be permitted, conditionally permitted, or prohibited in the same manner as the other single-family dwelling, multi-family dwelling units, residential care facilities, or boarding house uses. Currently, the city permits transitional housing consistent with the development standards and regulations of the type of unit it is proposed as; for example, if a transitional housing project is proposed as a single -family unit (SFU), it is subject to the same provisions of the identified zone for a SFU. The City has identified Program 2J to update the zoning code to acknowledge transitional housing distinctively in the City’s land use matrix , consistent with state law.

Supportive Housing
Supportive Housing includes housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population, and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing their ability to live and, when possible, work in the community. Supportive housing that is provided in single family dwelling, multi-family dwelling units, residential care facilities, or boarding house uses, shall be permitted, conditionally permitted, or prohibited in the same manner as the other single -family dwelling, multi-family dwelling units, residential care facilities, or boarding house uses. Currently, the city permits supportive housing consistent with the development standards and regulations of the type of unit it is proposed as; for example, if a supportive housing project is proposed as a single-family unit (SFU), it is subject to the same provisions of the identified zone for a single family unit. The City has identified Program 2J to update the zoning code to acknowledge supportive housing distinctively in the City’s land use matrix, consistent with state law.

Referral Facility
A Referral Facility or a group home may include one or more person who resides there pursuant to a court order or directive from an agency in the criminal justice system. R eferral facilities are conditionally permitted in the R2 -MD, R2-HD, and R3 residential zones, the PDR -MD, PDR-HD Planned Development zones and the C2 commercial zone.

Single Room Occupancy Residential Hotel (SRO)
502

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-22 An SRO is permitted in certain commercial zones and contains units designed for long -term occupancy by a single person. Double occupancy may be permitted. SROs are conditionally permitted in the C1 and C2 commercial zones.

Emergency Shelter
An emergency shelter provides temporary housing and food for individuals in need or disaster victims. The shelters may be operated by a public or non-profit organization. Emergency shelters are permitted by-right in the PDI Zone. Emergency shelters are also permitted in the MP Zone with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. All emergency shelters are subject to the following development standards (City-owned emergency shelters are exempt from certain provisions):
• The maximum length of stay may not exceed 120 days in a 365-day period. • Each emergency shelter may have a maximum of 30 beds. • Off-site parking must be provided at a parking rate of 1 parking space per 4 beds or one 1 space per employee, whichever is higher. In comparison to the Cities of Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, and Irvine, Costa Mesa’s emergency shelter parking requirements are lowest and therefore not considered a constraint.
• Stays at an emergency shelter facility shall be limited to the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. the following day.
• Nonoperational and unregistered vehicles may not be kept on site. • Each emergency shelter will provide an interior and exterior waiting area ad equate to accommodate waiting clients and to prevent queuing into the public right -of-way. An exterior waiting area must be physically separated and visually screened from the public right-of-way. • The emergency shelter facility will provide an on-site resident manager on site at all times. • A minimum distance of 300 feet must be maintained from another emergency shelter . The distance of separation shall be measured in a straight line between the property lines of each use without regard to intervening structures or objects.
• The shelter operator shall provide minimum exterior lighting in compliance with the city’s security requirements.
• The shelter operator shall patrol a half -mile radius surrounding the shelter site during hours that the shelter is in operation to ensure that shelter clients and homeless individuals who have been denied access are not congregating in the neighborhood. • Alcohol and narcotics use, and consumption are prohibited within the facility and on the property. • An operations plan will be submitted for review and approval by the development services director and police chief prior to operation of the emergency shelter. The plan must include minimum provisions related to on -site security and safety, staff training, loitering control, client eligibility, counseling services, and indoor and outdoor management of the facility.

A total of 294 parcels (483.5 acres) are zoned MP and 150 parcels (168.7 acres) are zoned PDI. These parcels currently include industrial uses, office buildings, and surface parking lots. There are two areas of the City with a mix of PDI and MP zoning – these include the area between John Wayne Airport and the 55 Freeway and the area to the north-west of the City between the 405 Freeway and W MacArthur Boulevard. Parcels 503

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-23 located in these PDI and MP zones are all located approximately within a half-mile of a transit stop. In the area closest to John Wayne Airport, the 71 OCTA line runs through Red Hill Avenue. In the area closest to W MacArthur Boulevard, OCTA lines 43, 76, a nd 37 run along Harbor Boulevard and W MacArthur Boulevard.

In March 2021, the City of Costa Mesa completed the construction of a permanent Bridge Shelter at 3175 Airway Avenue. The parcel that the Bridge Shelter is located on is zoned MP and was previous ly a 26,000 square-foot industrial warehouse; it has since been converted into a 12,000 square-foot 72-bed shelter and a 14,000 square-foot rentable tenant space.

Based on the California Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment, there are appro ximately 8 hazardous waste contributors near the MP and PDI zones in the north-west portion of the City and 3 near the north-east portion of the City as shown in Figure 3-1b.

Figure 3-1a: Map of MP Zones in Costa Mesa

Source: City of Costa Mesa, Zoning Code Map.

Figure 3-1b: Map of Hazardous Waste Contributors
504

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-24

Source: OEHHA, Hazardous Waste Results.

Farmworker Housing
California Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6 require agricultural employee housing to be permitted by -right, without a conditional use permit (CUP), in single -family zones for six or fewer persons and in agricultural zones with no more than 12 units or 36 beds. The Costa Mesa Municipal Code does not address Farmworker Housing by definition. A program is included in Chapter 4: Housing Plan to ensure the City’s development standards allow Farmworker Housing by -right, without a CUP, in single - family zones for six or fewer persons.

Low Barrier Navigation Centers
AB 101 states that “Low Barrier Navigation Center devel opments are essential tools for alleviating the homelessness crisis in this state.” Low Barrier Navigation Centers are defined as a Housing First, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. Low Barrier Navigation Centers are required as a use by right in areas zoned for mixed uses and nonresid ential zones permitting multifamily uses if it meets specified requirements. The Costa Mesa Municipal Code does not address Low Barrier Navigations Centers by definition. A program is included in
Chapter 4: Housing Plan to ensure the City’s development sta ndards allow Low Barrier Navigation Centers by-right in all zones that permit mixed-uses and non-residential uses.

5. Planned Development
505

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-25 The intent and purposed of Planned Developments are to provide a method by which appropriately located areas of the City can be developed utilizing more imaginative and innovative planning concepts than would be possible through strict application of existing zoning and subdivision regulations. It is intended that these developments will meet the broader goals of the General Plan and Zoning Code by exhibiting excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures, and protection of the integrity of neighboring developments. Additional standards for PDs may be found in Chapter V. Article 6 of the City’s Zoning Code.

All P Ds require approv al through a Master Plan and must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The following provides the process by which PDs may be reviewed:

Preliminary Master Plan : a preliminary master plan may be processed in advance of the master plan to determine the general location, type, and intensities of uses proposed in large scale planned developments prior to the preparation and submittal or more detailed development plans. Preliminary master plans may also be used as conceptual plans for long-term or phased PDs.

Upon approval of the preliminary master plan, development plans for individual components or phases of the PD are required and will be processed according to the provisions for master plans. Subsequent plans must be consistent with the parameters and general allocation and intensity of uses of the approved preliminary master plan. At the time of approval of the preliminary master plan, the Planning Commission may determine that subsequent development plans may be approved by the Zoning Administrator. In such cases, development plans will be forwarded by the Zoning Administrator, upon an appeal filed or upon motion by the Planning Commission or City Council.

Amendments to the Master Plan : Minor changes in the location, siting or character of buildings and structures may be authorized by the planning division if required by engineering specifications or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the master plan was approved. No change authorized under this section may cause any of the following:
• A change in the use of character of the development;
• An increase in the overall density of the development; • An increase in overall coverage of structures;
• A reduction or change in character of approved open space; • A reduction of required off-street parking;
• A detrimental alteration to the pedestrian, vehicular and bicycle circulation, and utility networks; or
• A reduction in required street pavement widths.

Major changes involving substantial amendments to the master plan encompassing one or more of the minor changes listed above, or any other proposed change determined by the Development Services Director as a major amendment, shall be subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. If the major amendment results in an overall building square footage that exceeds the maximum density or building square footage allowed by the approved master plan, the Zoning Administrator must find that the 506

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-26 major amendment is consistent with the density, floor area ratio, and trip budget standards established by the general plan, as applicable.

Minor Additions to an Existing PD:
• Residential buildings—Single-story additions: Minor single -story additions to existing residential buildings not meeting the criteria below may be approved by a Minor Modification application if the Planning Division finds that the proposed construction does not materially affect the required open space, site coverage, or parking of the PD.
• Unenclosed patio covers : Unenclosed patio covers in planned development residential zones, which meet the setback criteria may be approved by the Planning Division:
• Enclosed patios and room additions : Enclosed patios and room additions may be permitted pursuant to the parameters for such additions established in the master plan. In cases where the master plan does not include criteria for future enclosed patios and/or room additions, the addition may be permitted if the required open space percentage is met on the affected lot and the addition meets the setbacks established for patio covers with the exception of small lot developments. • Residential buildings—Second story additions : In cases where the master plan does not include criteria for future second-story additions, the planning division may approve any proposed second- story addition that meets the setback standards. Any second-story addition that does not meet all of the following criteria will be subject to Minor Design Review: complies with residential design guidelines adopted by the City Council, and does not materially affect the required open space, site coverage, or parking of the planned development.
• Nonresidential buildings: Minor additions to existing nonresidential buildings may be approved by Development Review if the P lanning Division finds that the proposed construction does not materially affect required open space, floor area ratio, and parking requirements specified in the approved master pla n. If the minor addition results in an overall building square footage that exceeds the maximum building square footage allowed by the approved master plan, the Planning Division must find that the minor addition is consistent with the floor area ratio and trip budget standards established by the general plan, as applicable.

Site Design Concept
To maintain similar development designs and intensities within the different residential zones in the Costa Mesa, the City encourages the following standards and housing types:

Low-Density Zone: Small-lot, single -family detached residential developments including clustered development, zero lot line development and conventional development are appropriate.

Medium-Density and High-Density Zone, and North Costa Mesa Zones: Single- and multi-family residential developments containing any type or mixture of housing units, either attached or detached, including but not limited to, clustered development, townhouses, patio homes, detached houses, duplexes, garden apartments, and high-rise apartments or common interest developments are appropriate. 507

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-27 As a Complementary Use : nonresidential use of a religious, educational, or recreational nature may be allowed if the planning commission finds the use to be compatible with the PD residential project.

As a Complementary Use in PDR-MD, PDR-HD, PDR-NCM Zones: nonresidential uses of a commercial nature may be allowed if the Planning Commission finds the uses to be compatible with the PD residential project and if the FAR does not exceed that established for the Neighborhood Commercial General Plan Land Use designation.

6. Growth Management Measures - Measure Y
Growth management measures allow cities to grow in a responsibly and orderly manner, however, if overly restrictive, these measures can produce constraints to the development of housing, specifically affordable and accessible housing.

In 2016, residents of Costa Mesa voted to pass Measure Y: An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects. The Measure amended the Costa Mesa Municipal Code to require voter approval of any project s involving certain legislative actions (i.e. projects that amend, change, or replace the General Plan, the Zoning Code, a specific plan, or an overlay plan) which:
• Add 40 or more dwelling units;
• Generates more than 200 additional average daily trips (ADT); • Increases the volume/capacity of an intersection based on specified formulas; • Changes the intersection capacity utilization or level of service (LOS) based on specified formulas; • Adds 10,000 square feet of retail, office, or other nonresidential uses; and/or • Where the proposed project, combined with other projects within 8 years and a half-mile of each other, meet the above criteria.

Voter approval is also required for projects involving the above listed legislative actions which involve:
• Changes from public uses to private uses under special circumstances; • Land designated as utility right-of-way under specified circumstances; • Land donated, bequeathed, or otherwise granted to the City; • Land used or designated for Costa Mesa school property; and/or • Land owned, controlled, or managed by the City.

Any of these proposed changes as listed above are required to be approved by the Costa Mesa voters through a special or general election after the City Council has approved the project. Applicants may choose to put their project on a General Election which could result in timing delays to the project as those typically only occur in June and November of even numbered years or may pay for a Special Election to occur. Special Elections typically cost approximately $200,000, a cost which must be paid for by the developer . This can be a significant capital investment that may return uncertain election results (even if a project is approved by the City Council through an entitlement process). This process may discourage developers from pursuing housing development projects and particularly affordable housing projects. 508

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-28

The precise impact on development projects depends heavily on the type of project, number of residential units, and funding sources. The City has not had a project go through the entire Measure Y process to date.

While the exact cost and impact is not known, it can be assumed based on the analysis above that the Measure Y process adds time to the entitlement schedule and potentially additional costs if a Special Election is required.

Program 3G discusses specific actions the City will take to address Measure Y in the context of the Housing Element and making sites available to accommodate the City’s RHNA.

7. Specific Plans
The purpose of a Specific Plan is to implement the goals and objectives of a city’s Genera l Plan in a more focused and detailed manner that is area and project specific. The Specific Plan promotes an enhanced aesthetic level throughout the project /community. Specific Plans can contain their own development standards and requirements that may be more restrictive than those defined for a city as a whole.

East 17th Street Specific Plan
The East 17th Street Specific Plan encompasses approximately 33 acres along 17th Street, east of Santa Ana Avenue and west of Irvine Avenue. The area is designated for General Commercial by the General Plan Land Use Element and contains a mix of office and commercial uses.

The intent and purpose of the specific plan is to provide a good transition to neighboring residential areas by alleviating the problems generated by the proximity of commercial and residential uses in the area. In order to do this, the City adopted the following development standards:
• Properties on the south side of the 400 block of the Specific Plan area must maintain a 10 -foot landscape buffer and properties on the north side of the 400 block must maintain a 5 -foot landscape buffer.
• A Conditional Use Permit is required to permit any development over 2 stories / 30 feet.

Developments over 4 stories are prohibited.

Newport Boulevard Specific Plan
The Newport Boulevard Specific Plan was prepared in order to address the development issues that resulted from the completion of the Costa Mesa Freeway. The intent and purpose of this specific plan is to encourage viable commercial businesses along Newport Boulevard, as well as to encourage marginal uses to redevelop. The Newport Boulevard Specific Plan added the “Commercial -Residential” land use designation to allow for a mix of residential and commercial zoning , which would otherwise only occur in Planned Development zoning districts. Maximum residential density ranges from 12 units to 17.4 units per acre through the specific plan area;
Table 3-10 below provides the permitted densities.

The Commercial-Residential land use designation is intended to allow commercial uses which serve and complement the residential neighborhoods to the east and within the specific plan. Appropriate uses include markets, drug stores, retail shops, financial institutions, service establishments and support office uses. Single room occupancy hotels are also permitted in this area. The location of these uses near 509

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-29 residential neighborhoods is further intended to reduce the need for longer vehicle trips to areas of more intense commercial activity in order to obtain goods or services.

Table 3-10: Permitted Residential Density
Lot Size Street Frontage Allowable Density
40,000 square feet 120 feet 1 unit/ 3,630 square feet
(Medium density at 12 units per acre)
60,000 square feet 150 feet 1 unit/ 3,000 square feet
(High density at 14.5 units per acre)
80,000 square feet 180 feet 1 unit/2,500 square feet
(High density at 17.4 units per acre)
Source: Newport Boulevard Specific Plan SP-96-01 (1996) North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
The North Costa Mesa Specific Plan encompasses 423 acres north of the San Diego Freeway and was adopted in 1994 and last updated in 2016 . A specific plan was developed to set standards and strategies for the development of two large areas of undeveloped land in this area. The intent of the specific plan is to implement the policies of the General Plan in a manner that seamlessly integrates a variety of uses and considers the impact of new development on surrounding areas.

Table 3-11 provides the permitted land uses and densities within the specific plan areas, and Table 3-12 provides the maximum building heights allowed.

Table 3-11: Permitted Land Uses and Development Standards Land Use
Designation Typical Uses Zoning
Districts
Residential
Density FAR
Low Density
Residential
Single family detached and attached
units, granny units, accessory
apartments, family day care
R1, PDR-LD,
I&R
≤ 8 units per
acre

0.15 high traffic

0.25 moderate traffic

0.35 low traffic
Medium
Density
Residential
Single-family attached units, multiple
family units, senior
congregate care facilities,
convalescent hospitals, and group
residential homes. Ancillary
commercial uses are permitted
the planned development zones.

R1, R2-MD,

PDR-MD,

MU, I&R
≤ 12 units per
ace

0.15 high traffic

0.25 moderate traffic

0.35 low traffic
High Density
Residential
Multiple family units, senior
congregate care facilities,
convalescent hospitals and group
residential homes.

R2-HD, R3,

PDR-HD,

PDR-NCM,

MU, I&R
≤ 20 units per
acre
(except the
density in

PDR-NCM

0.15 high traffic

0.25 moderate traffic

0.35 low traffic
510

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-30

Table 3-12: Maximum Building Height – North Costa Mesa Specific Plan Sub-Are Max. Building Height
Area 1 – Home Ranch Varies (1)
Area 2 – Metro Pointe
30 feet / 2 stories (2)(3)
(North of South Coast Drive)
90 feet / 6 stories (2)(3)
(South of South Coast Drive)
Area 3 – South Coast Plaza and Crystal
Court
85 feet / 4 stories
Area 4 – SCP Town Center 315 feet / 25 stories (2)
Area 5 – The Lakes
90 feet / 6 stories (2)
(Mid-Rise Residential)
280 feet / 26 stories (2)
(High-Rise Residential)
Area 6 – South Coast Metro Varies (2)(4)
Area 7 – Sakioka Lot 1 60 feet / 4 stories (4)
Area 8 – Sakioka Lot 2 60 feet / 4 stories (2)(4)
(North of Collector Street)
Ancillary commercial uses are
permitted in the planned
development zones.
zone is 25-35
units per
acre)
Commercial
Center (1)
Major shopping, service, and office
facilities designated
serve city-wide and regional markets.

C1, C2, C1-
S,

PDC, AP, P,
CL
≤ 20 units per
acre

0.25 high traffic

0.35 moderate traffic

0.45 low traffic

0.75 very low traffic
Regional
Commercial
Regional scale uses including major
department stores,
specialty retail outlets, restaurants,
offices, and hotels.

PDC
≤ 20 units per
acre

0.652 South Coast Plaza
(east of Bear Street)

0.89 South Coast Plaza
(west of Bear Street)
Urban Center
Commercial
Intensively developed mixed
commercial including offices, retail
shops, restaurants, and hotels.

Residential uses are also
permitted pursuant to the North
Costa Mesa Specific Plan
PDC, TC ≤ 20 units per
acre
See Note 2.

Industrial
Park
Wide variety of industrial and
compatible office and support
commercial uses.

MP, POI, CL ≤ 20 units per
acre

0.20 high traffic

0.30 moderate traffic

0.40 low traffic

0.75 very low traffic
Notes:
(1) Home Ranch has a site-specific FAR: 0.37 for the IKEA portion of the project and 0.64 for the office portion (2) South Coast Metro Center (Area 6) has a site- specific FAR of 0.79. Sakioka Lot 2 (Area 8) has a maximum site- specific FAR of 1.0.

Source: North Costa Mesa Specific Plan (2016)
511

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-31 180 feet / 12 stories (2)(4)
(South of Collector Street)
Notes:
(1) See North Costa Mesa Specific Plan.
(2) Buildings above 173 feet in height will require a determination of no hazard by the FAA. (3) Current development agreement allows buildings up to 15 stories. (4) Buildings which encroach into the setback for Anton Blvd. and/or Sakioka Dr. cannot exceed 30 feet (approx. 2 stories) within the setback area.

Source: North Costa Mesa Specific Plan (2016)
Costa Mesa Theater and Arts District Plan
The Costa Mesa Theat er and Art District includes 54 acres of land located east of Bristol Street, south of Sunflower Avenue, west of Avenue of the Arts, and north of the San Diego Freeway. The specific plan area includes high- rise office buildings, cultural facilities, hotels, restaurants, and other commercial uses ; it neighbors high-density residential developments. The goals of the plan are to:
• Create a strong sense of place and awareness of a coherent identity for the Costa Mesa Theat er and Arts District that will recognize e xisting cultural and corporate resources in the area and successfully integrate new resources as they are developed. • Assist pedestrians and vehicle operators in reaching their destinations quickly and easily, and, once they are in the area, make informatio n available that highlights additional points of attraction throughout the district.
• Inform local, regional, national, and international communities about the Costa Mesa Theater and Arts District.
• Support occasional programs and installations in the Costa Mesa Theater and arts District that will recognize the importance of culture and the arts in daily life. • Encourage appropriate interplay between policies that apply particularly to the Costa Mesa Theater Arts District and those policies that evolve in the City of Costa Mesa to serve regional needs. • Improve communication and cooperation among area property owners in monitoring and fostering design and development within the district.

8. Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Both the Federal Fair Housing Amendment Act (FHAA) and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act require governments to make reasonable accommodations (that is, modifications or exceptions) in their zoning laws and other land use regulations to afford disabled persons an equal opportunit y to housing.

State law also requires cities to analyze potential and actual constraints to the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons with disabilities.

The Housing Element Update must also include programs that remove constraints or provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for persons with disabilities. The analysis of constraints must touch upon each of three general categories: 1) zoning/land use; 2) permit and processing procedures; and 3) building codes and other factors, including design, location, and discrimination, which could limit the availability of housing for disabled persons.
512

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-32 Reasonable Accommodation
Reasonable accommodation in the land use and zoning context means providing individuals with disabilities or developers of housing for people with disabilities, flexibility in the application of land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices, and procedures, or even waiving certain requirements, when it is necessary to eliminate barrier s to housing opportunities. For example, it may be reasonable to accommodate requests from persons with disabilities to waive a setback requirement or other standard of the Zoning Code to ensure that homes are accessible for the mobility impaired. Whether a particular modification is reasonable depends on the circumstances.

The Reasonable Accommodations Chapter of the City of Costa Mesa’s Municipal Code identifies the applicability and procedures needed to obtain relief from a Zoning Code provision, regulat ion, policy, or condition which may cause a barrier to equal opportunity for housing. This regulation applies to any person seeking approval to construct and/or modify residential housing for persons(s) with disabilities, and/or operate a residential care facility, group home, or referral facility, which will substantially serve persons with disabilities.

An application for a reasonable accommodation must be submitted to the City of Costa Mesa’s Planning Division and requires approval by the Development Services Director within 60 days of the application being deemed complete. A denied application may be appealed to the Planning Commission and is subject to the notice, review, approval, and appeal procedures prescribed for any other discretionary permit. Th ere are no fees associated with the application and it must include:
• The zoning code provision, regulation, policy, or condition from which accommodation is being requested;
• The basis for the claim that the individuals are considered disabled under state or federal law, and why the accommodation is necessary to provide equal opportunity for housing and to make the specific housing available to the individual;
• Any other information that the Director reasonably determines is necessary for evaluating the request;
• Documentation that the applicant is either an individual with a disability, applying on behalf of one or more individuals with a disability, or a develop er or provider of housing for one or more individuals with a disability;
• The specific exception or modification to the zoning code provision, policy, or practices requested; • Documentation that the specific exception or modification requested by the applicant is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the residence; and
• Any other information that the hearing officer reasonably concludes is necessary to determine whether the grounds for reasonable accommodation can be made, so long as any request for information regarding the disability of the individual(s) benefited complies with fair housing law protections and the privacy rights of the individual(s) affected.

The following factors are considered during the review of the application:
513

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-33 • Is the requested accommodation necessary to afford a disabled person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling? To determine whether the accommodation is necessary, the director may consider, among other things: The nature of the disability including the special needs created by the disability, the physical attributes and setting of the property and structures, the potential benefit that can be accomplished by the requested accommodation, and alternative accommodations that may provide a comparable level of benefit. • Is the requested accommodation reasonable? A requested accommodation is not reasonable if it would impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City. It is also not reasonable if it would fundamentally alter a City program, such as the City’s zoning scheme. o In considering the financial or administrative burden on the City, the director may consider, among other things, the extent to which the City would have to dedicate resources, such as staff time and funds, to grant the request and other requests like it. o In considering the potential alteration to a City program, such as the City’s zoning scheme, the director may consider, among other things, whether granting the request would be consistent with the City’s General Plan, with the purpose and nature of the particular zoning district, and with nearby uses. The director may also consider whether the requested accommodation would potentially have adverse external impacts on properties in the vicinity.

The inherent constraints of any reasonable accommodation process are that the accommodation must be both “reasonable” and “necessary.” Each of these concepts are unavoidably subjective in some ways and entail a highly specific inquiry into a particular, typically unique, set of circumstances. The examples offered by HCD in its comments on the draft element reference consideration of G eneral Plan consistency, for example. A General Plan and evaluation of uses as consistent or inconsistent with the General Plan may be a constraint, but both a General Plan and acting consistently with the General Plan are obligations imposed on the City by Stat e law. Similarly, impacts to individuals and properties in the vicinity of any requested deviation from standards is a routine and appropriate factor to review in determining whether a particular accommodation requested is reasonable under all the circumstances presented. Nevertheless, the City has established
Program 2 N and has committed to review and revise its reasonable accommodation procedures to be consistent with the requirements of State law as needed , and to consider public comments to determine whether revisions can be made to minimize constraints in the process.

Definition of Family
Under the right of privacy, the California Constitution prohibits a restrictive definition of “family” which limits the number of unrelated persons and differentiates between related and unrelated individuals living together. The City of Costa Mesa’s Municipal Code defines the term “family” as one or more persons occupying one dwelling unit and living together as a single housekeeping unit. The City also defines a “single housekeeping unit” as occupants which have established ties and familiarity with each other, jointly use common areas, interact with each other, share meals, household activities, and expenses and responsibilities. Membership in the single housekeeping unit must be fairly stable as opposed to transient, the members have some control over who becomes a member of the household, and the residential 514

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-34 activities of the household are conducted on a nonprofit basis. The City also includes that there is a rebuttable presumption that integral facilities do not constitute single housekeeping units.

The City’s Municipal Code provides the following indicators that a household is not operating a single housekeeping unit:
• The occupants do not share a lease agreement or ownership of the property; • Members of the household have separate, private entrances from other members; • Members of the household have locks on their bedroom doors; and/or • Members of the household have separate food storage facilities, such as separate refrigerators.

The Courts have clearly distinguished between single housekeeping units and those of a more transie nt nature, such as boarding homes, motels, etc. The City’s code does not restrict single housekeeping units to those who are related, but does properly define a single housekeeping unit consistently with the law. State zoning law allows the city to establ ish zones of different residential density, such as R -1 (single family residential), R-2 (two unit/family residential), multi -family, mixed use, etc. The City’s definition of family does not touch on whether the members are disabled or not, is not based on and is not intended to discriminate against any based on different levels of ability or disability.

9. Development Fees
Residential developers are subject to a variety of fees and exactions to process permits and provide necessary services and facilities as allowed by State law. Development fees can be a constraint to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing because the added costs for developers results in higher housing unit costs. Development fees are, however, necessary to provide planning and public services.

Table 3-13 provides the planning processing fees and Table 3-14 provides the engineering fees.

Table 3-13: Planning Processing Fees
Review Process Fee
ABC License Review $500
Administrative Adjustment $3,800
Address / Address Change $200
Appeal
Planning Commission
Decision
Located within 500 ft. of
project site $1,220
Located greater than 500 ft.
of project site $3,825
Non-Planning Commission
Decision
Located within 500 ft. of
project site $690
Located greater than 500 ft.
of project site $3,825
Banner Permit $25
CC&Rs Review $1,000
Certificate of Appropriateness $7,500
515

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-35 Table 3-13: Planning Processing Fees
Review Process Fee
Certificate of Compliance $1,500
Conditional Use Permit $7,500
Conditional Use Permit – Measure X $27,508
Density Bonus Review $12,000
Design Review Minor $1,500
Major $3,800
Designating a Cultural Resource No fee
Development Agreement Time and materials with
$20,000 min. deposit
Development Agreement
Annual Review
Planning Commission Review $1,425
City Council Review $1,875
Development Review (Staff) $1,500
Environmental Review / CEQA Total consultant contract
estimates plus 10%
Flood Zone Determination Letter $250
Gate Permits $500
General Plan Amendment Screening $5,000
General Plan Amendment $12,000
Home Occupation Permit (Planning Review) $100
Land Use Restriction $500
Lot Line Adjustment $1,500
Master Plan $9,000
Master Plan Amendment
Minor Change $1,250
Minor Amendment $6,000
Major Amendment $7,500
Minor Modification $500
Minor Conditional Use Permit $3,800
Minor Design Review $1,500
Mixed-Use Development Plan Screening $5,000
Mobile Home Park
Applications
Mobile Home Park Conversion $7,500
Tenant Relocation (Staff Review) $5,000
Tenant Relocation (Third Party Review) Total consultant contract estimates plus 10%
Off-Site Hazardous Waste
Facility
Notice of Intent $5,000
Conditional Use Permit $12,000
Local Assessment Committee (Formation
and Convening) $5,000
Planned Signing Program $1,500
Plan Check
Commercial $250
Industrial $250
Residential – Minor, 4 or Less $250
Residential – Major, 5 or More $500
516

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-36 Table 3-13: Planning Processing Fees
Review Process Fee
Landscape Plan Only $500
Pre-Application Review $1,500
Public Entertainment Permit $1,500
Public Notice (500-Foot Radius and Newspaper Publishing) $1.00 per mailing address plus publishing costs
Reasonable Accommodation No fee
Renewal/Time Extension
Director Action $500
Zoning Administrator Action $2,500
Planning Commission Action $3,800
Residential and Non-Residential Common Interest Development Conversion
$7,500 plus $115 per unit
for required building
inspection
Rezone $10,000
Second-Story Notification $500
Shared Parking Approval $500
Small Cell Facility Encroachment Permit – Planning Review $1,000 Special Use Permit $5,500
Specific Plan / Amendment $12,000
Specific Plan Conformity Review $9,000
Tentative Tract Map $6,000
Tentative Parcel Map $3,800
Tree Removal Review / Tree Replacement Plan $500
Urban Master Plan Screening $10,000
Use Determination Letter $500
Variance $7,500
Zoning Verification Letter $250
Source: City of Costa Mesa Planning Processing Fee Schedule (2019)

Table 3-14: Engineering Fees
Type Fee
Drainage Fee $6,283 - $11,309 per acre + storm drain upgrade Final Map Check Fee $90/hour
Off-Site Plan Check $90/hour
Street Improvement Plan Check Fee $90/hour
Deposit/bond – Off-Site Work Twice the amount of the cost estimate of off-site work Construction Access Permit $230
Curb and Gutter Permit $365
Driveway Approach $425
Sidewalk Approach $380
Wheelchair Ramp $365
Public Right-of-Way Inspection $125/hour
Source: City of Costa Mesa Development Fees (2019)
517

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-37 The City of Costa Mesa assesses impact fees on a project-by-project basis, taking into account the number of units proposed in the development and the impact these units may have on the local school district, parkland, circulation in the area, and sewage a nd water infrastructure. Table 3-15 provides the development impact fees as they relate to the development of housing in Costa Mesa.

Table 3-15: Development Impact Fees
Use Fee
Newport-Mesa Unified School District
Residential Developer Fees $1.84 per sq.ft. (additions under 500 sq.ft. may be exempt)
Transportation
Low Density Residential (9.41 ADT) $235 per net trip
Medium Density Residential (7.5 ADT) $235 per net trip
High Density Residential (6.85 ADT) $235 per net trip
Parkland
Single-Family Residential $13,572 per dwelling unit
Multi-Family Residential $13,829 per dwelling unit
Apartment $5,000 per dwelling unit
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
Small New Development Plan Check $420
Large New Development Plan Check $1,260
Single Family Residential
1 Bedroom $3,083
2 Bedrooms $4,029
3 bedrooms $4,973
4 Bedrooms $5,918
5+ Bedrooms $6,912
Multi-Family Residential
Studio $1,591
1 Bedroom $2,486
2 Bedrooms $3,482
3 bedrooms $4,426
4+ Bedrooms $5,371
San Juaquin Hill Trans. Corridor Agency
Single-Family Residential $4,448 per dwelling unit
Multi-Family Residential $2,595 per dwelling unit
Mesa Water District
Service Establishment Fee $20/account
Sources: City of Costa Mesa and Other Agencies Development Fees (2019) Newport-Mesa Unified School District Developer Fees
CMSD Sewer Connection Fees (2020)
The development fees associated with each project is dependent on the housing type, density, intensity of use, and location. In addition to these direct fees, the total cost of development is contingent on the project meeting the City’s policies and standards, as well as the project applicant submitting necessary documents and plans in a timely manner.
518

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-38 The estimated total development and impact fees for a typical single-family residential project, assuming it is not part of a subdivision and is consistent with existing city policies and regulations , can range from $40,069 to $45,069. Estimated total development and impact fees for a typical multi -family residential project with ten units, assuming it is consistent with existing city policies and regulations range from $303,008 to $308,008.

These estimates are illustrative in nature and actual costs are contingent upon unique circumstance inherent in individual development project applications. Considering the cost of land in Costa Mesa, and the Internationa l Code Council (ICC) estimates for cost of labor and materials, the combined costs of permits and fees range from approximately 3.98 percent to 4.48 percent of the direct cost of development for a single-family residential project and 4.27 percent to 4.34 percent for a multi-family residential project.

Direct costs do not include, landscaping, connection fees, on/off-site improvements, shell construction or amenities. The percentage of development and impact fees charged by the City may be smaller if all direct and indirect costs are included.

10. On-/Off-Site Improvements
Site improvements in the City consist of those typically associated with development for on -site improvements (street frontage improvements, curbs, gutters, sewer/water, and sidewalks), and off- site improvements caused by project impacts (drainage, parks, traffic, schools, and sewer/water) . Because residential development cannot take place without the addition of adequate infrastructure, site improvement requirements are considered a regular component of development of housing within the City and may also influence the sale or rental price of housing. The majority of cost associated with on and off- site improvements is undertaken by the City and recovered in the City’s development and impact fees.

The Costa Mesa Municipal Code requires that all abutting public rights -of-way must be fully improved to the full extent possible as required through the Master Plan of Highways, adopted specific plans, or applicable code sections as directed by the Public Services Department. On-site improvements may include, but are not limited to, curbs, gutters, sewers/water, sidewalks, and undergrounding utility lines for housing developments with at least five units. For example, a project may be accompanied by a condition to upgrade an existing sidewalk. Larger multi -family residential developments may also be conditioned to improve an intersection as a response to the change in traffic patterns. The required public improvements standards are used to ensure that the existing roadways adjacent to new residential construction maintain or provide the appropriate right -of-way. Street work permits are required to authorize construction in these areas.

On- and off -site improvements in Costa Mesa do not pose a constrain the development of housing.

Although these improvements create an additional cost, they also ensure adequate services and infrastructure for residents and existing uses. In addition, the improvements are site and project specific.

A multi-family project may require the addition of a sidewalk at a specific site, while the same project may not in a different location.

Subdivision Improvements
519

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-39 Title 13 Chapter XI of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code establishes on - and off-site improvements required for subdivisions. The Code states that subdividers must agree to improve all land dedicated for streets, highways, public ways, and easements as a condition precedent to acceptance and approval of a final map.

The improvements must include grading, surfacing, sidewal ks, curbs, gutters, culverts, bridges, storm drains, water mains, and service connections to the property line with cutoff valves, sanitary sewers, and other structures or improvements which may be required by ordinance for the general use of the lot in the subdivision and for local neighborhood traffic and drainage needs.

Subdivision improvements may add development costs for developers. However, these subdivision improvements are consistent with that of neighboring communities. Additionally, all improvem ents required add to the livability, safety, and resources of future housing units. Such requirements do not pose an unreasonable constraint to development.

11. Building Codes and Enforcement
The City of Costa Mesa’s construction codes are based upon the California Code of Regulations, Title 24 that includes the California Administrative Code, Building Code, Residential Code, Electrical Code, Mechanical Code, Plumbing Code, Energy Code, Historical Building Code, Fire Code, Existing Building Code, Green Building Standards Code, and California Referenced Standards Code. These are considered to be the minimum necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the City’s residents. In compliance with State law, the California Building Standards Code is revised and updated every three (3) years. The newest edition of the California Building Standards Code is the 2019 edition with an effective date of January 1, 2020.

Code enforcement is conducted by the City and is based on systematic enforcement in areas of concern and on a complaint basis throughout the city. The Code Enforcement Division works with property owners and renters to assist in meeting State health and safety codes. The Code Enforcement Division investigates complaints regarding violations of the Costa Mesa Municipal Codes. The City’s caseload is complaint-based, and deals with issues such as unpermitted structures, poor property maintenance, debris accumulation, and inappropriate storage of vehicle s or materials with the intention and goal of working with the community to help resolve issues through voluntary compliance. On average , there are 1,292 total code enforcement cases generated per year.

12. Local Processing and Permit Procedures
The development community commonly cites the permit processing time as a contributor to the high cost of housing. Depending on the magnitude and complexity of the development proposal, the time that elapses from application submittal to project approval may vary consi derably. Factors that can affect the length of development review on a proposed project include the completeness of the development application and the responsiveness of developers to staff comments and requests for information. Approval times are substant ially lengthened for projects that are not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), require rezoning or general plan amendments, or encounter community opposition.

Applicants for all permits or reviews are recommended to request a pre-a pplication meeting with the respective department to: confirm City requirements as they apply to the proposed project; review the 520

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-40 City’s review process, possible project alternatives or revisions; and identify information and materials the City will require with the application, and any necessary technical studies and information relating to the environmental review of the project.

The typical proposal for a single -family or multi- family residential development entitlement review is provided below:
• New single-family residences that comply with development standards are processed through the normal plan check process. Planning staff is the approval body for single-family developments and do not require public hearings.
• New multi-family developments (with 3 or fewer units) that comply with development standards are processed through the normal plan check process. Planning staff is the approval body for these type of developments (staff report written and pos ted online) and do not require public hearings. Approximate processing time to get to a decision is typically 6 –8 weeks; following planning approval, the project would go through normal plan check process. • New multi-family developments (with 3 or more un its) that comply with development standards are processed through the Design Review application process. The Planning Commission is the approval body for these types of developments, with a public hearing before the 7 -member commission. Approximate processing time is 8–12 weeks; following planning commission approval, the project would go through normal plan check process.

All permit applications are first reviewed by City Staff for completeness, and discretionary applications must then receive a recommendation through a staff report prior to a review by the appropriate authority.

Various applications may also require public noticing and a public hearing. Table 3 -16 i dentifies the appropriate review process for each planning permit application.

Table 3-16: Planning Application Review Process
Planning Application
Public
Notice
Required
Public
Hearing
Required
Recommending
Authority
Final Review
Authority
Notice of
Decision
Development Review No No None Planning Division No Minor Modification Lot Line Adjustment No No None Planning Division No
Administrative Adjustment
Yes No None Zoning
Administrator Yes Minor Conditional Use Permit
Minor Design Review
Planned Signing Program
Design Review
Yes Yes Planning
Division
Planning
Commission Yes
Mobile Home Park Conversion
Common Interest Development
Conversion
Specific Plan Conformity Review
Tentative Parcel Map
Tentative Tract Map
Variance
Conditional Use Permit Yes Yes Yes
521

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-41 Table 3-16: Planning Application Review Process
Planning Application
Public
Notice
Required
Public
Hearing
Required
Recommending
Authority
Final Review
Authority
Notice of
Decision
Density Bonus Planning
Division
Planning
Commission (1) Master Plan
Master Plan – Preliminary
Redevelopment Action Yes Yes Planning
Commission
Redevelopment
Agency Yes
Rezone Yes Yes Planning
Commission (2) City Council No
Local Register of Historic Places No No Planning
Commission (3) City Council Yes
Certificate of Appropriateness No No Planning
Commission (3)
Planning
Commission (3) No
Note:
(1) Except where noted otherwise in the Zoning Code.
(2) If located in a redevelopment project area, the Redevelopment Authority is the recommending authority. (3) Or other commission/committee as designated by the City Council.

Source: City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29. Planning Application Review Process Table 3-17 shows recent projects which received entitlement approval and the date applicants submitted for building permits. As shown, the gap between planning approval and building submittal ranges from about one week to a little over a year. Applicants may submit for building permits directly after the appeal period ends (the appeal period is seven days). Timing of submittals is dependent on applicants and may vary based on unique situations unrelated to City processes.

Table 3-17: Residential Project Entitlements
Application
Reference
Entitlement
Approval
Building Permit
Submittal Description
DR-18-13 09/10/2018 06/04/2019
(9 months)
Development Review for the construction of a new two-
story residence with an attached two-car garage.

DR-18-07 10/02/2018
10/11/2018
(after end of
appeal period)
Development Review for the demolition of an existing
single-story residence, and the construction of a new,
two-story 2,523 sq. ft.

DR-18-12 10/04/2018 11/02/2018
(1 month)
Development Review for a new, two-story single family
residence (3,121 sq. ft.) with 4 bedrooms, 4.5 bathrooms and an attached two-car garage.

DR-18-16 01/07/2019 01/22/2019
(2 weeks)
Development Review for the demolition of an existing
attached garage structure and 2nd floor deck, to be
replaced with a new garage and 425 sq. ft. master
bedroom above. Interior work is limited to the 2nd floor master bedroom only
DR-19-03 06/26/2019
08/24/2020
(1 year 2
months) *

Development Review to construct a new two-story
residential unit (ADU) which consists of 1 bed, kitchen, family room, parlor and 2 baths. Total square footage is 1,196 sq. ft. Includes a new three car garage.
522

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-42 Table 3-17: Residential Project Entitlements
Application
Reference
Entitlement
Approval
Building Permit
Submittal Description
* The COVID-19 may have played a factor in delay of submitted plans. The City also had to adapt to taking in plans electronically.

Development Reviews
A Development Review is the processing of a development plan when authority is vested in the Planning Division. The following are subject to development review:
• Single-Story Residential Construction : In the R2 -MD, R2 -HD, and R3 zones, any single-story construction of 2 or fewer new single -story dwelling units. Exception: New single -story accessory buildings, such as garages or carports, single -story room additions, and other minor construction that comply with all applicable development standards shall not be subject to development review but shall be reviewed by the Planning Division.
• Two-Story Residential Construction : In the R2 -MD, R2 -HD, and R3 zones, any two -story construction on a lot where there are 2 or fewer dwelling units or any se cond-story addition on a lot with more than 2 dwelling units that complies with any residential design guidelines adopted by City Council.
• Construction of new buildings or additions to existing buildings in the AP, CL, C1, C2, C1-S, MG, or MP zones. However, building additions that do not exceed 2,000 square feet or 50 percent of the existing building area, whichever is less, and comply with all applicable development standards shall not be subject to development review.
• Lot Line Adjustments.
• Any other uses specified in the City’s Zoning Code as requiring development review.

Conditional Use Permits
A Conditional Use Permit requires a discretionary approval which is usually granted by the Planning Commission and allows a use or activity not allowed as a matter of right, based on specified findings.

C. Infrastructure Constraints
Another factor that may constrain new residential construction is the requirement and cost to provide adequate infrastructure (major and local streets; water and sewer lines; and street lighting) needed to serve new residential development. In most cases, where new infrastructur e is required, it is funded by the developer and then dedicated to the City, which is then responsible for its maintenance. Because the cost of these facilities is generally borne by developers, it increases the cost of new construction, with much of that increased cost often “passed on” as part of home rental or sales rates.

1. Water Supply
The Mesa Water District is responsible for providing safe, local, and reliable water to 110,000 customers in Costa Mesa, as well as some parts of Newport Beach and unincorporated areas of Orange County. Mesa 523

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-43 Water pumps water from Orange County’s groundwater basin, which is located beneath north- central Orange County between Irvine and the Los Angeles County border and from Yorba Linda to the Pacific Ocean. The groundwater basin derives its water from the Santa Ana River and imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Mesa Water does not depend on other water sources, however, water from Northern California and the Colorado River can be imported as necessary.

In addition to Mesa Water District, a small portion of the City to the east, south of the John Wayne Airport, receives its water from the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). Approximately 50 percent of the IRWD water supply is derived from the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The remaining amount comes from recycled water (23 percent) and potable water imported from MWD (27 percent).

2. Water Production
The independent specia l district pumps, treats, and delivers about 5 billion gallons of drinking water to homes and businesses per year. The system includes 317 miles of pipeline, 7 wells, 2 reservoirs and the Mesa Water Reliability Facility (MWRF/ “Murph”). The MWRF features 2 deep-water wells, a million-gallon reservoir and nanofiltration technology for water treatment. 1

3. Water Quality
Mesa Water provides safe, drinking water to the community and is considered the most efficient water provider of the 10 Orange County water di stricts. The water is naturally filtrated through sand and gravel as the Orange County groundwater basin is replenished from the Santa Ana River. Before it enters the distribution system, the water is treated and disinfected with chloramines, which include chlorine and ammonia. In addition to the groundwater, Mesa Water also uses source water from the MWRF, which is safe to drink prior to treatment but has an amber tint. Nanofiltration technology is used to remove the tint prior to adding it to the water supply. 1
In the event of an emergency, Mesa Water would be provided with water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), which sources its water from the State Water Project and the Colorado River.

The imported water is filtered at Metropolitan’s Diemer and Weymouth Filtration Plants where the water is also disinfected with chloramines.

According to Mesa Water District and the City of Costa Mesa Conservation Element, access to water does pose a constraint to the development of housing in the City. Mesa Water District has adopted and regularly updates an Urban Water Management Plan in order to ensure an adequate supply of water for the following 5 years, and the District continuously maintains the reservoir, water mains, and wells. Through continued community outreach and water conservation strategies, the City and the District are able to conserve more water than before – customers have reduced their water usage by 20 percent since 2015

2. 4. Wastewater

1 Mesa Water District
2 Mesa Water District
524

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-44 Wastewater includes used water, solids, storm water, surface water, groundwater infiltration, and used water from industrial processes, which flows to a treatment plant. Costa Mesa Sanitary District (CMSD) oversees 224.2 miles of gravity sewer mains and, as of 2019, a total of 47,471 connections to single-family residences, multi-family residences, commercial properties, and industrial properties. The District continuously cleans the collection system and uses closed circuit televising (CCTV) to identify problems and ensure quick maintenance. Twenty (20) sewer pumps are located throughout the collection system to maintain gravity flow and continuously report data to the headquarters. Standby generators and bypass pumps are also used in case of emergency. Wastewater collected by CMSD is sent to and treated at the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD)

3. Wastewater does not pose a constraint on the development of housing in the City. Given the sufficient infrastructure, access to services, and continuous maintenance, CMSD is confident it can continue to serve the Costa Mesa community through the addition of more housing. Furthermore, CMSD has developed a Sewer Management Plan which ensures the District avoids sewage spills and maintains adequate facilities.

5. Fire and Emergency Services
The City of Costa Mesa's Fire & Rescue Department aims to protect life, property, and the environment using highly trained professionals committed to service excellence. Across six fire stations and City Hall, the Department has 94 full-time employees, 84 sworn positions, ten non-sworn positions, and the equivalent of one full -time position with part- time staff to provide 24 -hour protection and response to the community's residents, businesses, and visitors. The Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department is an "all -risk" and “all-hazard” organization.

Fire Administration Division
The Fire Administration Division provides direction for strategic, operational, and emergency planning through the following:
• Establish policies and procedures;
• Coordinate internal functions of all divisions, programs, and external functions with other City departments and community organizations;
• Develop and manage the budget;
• Coordinate ordering and purchasing;
• Manage the Department's human resources;
• Coordinate additional functions and performs duties as delegated by the City Manager or the City Council;
• Continue to manage and safeguard the City’s rights for local control, including the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system, as expressly guaranteed by the Health & Safety Code Section 1797.201.

Operations Division

3 Costa Mesa Sanitary District
525

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-45 This Division manages Fire, Rescue, and Emergency Medical Services and maintains constant readiness to answer calls for assistance. The Division is tasked with responding to fire, rescue, and environmental emergencies that threaten life, health, and property. The Division also provides fire ca use and origin determinations, life and safety inspections, and educational programs. To support these services, the Division offers the following services: emergency planning, communications, training and education, equipment maintenance and repair, supplies, records, and quality control.

Community Risk Reduction Division
This Division works to prevent and reduce risks to the community by enforcing protections standards and fire and life safety codes through fire prevention, planning, and code enforcement. The Department achieves such goals by doing the following:
• Reviewing building construction plans;
• Conducting building construction and business inspections; • Investigating citizen complaints;
• Monitoring the City's hazardous materials disclosure program as Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) liaison to the Orange County Environmental Health Division; • Providing training to department personnel regarding fire and life safety codes; and • Assisting professional trades with technical fire code requirements a nd department public education efforts.

Community risk reduction and fire prevention strategies are critical components for new development projects and throughout the life of the building. During the entitlement and pre -construction phases of a new building or tenant improvement project, the CRR team applies the California Fire Code (CFC) and locally adopted amendments to building and fire system plan review to ensure conformance to state and international standards. Once plans are reviewed and approved and building permits are issued, Fire Protection Specialists perform technical inspections and acceptance tests of fire protection systems and building construction for Fire & Life Safety compliance. After the Certificate of Occupancy is issued for a new building or tenant improvement, Annual Operational Fire Permits are issued based on the hazard of the use, and Company Inspections are conducted to complete emergency response pre -planning operations and verify ongoing compliance with the CFC.

Fire and Emergency Services provide sufficient services which would not cause a strain on the Department's ability to respond to community emergencies. The City recognizes in its General Plan Safety Element that additional emergency services and funding will be required as the population ages and additional residents and employees come to the City; however, this is addressed and maintained in the Safety Element's goals and policies. The existing six facilities are spread out throughout the City in such a way to provide the fastest service possible; the Department aims to respond to at least 80 percent of emergency calls within 5 minutes. In addition, no part of Costa Mesa lies within a State Responsibility Area (SRA), which indicates a fire hazard area, nor the very High Fire Severity Zone

4. 4 Costa Mesa Safety Element
526

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-46

6. Police Services
The Police Department is tasked with protecting life and property while preserving the peace. As of 2020, the department has 215 full-time positions, of which 138 are sworn and 77 are professional staff. Full-time staffing is composed of 13 management positions, 32 supervisory, and 170 line -level positions. Part-time staffing consists of 21.21 full -time equivalents. The department is comprised of three divisions and each division is further split into bureaus and units.

The three divisions are as follows:
• Police Administration
• Police Field Operations
• Police Support Services
Administration Division
The Administration Division is responsible for the department's overall direction and planning with input from other divisions; provides advice to the city manager and the City Council on public safety issues; manages the department budget and financial planning; oversees the department's Volunteer Program and Citizens' Academy through the Crime Prevention Unit; maintains and updates the department's policy and procedures manual; coordinates and disseminates information to the media; provides internal investigation services through the Professional Standards Unit; and supervises training and recruitment.

Administration is comprised of the following bureaus and units:
• Professional Standards
• Public Affairs & Crime Prevention
• Training & Recruitment
• The Office of Emergency Management
(OEM)

Field Operations Division
The Field Operations Division provides public safety services through both geographic -based and community-oriented policing. In January 2008, the Costa Mesa Police Department (CMPD) implemented geographic-based policing, which divided the City into two areas, based upon calls for service and geographical boundaries. Each area is overseen by a lieutenant who is the designated area commander for either Area 1 or Area 2. The area commanders are responsible for the delivery of police services to the communities within the designated geographical area. Field Operations is comprised of three bureaus:
• Patrol Services
• Traffic Safety
• Field Operations Administration
Within the three bureaus, there are various specialized units that provide specific p olice services. They include Patrol, Traffic Safety, Community Policing Unit, South Coast Plaza Detail, K9 Unit, Reserve Program and Park Rangers.

Support Services Division
The Support Services Division is responsible for specialized investigations and provides essential logistical support services to the Police Department. It is responsible for computer-related activities associated with the 24-hour operation of the City’s public safety computer system; and responsible for the research and 527

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-47 development of numerous programs, including safety equipment, new laws and regulations, and policy development. Support Services is comprised of the following bureaus:
• Investigative Services Bur
• Records and Evidence
• Telecommunications

The City contracts with G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. for jail services and the City of Huntington Beach for airborne law enforcement services.

D. Environmental Constraints
The City of Costa Mesa contains a variety of natural landscapes and environmental features, which may cause constraints to the development of housing. The City is located approximately one mile from the Pacific Ocean, directly alongside the Santa Ana River, and atop an uplifted mesa. As with most of California cities, the City of Costa Mesa sits along major fault lines. In total, the City is susceptible to a variety of environmental hazards that could affect housing, including fires, flooding, and geological and s eismic hazards.

1. Geologic and Seismic Hazards
According to the Costa Mesa Safety Element of the General Plan, geologic risks are defined as those associated with geological hazards such as seismically induced surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, tsunamis, seiches and dam failure, and slope instability leading to mudslides, landslides, and subsidence. The specific geological hazards that may affect the development of housing the City are detail below.

2. Mineral Resources
The City is located over portions of the West Newport Oil Field, particularly on the west side. The Safety Element of the General Plan identifies 15 active oil wells located west of Irvine Avenue, east of the City boundary with Huntington Beach, north of 16th Street, and south of Baker Street. Another 132 oil wells exist in the City; however, they are either plugged and abandoned, idle, or buried.

In addition to oil, peat deposits have been found adjacent to the Santa Ana River. While the quantity does not justify extraction, it is an unstable base for construction and requires removal prior to development .

This may create a constraint to the development of housing as it creates additional costs to remove the peat deposits.

3. Seismic Hazards
The City of Costa Mesa is located near several active earthquake faults such as the Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone and the San Joaquin Hills Fault Zone, which would prove the most damaging to the City in the event of an earthquake. Other faults such as the San Andreas, Whittier, Elsinore, Palos Verdes, and Puente Hills Faults are located further away and would potentially cause less direct damage to the City’s infrastructure, depending on the magnitude of the quake. The Safety Element notes indirect impact to the 528

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-48 City resulting from a severe qua ke of one of these faults, particularly the San Andreas Fault, includes the need to provide aid, an infusion of households seeking housing, and mass care and sheltering services.

The General Plan Safety Element defines ground shak ing as resulting from seismic activity which may be intensified depending on the recorded magnitude and duration of the quake , proximity to the ruptured fault, and the presence of deeper soft soils below the ground surface. The Newport -Inglewood Fault runs directly through the City; the largest quake from this fault was in 1933 at a recorded magnitude of 6.3 on the Richter scale. The San Joaquin Hills Fault is located near Huntington Beach and it is estimated a rupture of this blind thrust fault could result in a magnitude 7.3 quake. The third most likely seismic hazard to the City of Costa Mesa is from the San Andreas Fault, which is expected to produce a magnitude 6.8 to 8 quake in the near future. While the fault is located approximately 48 miles from the City, a quake from the fault may result in simultaneous ruptures of nearby faults. The Safety Element notes a major earthquake occurs on this zone approximately every 145 years; 2002 marked 145 years since the last major rupture.

Given the extent of seismically active areas in California, any new residential structures will face potential hazards. The location of the City of Costa Mesa on relatively flat land improves enable it to provide a safer location for development in comparison to neighboring cities with steep slopes or along the Pacific Ocean.

Therefore, seismic activity in Costa Mesa does not create a burden or constraint to the development of housing.

4. Flood Hazards
The City of Costa Mesa and surrounding areas are, like most of Southern Californi a, subject to unpredictable seasonal rainfall , and every few years the region is subjected to periods of intense and sustained precipitation that result in flooding . Flooding can be a destructive natural hazard and is a recurring event. A flood is any relatively high streamflow overtopping the natural or artificial banks in any reach of a stream. The City of Costa Mesa’s Safety Element Identifies 100-year and 500-year flood zones in the City. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood zones are geographic areas that the FEMA has defined according to varying levels of flood risk. Each zone reflects the severity or type of flooding in the area.
5 The 100-year flood zone are areas with a one percent annual chance of flooding, the 500 -year flood zones are areas with a 0.2 percent annual chance of flooding. The City’s Safety Element cites 100 - year floods as potentially having low impacts on the City with minimal flooding in the channels adjacent to Talbert Nature Preserve. A 500 -year flood would pose flo oding dangers to the northern and western boundaries of the City.

With increased development, there is also an increase in impervious surfaces, such as asphalt. Water that used to be absorbed into the ground becomes runoff to downstream areas. However, various flood control measures help mitigate flood damage in the City, including reservoirs in the San Joaquin Hills and Santa Ana Mountain foothills, and channel alterations for the Santa Ana River. These structures help regulate flow in the Santa Ana River, San Diego Creek, and smaller streams and hold back some of the flow during intense rainfall period that could otherwise overwhelm the storm drain system in Costa Mesa.

5 FEMA Flood Zone Designations, Natural resources Conservation Service – Field Office Technical Guides 529

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-49 Figure 3-2 illustrates the flood zones within the City of Costa Mesa in relation to the proposed sites selected for future housing. There are two housing sites that are adjacent to a 100-year flood zone channel running between the two sites. The majority of the sites are located within the 500 -year flood zone. The 500-year flood zone is considered an area of minimal flood hazard and does not present a constraint on the development of housing as the sites are located within an existing developed context. Additionally, all housing sites are serviced by the City’s emergency services.

530

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-50 Figure 3-2: Flood Zones and Identified Sites Map

Sources: FEMA, Flood Zones SCAG, published by Southern California Association of Governments, 2019, accessed December 2021. 531

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-51

5. Dam Inundation
Costa Mesa and numerous other Orange County cities are protected from flooding by both the Santiago Creek Dam and the Prado Dam. The Santiago Creek Dam serves to protect from flooding of the Irvine Lake, approximately 15 miles from the City. While it historically provided irrigation for agriculture, the water is now protected within the reservoir and downstream flow only occurs from seepage and storm water. The Prado Dam is located approximately 30 miles from the City and is continuously improved and maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Recent improvements to the dam have added 190 years of protection.

However, should failure occur to either of the dams, flooding would likely occur in the northern and western portions of the City. Such a flood would cause varying degrees of damage to structures north of the San Diego Freeway (I-405) and up to approximately one-mile east of the Santa Ana River. The threat of flooding in these areas due to dam failure is a constraint on the development of housing.

6. Sea Level Rise
Sea level rise is an important consequence of anthropogenic climate change – resulting from human activity – to coastal communities. Sea level rise may affect Costa Mesa through flooding in low-lying areas, water infiltration into sanitary sewer an d storm drain systems, and earthquake -induced tsunami flooding. The City’s location along the Santa Ana River places it at risk of these impacts; the City’s Safety Element identifies areas to the west of the City, near Talbert Regional Park and Fairview Park, that will become inundated by unimpeded Pacific coastal flooding under a scenario of 100-year flood with a 55-inch (1.4 meters) sea level rise. A 100-year flood risk does not pose significant risk to developments in the City and would likely result in flooding within the channels adjacent to the Talbert Nature Preserve; however, a 500 -year flood event would cause significant flooding in the northern and west regions of the City and therefore poses a minimal constraint on housing development. The potenti al hazard is minimal as the chances of a 500 -year floor occurring each year is 0.2 percent.

7. Fire Hazards
The Costa Mesa Safety Element determines the fire hazard severity of an area by the amount and type of vegetation, slope gradient, and weather. Wildfires are particularly prone during late summer and early fall, and during Santa Ana wind events. The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) does not list any area within Costa Mesa as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The most likely fire risk within the City comes from urban and grassland fires in open spaces, such as Talbert Regional Park. A direct threat from fire is not a significant risk for housing development in Costa Mesa; poor air quality from local and State fires, however, may pose significant health risks to the Costa Mesa population.

Figure 3-3 maps the fire hazard severity zones identified within the City in relation to the proposed sites for future housing. Based on the map there are no fire hazard severity zones within the City of Costa Mesa. As there are no fire hazard severity zones identified within the City, fire is not considered a major hazard or constraint to the development of housing.

532

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-52 Figure 3-3: Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Proposed Sites

Source: VHFHSV in LRA, Cal Fire, November 2011.
533

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-53 E. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Beginning January 1, 2019, AB 686 established new requirements for all California jurisdictions to ensure that local laws, programs, and activities affirmatively further fair housing. All Housing Elements due on or after January 1, 2021 must contain an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) consistent with the core elements of the analysis required by the federal Affirmatively Further Fair Housing Final Rule of July 16, 2015.

Fair housing is a condition in which individuals of similar income levels in the same housing market have like ranges of choice available to them regardless of race, color, ancestry, national origin, age, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, source of income, sexual orientation, or any other arbitrary factor.

Under State law, affirmatively furt her fair housing means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. T hese characteristics can include, but are not limited to race, religion, sec, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familiar status, or disability.

The Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (Impediments Analysis), prepared for the County of Orange, examines local housing conditions, economics, policies, and practices in order to ensure that housing choices and opportunities for all residents are available in an environment free from discrimination. The (Impediments Analysis) assembles fair housing information, identifies any existing impediments that limit housing choice, and proposes actions to mitigate those impediments. The Regional (Impediments Analysis) examines fair housing issues in the County’s unincorporated areas and cooperating cities from 2020 to 2024, it includes additional fair housing issues and data for the City of Costa Mesa.

1. Needs Assessment
The (Impediments Analysis) contains a Countywide analysis of demographic, housing, and specifically fair housing issues in the City of Costa Mesa. The City's demographic and income profile, household and housing characteristics, housing cost and availability, and special needs populations were discussed in the previous Chapter 2: Community Profile.

Analysis of Impediments Outreach FY 2019-2024
As a part of the Regional Analysis for the County, a series of outreach workshops and events were hosted, including the following:
• Outreach b y the Lawyers’ Committee to tenants, landlords, homeowners, fair housing organizations, civil rights and advocacy organizations, legal services provers, social services providers, housing developers, and industry groups;
• Stakeholder and focus group meetings organized by the Lawyers’ Committee in Mission Viejo, Westminster/Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Fullerton;
• Community meetings across Orange County with additional outreach to members of protected classes, including the Latino and Vietnamese communities; and • Virtual public hearings and City Council meetings.
534

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-54 Fair Housing Issues
Within the legal framework of federal and state laws and based on the guidance provided by the HUD Fair Housing Planning Guide, impediments to fair housing choice can be defined as:
• Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of age, race, color, ancestry, national origin, age, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, source of income, sexual orientation, or any other arbitrary factor which restrict housing choices or the availability of housing choices; or • Any actions, omissions, or decisions which have the effect of restricting housing choices or the availability of housing choices on the basis of age, race, color, ancestry, national origin, age, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, s ource of income, sexual orientation, or any other arbitrary factor.

As a part of the 2019-2024 AI, the County identified fair housing impediments including the following:
• Housing Discrimination • Racial and Ethnic Segregation • Reasonable Accommodations • Unfair Lending
• Density Bonus Incentive • Discriminatory Advertising
• Zoning • Cost Burden
• Affordable Homeownership • Accessibility
Local Contributing Factors
Of the fair housing impediments listed in the Regional AI, the City of Costa Mesa was identified as experiencing the following local contributing factors as impediments to fair housing choice:
• Housing Discrimination
• Racial and Ethnic Segregation
• Unfair Lending
• Overcrowding
Local contributing factors are detailed further below in Section E.4 “Assessment of Contributing Factors to Fair Housing”.

Lending Patterns
Availability of financing affects a person’s ability to purchase or improve a home. The analysis of the lending patterns and practices within a community or city help to identify persons who are regularly experience disproportionate roadblocks to home ownership. Table 3-18 below identifies the lending patterns by race and ethnicity, as well as income category for the Anaheim -Santa Ana-Irvine MSA. According to the data, applicant in the highest income category were more likely to have a loan approved, compared to applicants in the lower inco me categories where approval rates were consistently under 55 percent. Additionally, within each income category, applicants who identified as White consistently had higher rates of approval than applicant of color. Overall, applicants who identified as Native Hawaiian /Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native , and Black/African American had the lowest rates of loan approval in all income categories.
535

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-55 Table 3-18: Disposition of Loan Applications by Race/Ethnicity– Anaheim-Santa Ana-Irvine MSA Applications by Race/Ethnicity Percent
Approved
Percent
Denied
Percent
Other
Total
(Count)
LESS THAN 50% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 26.2% 52.3% 23.1% 65
Asian 33.9% 42.5% 26.7% 1,382
Black or African American 41.6% 33.7% 25.8% 89
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 25.0% 44.2% 30.8% 52 White 45.6% 31.2% 26.1% 5,240
Hispanic or Latino 37.9% 38.2% 26.8% 1,566
50-79% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 38.1% 34.0% 29.9% 97
Asian 53.3% 25.3% 29.4% 3,153
Black or African American 43.4% 19.1% 41.4% 152
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 49.4% 39.8% 16.9% 83 White 54.5% 23.3% 27.6% 8,677
Hispanic or Latino 47.6% 27.7% 29.3% 3,245
80-99% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 51.4% 25.7% 31.4% 35
Asian 59.5% 19.2% 29.3% 1,495
Black or African American 52.9% 22.1% 30.9% 68
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 43.5% 13.0% 43.5% 23 White 61.9% 17.2% 26.1% 3,873
Hispanic or Latino 54.0% 21.4% 29.1% 1,347
100-119% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 48.9% 22.7% 29.5% 88
Asian 62.3% 15.6% 28.8% 4,820
Black or African American 55.6% 20.1% 28.6% 234
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 49.4% 27.6% 31.0% 87 White 66.2% 13.8% 25.1% 12,607
Hispanic or Latino 60.8% 16.4% 26.8% 3,398
120% OR MORE OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 59.2% 13.0% 32.0% 169 Asian 62.8% 12.9% 29.0% 17,800
Black or African American 57.7% 17.3% 27.2% 624
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 64.2% 11.4% 26.8% 254 White 68.3% 11.3% 24.9% 49,811
Hispanic or Latino 64.6% 13.3% 26.7% 6,095
Source: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Disposition of loan applications, by Ethnicity/Race of applicant, 2019.

536

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-56 Hate Crimes
Hate crimes are violent acts against people, property, or organizations because of the group to which they belong or identify with. The Federal Fair Housing Act makes it illegal to threaten, harass, intimidate, or act violently toward a person who has exercised their right to free housing choice. In Orange County, there were a total of 9 hate crimes reported in 2019.

Table 3-19 below identifies the reported hate crimes in Costa Mesa between 2014 and 2019. Data for hate crimes reported in Costa Mesa was not available by bias for the years 2014-2016 and 2018. However, in 2017 and 2019 a total of 5 hate crimes were reported in the City, all of which were motivated by race, ethnicity, or ancestry.

Table 3-19: Reported Hate Crimes by Bias Motivation for City of Costa Mesa (2014-2019) Year Race/Ethnicity/
Ancestry Religion Sexual
Orientation Disability Gender Gender
Identity Total
2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0
2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0
2016 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0
2017 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
2018 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0
2019 3 0 0 0 0 0 3
2020 7 0 1 0 0 0 8
Total 12 0 1 0 0 0 13
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reporting. Hate Crime Statistics Report, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019.

Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
The City of Costa Mesa utilizes the Fair Housing Foundation. The Fair Housing Foundation was formed in 1964 to support and promote freedom of residence through education, advocacy, and litigation, to ensure that all persons have the opportunity to secure safe and decent housing that they desire and can afford.

The Fair Housing Foundation is dedicated to eliminating discrimination in housing and promoting equal access to housing choices for everyone.

The City of Costa Mesa has identified the following goals regarding fair housing in collaboration with the Fair Housing Foundation:
• Provide fair housing education and information to apartment managers and homeowner associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful. • Conduct multi-faceted fair housing outreach to tenants, landlords, property owners, realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include workshops, informational booths, presentations to com munity groups, and distribution of multi -lingual fair housing literature.

537

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-57

2. Analysis of Federal, State, and Local Data and Local Knowledge Summary of Local Data
As a part of the Housing Element Update for 2021-2029, the City of Costa Mesa implemented a thorough and expansive outreach program. The program intended to gather a deeper understanding of housing concerns and issues, challenges, and opportunities to housing, and gain insight and feedback from residents and the community on ho using in Costa Mesa . As a part of the outreach program, the City hosted the following:
• Virtual townhall community meeting #1 – November 18, 2020 • Online community survey – November 19, 2020
• Subject matter expert meetings – February 9-11, 2021
• District specific meetings – February 18 and 18, 2021 • Targeted focus group meetings – throughout the update 202-2021 • Virtual townhall community meeting #2 – September 2, 2021 During the outreach program the City gathered input and ideas from the public. Key feedback or concerns related to fair housing, which were identified during engagement, include the following:
• Accessory Units should be affordable to lower income households • The City needs more housing
• There should be more bike lanes to support active transportation • Housing should be focused on increasing quality of life for residents • More education about affordable housing to increase public awareness and public opinion • Need supportive services along with housing
• Overcrowding often occurs and there need to be opportunity for multigenerational living • Senior housing should be prioritized, followed by housing for persons with disabilities • More affordable housing near transit and jobs
• Overall need for more affordable housing for residents of Costa Mesa, both for renters and owners In addition to the fair housing and housing accessibility related concerns, a large percentage of residents were not interested in increasing the housing stock in Costa Mesa. Many residents identified a desire and interest to keep Costa Mesa lower density for single-family homes, a disinterest in ADUs and objections to growth in affordable housing stock.

Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends
The dissimilarity index is the most used measure of segregation between two groups, reflecting their relative distributions across neighborhoods (as defined by census tracts). The index represents the percentage of the minority group that would have to move to new neighborhoods to achieve perfect integration of that group. An index score can range in value from 0 percent, indicating complete integration, to 100 percent, indicating complete segregation. An index number above 60 is considered to show high similarity and a segregated community.

It is important to note that segregation is a complex topic, difficult to generalize, and is influenced by many factors. Individual choices can be a cause of segregation, with some residents choosing to live among 538

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-58 people of their own race or ethnic group. For instance, recent immigrants often depend on nearby relatives, friends, and ethnic institutions to help them adjust to a new country.6 Alternatively, when white residents leave neighborhoods that become more diverse, those neighborhoods can become segregated. Other factors, including housing market dynamics, availability of lending to different ethnic groups, availability of affordable housing, and discrimination can also cause residential segregation.

Figure 3-4 shows the dissimilarity between each of the identified race and ethnic groups and Costa Mesa’s White population. The White population within Costa Mesa makes up the majority of the City’s population at approximately 71 percent according to 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) estimates.

The higher scores shown in the figure below, directly indicate higher levels of segregation among those race and ethnic groups. The race and ethnic groups with the high scores were Native Hawaiian (52.4 percent) and Hispanic (51.8 percent). These scores correlate directly with the percentage of people within that racial or ethnic group that would need to move into a predominantly W hite census tract in order to achieve a more integrated community. For instance, 52.4 percent of the Native Hawaiian population would need to move into predominantly White census tract areas to achieve “perfect” integration, or 51.8 percent of the Hispanic population would need to move into predominantly White census tract areas for perfect integration.

As indicated above, a score of 60 or higher indicates a highly similar and segregated area. The City does not have any racial or ethnic groups with scores higher than 60. However, scores above 30 indicate moderate levels of segregation. It is importa nt to note the areas where moderate segregation occurs in order for Costa Mesa to understand any additional disparities in access to opportunities or housing, as well as identify lack of resources for the communities. In the City of Costa Mesa, all racial and ethnic groups, except for those who identify as two or more races, show a score of 30 or greater dissimilarity index. The City of Costa Mesa is committed to furthering fair housing access and increasing fair housing opportunities to communities of color.

6 Allen, James P. and Turner, Eugene. “Changing Faces, Changing Places: Mapping Southern California”. California State University, Northridge, (2002).
539

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-59 Figure 3-4: Dissimilarity Index with White Population in Costa Mesa

Source: Census Scope, Social Science Data Analysis Network Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) To assist communities in identifying racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), HUD has developed a census tract-based definition of R/ECAPs. The definition involves a racial/ethnic concentration threshold and a poverty test. The racial/ethnic concentration threshold is stra ightforward: RECAPs must have a non-white population of 50 percent or more. Regarding the poverty threshold, Wilson (1980) defines neighborhoods of extreme poverty as census tracts with 40 percent or more of individuals living at or below the poverty line. Because overall poverty levels are substantially lower in many parts of the country, HUD supplements this with an alternate criterion. Thus, a neighborhood can be a R/ECAP if it has a poverty rate that exceeds 40% or is three or more times the average tra ct poverty rate for the metropolitan/micropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower.

Location of residence can have a substantial effect on mental and physical health, education opportunities, and economic opportunities. Urban areas that are more residentially segregated by race and income tend to have lower levels of upward economic mobility than other areas. Research has found that racial inequality is thus amplified by residential segregation. However, these areas may also provide different opportunities, such as ethnic enclaves providing proximity to centers of cultural significance, or business, social networks, and communities to help immigrants preserve cultural identify and establish themselves in new places. Overall, it is important to study and identify these areas in order to understand patterns of segregation and poverty in a City.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Hispanic
Two or More Races
Other
Native Hawaiian
Asian
American Indian
Black
Hispanic
Two or
More
Races
Other Native
Hawaiian Asian American
Indian Black
Dissimilarity Index with Whites 51.8% 19.4% 36.7% 52.4% 36.3% 31.0% 35.9% 540

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-60 Figure 3-5 below displays the R/ECAP analysis of the Costa Mesa area. The low poverty index captures the depth and intensity of poverty in a given neighborhood. The index uses both family poverty rates and public assistance receipt, in the form of cash -welfare, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

The poverty rate and public assistance for neighborhoods are determined at the census tract level, and the higher the score, the less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood. HUD provides data for the entire Orange County region, and not Costa Mesa specific, as shown in the map. Figure 3-5a shows that Costa Mesa has a pocket of concentrated Hispanic population towards the southern central region of the City. The eastern region of the City is shown to be mostly made up of concentrated White, Non-Hispanic, population. There is also a minor concentration of Hispanic and Native American, Non- Hispanic, populations in the SoBECA area of Northern Costa Mesa.

While there are no R/ECAP areas within the City, Figure 3 -5a shows one in the nearby City of Irvine surrounding the University of California – Irvine campus. According to the AI, it is likely that they qualify as R/ECAPs due to the high proportions of students. In addition, the figure shows a large concentration of Hispanic population directly north of Costa Mesa in the City of Santa Ana. The City of Costa Mesa is committed to increasing housing mobility opportunities for persons outside of the City and in Orange County as a whole. Chapter 4: Housing Plan of this Housing Element outlines housing opportunity, affordable housing, and fair housing strategies to increase opportunities to all households.

Additionally, Figure 3-5b displays the data for TCAC areas of high segregation and poverty. The maps shows that there is one census tract that is designated as high segregation and poverty (census tract:
06059063605). Areas that are identified as high segregation and poverty are consistent with the standards for both poverty (30% of the population below the federal poverty line) and racial segregation (overrepresentation of people of color relative to the county).

Census tract 06059063605 is generally located in the southwestern portion of the City. This tract contains 3 different Costa Mesa Districts - Districts 4, 5, and 6. The zoning designations within this tract is majority industrial (MG, General Industrial) and high density residential (R2-HD and R3), with commercial corridors along Newport Boulevard and 19th Street. The general Westside area also has 3 adopted urban plans, which do not change the underlying zoning of the property but allows for the development of live/work units and/or residential development. Since the adoption of the urban plans in 2006, the City has approved 541 newly constructed units, which includes the subject census tract.

541

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3- 61 Figure 3-5a: R/ECAP Areas, City of Costa Mesa

Source: HUD Affirmitaevly Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool, Data Versions: AFFHT0006, April 28, 2021 542

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-62 Figure 3-5b: TCAC Area of High Segregation and Poverty

543

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-63 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty have long been analyzed and reviewed as a contributing factor to segregation. However, patterns of segre gation in the United States show that of all racial groups, the White population is the most severely insulated (separated from other racial groups). 7 Research also identifies segregation of affluence to be greater than the segregation of poverty. Racial and economic segregation can have significant effects on respective communities, including but not limited to, socioeconomic disparities, educational experiences and benefits, exposure to environmental conditions and crime, and access to public goods and services.

Data used in the analysis of Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA) is from the 2012 -2016 American Community Survey and measured at the census track level. The definition for an RCAA is a census tract in which 80 percent or more of the population is White and has a median income of at least $125,000.

The nationwide RCAA analysis identifies the following:
• RCAA tracts have more than twice the median household income of the average tract in their metro area.
• Poverty rates in RCAAs are significantly lower and are, on average about 20 percent of a typical tract.
• RCAAs tracts are more income homogenous than R/ECAPs. • The average RCAA is about 57 percent affluent, whereas the average R/ECAP had a poverty rate of 48 percent.
• The typical RCAA tract has a rate of affluence 3.2 times that of a typical tract, whereas R/ECAPs on average had a poverty rate 3.2 times that of a typical tract.

Overall, RCCAs may represent a public policy issue to the extent that they have been created and maintained through exclusionary and discriminatory land use and development practices. Postwar patterns of suburbanization in many metropolitan areas were characterized by White communities erecting barriers to affordable housing and engaging in racially exclusionary practices.

Figure 3-6 shows that a few portions
of the City of Costa Mesa have large White populations – predominantly towards the easter region of the City and the north-western region. The region to the east of the 55 Freeway in particular reports a large majority White population, as well as an area on the western edge just southern of the 405 Freeway . An RCCA is identified when an area has a majority White population and a median income greater than $125,000. Figure 3-7 shows the majority White areas identified in Figure 3-6 overlap with median incomes greater than $125,000; therefore, the City of Costa Mesa does have a few racially or ethnically concentrated area of affluence. Table 3-20 displays the RCAAs for Costa Mesa, and Table 3-21 shows local (Costa Mesa) and regional (Orange County) context for the median household incomes of White residents.

7 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation. University of Minnesota. Edwards Goets, Damiano, Williams. 2019.
544

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-64 Figure 3-6: RCAA – White Majority Population, Costa Mesa

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 545

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-65 Figure 3-7: RCAA – Median Income

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 546

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-66 Table 3-20: RCCAs - Median Household Income by Race by Block Group, Costa Mesa Block Group Percent Population White Median Income
Block Group 2, Census Tract 638.05 72.8% $137,000
Block Group 2, Census Tract 638.06 71.37% $153,056
Block Group 3, Census Tract 638.06 71.37% $131,500
Block Group 2, Census Tract 638.02 73.1% $129.265
Block Group 2, Census Tract 631.02 77.53% $125,159
Block Group 1, Census Tract 631.03 84.68% $133,875
Block Group 4, Census Tract 632.02 74.63% $126,813
Block Group 3, Census Tract 632.02 74.63% $161,442
Block Group 4, Census Tract 633.02 83.19% $134,605
Block Group 3, Census Tract 633.02 83.19% $136,985
Source: (U.S. Census Bureau) from HCD AFFH Data Viewer, Accessed September 27, 2021.

Table 3-21: RCCAs - Median Household Income by Race, Costa Mesa and Orange County Race Costa Mesa Orange County
Median Income Population Median Income Population
White $85,9771 71% $94,0821 61%
All Households $84,138 -- $90,234 --
Notes: 1. Median income in the past 12 months (in 2019 inflation-adjusted dollars) Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

Disparities in Access to Opportunity
The UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank partnered to develop the Regional Opportunity Index (ROI) intended to help communities understand local social and economic opportunities. The goal of the ROI is to help target resources and policies toward people and places with the greatest need to foster thriving communities. The ROI incorporates both “people” and “place components, integrating economic, infrastructure, environmental, and social indicators into a comprehensive assessment of the factors driving opportunity.”
The ROI: People is a relative measure of people's assets in education, the economy, housing, mobility/transportation, health/environment, and civic life as follows:
• Education Opportunity: Assesses people’s relative success in gaining educational assets, in the form of a higher education, elementary school achievement, and regular elementary school attendance. • Economic Opportunity: Measures the relative economic well-being of the people in a community, in the form of employment and income level.
• Housing Opportunity: Measures the relative residential stability of a community, in the form of homeownership and housing costs.
• Mobility/Transportation Opportunity: Contains indicators tha t assess a community’s relative opportunities for overcoming rural isolation.
• Health/Environment Opportunity: Measures the relative health outcomes of the people within a community, in the form of infant and teen health and general health. • Civic Life Oppor tunity: A relative social and political engagement of an area, in the form of households that speak English and voter turnout.
547

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-67 The ROI: Place is a relative measure of an area's assets in education, the economy, housing, mobility/transportation, health/environment, and civic life. • Education Opportunity : Assesses a census tract's relative ability to provide educational opportunity, in the form of high- quality schools that meet the basic educational and social needs of the population.
• Economic Opportunity: Measures the relative economic climate of a community, in the form of access to employment and business climate.
• Housing Opportunity : Measures relative availability of housing in a community, in the form of housing sufficiency and housing affordability.
• Health/Environment Opportunity: A relative measure of how well communities meet the health needs of their constituents, in the form of access to health care and other health- related environments.
• Civic Life Opportunity: Measures the relative social and political stability of an area, in the form of neighborhood stability (living in same residence for one year) and US citizenship.

Figure 3-8 shows the ROI: People classifications throughout the City, the “ROI: People” data identifies the achievement levels that persons living within these census tracts have attained. As the figure shows, classifications vary greatly throughout Costa Mesa. The City has areas of high opportunity to the west and east of the City, but also has areas classified as the low opportunity in the southern and central regions of the City. Persons living in the areas identified as low opportunity “people” are considered to have low achievement opportunities for economic, health, and housing. The figure shows one census tract, identified as
Inset B, where the general attainment for education, transportation, housing, economic opportunity, or jobs was low the residents living in this tract. Further analysis shows the census tract, identified as Inset A, has overall very low levers of education, economic, housing, transportation, and civic life attainment among residents. Low attainment levels may project generational poverty, lower levels of upward mobility, and increased challenges accessing essential resources and opportunities. Increase housing opportunities and access, specifically affordable housing, in this area can provide stability, safety, and important resources to a community. The City of Costa Mesa has identified portions of this area to accommod ate future growth for low and very low-income housing.

Figure 3-9 displays opportunities provided within each census tracts. The map shows that most of the City is classified as high opportunity. High opportunity areas mean that individual census tracts provide the necessary and essential resources for housing, economic or job opportunity, quality education and educational services, safe and affordable transportation, and quality civic and environmental life. Utilizing areas which provide important and essential resources, to increase housing opportunities can help to break cycles of poverty and increase overall community health. The City of Costa Mesa has identified housing opportunity sites to accommodate the RHNA in a variety of high opportunity areas. 548

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3- 68 Figure 3-8: Regional Opportunity Index, People – City of Costa Mesa

Source: UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank, 2014.

Inset A
Inset B
549

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3- 69 Figure 3-9: Regional Opportunity Index, Place – City of Costa Mesa

Source: UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank, 2014. 550

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-70 Additionally, Table 3-22 and Figure 3-10 below display the data for Regional Opportunity Index in Costa Mesa overall compared to the State of California. The data shows the following key findings:
• Costa Mesa residents reportedly have lower math and English proficiency levels; however, they have higher rates of college education, high school graduation, UC/CSU eligibility. • The economic conditions in Costa Mesa are high. There is a higher rate of high -quality employment amongst residents and higher minimum basic income than the State. There are many jobs available, and that trend continues to increase. • Costa Mesa households are predominantly renter households. Housing adequacy is the same for the City and the State, but homes in Costa Mesa are reportedly less affordable. • The City reports high rates of available vehicles per household, as well as commute time. Costa Mesa residents spend more time traveling to and from work than residents across the State. • Despite lower air quality reports, Costa Mesa residents have high access to medical and health care, as well as access to supermarkets.
• Costa Mesa residents have high rates of English fluency, despite slightly lower rates of citizenship.

Table 3-22: Opportunity Indicators, Costa Mesa and California ROI Indicator Costa Mesa California
Education
People
College Educated Adults 45% 38%
Math Proficiency 67% 70%
English Proficiency 63% 65%
Elementary Truancy 24% 24%
Place
High School Graduation Rate 93% 83%
UC/CSU Eligibility 53% 41%
Teacher Experience 66% 36%
High School Discipline Rate 8% 6%
Economic
People
Employment Rate 92% 89%
Minimum Basic Income 66% 64%
Place
Job Availability 1291.12 701.75
Job Quality 50% 40%
Job Growth 4% 3%
Bank Accessibility 0.38 0.24
Housing
People
Home Ownership 39% 55%
Housing Cost Burden 50% 52%
Place
Housing Adequacy 91% 91%
Housing Affordability 0.14 0.19
M
o
People
551

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-71 Table 3-22: Opportunity Indicators, Costa Mesa and California ROI Indicator Costa Mesa California
Vehicle Availability 88% 86%
Commute Time 73% 60%
Internet Access 4.81 4
Health/Environmental
Place
Infant Health 96% 95%
Birth to Teens 5% 7%
Years of Life Lost 25.68 29.84
Place
Air Quality 9.35 10.01
Prenatal Care 91% 83%
Access to Supermarket 65% 53%
Health Care Availability 3.63 1.76
Civic Life
People
Voting Rates 27% 31%
English Speakers 91% 88%
Place
US Citizenship 81% 83%
Neighborhood Stability 83% 85%
Source: UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank, 2014.

Figure 3-10: Regional Opportunity Index, Costa Mesa and California

Source: UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank, 2014.

Educati
on:

People
Econo
my:

People
Housin
g:

People
Mobilit
y/Trans
:

People
Health/
Env:

People
Civic
Life:

People
Educati
on:

Place
Econo
my:

Place
Housin
g:

Place
Health/
Env:

Place
Civic
Life:

Place
Statewide Average 52.95 68.74 56.26 74.02 94.31 53.7 52.68 14.77 55.19 36.73 80.19 City of Costa Mesa 54.44 72.78 46.85 83.51 95.51 51.87 69.51 20.83 45.61 55.11 78.24 0 20
40 60
80 100
120
552

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-72 California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) Opportunity Area Maps The Department of Housing and Community Development together with the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee established the California Fair Housing Task Force to provide research, evidence- based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals (as defined by HCD). The Task force developed the TCAC/HCD O pportunity Area Maps to understand how public and private resources are spatially distributed. The Task force defines opportunities as pathways to better lives, including health, education, and employment. Overall, opportunity maps are intended to display which areas, according to research, offer low -income children and adults the best chance at economic advancement, high educational attainment, and good physical and mental health.

According to the Task Force’s methodology, the tool allocates the 20 percent of the tracts in each region with the highest relative index scores to the “Highest Resource” designation and the next 20 percent to the “High Resource” designation. Each region then ends up with 40 percent of its total tracts as “Highest” or “High” resource. These two categories are intended to help State decision-makers identify tracts within each region that the research suggests low -income families are most likely to thrive, and where they typically do not have the option to live —but might, if given the choice. As shown in Figure
3-11 below, much of Costa Mesa is classified moderate to high resource areas with pockets of low resource areas in the south west region of the City. Costa Mesa has one area classified as high segregation and poverty in the southern area of the City. The City of Costa Mesa i s committed to exploring programs and avenues to increase housing access and opportunity to both existing residents, future residents, and households in nearby areas.

Figure 3-11: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map – Costa Mesa Area

Source: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and Department of Housing and Community Development, 2021. 553

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-73 Figure 3-12: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map – Costa Mesa Area

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 554

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-74 Opportunity Areas – Education
The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Maps include education data , as illustrated in Figure 3 -12. This data represents opportunity levels based on the following four factors:
• Math proficiency – Percentage of 4th graders who meet or exceed math proficiency standards. • Reading proficiency – Percentage of 4th graders who meet or exceed literacy standards. • High school graduation rates – Percentage of high school cohort that graduated on time. • Student poverty rate – Percentage of students not receiving free or reduced-price lunch.

As Figure 3-12 shows, the City has a variety of education outcome scores. The more positive education outcomes are located over East Side Costa Mesa, east of the 55 Freeway, as well as over the neighborhoods south of the 405-freeway and in the center of the City. The area of the City west of Harbor Boulevard and north of Fairview Park are rated moderate for educational outcomes. West Side Costa Mesa in the City’s south-western region has the lowest educational outcome.

Title 1 schools receive additional government funding to assist their a lower-income student base who are at risk of falling behind. Within Newport- Mesa Unified School District, there are a total of 10 elementary schools, 2 middle schools, and 2 high schools. The following 3 elementary schools are Title 1 schools: Davis Elementary School, Heinz Kaiser Elementary School, and Woodland Elementary School. Davis Elementary School is located in the center of Costa Mesa just north of the OC Fair and Heinz Kaiser and Woodland Elementary Schools are both located in East Side Costa Mesa between the 55 Freeway and the Upper Newport Bay State Marine Conservation Area.

Opportunity Indicators
Opportunity indicators also help inform communities about disparities in access to opportunity. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) developed the opportunity indicators to help inform communities about disparities in access to opportunity, the scores are based on nationally available data sources and assess resident’s access to key opportunity assets in the City.

Table 3-23 provides the
index scores (ranging from zero to 100) for the following opportunity indicator indices:
• Low Poverty Index: The low poverty index captures poverty in a given neighborhood. The poverty rate is determined at the census tract level. The higher the score, the less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood.
• School Proficiency Index: The school proficiency index uses school-level data on the performance of 4th grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods have high- performing elementary schools nearby and which are near lower performing elementary schools. The higher the score, the higher the school system quality is in a neighborhood. • Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the score, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood.
• Transit Trips Index: This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a three -person single -parent family with income at 50% of the median 555

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-75 income for renters for the region (i.e. the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA)). The higher the transit trips index, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit. • Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a three -person single -parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. The higher the index, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.
• Jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a region/CBSA, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood. • Environmental Health Index: The environmental health index summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block-group.

Table 3 -23 below displays the opportunity indices by race and ethnicity for persons in Costa Mesa.

According to the data, there is some poverty among the population of Costa Mesa, across all racial/ethnic groups. There are higher levels of poverty among the Hispanic and Native American populations. All racial/ethnic groups in Costa Mesa experience levels of environmental health below 50, meaning all residents are exposed to a higher degree of environmental pollutants. Otherwise, the data shows the City has high marks for school proficiency, labor market, transit, transportation cost, and job proximity.

Table 3-23: Opportunity Indicators, City of Costa Mesa
(Costa Mesa,

CA CDBG)
Jurisdiction
Low
Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor
Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-
Hispanic 60.10 72.71 73.56 89.69 81.33 83.04 28.03
Black, Non-
Hispanic 55.04 70.24 69.80 90.47 83.27 83.47 25.72
Hispanic 40.06 60.53 56.72 90.42 83.05 78.57 30.24
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-
Hispanic

61.51 71.28 73.20 90.57 82.88 87.44 22.65
Native
American,
Non-Hispanic

53.54 70.81 68.03 90.49 82.74 81.69 28.26
Population Below Federal Poverty Line
White, Non-
Hispanic 53.85 69.80 68.91 90.07 82.43 80.51 28.58
Black, Non-
Hispanic 61.70 78.78 82.00 91.46 84.89 87.37 19.50
Hispanic 33.36 56.69 51.57 90.56 83.60 78.70 31.40
556

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-76 Table 3-23: Opportunity Indicators, City of Costa Mesa
(Costa Mesa,

55.36 71.81 73.29 90.38 83.08 84.52 24.46
Native
American,
Non-Hispanic

50.53 67.96 56.06 91.85 77.66 85.70 19.03
Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Online Mapping tool, Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; NATA

Access to Transit
Transit explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. According to the data provided, Costa Mesa scored a 5.4 AllTransit performance score, illustrating a moderate combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible that enable a moderate number of people to take transit to work. In comparison to neighboring cities – Huntington Beach scores a 4.4, Irvine scored a 3.6, Santa Ana scored a 6.6, and Newport Beach scored a 3.9. Access to transportation increases both the economic and environmental/health opportunities. Additionally, AllTransit provides the following data for Costa Mesa transportation:
• 98.8% of jobs are located within ½ of transit.
• 99,721 customer households have access to a business within a 30-minute transit commute. • 2.29% of workers walk to work and 1.43% bike to work
• There are no households within a ½ miles of high frequency transit.

On average, there are 6 transit routes within ½ of a block group on average.

Table 3-24: Opportunity Indicator – Transit
Jurisdiction
AllTransit
Performance
Score
Transit Trips Per
Week within
1/2 Mile
Jobs Accessible
in 30-min trip
Commuters Who
Use Transit
Transit Routes
within 1/2 Mile
Costa Mesa 5.4 837 292,009 2.55% 6
Orange
County 4.2 528 172,595 2.28% 4
Source: AllTransit Fact Sheet, Costa Mesa, 2021.

557

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-77 Figure 3-13: All Transit Performance Score – Costa Mesa

Source: AllTransit Fact Sheet, 2021.

Environmental Justice
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) developed a screening methodology to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution called the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviro Screen). In addition to environmental factors (pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic sites, and hazardous materials exposure) and sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low birth weight infants), CalEnviro Screen also takes into consideration socioeconomic factors. These factors include educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment. Research has shown a heightened vulnerability of people of color and lower socioeconomic status to environmental pollutants.

Figure 3-14
below displays mapped results for the CalEnviro Screen in Costa Mesa and the Orange County region. The map shows that Costa Mesa is primarily moderate -scoring, with a few low- scoring census tracts and a couple high-scoring census tracts. High scores signify high levels of pollution burdens and low scores signify low levels of pollution. Table 3-25 and 3-26 below identifies the CalEnviro Screen scores for the highest and lowest scoring census tracts in Costa Mesa, respectively.

558

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-78 Table 3-25: CalEnviro Screen 3.0 – Highest Scoring Census Tract (6059063605) Pollutant Percentile* Health Risk/Burden Percentile*
Ozone 40 Asthma 47
PM 2.5 53 Low Birth Weight 78
Diesel 51 Cardiovascular Rate 33
Pesticides 0 Education 92
Toxic Releases 85 Linguistic Isolation 76
Traffic 58 Poverty 88
Drinking Water 10 Unemployment 76
Cleanups 98 Housing Burden 74
Groundwater Threats 92
Hazardous Waste 93
Impaired Water 0
Solid Waste 53
*Percentile derived using a weighted scoring system to determine average pollution burden/ socioeconomic scores relative to other census tracts.

Source: CalEnviro Screen 3.0 Map Tool, June 2018 Update. Accessed April 28, 2021.

Table 3-26: CalEnviro Screen 3.0 – Lowest Scoring Census Tract (6059063905) Pollutant Percentile* Health Risk/Burden Percentile*
Ozone 40 Asthma 33
PM 2.5 53 Low Birth Weight 11
Diesel 46 Cardiovascular Rate 24
Pesticides 0 Education 27
Toxic Releases 89 Linguistic Isolation 22
Traffic 47 Poverty 34
Drinking Water 10 Unemployment 13
Cleanups 44 Housing Burden 59
Groundwater Threats 25
Hazardous Waste 63
Impaired Water 0
Solid Waste 0
*Percentile derived using a weighted scoring system to determine average pollution burden/ socioeconomic scores relative to other census tracts.

Source: CalEnviro Screen 3.0 Map Tool, June 2018 Update. Accessed May 24, 2021. 559

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3- 79 Figure 3-14: CalEnviro Screen, Costa Mesa (2018)

Source: CalEnviro Screen 3.0 Map Tool, June 2018 Update. Accessed April 28, 2021. 560

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-80

3. Discussion of Disproportionate Housing Needs
The analysis of disproportionate housing needs within Costa Mesa evaluates existing housing need, need of the future housing population, and units within the community at-risk of converting to market-rate.

Existing Needs
As described in Section 3.G. 1 of this Housing Element, the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA) administers Section 8 Housing Choice vouchers within the City of Co sta Mesa. For the 2020 year, there were a total of 561 Section 8 voucher holders within the community: 110 for persons with disabilities, 394 for seniors, and 54 families with at least one dependent.

Housing Needs in Costa Mesa
A variety of factors affect housing needs for different households. Most commonly, disability, household income, and household characteristics shape the type and size of housing needed, as well as accessibility based on existing units in a City. Table 3-27 through 3-34 display data for demo graphic characteristics of Costa Mesa, as compared to Orange County and the State of California. Additional detailed analysis of the Costa Mesa community is provided in
Chapter 2: Community Profile.

Table 3-27 displays the data for persons with disabilities in the City, County, and State. Overall, about 10.6 percent of the California population has at least one disability. Orange County and the City of Costa Mesa both have lower percentages by about 2 percent less persons with disabilities. Ambulatory, Independent Living, and Cognitive Difficulties are the top three most common disabilities for all three jurisdictions , in order starting from most common. These figures may be reflective of disabilities commonly found amongst the senior population. Each of reasonable accommodation procedures and opportunity for accessible housing can provide increased housing security for the population with disabilities.

Table 3-27: Population by Disability Type by Geography, 2019 Disability Type Costa Mesa Orange County California
Hearing Difficulty 2.4% 2.5% 2.9%
Vision Difficulty 1.6% 1.5% 2%
Cognitive Difficulty 3.4% 3.4% 4.3%
Ambulatory Difficulty 4.3% 4.5% 5.8%
Self-Care Difficulty 1.7% 2.2% 2.6%
Independent Living Difficulty 3.8% 4.3% 5.5%
Total with a Disability* 8.3% 8.5% 10.6%
* Total of noninstitutionalized population with at least one disability.

Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

Figure 3-15 shows the population with a disability throughout the City. As illustrated, the majority of the City has census tracts that report less than 10 percent of a disabled population. There are a few census tracts with a population of 10 to 20 percent reporting at least one disability.

561

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-81 Figure 3-15: Population with a Disability, Costa Mesa

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 562

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-82 Table 3-28 and 3-29 displays household type and income data for the State, County, and City. Ove rall, Orange County has the largest percentage of family households (71.7 percent) and Costa Mesa has the smallest with about 10 percent less. Costa Mesa has the lowest percentage of female households without a spouse. Non -family households represent the largest household type in Costa Mesa at 40.5 percent, which is about 9 percent more than California and 12 percent more than Orange County. About 40 percent households in both the State and the County have at least one person above the age of 60, while there are about 30 percent of households in Costa Mesa with at least one person over the age of 60. Different household types have varying housing needs – senior households may benefit from reasonable accommodation procedures and being located near medical facilities, single -parent households may benefit from affordable housing options due to limited income, and family households may benefit from larger housing units located near community areas and schools.

Table 3-28: Population by Familial Status by Geography, 2019 Familial Status Costa Mesa Orange County California
Family Households 59.5% 71.7% 68.7%
Married-Couple Family
Households 43.2% 54.9% 49.8%
With Related Children
Under 18 29.3% 34.1% 34%
Female Households, No Spouse 10.1% 11.5% 13%
Non-Family Households 40.5% 28.3% 31.3%
Households with One or More
People 60 Years+ 29.5% 39.9% 39.1%
Total Households 40,986 1,037,492 13,044,266
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

Table 3-29 provides a breakdown on incomes for the State, County, and City. The m ajority of households in each region earn between $100,000 and $200,000 annually. Orange County has the highest median income at $90,234, about $6,000 more than for Costa Mesa and $15,000 more than for California as a whole.

Table 3-29: Households by Income by Geography, 2019
Household Income Costa Mesa Orange County California
Less than $10,000 4.5% 4.2% 4.8%
$10,000-$14,999 2.3% 2.7% 4.1%
$15,000-$24,999 5.6% 5.6% 7.5%
$25,000-$34,999 6% 6% 7.5%
$35,000-$49,999 9.5% 8.8% 10.5%
$50,000-$74,999 15.8% 14.6% 15.5%
$75,000-$99,999 13.9% 12.8% 12.4%
$100,000-$149,999 19.9% 18.6% 16.6%
$150,000-$199,999 10% 11.1% 8.9%
$200,000 or More 12.4% 15.5% 12.2%
Median Income $84,138 $90,234 $75,235
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019. 563

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-83 Figure 3-16 below shows the City has varying rates of married-couple households throughout its different census tracts. In general, the map shows the eastern and western edges of the City, which are predominantly single-family neighborhoods, have the highest rates of married -couple households (40-60 percent). Towards the center of the City, census tracts report approximately 20 to 40 percent married - couple households.

When compared to Figure 3-17, the census tracts with the highest rates of married- couple households overlap with the highest rates of children living in married -couple family households. Costa Mesa has a generally high propensity of children living in married -couple family households throughout most census tracts. In comparison to neighboring communities, however, Costa Mesa has less census tracts with children in married-couple family households.

Figure 3-18 shows the City , as with its neighboring communities, has very low rates of children living in female-headed households with no spouse present. Most of the City reports approximately 20 percent of less, except for a census tract towards the southern edge of the City which reports 40 to 60 percent of children living in female-headed households. This same census tract is also one of two which reports 20 to 40 percent of its population over the age of 18 living alone, as illustrated in Figure 3-19. The rest of the City
has fairly low rates of individuals living alone, with the remaining census tracts reporting less than 20 percent.

564

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-84 Figure 3-16: Married-Couple Households, Costa Mesa

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 565

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-85 Figure 3-17: Children in Married-Couple Households, Costa Mesa

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 566

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-86 Figure 3-18: Children in Female-Headed Households, Costa Mesa

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 567

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-87 Figure 3-19: Individuals Living Alone, Costa Mesa

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 568

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-88 Table 3-30 displays data for households experiencing overpayment or cost burden in the State, County, and City. Housing cost burden can cause mainly displacement, which may creat e limited access to essential goods and community, as well as employment by potentially increasing commute times. The percentages of households that experience a cost burden greater than 30 percent is overall similar amongst the State, County, and City . Costa Mesa experiences higher rates of cost burden than the County by about two percent. The City also has the largest percentage of households with a cost burden over 50 percent at about

21.6 percent, compared to about 19 percent in both the State and County. Increased opportunity for affordable housing and housing assistance funds help to prevent cost burden on households.

Table 3-30: Household Overpayment by Geography, 2019
Overpayment Costa Mesa Orange County California
Cost Burden > 30% 42.1% 40.5% 40.1%
Cost Burden > 50% 21.6% 19.3% 19.4%
Cost Burden Not Available 1.3% 1.4% 1.4%
Source: HUD Consolidated Planning/CHAS Data, 2013-2017.

Table 3-31 displays data for household tenure (homeowners and renters) for the State, County, and City.

Homeownership is a crucial foundation for households with low incomes to build strength, stability, and independence. The opportunity for transition into the homebuyer’s market is important in a healthy housing market. Table 3-31 shows that the City of Costa Mesa has a much lower percentage of homeowners than the County and St ate, reporting about 38 percent, compared to 57 percent in the C ounty and 55 percent in the State. Costa Mesa also has higher rates of renter at 62 percent, compares t o 43 percent in the County and 45 percent in the State.

Table 3-31: Households by Tenure by Geography, 2019
Household Tenure Costa Mesa Orange County California
Owner Households 38.3% 57.4% 54.8%
Renter Households 61.7% 42.6% 45.2%
Total Occupied Housing Units 40,986 1,037,492 13,044,266 Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

Additionally, Table 3-32 displays data for overcrowding. Overcrowding is defined as between 1.01 and 1.5 persons per bedroom in a household, and severe overcrowding is defined as more than 1.51 persons per bedroom. Overcrowding often occurs when nonfamily members combine incomes to live in one household, such as college students and roommates. Overcrowding also occurs when there are not enough size - appropriate housing options for large or multigenerational households. The City has the lowest percentages of owner-occupied households with overcrowded and severely overcrowded households compared to the County and State. Renters in Costa Mesa are disproportionately affected by overcrowding when compare to homeowners. Overall, across all three regions, owners were less affected by overcrowding and severe overcrowding.

569

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-89 Table 3-32: Households by Overcrowding by Geography, 2019 Overcrowding and Tenure Costa Mesa Orange County California Owner Households
Overcrowded 0.6% 1.5% 1.6%
Severely Overcrowded 0.2% 0.6% 0.6%
Renter Households
Overcrowded 5.3% 4.2% 3.6%
Severely Overcrowded 2.7% 2.6% 2.4%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

Housing Stock in Costa Mesa
Table 3-33 and 3-34 display comparative housing stock data for the State, County, and City. Table 3- 20 below shows data for occupied housing units by type. A variety of housing stock provides increased opportunity in communities for different size and household types. The majority of housing stock in Costa Mesa is multi-unit developments (50.6 percent for 2 or more units). Single-family housing units represent about 48 percent of the housing stock in Costa Mesa. Comparatively, single family units represent about 63 percent and 64 percent of the housing stock in the County and the State, respectively.

Table 3-33: Occupied Housing Units by Type by Geography, 2019 Housing Unit Type Costa Mesa Orange County California
1-Unit, Detached 37.9% 50.6% 57.7%
1-Unit, Attached 9.2% 12.3% 7.0%
2 Units 2.9% 1.6% 2.4%
3 or 4 Units 9.6% 6.9% 5.5%
5 to 9 Units 9.4% 6.7% 6.0%
10 to 19 Units 9.1% 5.4% 5.2%
20 or More Units 19.6% 13.7% 12.3%
Mobile Home 2.2% 2.7% 3.7%
Boat, RV, Van, etc. 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

Table 3-24 below displays housing stock by year built for the City, County, and State. Older housing units generally require more upkeep, regular maintenance, and can cause a cost burden on both renters a nd homeowners. The majority of Costa Mesa’s housing stock (68.2 percent) was built during a housing boom between 1950 and 1979. The trend is similar for the County and State, with majority of units built between 1980 and 2013. Overall, increased numbers of older housing can lead to displacement, cost burden, and substandard living conditions. An analysis of the housing stock in provided in Chapter 2: Costa Mesa Community Profile.

570

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-90 Table 3-34: Housing Unit by Year Built by Geography, 2019 Year Built Costa Mesa Orange County California
Built 2014 or later 2.6% 2.7% 1.7%
Built 2010 to 2013 1.0% 2.0% 1.7%
Built 2000 to 2009 5.2% 8.3% 11.2%
Built 1990 to 1999 6.3% 11.7% 10.9%
Built 1980 to 1989 12.3% 14.9% 15.0%
Built 1970 to 1979 23.6% 23.3% 17.6%
Built 1960 to 1969 26.7% 19.5% 13.4%
Built 1950 to 1959 17.9% 13.0% 13.4%
Built 1940 to 1949 3.1% 2.1% 5.9%
Built 1939 or earlier 1.3% 2.5% 9.1%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

Future Growth Need
The City’s future growth need is based on the RHNA production of 2,919 very low and 1,794 low- income units within the 2021-2029 planning period. Appendix B of this Housing Elements shows the City’s ability to meet its 2021-2029 RHNA need at all income levels. This demonstrates the City’s ability to accommodate the anticipated future affordable housing needs of the community.

4. Displacement Risk
The potential for economic displacement risk can result from a variety of factors, including large- scale development activity, neighborhood reinvestment, infrastructure investments, and changes in local and regional employment opportunity. Economic displacement can be an inadvertent result of public and private investment, where individuals and families may not be able to keep pace with increased property values and market rental rates.

Urban Displacement
The Urban Displacement Project developed a neighborhood change database to map neighborhood transformations and identify areas vulnerable to gentrification and displacement. This data was developed to assist local decision makers and stakeholders better plan for existing communities and provide additional resources to a reas in need or at -risk of displacement and gentrification.

Table 3-35 provides the criteria
used to identify each displacement typology and the total number of Costa Mesa Census Tracts that currently fall within each category.

Table 3-35: Displacement Typology Criteria and Costa Mesa Census Tracts Modified Types and Criteria Census Tracts
Low-Income/Susceptible to Displacement
• Low or mixed low-income tract in 2018.
6059063701
6059063605
Ongoing Displacement of Low-Income Households
• Low or mixed low-income tract in 2018.
• Absolute loss of low-income households, 2000-2018.
--
At Risk of Gentrification
• Low or mixed low-income tract in 2018.
• Housing affordable to low or mixed low-income households in 2018. • Didn’t gentrify 1990-2000 OR 2000-2018.
--
571

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-91 Table 3-35: Displacement Typology Criteria and Costa Mesa Census Tracts Modified Types and Criteria Census Tracts
• Marginal change in housing costs OR Zillow home or rental value increases in the 90th percentile between 2012-2018.
• Local and nearby increases in rent were greater than the regional median between 2012-2018 OR the 2018 rent gap is greater than the regional median rent gap.

Early/Ongoing Gentrification
• Low or mixed low-income tract in 2018.
• Housing affordable to moderate or mixed moderate-income households in 2018.
• Increase or rapid increase in housing costs OR above regional median change in Zillow home or rental values between 2-12-2018. • Gentrified in 1990-2000 or 2000-2018.
--
Advanced Gentrification
• Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high-income tract in 2018. • Housing affordable to middle, high, mixed moderate, and mixed high- income households in 2018.
• Marginal change, increase, or rapid increase in housing costs. • Gentrified in 1990-2000 or 2000-2018.
6059063604
Stable Moderate/Mixed Income
• Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high-income tract in 2018. 6059062610
6059063908
6059063902
6059063803
6059063702
6059063201
6059063101
At Risk of Becoming Exclusive
• Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high-income tract in 2018. • Housing affordable to middle, high, mixed moderate, and mixed high- income households in 2018.
• Marginal change or increase in housing costs.
6059063903
6059063904
6059063102
6059063906
6059063905
6059063808
6059063802
6059063807
6059063202
Becoming Exclusive
• Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high-income tract in 2018. • Housing affordable to middle, high, mixed moderate, and mixed high- income households in 2018.
• Rapid increase in housing costs.
• Absolute loss of low-income households, 2000-2018.
• Declining low-income in-migration rate, 2012-2018.
• Median income higher in 2018 than in 2000.
6059063301
Stable/Advanced Exclusive
• High-income tract in 2000 and 2018
• Affordable to high or mixed high-income households in 2018. • Marginal change, increase, or rapid increase in housing costs. 6059063907
6059063805
6059063806
6059063601
6059063302
6059063103
Source: Urban Displacement Project, University of California Berkeley (2021).

Table 3-35 and Figure 3-20 both show the City is mostly made up of census tracts which are currently identified as “exclusive” or are in the process/at-risk of becoming exclusive. These areas overlap with most of the City’s single-family neighborhoods. Two census tracts on the west-side of Costa Mesa and to the east of Placentia Avenue are currently identified as low- income and susceptible to displacement . The south - western-most census tract to the west of Placentia A venue is categorized as “Advanced Gentrification”, signifying a rapid increase in housing cost over the past few years. 572
c
DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3- 92 Figure 3-20: Urban Displacement Project - Gentrification and Displacement

Source: Urban Displacement Project, University of California Berkeley (2021). 573

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-93 Inventory of Assisted Affordable Housing
Affordable covenants help to ensure that certain housing units remain affordable for an extended period of time. Covenants provide lasting affordable options to low and very low -income households in a community. Table 3-36 below provides a list of 1,144 housing units with affordability covenants, of which 75 housing units are at-risk of converting to market-rate between 2021 and 2031.

Jurisdictions are required by State Housing Element Law to analyze government -assisted housing that is eligible to convert from lower income to market rate housing over the next 10 years. State law identifies housing assistance as a rental subsidy, mortgage subsidy or mortgage insurance to an assisted housing development. Government assisted housing may convert to market rate housing for several reasons, including expiring subsidies, mortgage repayments, or expiration of affordability restrictions. Consistent with the requirements to analyze the impacts of the potential conversion of these units to market -rate units, this section provides an analysis of preservation of assisted housing units at-risk of conversion.

Table 3-36: Affordable Housing Units in Costa Mesa with Covenants Name of Project Address Target Group Potential
Expiration Funding
Target
Income
Level
Assisted
Units
Casa Bella 1844 Park Ave. Senior 2025 HUD Section 8 Very Low 75 Bethel Towers 678 W. 19th St. Senior 2067 LIHTC Low 53
St. John’s Manor 2031 Orange Ave. Senior 5/2062
HUD Section 8,
HOME, Costa
Mesa
Redevelopment,
Federal Rental
Rehab
Very Low 36
Costa Mesa
Family Village
2015 -2019 Pomona Ave.
755-771 W. 20th St.
1924-1932 Wallace Ave.

General 12/2038
Costa Mesa
Redevelopment
Ground Lease
Very
Low/Low 72
Park Place Village
(SRO) 1662 Newport Blvd. General Perpetuity Land Use
Restriction Very Low 60
Costa Mesa
Village (SRO) 2450 Newport Blvd. General Perpetuity
OC Housing
Authority, Costa
Mesa
Redevelopment

Very Low 96
Newport Senior
Village (SRO) 2080 Newport Blvd. Senior Perpetuity Land Use Restriction
Very
Low/Low 91
HOME
Rehabilitation
Project #1
734-744 James Street General 4/2049 HOME Very
Low/Low 11
HOME
Rehabilitation
Project #3A
745 W. 18th Street General 5/2056 HOME Very
Low/Low 3
HOME
Rehabilitation
Project #6
717-721 James Street General 6/2058 HOME, Federal
Rental Rehab
Very
Low/Low 8
HOME
Rehabilitation
Project #3B
707-711 W. 18th
Street General 5/2056 Costa Mesa
Redevelopment
Very
Low/Low 8
Other Density
Bonus Units Scattered General Various Land Use
Restriction
Very
Low/Low/ 156
574

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-94 Table 3-36: Affordable Housing Units in Costa Mesa with Covenants Name of Project Address Target Group Potential
Expiration Funding
Target
Income
Level
Assisted
Units
Moderate
Harbor Village 2501 Harbor
Developmentally
Disabled and
General
Perpetuity State-Owned
Very
Low/Low/
Moderate
550
TOTAL 1,144
TOTAL UNITS AT-RISK 75
Sources:

1. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

2. California Housing Partnership Corporation.

3. City of Costa Mesa, 2013

Cost of Preservation of Units
While there are many options to preserving units including providing financial incentives to project owners to extend lower income use restrictions, purchasing affordable housing units by a non- profit or public agency, or providing local subsidies to offset the difference between the affordable and market rate units, the strategy considered below is to provide local rental subsidy to residents. The rent subsidy would provide financial assistance to residents if their affordable units converted to market rate. To determine the subsidy needed, Fair Market Rents were compared to market rate rents.

Table 3-37: Estimated Monthly Subsidy to Preserve “At-Risk” Units Unit Size
Monthly Rents Number of
Units At-Risk Difference Monthly
Subsidy
Annual
Subsidy Fair Market
Rents1 Market Rate2
Efficiency $1,716 $2,293 0 $577 $0 $0
1-Bedroom $1,905 $2,707 75 $802 $60,150 $721,800
2-Bedroom $2,324 $3,352 0 $1,028 $0 $0
3-Bedroom $3,178 $3,712 0 $534 $0 $0
4-Bedroom $3,674 N/A 0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL $721,800
Source:

1. HUD FY 2022 Fair Market Rent Documentation System – Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA HUD Metro FMR Area

2. Kimley-Horn and Associate Analysis – based on apartments listed for rent across ten properties on September 22, 2021.

Cost of Replacement of Units
The City of Costa Mesa can also consider the cost of replacing the units with new construction.

Construction cost estimates include all hard and soft costs associated with construction in addition to per unit land costs. The analysis assumes the replacement units are apartments with concrete block with steel frame buildings and parking provided on -site. Square footage estimates are based on estimated size of units to be replaced and assume housing units are developed on multi-family zoned properties. Land costs have been determined on a per unit basis.

575

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-95 Table 3-38: Replacement Cost by Unit Type of At-Risk Units Size of Unit Cost Per Square
Foot1
Average
Square
Foot/Unit2
Replacement
Cost/Unit3
Number of
Units
Total
Replacement
Cost
Efficiency 131.24 508 $66,670 0 $0
1-Bedroom 131.24 761 $99,874 75 $7,490,523
2-Bedroom 131.24 1,080 $141,739 0 $0
3-Bedroom 131.24 1,390 $182,424 0 $0
4-Bedroom 131.24 N/A N/A 0 $0
TOTAL $7,490,523
Source:

1. International Code Council – August 2020 Report.

2. Kimley-Horn and Associate Analysis – based on apartments listed for rent across ten properties on September 22, 2021.

3. Includes financing and land acquisition costs of $30,000 per unit.

Resources for Affordable Housing Units
A variety of programs exist to help cities acquire, replace, or subsidize at-risk affordable housing units. The following summarizes financial resources available:
• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) – CDBG funds are awarded to cities on a formula basis for housing activitie s. The primary objective of the CDBG program is the development of viable communities through the provision of decent housing, a suitable living environment and economic opportunity for principally low- and moderate-income persons. Eligible activities include administration, fair housing, energy conservation and renewable energy sources, assistance for economic development, public facilities and improvements and public services. • HOME Investment Partnership – Local jurisdiction s can receive funds by formula from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to increase the supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing to lower income households. Eligible activities include housing acquisition, rehabilitation, and development, homebuyer assistance, and rental assistance. • Section 8 Rental Assistance Program – The Section 8 Rental Assistance Program provides rental assistance payments to owners of private, market rate units on behalf of very low-income tenants, senior citizens, disabled and/or handicapped persons, and other individuals for securing affordable housing.
• Section 202/811 Program – Non-profit and consumer cooperatives can receive no-interest capital advances from HUD under the Section 202 program for the construction of very low-income rental housing with the availability of supportive services for seniors and persons with disabilities. These funds can be used in conjunction with Section 811, which can be used to develop group homes, independent living facilities and immediate care facilities. The capital advance funding can also provide project rental assistance for the properties developed using the funds. Eligible activities include acquisition, rehabilitation, new construction, and rental assistance. • California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) Multifamily Programs – CalHFA’s Multifamily Programs provide permanent financing for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of new construction of rental housing that includes affordable rents for low - and moderate -income 576

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-96 families and individuals. One of the programs is the Preservation Loan program which provides acquisition/rehabilitation and permanent loan financing designed to preserve or increase the affordability status of existing multifamily housing projects. • Low-Income H ousing Tax Credit (LIHTC) – This program provides tax credits to individuals and corporations that invest in low -income rental housing. Tax credits are sold to those with high tax liability and proceeds are used to create housing. Eligible activities inclu de new construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of properties.
• California Community Reinvestment Corporation (CCRC) – The California Community Reinvestment Corporation is a multifamily affordable housing lender whose mission is to increase the availability of affordable housing for low -income families, seniors, and residents with special needs by facilitating private capital flow from its investors for debt and equity to developers of affordable housing. Eligible activities include new construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of properties.

Qualified Entities for Preservation of Affordable Housing Units The following organizations may potentially assist in preserving future at-risk units:
• Jamboree Housing Corporation
• Irvine Housing Opportunities, Inc.
• Bridge Housing Corporation
• The Irvine Company
• Orange County Housing Authority
• Housing Corporation of America
• Southern California Housing
Development Corporation
• Century Housing
Quantified Objectives
Housing Element law requires that cities establish the maximum number of units that can be preserved over the planning period. The City’s objective it to preserve the 75 affordable housing units “at -risk” of converting to market rate through policy programs provided in Chapter 4: Housing Plan.

SB 330
Effective January 1, 2020, Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) aims to increase residential unit development, protect existing housing inventory, and expedite permit processing. Under this legislation, municipal and county agencies are restricted in ordinances and polices that can be applied to residential development. The revised definition of “Housing Development” now contains residential projects of two or more units, mixed- use projects (with two-thirds of the floor area designated for residential use), transitional, supportive, and emergency housing projects. SB330 sets a temporary 5 -year prohibition of residential density reduction associated with a “housing development project”, from January 1, 2020, to January 1, 2025. For example, during this temporary prohibition, a residential triplex cannot be demolished and replaced with a duplex as this would be a net loss of one unit.

The City is committed to making diligent efforts to engage underrepresented and disadvantaged communities in studying displacement.

577

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-97

5. Summary of Fair Housing Analysis
The analysis conducted in this section regarding fair housing issues within Costa Mesa yielded the following conclusions:
• The dissimilarity analysis shows that nearly all racial and ethnic groups experience moderate to high segregation in the City of Costa Mesa. The Native Hawaiian and the Hispanic population experience the highest levels of segregation, meaning that to create a more integrated city, more than 45 percent of each respective population would need to move into a predominantly white census tract.
• There are no racially or ethnically concentrated census tracts (RECAPs) within Costa Mesa as identified by HUD. This indicates that there are no census tracts within the City with a non-white population of 50 percent or more or any census tracts that have a poverty rate that exceeds 40% or is three or more times the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan area. However, there is one area identified as high segregation and poverty. • The data shows that Costa Mesa has ten block groups which meet the criteria for racially concentrated areas of affluence ( RCAA). RCAAs are areas which the population is predominantly white with an income over $125,000 or higher.
• The UC Davis Regional Opportunity Index shows that the majority of residents within Costa Mesa have a moderate to high level of achievement and attainment . However, there are two census tracts in the south western portion of the City which show the lowest levels of attainment and achievement for residents, these areas also overlap with the high segregation and poverty area identified by the TCAC map (
Figure 3-5b).
• The UC Davis Regional Opportunity Index (ROI) shows that the majority of residents within Costa Mesa have the highest level of access to opportunity throughout the City. Additional analysis of the ROI maps show that the northern portion of the City has moderate to lower levels of access to affordable or appropriate housing.
• The City provides moderate transit trip opportunity, a score of 5.4. Additionally, about 98.8% of all City jobs are within ½ mile of transit but just under 3 percent of the working population uses public transit as a primary source of transportation.
• The City has demonstrated the ability to meet the anticipated future affordable housing needs of the community through the designation of sites to meet the very low and low income RHNA need (
Appendix B: Candidate Sites and Housing Resources ). These sites are dispersed throughout the community and are identified on sites with high opportunity for residential development. • There are 75 current units with affordable covenants at risk of converting to market rate before the year 2029 in the City.
• The CalEnviro Screen mapping tool (2018) identified most of the City as “ moderate” to “low to moderate” scoring, indicating moderate exposure to harmful pollutants. Additionally, the area which is identified as high segregation and poverty is the highest scoring census tract on the CalEnviro Screen map, indicating high exposure to harmful pollutants.

578

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-98

6. Assessment of Contributing factors to Fair Housing in Costa Mesa Regionally Identified Contributing Factors
As identified by the AI and the above analysis the City of Costa Mesa experiences the following local contributing factors to fair housing:
• Housing Discrimination – The 2020 AI identified housing discrimination as an impediment to fair housing choice in the City. The AI reports that 609 households in Costa Mesa received fair housing services relating to general housing issues and discrimination allegations. The Fair H ousing Foundation (FHF) received 65 housing discrimination inquiries with 9 based on physical or mental disability, 8 related to race, 2 related to national origin, 2 related to gender, 1 related to sexual orientation, and 5 related to familial status.
o Through CDBG funding the City contracts with the Fair Housing F oundation to provide educational and support services to persons who experience housing discrimination in Costa Mesa.
• Racial and Ethnic Segregation – The Analysis above identifies moderate segre gation through the dissimilarity index analysis. Persons who identify as Hispanics, Asian, Native Hawaiian, American Indian, and Black experience over 30 percent dissimilarity with the white population in Costa Mesa.

Additionally, while the R/ECAP analysis did not identify R/ECAPs in the City, there are two racially and ethnic concentrated areas of poverty near the City consisting of primarily Hispanic and Asian population.

o During the AI report period, the City distributed literature on fair housing in Eng lish, Spanish, and Vietnamese to target neighborhoods and in conjunction with other neighborhood improvement efforts. This information was also provided at workshop events, at community centers, and at City Hall.

o The City will continue to outreach specifically to low and very low-income residents as wells considered targeted outreach to residents with moderate and high levels of segregation, • Unfair Lending – The Lending Analysis identifies lower rates of home loan approval for moderate, low, and very low -income residents. Additionally, applicants in Costa Mesa who identify as Black experience both lower rates and home loan approval and purchase and higher rates of home loan denial, indicating disparity in access to funding.
o Currently, the City does not offer homebuyer assistance, but the AI reports that information on housing rehab programs are available on the City’s website. The City will continue to provide important ownership information on the City’s website. Costa Mesa recognizes that an educated community is an empowered commitment and will considered target education and outreach about loan purchase to residents.

• Overcrowding – the Analysis of Existing Housing Needs in Costa Mesa identified a significantly higher percentage of renters who experience overcrowding in the City than in the County and the State. Overcrowding can be an indicator of multi -generational living, however in renter ship it is often an indicator that there are not sufficient affordable housing options causing residents to increase the number of persons per unit to lower the overall cost of housing. Overcrowding may also indicate a lack of adequate housing unit types available to residents with large families. While 579

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-99 the City does not build housing, they will work with developers and interested parties to increase feasibility and opportunities for both affordable housing and multigenerational housing.

Locally Identified Contributing Factors
There are a number of factors and elements that contribute to and cause fair housing issues. The following lists a number of contributing factors within the City of Costa Mesa:
• Community Opposition As a part of the H ousing Element Update, t he City hosted a variety of community engagement opportunities to gather feedback and input related housing needs. A large number of community members identified an overall objection to new housing in the City, specifically higher income housing. Traditionally, affordable housing and higher density residential projects receive community pushback or opposition. However, outreach and education can help to shift negative views of additional housing in a positive manner. • Lack of Investment in Specific Neighborhoods – The TCAC map identified census tract:
06059063605 as an area of high segregation and poverty (Figure 3-5b); meaning the demographics of this tract are consistent with the standards for both poverty (30% of the populat ion below the federal poverty line) and racial segregation (overrepresentation of people of color relative to the county). Additionally, this census tract is scored as lowest opportunity in civic life, health, mobility, housing, economy, and education by t he UC Davis ROI: People (Figure 3 -8), which is a relative measure of people’s assets in a census tract. While the area was scored as low opportunity for resident assets, it was scored highest opportunity for Place ( Figure 3-9), meaning the geographic
area has high assets and opportunity in education, economic, housing, mobility, health and civic life. The census tract is also identified as having less positive educational outcomes by the TCAC - Education map ( Figure 3 -12) and the highest exposure to harmful pollutants according to the CalEnviro Screen (Figure 3-14). Combined data shows that conditions in this area may exacerbate existing segregation trends, low opportunity for community and resident enhancement and upward mobility and that there may be overall lack of public investment in the area. • Displacement of Residents Due to Economic Pressures – The data in the RCAA analysis (Figures 3- 6 through 3 -7) show that there are ten census tracts which meet the criteria for a racially concentrated area of affluence (RCAA). The definition for an RCAA is a census tract in which 80 percent or more of the population is White and has a median income of at least $125,000. The RCAAs are located in the highest resource and highest opportunity areas and are also within areas with the lowest exposure to harmful pollutants . If RCAA expand and gentrification occurs across the city, lower income households are at risk of displacement due to economic pressures and potential changing or increasing costs in housing and essential retail.

7. Analysis of Sites Pursuant to AB 686
AB 686 requires that jurisdictions identify sites throughout the community in a manner that is consistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing. The site identification requirement involves not only an analysis of site capacity to accommodate the RHNA (provided in Appendix B ), but also whether the 580

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-100 identified sites serve the purpose of replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity.

Figures 3-21 through 3-26 below identify the sites to accommodate future housing, as identified in the adequate sites analysis, overlaid on demographic data using the 2019 American Community Survey 5-Years Estimates.
• Figure 3-21 – Costa Mesa Proposed RHNA Sites, Hispanic/Latino, 2019 • Figure 3-22– Costa Mesa Proposed RHNA Sites, Non-White Population, 2019 • Figure 3-23 – Costa Mesa Proposed RHNA Sites, Low and Moderate Income, 2019 • Figure 3-24 – Costa Mesa Proposed RHNA Sites, R/ECAP Areas, 2019 • Figure 3-25 – Costa Mesa Proposed RHNA Sites, RCAAs, 2019 • Figure 3-26 – Costa Mesa Proposed RHNA Sites, TCAC Opportunity Areas, 2019 Figure 3-21 shows the proposed candidate sites to meet the RHNA for Costa Mesa in relation to the location of residents of Hispanic origin. These sites take into consideration access to vital goods, services, and public transportation and are therefore ideal areas for the City to focus much of its future housing growth. It is anticipated that accessory dwelling unit (ADU) growth, including growth for affordable ADUs, will occur in the less dense areas of the community.

Figure 3-21 shows the following findings:
• 22 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 10,385 potential units, or 62.3% of the total potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that identifies as Hispanic which is less than 20 percent. Of those units, 2,028 are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes.
• 29 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 3,594 potential units, or 21.6% of the total potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that identifies as Hispanic between 20 and 40 percent. Of those units, 1,288 are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes.
• 29 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 1,697 potential units, or 10.2% of the total potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that identifies as Hispanic between 40 and 60 percent. Of those units 524 are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes.
• 7 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 207 potential units, or 1.2% of the total potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that identifies as Hispanic between 60 and 80 percent. Of those units, 58 are proposed as affordable o low and very low incomes.
• 10 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation ( totaling 790 potential units, or 4.7% of the total potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that identifies as Hispanic greater than 80 percent. Of those units, 229 are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes.

The data shows that the proposed candidate sites to meet the very low and low -income RHNA allocation are evenly dispersed throughout the community with an emphasis on locating units where there is a high level of access to important public services and transit. The distribution of potential units does not disproportionately impact areas with larger concentrations of the Hispanic population. 581

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3- 101 Figure 3-21: Sites Proposed to Accommodate RHNA and Percent Population Hispanic, Costa Mesa

582

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-102 Figure 3-22 shows the proposed candidate sites to meet the RHNA for Costa Mesa in relation with census data showing the percentage of the population within each block group that is Non- white. Figure 3-22 shows the following findings:
• 56 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 14,222 potential units, or 85.3% of the total potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that identifies as Non- White between 40 and 60 percent. Of those units, 3,849 are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes.
• 24 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 1,454 potential units, or 8.7% of the total potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that identifies as Non -White between 60 and 80 percent. Of those units, 4 55 are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes.
• 17 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 997 potential units, or 6.0% of the total potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that identifies as Non -White greater than 80 percent. Of those units, 287 are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes.

583

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3- 103

584

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3- 104 Figure 3-22: Proposed Sites to Accommodate RHNA and Percent Population Non-White, Costa Mesa

585

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-105 Figure 3-23 shows location of proposed candidate sites to meet the RHNA for Costa Mesa in in comparison with census data showing the percentage of the population within each block group who is categorized as low income or moderate by the American Community Survey. Figure 3-23 shows the following findings:
• 25 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 10,499 potential units, or 63.0% of the total potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that identifies as low-and moderate-income between 25 and 50 percent. Of those units, 2,522 are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes. • 53 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 4,989 potential units, or 29.9% of the total potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that identifies as low-and moderate-income between 50 and 75 percent. Of those units, 1,728 are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes. • 19 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 1,185 potential units, or 7.1% of the total potential units) are located within block groups that have a percentage of the population that identifies as low- and moderate -income greater than 75 percent. Of those units, 341 are proposed as affordable to low and very low incomes.

The data shows that the proposed candidate sites to meet the very low and low -income RHNA allocation are evenly dispersed throughout the community with an emphasis on locating units where there is a high level of access to important public services and tra nsit. The distribution of potential units provides increased opportunities for low-income housing in areas with higher rates of low-income persons.

586

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3- 106

Figure 3-23: Proposed Sites to Accommodate RHNA and Percent Population Low and Moderate-Income, Costa Mesa 587

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3- 107

588

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing3-108 Figure 3-24 shows proposed candidate sites to meet RHNA for Costa Mesa in relation with data showing R/ECAP areas within the City. R/ECAPs are racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty; they are marked in red hatchings. The goal of the AB 686 analysis is to analyze how the sites identified to accommodate the RHNA allocation may exacerbate or mitigate existing fair housing issues. Figure 3 -24 shows there are no R/ECAPs located within the City of Costa Mesa; therefore, no proposed candidate sites are located in a R/ECAP.

Figure 3-25 shows proposed candidate sites to meet RHNA in relation with data showing RCAA areas within the City. RCAAs are racially or ethnically concentrated areas of affluence, they are identified as areas with a median household income greater than $125,000 and a white population of 80 percent of higher. Figure 3-25 shows there are no RCAAs in Costa Mesa; however, there are RCAAs just outside the City’s boundaries in Newport Beach.

Figure 3-26 shows proposed candidate sites to meet RHNA for Costa Mesa in relation with the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas within the City. TCAC is the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee/Housing and Community Development Opportunity Area Maps which show how resources are spatially distributed throughout the City.

Figure 3-26 shows the following findings:
• 17 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 899 potential units, or 5.4 percent of the total potential units) are located within High Segregation & Poverty Resource areas. Of those units, 298 are affordable to low and very low income groups. • 10 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 696 potential units, or 4.2 percent of the total potential units) are located within Low Resource areas. Of those units, 200 are affordable to low and very low income groups.
• 56 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 14,227 potential units, or 85.3 percent of the total potential units) are located within Moderate Resource areas. Of those units, 3,850 are affordable to low and very low income groups. • 5 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 273 potential units, or 1.6 percent of the total potential units) are located within Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing) areas. Of those units, 78 are affordable to low and very low income groups. • 9 proposed sites to accommodate the RHNA allocation (totaling 578 potential units, or 3.5 percent of the total potential units) are located within High Resource areas. Of those units, 165 are affordable to low and very low income groups.
589

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3- 109 Figure 3-24: Proposed Sites to Accommodate RHNA and Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty, Costa Mesa

590

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3- 110 Figure 3-25: Proposed Sites to Accommodate RHNA and Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence, Costa Mesa

591

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3- 111 Figure 3-26: Proposed Sites to Accommodate RHNA and TCAC Opportunity Areas, Costa Mesa

592

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing3-112

8. Analysis of Fair Housing Priorities and Goals
To enhance mobility and promote inclusion for protected classes, the chief strategy included in this Housing Element is to provi de sites suitable for affordable housing in high- resource, high- opportunity areas, as demonstrated by the analysis of the housing resource sites contained in Chapter 3: Housing Resources.

Other programs that affirmatively further fair housing and implement the AI’s recommendations include:
• PROGRAM 2A: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
• PROGRAM 2B: Affordable Housing Development
• PROGRAM 2C: Supportive Services for Persons with Special Needs • PROGRAM 2D: Facilitate Development of Senior Housing Options • PROGRAM 2E: Encourage Development of Housing Options for Large-Family Households • PROGRAM 2F: Persons with Physical and Developmental Disabilities • PROGRAM 2H: Farmworker Housing
• PROGRAM 4A: Fair Housing
• PROGRAM 4B: Rental Housing Assistance
• PROGRAM 4D: Fair Housing Assistance
• PROGRAM 4E: Low Barrier Navigation Centers
• PROGRAM 4F: Homeless Shelter
F. Housing Resources

1. Regional Housing Needs Allocation
This section of the Housing Element provides an overview of the resources available to the City to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The City of Costa Mesa is required to plan for the following 2021-2029 RHNA allocation:

Future Housing Needs
Future housing need refers to the share of the regional housing need that has been allocated to the City.

The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has supplied a regional housing goal to the Southern California Association of Governments (S CAG). SCAG was then required to allocate the housing goal to each jurisdiction within the region through a RHNA Plan. In allocating the region’s future housing needs to jurisdictions, SCAG is required to take the following factors into consideration pursuant to Section 65584 of the State Government Code:
• Market demand for housing;
• Employment opportunities;
• Availability of suitable sites and public
facilities;
• Commuting patterns;
• Type and tenure of housing;
• Loss of units in assisted housing
developments;
• Over-concentration of lower income
households; and
• Geological and topographical
constraints.
593

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing3-113 HCD, through a determination process, allocates units to each region across California. It is then up to each region to determine a methodology and process for allocating units to each jurisdiction within that region.

SCAG adopted its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA Plan) in March 2021. This RHNA covers an 8 - year planning period (starting in 2021) and addresses housing issues that are related to future growth in the region. The RHNA allocates to each city and county a “fair share” of the region’s projected housing needs by household income group. The major goal of the RHNA is to assure a fair distribution of housing among cities and counties within the SCAG region, so that every community provides an opportunity for a mix of housing for all economic segments.

Costa Mesa’s share of the S CAG regional growth allocation is 11,760 new units for the current planning period (2021-2029). Table 3-39: Housing Needs for 2021 -2029, indicates the City’s RHNA need for the stated planning period.

Table 3-39: Housing Needs for 2021-2029
Income Category Percent of Median Family
Income (MFI)
Costa Mesa’s RHNA Allocation for the
2021-2029 Planning Period
Very Low Income 0-50% MFI 2,919 units
Low Income 51-80% MFI 1,794 units
Moderate Income 81-120% MFI 2,088 units
Above Moderate Income >120% MFI 4,959 units
TOTAL 11,760 units
Residential Sites Inventory
Appendix B of the Housing Element includes the required site analysis tables and site information for the vacant and non-vacant properties to meet the City’s RHNA need through the 2021 -2029 planning period.

The following discussions summarize the City’s site inventory and adequate sites identification strategy.

Adequacy of Sites for RHNA
The City of Costa Mesa conducted a thorough analysis of all parcels within the City to determine which areas may have the most realistic potential to redevelop fo r residential uses within the planning period.

The analysis included an in depth look at the following site characteristics for each parcel within the inventory:
• Address
• Ownership
• Zoning (including Specific Plan areas, Urban Plans, and Overlays, if applicable) • Size (Net developable acres removing known development constraints) • Density
• Vacancy status
• Previous Housing Element identification
• Potential Development Capacity (Dwelling Units) by income category • Description of existing use
594

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing3-114 Most sites identified meet AB 1397 requirements for size as well as infrastructure requirements for available utility service. There is a further analysis regarding consolidation of small sites as well as the development potential of large sites within
Appendix B.

The City of Costa Mesa has a total 2021-2029 RHNA allocation of 11,760 units. The Housing Element update lists sites, including accessory dwelling units, that can accommodate approximately 17,531 additional units.

Table 3-40 shows a summary of the City’s overall capacity to accommodate its RHNA. Overall, the City has adequate capacity to accommodate its 2021-2029 RHNA with a 149% buffer in excess of the City’s RHNA need.

Table 3-40: Summary of RHNA Status and Sites Inventory
Very Low
Income Low Income Moderate
Income*
Above
Moderate
Income
Total
RHNA (2021-2029) 2,919 1,794 2,088 4,959 11,760
Units Constructed in Projection
Period (Begins June 31, 2021) 3 19 9 8 39
Remaining Unmet RHNA 2,916 1,775 2,079 4,951 11,721
Sites Inventory
Fairview Developmental Center 575 345 690 690 2,300
Sakioka Lot 2 120 60 120 900 1,200
Home Ranch 221 110 221 1,663 2,215
Senior Center Housing Project 40 20 0 0 60
Pacific Arts Plaza and Town
Center 53 27 53 402 535
Total Potential Capacity -
Existing Sites 1,009 562 1,084 3,655 6,310
Overlays, Specific Plans, and Urban Plans
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan 1,269 632 1,269 3,265 6,435 SoBECA Urban Plan 141 67 141 383 732
Mesa West Bluff Urban Plan 208 100 208 555 1,071
19 West Urban Plan 123 59 123 335 640
Harbor Mixed Use Overlay 286 135 286 778 1,485
Total Potential Capacity -
Overlays, Specific Plans, and
Urban Plans
2,027 993 2,027 5,316 10,363
Projected ADU Construction
Projected ADU Construction 143 246 172 11 572
Sites Inventory Total
Total Units towards RHNA 3,179 1,801 3,283 8,982 17,245 Total Capacity Over RHNA
Categories 109% 101% 158% 181% 147%
Projects in the Pipeline
Development projects that are in the planning process but have not received approvals or building permits are considered “in the pipeline.” For applications submitted for a land use approval, projects are considered “pending” until the necessary land use approvals are issued, at which point a project is deemed “approved.” Once a building permit is issued, the project is identified as “building permit issued.” When project 595

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing3-115 construction is completed and all necessary building safety inspections have been completed a certificate of occupancy or “final building permit” is issued.

Pursuant to the HCD Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook Government Code Section 65583.2, for projects yet to receive their certificate of occupancy or final building permit, the element must demonstrate that the project is exp ected to be built within the planning period. The City believes that many of these “in the pipeline” housing units are likely to be developed within the planning period and could further the City’s efforts in reaching its required RHNA, if/once developed. Although “projects in the pipeline” are not included as “candidate housing sites”, they represent opportunities for future housing construction in Costa Mesa within the planning period. If/when these housing units are built, the units will count toward achieving the City’s RHNA allocation consistent with State law.

Appendix B contains a summary of housing projects at various planning/development stages, and consist of potential developments of various sizes, types and housing affordability ranges. The summary includes recent housing projects that have been submitted at this time, but not approved; approved but no building permits have been issued or applied for; and other housing projects that City staff is working on in partnership to develop housing resources in the City.

For a variety of reasons, not all projects in the pipeline complete the planning or building permit process and are built and occupied. However, these projects provide an indication of what future completed construction will likely be. City staff will continue to work with the aforementioned project applicants and other City housing efforts to reach the City’s Housing Element goals.

Redevelopment of Non-Vacant Sites for Residential Uses
The City of Costa Mesa does not have sufficient vacant land available to accommodate fifty percent of their low/very-low income RHNA and are reliant on non-vacant sites to meet their RHNA need. To accommodate the need at all income levels, the City has analyzed sites within non -residentially zoned areas that permit residential development through Specific Plans, Urban Plans, or Overlays. The City also evaluated and included parcels not currently within Urban Plans which will be added when those Urban Plans are amended.

As part of the candidate housing sites analysis, the City has evaluated recent projects that have redeveloped within non-residentially zoned areas that included residential units. Those projects, including the zoning, use prior to redevelopment, and a project analysis of the approved development plan, are shown in Table 3-41. The City’s analysis showed that prior uses on these redeveloped sites were similar in nature to the existing uses on sites identified within the sites inventory in Table B-3.

The City has also conducted a parcel specific analysis of existing uses for each of the identified sites. This analysis of existing uses, including indicators of a likelihood that the existing use will redevelop within the next eight years, are provided in
Table B-3. This analysis is based on information readily available to the City and research that can be found through online research. The City does not always have access to private lease information but has included information that property owners have shared regarding individual sites.
596

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing3-116 The following residential development projects have been constructed on parcels that were either non- residentially zoned or had an existing non-residential use on-site within Costa Mesa.

Table 3-41: Example Development of Non-Vacant Sites for Residential Uses Project Address/ APN Dwelling
Units Zoning Use Prior to
Redevelopment Project Analysis
125 Baker St. 240 PDR -
HD Industrial use
This development is a 240-unit wrap
apartment complex on a 4.2-acre parcel in a
largely industrial and office area of Costa
Mesa. The project was built at a density of
approximately 57 du/ac. The site was
previously a light industrial and office uses
use similar to some of the identified
candidate housing sites. The project was
rezoned from CL to PDR-HD.
1957 Newport Blvd. 38 PDR -
HD
Self-storage use
and trailer storage
lot
This development is a 38-unit condominium
project along the Newport Blvd commercial
corridor. The site was previously a self-
storage and trailer storage use similar to
some of the identified candidate housing
sites. The project was rezoned from C1 to
PDR-HD.
2277 Harbor Blvd. 200 PDR -
HD Motel use
This development is a 200-unit apartment
complex on a previous motel use site. This
development is located on Harbor
Boulevard and shares many existing
characteristics with sites identified within
this corridor in the candidate sites
inventory. The project was rezoned from C1
to PDR-HD.
671 W. 17th St. 177 MG
Brownfield
development
(Argotech
Industries)
This development is 177 live/work and loft
residential units and was developed on a
site that was previously largely surface
parking area. This site is in the Mesa West
Urban Plan area and adjacent to some of
the sites identified within the candidate
housing sites analysis. This project also
shares many existing use characteristics
with those identified sites.
1620 and 1644
Whittier Ave. 89 MG
Industrial use
(Ametek Aerospace
and Defense)
This development is 89 live/work residential
units on a former industrial use site in the
Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan area. Similar
to 671 W. 17th Street, this site shares many
geographic and existing use characteristics
597

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing3-117 Table 3-41: Example Development of Non-Vacant Sites for Residential Uses Project Address/ APN Dwelling
Units Zoning Use Prior to
Redevelopment Project Analysis
with sites identified in the candidate
housing sites analysis.
1500 Mesa Verde
Drive East 215 PDC Vacant commercial
area
This development is 215 senior apartments
developed at four stories along Harbor
Boulevard directly adjacent to existing
commercial uses. This project is an example
of the types of horizontal mixed-use
projects that the City anticipates may
develop along Harbor Boulevard and
matches assumptions made in the Housing
Element.
1527 Newport
Boulevard 40 C2 &
MG
Industrial uses,
including boat and
automobile repair
This development is 40 live/work units with
ground floor commercial/office workspaces
and two stories above for residential. This
development is in the 19 West Urban Plan
area and previous uses are consistent with
sites identified within the sites inventory.
132, 134, 140
Industrial Way 22 C2 &
MG
Industrial uses,
including boat and
automobile repair
This development is 22 live/work units with
ground floor commercial/office workspaces
and two stories above for residential. This
development is in the 19 West Urban Plan
area and previous uses are consistent with
sites identified within the sites inventory.
1677-1985 Superior
Avenue 49 C2 &
MG
Gas station and a
mixture of
commercial and
industrial uses.

This development is 49 live/work units with
ground floor commercial/office workspaces
and two stories above for residential. This
development is in the 19 West Urban Plan
area and previous uses are consistent with
sites identified within the sites inventory.
2025 Placentia
Avenue 36 MG
Commercial and
industrial uses,
including storage
and repair for
boats
This development is 36 live/work units with
ground floor commercial/office workspaces
and two stories above for residential. This
development is in the Mesa West Bluffs
Urban Plan area along Placentia Avenue and
previous uses are consistent with sites
identified within the sites inventory.
2095 Harbor
Boulevard 29 PDC
Commercial
buildings and gas
station which had
been vacant for
several years.

This development is 28 single-family homes
with live/work potential, including ground
floor commercial/office workspaces and two
stories above for residential. This
development is in the Harbor Mixed Use
Urban Plan area along Harbor Avenue and
598

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing3-118 Table 3-41: Example Development of Non-Vacant Sites for Residential Uses Project Address/ APN Dwelling
Units Zoning Use Prior to
Redevelopment Project Analysis
previous uses are consistent with sites
identified within the sites inventory.
1672 Placentia
Avenue 32 MG Boat yard and
industrial building
This development is 32 live/work units with
ground floor commercial/office workspaces
and two stories above for residential. This
development is in the Mesa West Bluffs
Urban Plan area along Placentia Avenue and
previous uses are consistent with sites
identified within the sites inventory.

This analysis of recent sample development projects shows that residential development occurs within the City on sites that have existing non-residential uses. As indicated in the analysis notes, these example sites share many characteristics with the candidate housing sites in Table B-3. This demonstrates that there is development potential on these sites as well as interest in developing these types of sites for residential uses within Costa Mesa.

Lease Analysis
Existing lease agreements on infill and non -vacant properties present a potential impediment that may prevent residential development within the planning period. State law requires the City to consider lease terms in evaluating the use of non -vacant sites, however the City does not have access to private party lease agreements or other contractual agreements amongst private parties. Additionally, COVID- 19 has increased the potential number of vacancies, especially within commercial uses. As part of the sites analysis for very -low and low- income sites, the City conducted discussions with property owners who felt comfortable sharing this information and came forward as interested in developing their properties for housing through the planning period. Notes regarding discussion are found in Table B-3.

Regulatory Incentives
Density bonus is a State law which permits increased density, a lowered parking standard, and concessions for projects which provide a certain percentage of their dwelling units as deed restricted to residents at the very-low, low, and moderate -income levels. Projects within infill areas such as Costa Mesa often utilize density bonus provisions to construct affordable units. The City understands that existing land use policy may not necessarily contribute to the development of housing. Therefore, regulatory incentives can be helpful in bringing housing units to the market. The City has committed through Program 2I, to annually
update the local density bonus ordinance to be consistent with State law if changes are adopted at the State level.

The City ha s created programs ex pressly written to address the analysis and potential development of additional regulatory incentives to incentivize the creation of affordable housing. As stated in Program 2B, these may include, but are not limited to, the following for projects that propose a percentage of their housing units as affordable:
599

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing3-119 • Deferment of fees
• Priority Processing
• Modified development standards (above and beyond what is permitted under Density Bonus) Development Trends and Current Market Demand for Existing Uses The existing uses within the identified candidate housing sites are primarily commercial, light industrial, and office/business park. The following excerpts are from the Winter 2021 Allen Matkins/UCLA Anderson Forecast Commercial Real Estate Survey.

Office Space Markets
The COVID -19 pandemic took a toll on traditional office uses when the majority of California’s office workforce was required to work from home. This taught employees and employers that remote work was possible and may have sparked a trend of more remote work options in a post -COVID world. An excerpt from the above referenced study indicated that “survey participants are confident about the growth in demand for office space between 2020 and 2023, they are pessimistic about the return to investment in new space today.”8
This indicates that while we may return to a more normal work setting in the short term, there is likely to be less investment going forward in new office space as employers look to downsize the leasable spa ce they occupy and expand flexible work options to keep employees happy and hard costs down. It is likely this trend occurs into the next decade, opening up existing office uses not operating at full occupancy for residential redevelopment opportunities.

Retails Space Markets
In regard to future retail development trends and demand, the above referenced study noted the following observations from their analysis on participant responses. “During the previous economic expansion, retail space struggled. The current recession tripled down on that struggle. First, the loss of household income and the shelter-in-place policies reduced current demand for brick-and-mortar retail. Second, the inability to physically frequent many retail establishments created a new set of online shoppers, and third, increases in the savings rate on the part of households in response to the recession portends less individual consumption. To be sure, some activities will be coming back, particularly personal services and experiential retail. But now, more marginal properties will not find tenants willing to pay sufficient rent to keep the properties in the retail space.”
9 While COVID-19 had a large impact on retail in the immediate future, overall market trends pointed to a decline in the need for brick-and-mortar retail spaces going back over the past decade. The rise in online retailers such as Amazon and the shift in focus to online sales of major retailers like Target, Walmart , and others have kept shoppers in their homes and aw ay from smaller mom and pop retailers as well.

Experiential uses such as restaurants and dining provide more incentive and are likely to bounce back quickly following the removal of COVID -19 protocols. These uses do well in walkable, mixed -use settings

8 Allen Matkins/UCLA Anderson Forecast Commercial Real Estate Survey, Winter 2021, 9 Allen Matkins/UCLA Anderson Forecast Commercial Real Estate Survey, Winter 2021, 600

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing3-120 with a strong flow of permanent consumers. Residential uses, especially at higher densities, present a n opportunity to support future commercial growth including supporting smaller mom and pop retailers in infill settings such as Costa Mesa.

Development Trends
State, regional, and local policy direction promoting the development of housing at all levels to meet existing housing shortages, especially for low- income families, has further driven up the demand for housing. The redevelopment of existing non-vacant land, both in residential and non-residential zones, for multi-family rental and for sale housing provides a realistic opportunity to create affordable housing using the resources available within communities such as Costa Mesa. As a result, much of Costa Mesa’s future growth will be on infill opportunities within the City. To facilitate this , the City has proposed actions to evaluate and revise the development standards and permitted uses within many key areas within the City.

This increases the developable area within the City where residential development can occur and promotes development at densities which may support affordable housing.

As stated previously, much of Costa Mesa’s anticipated future housing growth is expected to occur on infill sites, or sites with existing uses. Development on non- vacant parcels was analyzed to determine a reasonable development capacity based on known constraints and historic development patterns within each of the different zones. Table B-3 in Appendix B contains a detailed description of each existing use.

Many of the existing uses were found to be similar with recent redevelopment examples in Costa Mesa.

Appendix A also includes outreach to property owners and letters of owner support/developer interest for specific parcels identified in the Housing Element.

Accessory Dwelling Unit Productions
Accessory dwelling units, or ADUs) are housing units which may be developed in addition to an existing single- or multi-family residential use. These housing units can be free- standing or attached to a primary structure and are intended to provide additional housing on an existing residential lot. Often ADUs provide housing for family members or are rented to members of the community.

One of the proposed methods for meeting the City’s RHNA at all income levels is through the production of A DUs. A number of State Assembly and Senate Bills were passed in 2018 and 2019 that promote development of ADUs and remove barriers that may inhibit the ir development within communities. The following is a summary of those bills:
• AB 68 and 881
o Prohibit minimum lot size requirements
o Cap setback requirements at 4’, increasing the size and location opportunities for ADUs o Prohibit the application of lot coverage, FAR, or open space requirements that would prevent an 800 square foot from being developed on a lot o Remove the need for replacement parking when converting an existing garage to an ADU o Limit local discretion in establishing min and max unit size requirements o Mandate a 60-day review period for ADU applications through a non-discretionary process 601

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing3-121 • SB 13
o Prohibit owner-occupancy requirements for 5 years
o Reduce impact fees applicable to ADUs
o Provide a program for homeowners to delay compliance with certain building code requirements that do not relate to health and safety
• AB 670
o Prohibits Homeowner’s Associations (HOAs) from barring ADUs As a result of new legislation and an increased effort by the City to promote ADUs, the City has seen an increase in applications so far in 2021. In 2018, the City permitted 4 ADUs, followed by 6 in 2019 and a 217% increase in 2020 of 19. In 2020, the City received 44 applications proposing ADUs. Of those 44 applications, 19 were issued building permits in 2020 and 1 was issued a building permit and received their Certificate of Occupancy in 2020. In addition, 12 of those 44 applications were issued a building permit in 2021. The remaining are still in plan check or the projects have been abandoned. Through June 20, 2021, the City has approved 12 ADUs for development, 2 of which are affordable. Additionally, the City has received 24 applications for ADUs so far in 2021. The City is still processing these applications, which will likely receive permits in 2021. In accordance with State law, ADUs are allowed in all zones that allow single dwelling unit or multiple dwelling uni t development. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (Jr ADUs) are permitted only in single dwelling unit zones.

The City of Costa Mesa has determined based on past performance and the SCAG/HCD approved methodology that it is appropriate to anticipate the dev elopment of 858 accessory dwelling units from 2021 to 2029. Approximately 583 of these units are anticipated to be affordable at the low and very-low- income categories. A total of 257 ADUs are anticipated to be affordable at the moderate-income level and 18 ADUs are anticipated at the above moderate-income level.

To assist in reaching the City’s ADU development projections, Costa Mesa has included Program 3E, which explores actions the City will take to promote and incentivize the development of ADUs during the planning period. As outlined in the program, these actions may include:
• Coordinating with the County on implementation of a permit-ready ADU program • Waiving specific permitting fees to make ADU development more feasible • Creating an expedited plan check review process to ease the process for homeowners • Explore potential State and Regional funding sources for affordable ADUs Summary of Sites Inventory and RHNA Obligations
As described in this section and in further detail in Appendix B , the City of Costa Mesa has identified adequate sites to accommodate the 2021-2029 RHNA obligation of 11,760 housing units. These candidate housing sites, in combination with the programs stated in Chapter 4, will help to facilitate the development of future housing within the city.

G. Financial Resources
602

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing3-122 Providing an adequate supply of decent and affordable housing requires funding from various sources, the City has access to the following funding sources.

1. Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program is a Federal government program to assist very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled with rent subsidy payments in privately owned rental housing units.

Section 8 participants are able to choose any housing that meets the requirements of the program and are not limited to units located within subsidized housing projects. They typically pay 30 to 40 percent of their income for rent and utilities. The Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA) administers Section 8 Housing Choice vouchers within the City of Costa Mesa . OCHA reports that as of June 30, 2014, a total of 640 vouchers were granted to Costa Mesa households.

Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program provides annual grants on a formula basis to cities to develop viable urban communities by providing a suitable living environments and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income persons (up to 80 percent AMI). CDBG funds can be used for a wide array of activities, including:
• Housing rehabilitation;
• Lead-based paint screening and abatement;
• Acquisition of buildings and land;
• Construction or rehabilitation of public facilities and infrastructure, and:
• Public services for low-income households and those with special needs.

In order to receive CDBG funding, the City of Costa Mesa is required to approve and implement the 2020- 2024 Consolidated Plan. This is a planning document that identifies the City’s housing and community needs and outlines a strategy to address these needs utilizing funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

HUD also requires the City to prepare a One- Year Action Plan for each of the five years covered by the Consolidated Plan. For the 2020-2021 fiscal year the City of Costa Mesa received $1,600,000 in CDBG and HOME funding (including public service grants associated with CDBG) are anticipated to be allocated towards:
(1) Housing Rehabilitation
(2) Tenant-Based Rental Assistance
(TBRA)
(3) HOME Administration
(4) Community Housing Development
Organization (CHDO) Housing Reserve
(5) Special Housing Code Enforcement
(6) Mercy House – Bridge Shelter
(7) City of Costa Mesa Senior Social
Services
(8) Community SeniorServ Meal Programs
(9) Fair Housing Foundation
(10) Youth Employment Services Program
(11) CDBG Administration
(12) Families Forward
HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME)
603

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing3-123 The HOME program provides federal funds for the development and rehabilitation of affordable rental and ownership housing for households with incomes not exceeding 80 percent of area median income. The program gives local governments the flexibility to fund a wide range of affordable housing activities through housing partnerships with private industry and non- profit organizations. HOME funds can be used for activities that promote affordable rental housing and homeownership by low-income households.

As with CDBG funding, HOME funds require the City complete a Consolidated Plan and a One -Year Action Plan. The 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan identifies the following objectives for HOME funds:

High Priority Need:
• Housing rehab: $275,000
• Tenant Based Rental Assistance:
$150,000
• Community Housing Development
Organization Reserve: $180,365
• Program Admin: $50,582

2. Opportunities for Energy Conservation
The primary uses of energy in urban areas are for transportation lighting, water heating, and space heating and cooling. The high cost of energy demands that efforts be taken to reduce or minimize the overall level of urban energy consumption. Energy conservation is important in preserving non- renewable fuels to ensure that these resources are available for use by future generations. There are also a number of benefits associated with energy conservation including improved air quality and lower energy costs.

Energy Use and Providers
Southern California Gas Company (SCG) provides natural gas service for the City. Natural gas is a “fossil fuel” and is a non-renewable resource. Most of the major natural gas transmission pipelines within the City are owned and operated by SCG. SCG has the capacity and resources to deliver gas except in certain situations that are noted in state law. As development occurs, SCG will continue to extend its service to accommodate development and supply the necessary gas lines. Electricity is provided on an as -needed basis to customers within existing structures in the City.

Southern California Edison Company (SCE) is the distribution provider for electricity in Costa Mesa . SCE services an area of 50,000 square miles with a population over 10 million; Costa Mesa represents less than one percent of the population served by SCE. Currently, SCE has no immediate plans for expansion of infrastructure, as most of the City is built out. However, every year SCE expands and improves existing facilities according to demand and they have indicated that future growth in Costa Mesa as anticipated in the General Plan is within the parameters of the overall projected load growth which they are planning to meet.

Energy Conservation
The City’s Conservation Element of the General Plan identify and establish goals and policies for preserving and managing natural resources in the City. The element states that solutions to energy problems can be solved through conservation and through the development of alternate energy sources. Energy suppliers are continuously searching for new and expanded sources of conventional fuels such as oil, gas, and coal. 604

DRAFT Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing3-124 More recently developed fuels, such as nuclear and geothermal, make up a small share of the nation's energy supplies.

The City’s Conservat ion Element states the City does not operate any local utilities related to energy, however, it partners with and supports energy providers to promote sustainable practices through local regulations. The Element also reports that while the national consumption of energy has increased by over 50 percent in the last 30 years, the State of California has remained stable due to conservation campaigns by individuals, businesses, utilities companies, and State and local regulations.

Solar energy is the viable alternate energy source for the City of Costa Mesa. As of January 2020, the State of California requires all new single -family and multi- family homes (up to 3 stories high) include a solar photovoltaic (PV) system as a source of electricity. The California Clean Energy Commission determined this mandate increases the cost of single-family residences by $8,400, but it saves homeowners and renters about $80 per month on electricity costs. To further promote the switch to solar energy, the City of Costa Mesa i nitiated the Go Green Program which waives permit fees for residential solar installations and electric vehicle charging stations.

The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification is a world-wide rating system which reviews and rates buildings, communities, and cities on their energy efficiency and conservation strategies.

A LEED certified building is rated based on a set of points received and may be rated “certified” at the lowest and “Platinum” at the highest. In 2007, the City of C osta Mesa implemented a Green Building Program aimed at promoting energy efficiency by expediting the permitting process and waive certain fees for LEED certified projects. The City also became the first California city to require all new Municipal buildings be LEED Gold certified. LEED certified buildings are recognized for providing the following:
• Improved productivity and morale amongst workers, recruitment, and higher retention rates; • Improved indoor environmental quality and air quality; • Minimized energy and water costs during construction and operation; • Minimized waste output;
• Pollution prevention; and
• Low-impact materials that last longer and may be non-toxic, recycled, and sustainably produced.

In February 2021, the City of Costa Mesa became the first city in California to achieve a LEED Gold for Cities and Communities certification.

Lastly, the City also abides to Title 24 standards as mandated by the State. Title 24 establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings (new structures and additions) to reduce energy consumption. The standards are updated every three years to achieve greater efficiency and reach for new goals.
605
Housing Plan
Chapter 4
606

DRAFT Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-2
Housing Plan
The Housing Plan describes the City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 policy program. The Housing Plan describes the specific goals, policies, and programs to assist City decision makers to achieve the long -term housing objectives set forth in the Costa Mesa Housing Element. This Plan identifies goals, policies, and programs aimed at providing additional housing opportunities, removing governmental constraints to affordable housing, improving the condition of existing housing, and providing equal housing opportunities for all residents. These goals, policies, and programs further the City’s overall housing policy goal is to Inspire a more diverse, sustainable, and balanced community through implementation of strategies and programs that will result in economically and socially diversified housing choices that prese rve and enhance the special character of Costa Mesa.

Regional Housing Needs Assessment
The S outhern California Association of Governments (SC AG) has conducted a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) to determine the City’s share of the affordable housing needs for the Orange County region. The RHNA quantifies Costa Mesa ’s local share housing needs for the region by income category.

Income categories are based on the most current Median Family Income (MFI) for Orange County. The City’s 2021-2029 RHNA growth need is as follows:
• 2,919 units - Very low income (0-50% County MFI)
• 1,794 units - Low income (51-80% of County MFI)
• 2,088 units - Moderate income (81-120% of County MFI) • 4,959 units - Above moderate income (120% or more of County MFI) 11,760 units – Total
A. Guiding Principles
The City of Costa Mesa followed certain “guiding principles” in developing its approach and strategy for accommodating future housing growth. These guiding principles assist with implementation of the housing goals, policies and programs and will aid overall decision making. The guiding principles are rooted in community engagement and local knowledge and input into the planning process. The guiding principles are as follows:
• The City will plan for future housing primarily along major commercial, industrial, and mixed-use corridors within Costa Mesa that are com patible with growth, while preserving established residential neighborhoods.
• Each neighborhood, community, and district within Costa Mesa has its own unique characteristics and needs. Future housing growth will build upon Costa Mesa’s history and complem ent the diversity and unique characteristics that already exist within each area. • The City will plan for a diverse range of housing forms, types, and densities to address the housing needs of an inclusive and diverse community and provide housing opportunities that meet the needs of all residents, including low-income households, seniors, multi-generational families, larger households, and special needs groups.
607

DRAFT Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-3
As identified in Chapter 2, the City will need to consider the following findings based on the data presented in this Community Profile:
• The Costa Mesa population is showing aging trends – housing goals should consider the needs of seniors who may have less flexible income, need accessibility accommodations, or may seek assisted living options. The City has established Housing Program 2D to address this finding. • Over a quarter of the Costa Mesa population identifies as Hispanic or Latino – housing needs should account for possible cultural needs such as larger or multigenerational housing units. Additionally, housing information should be made available in Spanish to assist in the location of appropriate housing within the community. The City has established Housing Program s 2E and 4A to address this finding.
• Approximately 47 percent of the Costa Mesa population earn a lower income, indicating that production of and access to affordable housing including affordable rental options and entry level home ownership facilitation should be considered. The City has established Housing Programs 2B, 4A, 4B, and 4C to address this finding.
• Approximately 48.8 percent of renters and 31.8 percent of homeowners are estimated to spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing, indicating a high housing cost burden overal l with a higher proportion of renters compared to owners experiencing overpayment. The City has established Housing Programs 2B, 4A, 4B, and 4C to address this finding. • Based on for sale and rental housing prices, a moderate-income household cannot afford to own a home in Costa Mesa, while lower income households cannot afford to own or rent in Costa Mesa without experiencing overpayment. The City has established Housing Programs 2B, 4A, 4B, and 4C to address this finding.
• The majority of housing units in Costa Mesa were built over 30 years ago – households in older homes may benefit from assistance in renovating their homes and ensuring safe living environments with access to all utilities. The City has established Housing Programs 1A and 1B to address this finding.
• Costa Mesa has a relatively low vacancy rate, indicating high demand for housing and low availability of housing units within the City.

The City has established Housing Programs 2B and 3A
to address this finding.
• 46.5 percent of Costa Mesa households have at least one of the four identified housing problems, which include:
o Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom); o Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room – excluding bathrooms and kitchens);
o Housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income; and o Severe housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income.

The City has established Housing Programs 1A, 1B, and 4A to address this finding.

608

DRAFT Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-4
B. Housing Goals
The City of Costa Mesa has identified the following housing goals as part of this Housing Element Update:

Housing Goal #1: Preserve and enhance the City’s existing housing supply.

Housing Goal #2: Facilitate the creation and availability of housing for residents at all income levels and for those with special housing needs.

Housing Goal #3: Identify adequate, suitable sites for residential use and development to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) at all income levels and promote a range of housing types to meet the needs of all segments of the Costa Mesa community.

Housing Goal # 4: Provide housing opportunities to residents of all social and economic segments of the community without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability/medical conditions, national origin or ancestry, marital s tatus, age, household composition or size, source of income, or any other arbitrary factors.

The goals listed above are described below and on following pages with accompanying policies and programs to achieve them.

C. Housing Policies and Programs
This Housing Element expresses the Costa Mesa’s overall housing goals and supporting policies, quantified objectives, and the housing programs to achieve the objectives. The stated Housing Programs are based on a review of past performance of the prior 2013-2021 Housing Element, analysis of current constraints and resources, and input from Costa Mesa residents and stakeholders.

Housing Goal #1
Preserve and enhance the City’s existing housing supply.

POLICIES HOU-1
HOU-1.1 Assist low and moderate-income homeowners and renters through housing assistance programs as long as funds are available.

HOU-1.2 Minimize the displacement risk for existing residents when considering approval of future redevelopment and public projects.

HOU-1.3 Prioritize enforcement of City regulations regarding derelict or abandoned vehicles, outdoor storage, substandard or illegal construction and establish regulations to abate blighted or substantially unmaintained properties, particularly when any of the above is deemed to constitute a health, safety, or fire hazard.

HOU-1.4 Establish housing programs and code enforcement as a high priority and provide adequate funding and staffing to support those programs.

609

DRAFT Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-5
HOUSING GOAL 1 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
PROGRAM 1A: Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation
This program is designed to assist qualified property owners to improve single-family residential properties.

Improvements include, but are not limited to, health and safety repairs such as mechanical, plumbing, electrical, roofing, security, medical emergency requirements, and/or aid the mobility of the physically disabled and/or elderly. The program provides rehabilitation loans (up to $50,000) and grants (up to $14,000). The loan offers deferred payment that will accrue three percent (3%) simple interest per annum and will be fully deferred without principal repayment until the sale or transfer of all or any interest in the Property, or the occurrence of any other default by the property owner identified in the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement. Maximum loan-to-value is 85 percent of the current market value. The City will continue to provide information materials on the owner-occupied housing rehabilitation program and encourage the participation of seniors, veterans, and disabled residents in this program.

The City will periodically evaluate the effectiveness of this program and modify program characteristics as needed to best achieve program goals.

Timeframe: Reviewed Annually
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Housing and Community Development Division
Funding Source: Federal HOME funds

PROGRAM 1B: Mobile Home Rehabilitation
The City encourages the preservation of mobile homes as an affordable housing resource. Specifically, the City provides financial assistance (up to $10,000) as a grant to eligible owner -occupants to rehabilitate existing dwelling units. The City will continue to provide financial assistance as long as funding from CDBG funds remains available.

Timeframe: Reviewed Annually
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Housing and Community Development Division
Funding Source: Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) Funds

PROGRAM 1C: Monitoring and Preservation of At-Risk Housing Units The City shall provide for regular monitoring of deed-restricted units that have the potential of converting to market-rate during the planning period. The City will continue to work with the property owners of Casa Bella on potential extensions past the c urrent 2025 agreement. The City will continue to comply with noticing requirements and coordinate with qualified entities to preserve at-risk units. When available, the City will assist with funding or support funding actions for tenant education.

Timeframe: Reviewed annually.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Housing and Community Development Division and Planning Division
Funding Source: CDBG, Golden State Acquisition Fund (GSAF), Multifamily Housing Program (MHP)

610

DRAFT Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-6
Housing Goal #2
Facilitate the creation and availability of housing for residents at all income levels and for those with special housing needs.

POLICIES HOU-2
HOU-2.1 Facilitate the development of housing that meets the needs of all segments of the population including affordable housing and households with specialized needs.

HOU-2.2 Promote the use of State density bonus provisions to encourage the development of affordable housing for lower and moderate-income households, as well as senior housing through the dissemination of informational materials and discussions with project applicants.

HOU-2.3 Monitor the implementation of the City’s ordinances, codes, policies, and procedures to ensure they comply with State requirements for “reasonable accommodation” for disabled persons and all fair housing laws.

HOU-2-4 Encourage housing programs and future actions that address the need for affordable housing options as well as the housing needs of Costa Mesa’s senior resident population and the large households population.

HOUSING GOAL 2 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
PROGRAM 2A: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
As of adoption of the 6 th Cycle Housing Element, the City of Costa Mesa is analyzing the market impacts and potential affordability requirements for an inclusionary housing requirement for specific projects. The City has hired a consultant to evaluate and make recommendations regarding the structure of a potential inclusionary housing ordinance, including the affordability percentage requirement, potential for an in-lieu fee option, and other factors. As part of this effort, the City will consider the applicability of establishing a local preference policy. The City will consider adoption of an inclusionary housing ordinance within two years of adoption of the 6th cycle Housing Element.

Timeframe: Within 12 months of adoption of the of adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Housing and Community Development Division and Planning Division
Funding Source: In Kind, General Fund

PROGRAM 2B: Affordable Housing Development
Pursue State and regional funding and local partnerships with affordable housing organizations to encourage the development of housing affordable to all segments of the population. In addition, Costa Mesa understands that there may be local procedures or standards that could impact the development of affordable housing. The development process relies on a number of factors working together, including timing, fees and flexibility in design components required of a project. The City will establish development incentives for affordable housing projects that meet objective evaluation criteria similar to the process for density bonus concessions. Depending on the project characteristics and affordability components, future projects may qualify for:
• Deferment of fees;
611

DRAFT Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-7
• Priority processing; or
• Modified Development standards (potentially including deviations above and beyond what is permitted under Density Bonus).

The City will develop clear instructional materials for achieving these incentives and make them publicly available on the City’s website.

Timeframe: Objective evaluation criteria for affordable housing projects drafted within 12 months of adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update. Program reviewed annually Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/ Housing and Community Development Division and Planning Division
Funding Source: HOME, General Fund, State Department of Housing and Community Development Funds, Low Income Housing Tax Credits and CalHFA

PROGRAM 2C: Supportive Services for Persons with Special Needs The City recognizes certain segments of the population require additional assistance to secure decent housing and supportive services. Special needs groups in Costa Mesa include: seniors, persons with disabilities (including developmental disabilities), pe rsons at -risk of experiencing or experiencing homelessness, and low-income families (including large households and female-headed households).

Through the annual action plan process for the CDBG program, the City evaluates the needs of various special nee ds groups and allocation CDBG Public Service dollars accordingly. The City will continue to expend available CDBG funds in a manner that addresses local needs and augments the regional continuum of care system in Orange County.

Timeframe: Reviewed Annually
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Housing and Community Development Division
Funding Source: CDBG

PROGRAM 2D: Facilitate Development of Senior Housing Options Senior residents, generally defined as those over 65 years of age, make up approximately 10.7% of the population in Costa Mesa while 7.5% of all households within the City are seniors living alone. While the percentage of the total population is lower than that of most of the surrounding cities and the County of Orange as a whole, 10.7% does represent a large component of the community.

City staff will identify opportunities for Senior Housing developments within Costa Mesa, including working with developers who specialize in the development of Senior Housing. The City has identified a candidate housing site within the sites analysis on the current Senior Center parcel and will continue to pursue opportunities or senior housing on this and/or other sites within the City.

Timeframe: Reviewed Annually
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Housing and Community Development Division
Funding Source: HOME, In Kind

PROGRAM 2E: Encourage Development of Housing Options for Large-Family Households Large households are defined as those consisting of five or more members. These households comprise a special need group because many communities have a limited supply of adequately sized and affordable 612

DRAFT Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-8
housing units. To save for other basic necessities such as food, clothing, and medical care, it is common for lower income large households to reside in smaller units with inadequate number of bedrooms, which may result in overcrowding and can contribute to fast rates of deterioration.

In Costa Mesa, approximately 10% of all households meet the definition of a large -family household. The majority of large -family households are renter -occupied (62.8%) as opposed to owner -occupied (37.2%).

This is compounded by the fact that single-family detached households, which generally tend to be owner- occupied in Costa Mesa, are more likely to be able to accommodate five or more people while apartment complexes rarely develop units larger than 3 bedrooms.

In an effort to meet the City’s goal of providing adequate housing for all households, including large-family households, the City will work with applicants who propose for -rent residential projects to encourage 4 - bedroom units as part of proposed developments. The City will also review developm ent standards to determine if any pose an impediment to the development of larger units. If it is found that certain standards present an impediment, the City will consider amendments to the Zoning Code to alleviate those impediments.

Timeframe: Reviewed Annually
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Housing and Community Development Division
Funding Source: HOME funds, In Kind

PROGRAM 2F: Persons with Physical and Developmental Disabilities As identified in Chapter 2, the City of Costa Me sa has a total of 9,224 persons reported having some sort of physical or developmental disability based on the 2018 American Community Survey 5 -year estimates.

This number may include persons reporting having one or more disabilities. Percentages include persons reporting having more than one disability and are not additive.

The Regional Center of Orange County tracks consumer counts, or those receiving services, by zip code and not jurisdiction. Approximately 932 people identified as receiving services through RCOC associated with a developmental disability in May 2021 in Costa Mesa’s primary two zip codes, though the number is likely to be slightly higher when considering small portions of the City which fall in other zip codes . The City understands that people with developmental disabilities may have unique needs when looking for housing accommodation and is committed to assisting residents.

The City will continue to take actions to accommodate ADA retrofit efforts, ADA compliance and/or other measures where appropriate through the implementation of Title 24 as well as reviewing and amending its procedures to comply with State law as necessary. The City will review its procedures and, as necessary, provide more flexibility in the development of accommodations for persons with physical and developmental disabilities.

Timeframe: Review Annually and Address as Requested
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Housing and Community Development Division
Funding Source: HOME, CDBG, In Kind

613

DRAFT Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-9
PROGRAM 2G: Safety Element Update and adoption of Environmental Justice Policies SB 1035 requires that the City, after the initial revision of the safety element to identify flood hazards and address the risk of fire in certain lands upon each revision of the housing element, review and, if necessary, revise the safety element to identify new information relating to flood and fire hazards that was not previously available during the previous revision of the safety element. The City will revise the current safety element and take the document to City Council for adoption within 12 months of adoption of the 6th Cycle Housing Element.

SB 1000 (2018) requires th at the City incorporate environmental justice policies within the General Plan.

The City will amend portions of the General Plan to include environmental justice policies within 12 months of adoption of the 6th Cycle Housing Element.

Timeframe: Within 12 months of adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: State and Federal Grant Funds (e.g., SB2 LEAP funds), In Kind, General Fund PROGRAM 2H: Farmworker Housing
Per California Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6, the City is required to permit farmworker housing by-right, without a conditional use permit (CUP), in single-family zones for six or fewer persons and in agricultural zones with no more than 12 units or 36 beds. The City will amend the current zoning code to meet this requirement.

Timeframe: Within 12 months of adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind
PROGRAM 2I: Promote State Density Bonus Incentives
The City of Costa Mesa will evaluate and update its Density Bonus Ordinance to comply with State Density Bonus Law (SDBL). Density bonus is an effective incentive to aid in the development of affordable housing units within Costa Mesa through providing concessions to proposed developments that meet specific affordability criteria. These concessions may take the form of additional residential units permitted beyond the density allowed in the base zoning, a relaxed parking standard, as well as the ability t o deviate from development standards. Currently the maximum number of concessions a project can receive through density bonus is three.

Timeframe: Within 24 months of adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind/General Fund

614

DRAFT Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-10
PROGRAM 2J: Transitional and Supportive Housing
The City will amend its Zoning Code to i nclude transitional and supportive housing within the City’s land use matrix, subject only to those regulations that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone, in compliance with Senate Bill 2. The City will monitor the inventory of sites appropriate to accommodate transitional and supportive housing and will work with the appropriate organizations to meet the needs of persons experiencing homelessness and extremely low-income residents.

Timeframe: Within 24 months of adoption of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind
PROGRAM 2K: Planning Application Fees
The City will review its current planning application fees, with a special focus on the density bonus fee, and update the fee(s) to avoid creating a constraint to the development of affordable housing.

PROGRAM 2L: Development of Housing for Extremely Low and Lower-Income Households The City recognizes the importance of supporting the development of housing for low and extremely low income households. While the City does not build housing, it is a primary goal of the Housing Element to support developers and increase the feasibility of development of housing for extremely low and low income households. Actions for this program include the following:
• When funding is available, the City shall subsidize up to 100 percent of the City’s application processing fees for qualifying developments where all units are affordable to 80% AMI or lower. • Promote the benefits of this program to the development community by posting information on its webpage and creating a handout to be distributed with land development applications.

Timeframe: Evaluated annually.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind/General Fund
PROGRAM 2M: Parking Standards for Residential Developments The City’s residential off-street parking requirements are provided in Section 3.B.3 of this Housing Element.

The City will review and revise the Municipal Code’s requirements for residential off-street parking for multi-family projects to facilitate the development of multi -family housing, and specifically affordable housing. The City will consider multiple factors when addressing this update, including but not limited to:
size of residential units, number of bedrooms, access to transit and other multi-modal opportunities, local parking trends related to vehicle ownership and the availability of the City’s inventory of on-street parking.

Timeframe: Review within 24 months of adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update; revise Code within 36 months of adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind/General Fund
615

DRAFT Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-11
PROGRAM 2N: Reasonable Accommodation
The City of Costa Mesa has completed an analysis of its Reasonable Accommodation process in Section 3 of the 6th Cycle Housing Element. By the nature of Reasonable Accommodation requests and the range of potential mo difications that could need to be accommodated, the City has to evaluate each request individually. This process is described within the City’s Zoning Code and persons may contact the City’s planning department for assistance with requests. The City will review and revise its Reasonable Accommodation process annually to be consistent with State and federal fair housing requirements.

Timeframe: Evaluated Annually
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind/General Fund

Housing Goal #3
Identify adequate, suitable sites for residential use and development to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) at all income levels and promote a range of housing types to meet the needs of all segments of the Costa Mesa community.

POLICIES HOU-3
HOU-3.1 Encourage the conversion of existing marginal , underutilized, or vacant motels, commercial, and/or industrial land to residential, where feasible and consistent with environmental conditions that are suitable for new residential development.

HOU-3.2 Encourage the development of well- planned and designed residential or mixed -use projects which, through vertical or horizontal integration, provide for the development of compatible residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or public uses within a single project, neighborhood, or geographic area within the City.

HOU-3.3 Actively engage and partner with large employers, the Chamber of Commerce, and major commercial and industrial developers to identify and implement programs to balance employment growth with the ability to provide housing opportunities affordable to the incomes of the newly created job opportunities.

HOU-3.4 Consider the potential impact o f new housing opportunities and their impacts on existing residential neighborhoods when reviewing development applications affecting residential properties.

HOU-3.5 Encourage residential and mixed- use development along transportation routes and major commercial/mixed use corridors.

HOUSING GOAL 3 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
PROGRAM 3A: Adequate Sites
The City will maintain an inventory of vacant and underutilized sites and provide this inventory to interested developers. The City will monitor its status of meeting the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) annually and ensure that the City has adequate sites available to accommodate its RHNA.

The City will promote through the following actions development of housing, live/work, and mixed -use development on the sites identified within the inventory. These actions include:
616

DRAFT Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-12
• Make information on candidate housing sites readily available through a database available to the public.
• Priority processing for candidate housing sites which provide the amount of affordable housing units at the income levels identified within the housing element for individual candidate sites. • If funding becomes available, the City shall subsidize up to 100 percent of the City’s application processing fees for qualifying developments that provide the amount of affordable housing units at the income levels identified within the housing element for individual candidate sites.

Timeframe: Reviewed annually.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind
PROGRAM 3B: Fairview Development Center – State Property Fairview Development Center , owned by the State of California, is a 102- acre property located at 2501 Harbor Boulevard in Costa Mesa. This property historically housed adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities but is closed and has been identified as surplus property by the State . The City has engaged with the State Department of General Services regarding the future use of the property as a master planned residential/mixed use community with a substantial affordable housing component and other community amenities.

In January 2020, the Costa Mesa Fairview Developmental Center Ad Hoc Committee met to discuss potential development yields for the site. The Committee presented a report to the City Council which summarized its strategic engagement in the development of the local vision, priorities, and reasoning behind the stated preliminary vision of a solutions-based, housing-first model for the site. The Committee took into consideration the City’s recent efforts to address local housing needs and contemplated opportunities for permanent supportive housing and integrated workforce housing on the site. Conceptual yield studies and draft plans have also been compiled for the property and helped to inform development capacity assumptions, which are estimated at 2,300 housing units at the site. There are no current Development Agreements on the property.

The City will need to coordinate with the State of California Department of General Services (DGS) for future use of the site. The City is confident that there is significant interest in redeveloping the property once it becomes available based on informal discussions with developers during the housing element update process. The City is considering various zoning strategies as part of the Housing Element Update, including a specific plan or master plan for the site, which would permit the residential densities and development of the acreage identified within the Housing Element, while also considering expedited permitting.

T
he City will partner with the State to pursue compatible development on the Fairview Development Center site consistent with the State’s Site Assessment and the Housing Element’s sites analysis to permit residential development at the identified densities. The City envisions a two -y ear process to negotiate
future residential development use on the site or as modified by the State. If not established, the City will identify additional alternative sites to accommodate a potential shortfall in housing sites to accommodate the remaining RHNA.

617

DRAFT Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-13
Timeframe: Negotiate agreement to develop residential within two years or as modified by the State. If unsuccessful, identify additional sites to accommodate shortfall.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa/State of California Funding Sources: State and Federal Grant Funds, In Kind PROGRAM 3C: Update the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
The North Costa Mesa Specific Plan is an existing specific plan located north of the 405 Freeway, containing a mixture of residential, commercial, office, and cultural/arts uses. Development in this area is typically of higher densities/intensities than other areas in Costa Mesa. This area is a key component of the City’s sites strategy for future housing growth.

The City will complete the required zoning code/Specific Plan amendments to update the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan based on the sites analysis to permit residential development at up to 90 dwelling units per acre. The City has identified approximately 158 acres which is currently or will be within the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan as candidate housing sites. There are limited rezones related to this update, however the development capacity and associated development standards will be updated as a result of this program. These updates will reflect the densities identified within the sites analysis for sites located within the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan and may include amending the boundary of the Specific Plan area as well as revising development standards. There are no caps on residential development within the Specific Plan area. Through this program, the City is not accommodating a shortfall of units but rather identifying sites to meet the overall RHNA need.

Timeframe: Within 36 months of adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: State and Federal Grant Funds (e.g. SB2 LEAP funds), In Kind, General Fund

PROGRAM 3D: Update the City’s Urban Plans and Overlays
The City has adopted Urban Plans and overlays that apply to specific planning areas and corridors within the City. These plans are intended to encourage compatible development through modified development standards and guidelines specific to a localized area of the City. The City will complete the required zoning code amendments to update the existing Urban Plans and Overlays based on the sites analysis to permit residential development at the identified densities. These updates will reflect the densities identified within the Sites Analysis for sites located within the various Urban Plans and Overlays and may include amending the boundary of the Specific Plan area as well as revising development standards. Densities for residential development in the separate Urban Plans and Overlays are anticipated to differ depending on the surrounding context and are listed in
Appendix B. Based on City Council’s concerns with displacement of long-term tenants and to preserve the existing housing stock on the west side, the Mesa West Residential Ownership Overlay is proposed to be removed.

The City will make amendments to the following existing Urban Plans and Overlays, shown with maximum density updates per the City’s sites analysis:
• 19 West Urban Plan (50 du/ac)
• SoBECA Urban Plan (60 du/ac)
• Mesa West Bluff Urban Plan (40 du/ac)
• Residential Ownership Urban Plan (Proposed to be Removed) • Harbor Mixed-Use Overlay (50 du/ac)
618

DRAFT Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-14
The City has identified approximately 84 acres in and around the identified Urban Plan areas to either be rezoned or have their zoning characteristics modified through changes to the development standards within the existing Urban Plans. Urban Plan and overlays do not change the base zoning of a parcel, but rather add flexibility in development potential, including uses and densities. There are no caps on residential development within the Urban Plan and Overlay areas. Through this program, t he City is not accommodating a shortfall of units but rather identifying sites to meet the overall RHNA need.

PROGRAM 3E: Promote the Development of Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) Costa Mesa has single- family residential neighborhoods which create the environment for accessory dwelling units to be built. As discussed in the analysis in Chapter 3, new State laws, combined with relaxed development standards such as waiver of parking requirements along with increased educational efforts by the City have resulted in an increased number of ADUs being permitted and constructed since 2018.

The City anticipates continued growth in ADU development as the concept becomes more common within Southern California.

The City will implement programs with the intent of promoting the development of accessory dwelling units within the 6th cycle. These programs may include:
• Coordinating with the County on implementation of a permit-ready ADU program • Post a user-friendly FAQ on the City’s website to assist the public • Waiving certain permitting fees to make ADU development • Creating an expedited plan check review process to ease the process for homeowners • Research potential State and Regional funding sources for affordable ADUs and make the information found publicly available to homeowners
• Engaging with residential development applicants regarding ADU opportunities that may not have been considered.

Additionally, HCD has indicated that the City’s ADU ordinance is inconsistent with State law. The City will review and revise the ADU ordinance as necessary to resolve non -compliance issues to comply with State law.

Timeframe: Program components analyzed within one year, with one additional year for implementation Review and Revise ADU ordinance within one year.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind, General Fund

PROGRAM 3F: Motel Conversions, Efficiency Units, and Co-living Housing Types The City does not currently have a definition or standards within the Zoning Code that address permitting co-living units, efficiency units, or other development types with small unit sizes and shared facilities. Motel conversions to permanent housing are referenced in the Zoning Code but policies and standards have not been updated for many years and may serve as an impediment to conversions. Participants in the City’s community outreach process expressed that these types of units may meet a need for students, young professionals, seniors, or anyone within the community who may desire a smaller housing unit options that 619

DRAFT Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-15
are more affordable. Additionally, the City’s analysis in Chapter 2 showed that non-family households made up an estimated 40.2% of total households within Costa Mesa in 2018. Non-family households consist of a householder living alone or where the householder shares the home exclusively with people to whom he/she is not related. Co -living or flexibility in housing types may present increased housing options at different affordability levels for this large portion of households in Costa Mesa.

The City will establish definitions of co-living and efficiency housing options within the Costa Mesa Zoning Code. The City will develop informational materials which outline the City’s process for permitting efficiency unit and co-living housing types and distribute them to interested members of the development community.

Lastly, if an appropriate project becomes available, the City will explore opportunities to implement motel conversions within Costa Mesa through Project Homekey understanding that it is a competitive grant process that does not guarantee funding. City Council has authorized staff to submit grant applications for two projects under project Homekey and has approved a funding commitment of up to $3.5 million for local match funding for one or two Homekey projects, contingent upon award of State Homekey Program grant. A qualified /experienced City staff member has been assigned to manage these potential program activities. The City of Costa Mesa will comply with State and Federal laws related to displacement and relocation of long-term residents when considering motel conversion opportunities.

Timeframe: Within 24 months of adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: State and Federal Grant Funds (e.g., HUD funds, State Project Homekey funds), In Kind

PROGRAM 3G: Address Measure Y in Relation to Housing Element Compliance As it exists upon adoption of the 2021-2 029 Costa Mesa Housing Element, the Voter Initiative, Measure Y requires voter approval of certain changes in land use, defined as those projects that amend, change or replace the General Plan, the Zoning Code, a specific plan, or an overlay plan, (collectively, legislative changes) and that involve any one of the following changes: adds 40 or more dwelling units, generates more than 200 additional average daily trips; increases the volume/capacity of an intersection based on specified formulas; changes the intersection capacity utilization or leve l of service based on specified formulas; adds 10,000 square feet of retail, office or other nonresidential; or, where the proposed project, combined with other projects within 8 years and a half mile of each other, meet the above criteria.

Additionally, voter approval is required for projects that involve one of the above legislative changes and:
changes from public uses to private uses under specified circumstances; land designated as utility right -o
f-
w
ay under specified circumstances; land donated, bequeathed, or otherwise granted to the City; land used or designated for Costa Mesa school property; or land owned, controlled, or managed by the City.

T
hrough extensive community outreach with Costa Mesa residents, housing advocates, and members of the development community, the City of Costa Mesa has continued to contemplate Measure Y’s role in the City’s 2021-2
029 Housing Element Update. State HCD has identified Measure Y as a clear constraint to the future development of residential uses within the City, a constraint to implementing the land use and zoning changes necessary to achieve State -m
andated compliance with the RHNA allocation, and also
conflicts with meeting State housing requirements. The City recognizes that it must, in coordination with 620

DRAFT Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-16
guidance from the City Attorney and input from the community, determine a path forward in consideration of Measure Y to be able to adopt the subsequent changes to specific plans, urban plans, and overlays that are necessary to implement the City’s adopted Housing Element and meet the City’s RHNA allocation.

T
he language of Measure Y itself is not clear on how the initiative applies to the State -m andated Housing
Element Update process and/or the associated rezones and revisions to existing specific plans, urban plans, and overlays included as program actions within the Housing Element. The City will take the following steps to identify and address specific ways in which Measure Y functions as a constraint to housing compliance, the city’s housing goals, and other shared community goals.

MILESTONES TIMING FOR COMPLETION
(1) Engage the community and other stakeholders,
and complete legal analysis necessary to identify
appropriate modifications to Measure Y for
voter approval
Complete by June 2022
(2) Prepare ballot measure language and obtain
City Council approval for placement of
modifications on the ballot for the November
2022 general election.

Complete by August 2022
(3) Inclusion of the proposed measure on the Ballot
of Local Election.

Complete by November 2022
(4) Creation and adoption of an inclusionary
housing ordinan ce. Measure Y exempts
“affordable housing proposals required by state
or federal law ”. A City Council - approved
inclusionary housing ordinance provides an
opportunity to address affordable housing
needs City-wide.

Complete by December 2022
(5) Engage in a co mmunity planning and visioning
process. Prepare General Plan amendments,
rezones, and revisions to existing specific plans,
urban plans, and overlays included as program
actions necessary to meet the City’s RHNA
allocation as identified within the Housing
Element. Complete appropriate technical
studies and CEQA compliance documents.

Obtain City Council approval.

Complete by June 2024

PROGRAM 3H: Analyze the Potential of Establishing an Overlay to Permit Residential Uses in the Airport Industrial Area
The airport industrial area north of the 73 Freeway and East of the 55 freeway presents an opportunity for future housing growth in specific areas. There are several sites w ithin this area that do not fall within significant noise contours relating to operations at John Wayne Airport. One development, Baker Block, was completed recently in this area and adjacent parcels have similar use characteristics and development 621

DRAFT Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-17
potential should the zoning permit it. The City will evaluate the potential to add an overlay to an area in this approximate location which would permit residential development. The City has not included any sites within this area within the candidate housing sites analysis in Appendix B but recognizes that this area may be able to accommodate housing within the planning period.

The City will complete a market analysis to determine the potential factors involved with permitting residential uses in this area.

PROGRAM 3I: Analyze the Potential of Establishing an Overlay to Permit Residential Uses in the 17th Street Corridor Area
The 17 th Street corridor east of Newport Boulevard has developed into a successful commercial and restaurant hub within the City of Costa Mesa. This area presents the opportunity for focused mixed- use development which would further enliven the corridor through the addition of re sidential uses. The City will evaluate the potential to add an overlay to an area in this approximate location which would permit residential development. The City has not included any sites within this area within the candidate housing sites analysis in
Appendix B but recognizes that this area may be able to accommodate housing within the planning period.

The City will complete a market analysis to determine the potential factors involved with permitting residential uses in this area.

PROGRAM 3 J: Analyze the Potential of Modifying the Newport Boulevard Specific Plan to Promote Residential Uses along Newport Boulevard
The Newport Boulevard corridor contains a mix of commercial uses included 1980’s -era motels on small lots fronting Newport Boulevard adjacent to SR -55, with established residential communities located in close proximity . This area presents the opportunity for focused mixed- use development which would further enliven the corridor through the addition of strategically located residential uses. The City adopted a Specific Plan for the area in the 1990’s which allows for residential development; however , many of its policies have not been updated. The City will evaluate potential modifications to the Specific Plan that would promote quality residential development. The City has not included any sites within this area within the candidate housing sites analysis in Appendix B but recognizes that this area may be able to accommodate housing within the planning period.

622

DRAFT Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-18
PROGRAM 3K: Explore Potential Future Housing Opportunities on Church Sites As part of the sites analysis for the 2021 -2029 Housing Element, the City of Costa Mesa met with leaders in the faith-based community to discuss the opportunity of providing housing, especially to families in the lower income categories, on church properties throughout the City. These discussions were very informative and allowed participants to share what they are doing within their own organizations to assist residents in Costa Mesa.

The City did not identify any church properties as housing opportunity sites within the 2021-2029 Housing Element but believes these partnerships with the l ocal faith-based organizations that serve Costa Mesa could be an important component of the overall process of creating more affordable housing in the community. The City will meet annually with members of the faith -based community, including pastors and church officials from any church which would like to participate, to discuss housing and what unique issues face some of these churches when considering creating housing opportunities on their properties.

The City will also continue to develop materials outlining the development process and make them available on the City’s website.

Timeframe: Reviewed Annually
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind, General Fund

PROGRAM 3L: Annual Progress Reports
Costa Mesa will complete the required housing status reporting through the City’s Annual Progress Report.

This report outlines the status of residential development projects within the city at various phases of the development progress as well as the City’s progress towards meeting the stated program actions within the Housing Element. The report is due to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) each year within a timeline determined and published by the State.

Timeframe: Reviewed Annually
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind

PROGRAM 3M ADU and JADU Monitoring Program
The City will create a monitoring program to track ADU and JADU creation and affordability levels throughout the planning period. This will allow the City to monitor the development of accessory units at all income levels. Additionally, the City will revi ew their ADU and JADU development progress within 2 years of the adoption of the 6th cycle Housing Element to evaluate if production estimates are being achieved. If ADUs are not being permitted as assumed in the Housing Element, the City will take the action within 6 months of completion of the ADU review to ensure that adequate capacity at each income level in maintained to meet the City’s RHNA needs. These actions may include additional incentives for ADU development or identification of adequate sites to meet the City’s identified unaccommodated need. The City will conduct a subsequent review every two years to evaluate ADU production estimates and trends and make adjustments to accommodate a potential shortfall if determined necessary.

Timeframe: Reviews conducted every two years during the planning period.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind
623

DRAFT Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-19

PROGRAM 3N: Candidate Sites Used in Previous Housing Elements Pursuant to State Housing law, candidate sites identified in this Housing Element to accommodate a portion of the City’s low- and very low -income RHNA that were identified in previously adopted Housing Elements must be rezoned to allow residential use by right at specified densities for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households. By right shall mean the jurisdiction may not require any of the following discretionary actions, except if the projec t requires a subdivision:
• A Conditional Use Permit
• Other discretionary, local-government review or approval that would constitute a “project” The City may impose objective design review standards on projects. The City has identified as part of this Housing Element update vacant and nonvacant sites that were used in previous Housing Elements to meet the current RHNA need. To accommodate the provisions of State law, the City shall place a housing overlay zone over all nonvacant sites included in a prior Housing Element and all vacant sites included in two or more consecutive planning periods that permits by right development for projects that meet the requirements of State housing law. These sites are identified in Appendix B.

PROGRAM 3O: Water and Sewer Resources
Pursuant to Chapter 727, Statues of 2005 (SB 1087), the City of Costa Mesa is required to deliver its adopted Housing Element and any amendments thereto to local water and sewer service providers. This legislation allows for coordination between the City and water and sewer providers when considering approval of new residential projects. Additionally, cooperation with local service providers will support the prioritization of water and sewer services for future residential development, including units affor dable to lower-income households. Following the adoption of the 6 th Cycle Housing Element, the City will submit the follow up General Plan amendment and rezone sites to local water and sewer providers for their review and consideration when reviewing new residential projects.

Timeframe: Within 6 months of adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind
PROGRAM 3P: Federal/State Housing Programs
The City will provide technical assistance to developers, nonprofit organizations, or other qualified private sector interests in the application and development of projects using Federal and State housing programs/grants. Additionally, the City will continue to partner with the OC Housing Finance Trust to identify potential funding sources.

Timeframe: Reviewed annually.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Housing and Community Development Division
Funding Sources: State and Federal Grants, OC Housing Finance Trust

624

DRAFT Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-20
Housing Goal #4
Provide housing opportunities to residents of all social and economic segments of the community without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability/medical conditions, national origin or ancestry, marital status, age, household composition or size, source of income, or any other arbitrary factors.

POLICIES HOU-4
HOU-4.1 Support equal housing opportunities as expressed in Federal and State fair housing laws.

HOU-4.2 Promote actions and programs that p rovide fair housing and counseling services and other housing assistance programs for all Costa Mesa residents in an effort to remove barriers and promote access to affordable housing in the City as funding is available.

HOU-4.3 Encourage and support the construction, maintenance and preservation of residential developments which will meet the needs of families and individuals with specialized housing requirements, including those with developmental disabilities.

HOUSING GOAL 4 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
PROGRAM 4A: Fair Housing
The City of Costa Mesa participated in the 2020-24 update to the Orange County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, as well as completed an analysis of local factors to fair housing issues in the City within the Housing Element. Through each analysis, the City identified the following fair housing issues:
• Housing Discrimination
• Racial and Ethnic Segregation
• Unfair Lending
• Overcrowding
Pursuant to AB 686, the City will affirmatively further fair housing by taking meaningful actions in addition to resisting discrimination, that overcomes patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristic, as defined by California law. The City will continue current efforts to further fair housing as well as explore the fe asibility of the following actions to mitigate local contributing factors to fair housing issues in Costa Mesa:
• Housing Discrimination – Through CDBG funding the City contracts with the Fair Housing Foundation to provide educational and support services to persons who experience housing discrimination in Costa Mesa.
• Racial and Ethnic Segregation – During the Analysis of Impediments ( AI) report period, the City distributed literature on fair housing in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese to target neighborhoods and in conjunction with other neighborhood improvement effort s. This information was also provided at workshop events, at community centers, and at City Hall. The City will continue to outreach specifically to low and very low-income residents as wells considered targeted outreach to residents with moderate and high levels of segregation, • Unfair Lending – Currently, the City does not offer homebuyer assistance, but the AI reports that information on housing rehab programs are available on the City’s website. The City will continue to provide important ownership information on the City’s website. Costa Mesa recognizes that an 625

DRAFT Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-21
educated community is an empowered commitment and will considered target education and outreach about loan purchase to residents.
• Overcrowding – Overcrowding may also indicate a lack of adequate housing unit types available to residents with large families. While the City does not build housing, they will work with developers and interested parties to increase feasibility and opportunities for both affordable housing and multigenerational housing. Additionally, the City will continue to make information on affordable housing units (including information on size and type) available to the public on City’s webpage.

Timeframe: Reviewed annually.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/ Housing and Community Development Division
Funding Sources: CDBG

PROGRAM 4B: Rental Housing Assistance
The City will continue to participate in the Orange County Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Vouchers program to provide rent subsidies to very low-income households provided funding is available.

The City also began offering a Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) program in 2021 . The City will continue to evaluate and offer rental housing assistance programs based on the availability of funding.

Timeframe: Reviewed annually.

Responsible Agency: Orange County Housing Authority and City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/ Housing and Community Development Division Funding Sources: HUD Section 8 Housing Choice funds administered by the Orange County Housing Authority; State and Federal Grant funds; HOME funds

PROGRAM 4C: Ownership Housing Assistance
In 2021, the City Council approved allocation of a ½ percent of the City’s 7% retail cannabis tax to fund a first-time homebuyer program in Costa Mesa. The City will evaluate and potentially offer ownership housing assistance programs such as a First-Time Home Buyer Program based on the availability of funding.

The City will also provide informational materials, online and at City Hall, on potential paths to home ownership and on assistance and resources available for first-time home buyers.

Timeframe: Reviewed annually.

Responsible Agency: Orange County Housing Authority and City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/ Housing and Community Development Division Funding Sources: Cannabis Retail Tax Revenue
PROGRAM 4D: Fair Housing Assistance
The City contracts with the Fair Housing Foundation to provide fair housing and tenant/landlord mediation services.

Timeframe: Reviewed annually.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/ Housing and Community Development Division; Fair Housing Foundation Funding Sources: CDBG

626

DRAFT Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-22
PROGRAM 4E: Low Barrier Navigation Centers
The City shall permit Low Barrier Navigation Center development as a matter of right in appropriate zoning districts, subject to requirements of state law. Low Barrier Navigation Centers are housing or shelter in which a resident who is homeless or at risk of homelessness may live temporarily while waiting to move into permanent housing. These requirements include implementing standards, provisions and limitations governing the permitting, development, siting, and management of Low Barrier Navigation Centers. The City of Costa Mesa shall update its Municipal Code, as appropriate, to comply with State law.

PROGRAM 4F: Homeless Shelter
In April 2021, the City of Costa Mesa completed the construction of its permanent Bridge Shelter within the city. The Costa Mesa City Council purchased the Airway property in March of 2019 and completed $4.5 million worth of capital improvements to convert the 26,000-square-foot industrial warehouse to a 12,000- square-foot 72-bed shelter with a 14,000 square foot tenant space. The permanent Bridge Shelter was built in coordination with the neighboring City of Newport Beach who made a one- time payment of $1.4 million in capital costs as well as $200,000 in furniture, fixtures, and equipment for the site. Additionally, Newport Beach will provide $1 million annually for 20 set-aside beds.

Construction of the Bridge Shelter, as well as the organization and operation of the temporary Bridge Shelter at Lighthouse Church, represent the Costa Mesa’s commitment to assisting those resid ents currently experiencing homelessness. With the shelter in full operation, the City is now able to assist up to 72 residents at one time. This multi -year effort is a tremendous step towards helping to house residents within the City of Costa Mesa who may need assistance and transition to more permanent housing. The City also provides services and assistance to residents of the Bridge Shelter.

Costa Mesa will continue to operate and maintain the Bridge Shelter throughout the planning period in order to assist those residents currently experiencing homelessness within the City.

Timeframe: Reviewed annually.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa
Funding Sources: State and Federal Grant Funds (e.g., State SB 2 and Housing and Homelessness Assistance Programs (HHAP), and Federal Emergency Food and Shelter (EFSP)), General Fund PROGRAM 4G: Assembly Bill 139
The City will review and update as necessary its Municipal Code to comply with parking requirements of AB 139 for emergency shelters. This includes providing sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter, provided the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone.

Timeframe: Within 36 months of adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/ Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind/General Fund

627

DRAFT Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-23
PROGRAM 4H: Housing Education and Outreach Program
As a part of the outreach and engagement process, the City found that community opposition to increased housing and affordable housing may create a barrier to housing development. Outreach and education about the importance and benefits of affordable housing can help to address community concerns and negative opinions about affordable housing. Therefore, the City will develop an outreach program which will develop and provide education materials about the purpose and benefits of affordable housing options in the City.

Timeframe: Develop program within 12 months of adoption and distribute materials within 24 months of adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/ Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind/General Fund
PROGRAM 4I: Partnerships with Local Organizations and Community Groups The City identified Census Tract 06059063605 as an area of high segregation and poverty. Areas that are identified as high segregation and poverty are consistent with the standards for both poverty (30% of the population below the federal poverty line) and racial segregation (overrepresentation of people of color relative to the county). This area is also considered low opportunity and achievement by the ROI: Pe ople analysis and experience the highest exposure to harmful pollutants, according to the CalEnviro Screen. To support this area, the City will partner with local community-based organizations, stakeholders and groups who provide supportive resources and programs. The goal of the program is to further identify specific needs of this community, and connect community members with appropriate resources.

Timeframe: Initiate program within 24 months of adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/ Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind/General Fund

628

DRAFT Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-24
D. Summary of Quantified Objectives
Table 4-1 summarizes the City of Costa Mesa’s quantified objectives with regard to the construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing. These objectives are established based on the City’s resources available over the planning period.

Table 4-1: Summary of Quantified Objectives
Income Group Extremely
Low Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate Total
New Construction
(RHNA) 4,713 units 2,088 units 4,959 units 11,760 units Accessory Units 583 units 257 units 18 units 858 units
Conservation1 600 units 1,000 units -- --
Rental Subsidy2 570 persons annually -- -- --
Rehabilitation3 88 units -- -- --

1. Based on 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan estimate of 200 housing units that will benefit from proposed code enforcement activities using CDBG funds.

2. Based on current Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA) rental assistance estimates

3. Based on 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan estimate of rehabilitation of 11 existing units per year.

629
Review of Past Perfomance
Appendix A
630

DRAFT Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-2
Review of Past Performance
The following chart is a review of the City of Costa Mesa ’s housing project and program performance in the 2014 -2021 Planning cycle. It is an evaluation of the 5th cycle’s Policy Program and considers all current and existing programs and projects, as well as the most current effectiveness and appropriateness for the 2021-2029 6th Cycle.

Program Evaluation for Households with Special Needs
The City of Costa Mesa has demonstrated a significant effort in working towards accomplishing many of the objectives set for the programs of the past cycle. During the fifth cycle, the City completed a number of key programs to support housing opportunity and made substantial p rogress towards many of its programs. The City’s successful programs have been identified as continued for the sixth cycle, due to their success in the fifth cycle.

As a part of analyzing prior programs, the element must provide an explanation of the effe ctiveness of goals, policies, and related action s in meeting the housing needs of special needs populations. The table below provides an overview of the City ’s prior program accomplishments; achievements related to special needs populations are summarized below:

Seniors
As shown in Section 2, approximately 11% of the population in Costa Mesa are seniors aged 65 years or older. Through out the 5th Cycle the City partnered and consulted with a variety of groups to address the needs of persons with specialized needs in the City, including: Community SeniorServ, Elwyn California, Council on Aging Orange County. The City’s Action Plan identifies 500 persons assists using $56 ,180 CDBG funds through Services for Seniors/Frail Elderly. Additionally, a Single Room Occupancy Ordinance was adopted in 1991. since then, three projects were completed and occupied for a total of 247 units; including 91 senior units and 11 SRO units.

On July 21, 2020, the City Council approved an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with Jamboree Housing Corporation in determining the feasibility, and potential terms, for the right to acquire a long -term leasehold interest in an approximately 0.90-acre portion of the parking lot at the Senior Center property to develop a senior housing project. The conceptual density study plans envisioned the potential for 60 senior affordable dwelling units at the site. An application for an Urban Master Plan Screening for the proposed project was submitted in November 2021 and staff continues to work with the applicant to bring the project forward for a decision.

631

DRAFT Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-3
Persons with Disabilities
As shown in Section 2, approximately 8 percent of the population in Costa Mesa have at least one disability. On November 16, 2021, the City Council directed staff to collaborate with the County of Orange and associated development partners to submit application(s) for the Homekey Program grant funding for the acquisition, rehabilitation and conversion of one or two motel locations proposed for permanent supportive housing. City staff have been working with several existing m otel owners of properties that range between approximately 40 to 90 units. The proposals will provide direct permanent supportive housing with funding from the City of Costa Mesa, the County and (if awarded) Homekey grant funds from the State. The target population for these units would include at risk or currently homeless individua ls and seniors, age 62 and over, and chronic homeless individuals and couples, with a subset of the units for eligible persons that qualify for Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) programs. Because the City operates the 72 bed Bridge Shelter on Airway Avenue, the Homekey Program could provide a seamless opportunity to stabilize this most vulnerable population where supportive services are provided on site, in the expedited Homekey permanent supportive housing model.

In 2020, the owner of Costa Mesa Village was awarded “Section 811” program funds for up to 24 of the 96 affordable units. The Section 811 program is a federal Housi ng and Urban Development (HUD) program administered by the State’s Housing and Community Development (HCD) that provides subsidies for housing for very-low income persons with disabilities, in this case developmentally disabled persons. As such, as units become vacant through attrition, Section 811 eligible residents are being referred to CMV through the Regional Center of Orange County. The referral entity is responsible for providing the supportive services to the Section 811 tenants. Programming and services are individualized based on each person’s needs and provided off-site.

Large Households
Large households are classified as those consisting of five or more members. These households can have difficulty in finding housing options that are adequately sized and affordable. As shown in Section 2, large-family households make up approximately 10% of the total households within Costa Mesa. Th e City p ermitted over 950 units across all in come levels during the 5 th cycle, many of which were single -family and could
accommodate large-family households. The majority of those housing units were market rate and not available at levels affordable to low and very low-income households.

The City has implemented Program 2E in the 20 21-2029 Housing Element to prioritize development of housing options to accommodate large- family households, including outreach to the development community and a review of the current development standards to determine if any pose potential impediments to building housing that can accommodate larger households. 632

DRAFT Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-4
Farmworkers
As previously discussed, farm workers are not a significant portion of the Costa Mesa community. Their needs are accommodated through housing programs and policies that assist lower-income households in general rather than specialized programs, such as:
• Program HOU 1-6 (rehabilitation loan and grant programs) which provided funding for 7 owner-occupied rehabilitation projects; 4 of which were for extremely-low income households, 1 for very low income, and 2 for low income. • Program HOU 2-5 (OCHA rental assistance), which provided homeless prevention services or transitional housing assistance and services to over 450 individuals
• Program HOU 4-4 (preservation of residential developments for families and individuals with specialized housing needs)

Single-Parent Households:

As shown in Section 2, approximately 7.6 percent of Costa Mesa households are single -parent households, a quarter of which (27 percent) live below the poverty line. Costa Mesa Village (CMV), located at 2450 Newport Boulevard, is a 96 -unit single room occupancy (SRO) affordable housing development with one manager’s unit for a total of 97 units on site. CMV was originally approved and developed as a two-story Travelodge motel in the mid -1980s. In 1991, a conditional use permit (CUP) was approved to allow the conversion of the existing motel into a single room occupancy (SRO) affordable housing development. As part of the conversion project, the City through its Redevelopment Agency (Agency) provided financial assistance for land acquisition costs in the form of a $500,000.00 loan in addition to a $1,200,000.00 loan from the Orange County Housing Authority. The Agency entered into several agreements with Costa Mesa Villag e, Ltd. (original developer and current owner of CMV) including a Regulatory Agreement to ensure that the units were provided as very low-income units at or below 50-percent of the area median income (AMI) in perpetuity. The conversion improvements were completed in 1993 and the loans were fully repaid in 2014. Changes to the CUP and Regulatory Agreement were proposed and require approval by the City Council. The CUP modifications were reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 24, 2022 and were recommended for City Council appro val by the Planning Commission . The modifications are scheduled for review and consideration by the City Council on February 1, 2022. In conjunction with the CUP changes, the property owner is also changing to a well-known California affordable housing developer (Century Housing Corporation). Century Housing Corporation is mission -driven to support and develop quality affordable home development and manage and administer 1000s of affordable units throughout the State.

633

DRAFT Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-5
Persons Experiencing Homelessness (Unhoused)
As shown in Section 2, the 2019 Point in Time Count showed 193 total persons experiencing homelessness (sheltered and unsheltered). As of 2018 staff worked on establishing a temporary and permanent homeless shelter that will be housing first modeled and will provide housing navigation services. In 2019, the City approved the use of a temporary modular structures at Lighthouse Church for the City’s temporary interim bridge shelter. Later in 2019, the City Council adopted an urgency ordinance relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, to be consistent with state law. In 2020, the City approved a permanent homeless shelter (Costa Mesa Bridge Shelter) to replace the temporary bridge shelter identified in 2019. The shelter opened on March 23, 2021. The City of Costa Mesa partners with Newpo rt Beach to leverage scarce resources to better services the homeless population.

During the 5th Cycle, the City provided homeless prevention services (i.e., rental assistance to prevent eviction or deposit assistance to move into housing and rapid housing) or transitional housing assistance and services to over 450 individuals.

In 2020, Families Forward helped house and bring an end to homelessness for 15 Costa Mesa families (49 adults and children), with 33 Costa Mesa families accessing the Families Forward food pantry and taking another step towards stability. When complete, the Pomona project will serve as an entry point for families in and near Costa Mesa. Also, on November 17, 2020, the City Council approved a Subrecipient Agreement with Families Forward to establish a Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) program to assist qualified, very low-income households who are current residents of Costa Mesa (or households with strong community ties to Costa Mesa).

Extremely Low Income Households
As shown in Section 2, there are approximately 6,610 extremely low-income households in Costa Mesa per the 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data available. Extremely low-income renter households have the highest rate of cost burden at 17.5 percent.

Between 2013 and 2020, the City completed 111 mobile home rehabilitation projects, 52 of which were for individuals or family which qualified as extremely low income. The Housing and Community Development Division provided assistance with the purchase and rehabilitation of rental units by non -profit organizations to operate as affordable to low and very -low-income tenants. Funding was provided for 7 owner-occupied rehabilitation projects; 4 of which were for extremely-low income households, 1 for very low income, and 2 for low income.

DRAFT Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-6
an entry point for families in and near Costa Mesa. Also, on November 17, 2020, the City Council approved a Subrecipient Agreement with Families Forward to establish a Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) program to assist qualified, very low-income households who are current residents of Costa Mesa (or households with strong community ties to Costa Mesa).

Additionally in 2020, the owner of Costa Mesa Village was awarded “Section 811” program funds for up to 24 of the 96 affordable units. The Section 811 program is a federal Housi ng and Urban Development (HUD) program administered by the State’s Housing and Community Development (HCD) that provides subsidies for housing for very -low income persons with disabilities, in this case developmentally disabled persons. As such, as units become vacant through attrition, Section 811 eligible residents are being referred to CMV through the Regional Center of Orange County. The referral entity is responsible for providing the supportive services to the Section 811 tenants. Programming and serv ices are individualized based on each person’s needs and provided off-site.

Policy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle HOUSING GOAL-1: Preservation and Enhancement
Preserve the availability of existing housing opportunities and conserve as well as enhance the quality of existing dwelling units and residential neighborhoods.

HOU-1.1: Develop standard and/or
guidelines for new development with
emphasis on site (including minimum
site security lighting) and building
design to minimize vulnerability to
criminal activity.

This is a standard condition of approval for new multiple family residential developments. This concept is reviewed during the planning application process and new multiple family residential development projects are subject to a standard condition of approval.

Ongoing. The City of Costa Mesa has
developed standards for approval for
new multiple family residential
developments through standard
condition of approval. The City will
continue to maintain development
standards for new developments to
minimize vulnerability to criminal
activity.

HOU-1.2: Protect existing stabilized
residential neighborhoods, including
but not limited to mobile home parks
and manufactured home parks, from
the encroachment of incompatible or
The Anchor Mobile Home Park (1527 Newport Blvd.) was
closed in 2013 and the property is being developed with live/work units consistent with the visions of the West Side Urban Plans.

Costa Mesa City CouncilFebruary 1, 2022

Costa Mesa City Council
February 1, 2022