Continued. The City of Costa Mesa
recognizes the importance of maintain
existing residential neighborhoods and
providing housing for all sectors of the
Community. The City will continue to
encourage compatible development
635
DRAFT Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-7
Policy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle potentially disruptive land uses
and/or activities.
The City has taken additional action to protect existing stabilized residential neighborhoods including (i) Adoption of a Group Home Ordinance on October 21, 2014 to limit the number and concentration of group homes and sober living facilities; (ii) Extension of a moratorium to prohibit the establishment of new hookah lounges; and (iii) Abatement of a hookah lounge and revocation of a Conditional Use Permit issued to a recycling center due to associated nuisance activities.
Additionally, the Zoning Code requires Planning Commission approval to convert to another land use. The City has taken additional action to protect existing stabilized residential neighborhoods, including (i) adoption of a Multiple Family Group Home Ordinance on November 17, 2015 to limit the
number and concentration of group homes and sober living facilities in the Multiple Family Residential zones.
Rehabilitation: The City completed:
• 7 mobile home rehabilitation projects during FY 12-13 • 19 mobile home rehabilitation projects during FY 13-14 (12 extremely low income; 7 very low income)
• 21 mobile home rehabilitation projects during FY 14-15 (15 extremely low income; 6 very low income)
• 19 mobile home rehabilitation projects during FY 15-16 (14 extremely low income; 5 very low income)
• 7 mobile home rehabilitation projects during FY 16-17 (2 extremely low income; 5 very low income)
• 10 mobile home rehabilitation projects during FY 2018 (9 extremely low income; 1 very low income)
through the enforcement of the Land
Use and Zoning Designations.
636
DRAFT Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-8
Policy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle • 9 mobile home rehabilitation projects during FY 2019
(5 extremely low income; 2 very low income; 2 low
income)
• 17 mobile home rehabilitation projects during FY 2020 (9 extremely low income; 6 very low income; 2 low
income)
The City has continued to protect existing stabilized
residential neighborhoods, through adoption of an Ordinance to limit the number and concentration of group homes and sober living facilities in the Multiple Family Residential zones.
HOU-1.3: Actively enforce existing
regulations regarding derelict or
abandoned vehicles, outdoor
storage, and substandard or illegal
building and establish regulations to
abate weed-filled yards when any of
the above is deemed to constitute a
health, safety, or fire hazard.
Ongoing through the implementation and enforcement of
Title 20 Property Maintenance, of the Municipal Code. Title 20 establishes standards to ensure proper maintenance,
removal of hazardous and improper storage, and removal of weeds and other public nuisances.
From 2016 to 2019 the following code enforcement citations were issued:
2016: 454 Citations
2017: 204 Citations
2018: 455 Citations
2019: 171 Citations
Information regarding community improvement and code
enforcement is available to the public on the City of Costa Mesa’s Website, here:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/city-hall/city-
departments/development-services/community-
improvement-division
Continued. The City of Costa Mesa
has implemented and enforces Title
20 throughout the 5
th cycle. The City
will continue to enforce existing
regulations on property maintenance
during the 6th cycle.
637
DRAFT Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A-9
Policy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle HOU-1.4: Establish code enforcement
as a high priority and provide
adequate funding and staffing to
support code enforcement programs.
Code enforcement in the City of Costa Mesa is an active department under the Community Improvement Division,
between 2016-2018 there were 500 active cases. Citations given each year are listed above.
Code enforcement contact and information is found on the City’s webpage:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/city-hall/city-
departments/development-services/community-
improvement-division
Continued. The City recognizes the
importance of code enforcement in
maintaining its existing housing stock
and made it a high priority throughout
the 5
th cycle. The City of Costa Mesa
will continue to make code
enforcement a priority for the 6th
cycle.
HOU-1.5: Install and upgrade public
service facilities (streets, alleys, and
utilities) to encourage increased
private market investments in
declining or deteriorating
neighborhoods.
The City of Costa Mesa has continued installing and upgrading public service facilities based upon funding during the 5th cycle.
Modified. The City will modify
Housing Element Program 1.5 for the
6th Cycle, as necessary, to ensure it is
resourceful and useful in efforts to
promote and encourage the
development of housing in Costa
Mesa.
HOU-1.6: Continue existing
rehabilitation loan and grant
programs for low and moderate-
income homeowners as long as funds
are available.
Ongoing assistance through the Housing and Community
Development Division for owner-occupied units. The Housing and Community Development Division provides assistance
with the purchase and rehabilitation of rental units by non- profit organizations to operate as affordable to low and very- low-income tenants.
During the 5th Cycle, the City completed a total of 7 owner- occupied rehabilitation projects (4 extremely low income, 1 very low income and 2 low income).
• FY 13/14: 1 owner-occupied unit (1 extremely low
income)
• FY 14/15: 1 owner-occupied unit (1 low income)
Continued. The City of Costa Mesa
recognizes the importance of funding
for low- and moderate-income
households in efforts to maintain
existing affordable housing stock. The
City will continue rehabilitation loan
and grant programs for low and
moderate-income homeowners as
funds are available during the 6th
cycle.
638
DRAFT Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A- 10 Policy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle • FY 15/16: 0 owner-occupied unit
• FY 16/17: 0 owner-occupied unit
• 2018 APR: 3 owner-occupied units (3 extremely low
income)
• 2019 APR: 1 owner-occupied unit (very low income)
• 2020 APR: 1 owner-occupied unit (very low income)
Information regarding the loan and grant program as well as contact information is available to the public on the City’s webpage at: https://www.costamesaca.gov/city-hall/city- departments/development-services/housing-and-
community-development/neighborhood-improvement-
programs
HOU-1.7: Minimize the displacement
of existing residences due to public
projects.
The City of Costa Mesa continued to monitor and mitigate displacement of residential residences, as a result of public projects, throughout the 5
th cycle.
Continued. The City of Costa Mesa
acknowledges the importance of
maintaining existing residential, as
well as protecting residential
displacement as a result of public
projects and facilities. The City will
continue to monitor public projects as
they relate to existing residential in
the 6th cycle.
HOU-1.8: Encourage the
development of housing that fulfills
specialized needs.
Through 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.
Continued. The City recognizes that
special needs populations (i.e.,
seniors, disabled and households with
extremely low-income) are more likely
at risk to become homeless because
they have limited incomes and have
other issues that require housing and
639
DRAFT Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A- 11 Policy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle supportive services. The City of Costa
Mesa will continue to support
development of housing that fulfills
specialized needs during the 6
th cycle.
HOUSING GOAL 2 Preserving and Expanding Affordable Housing Opportunities Provide a range of housing choices for all social and economic segments of the community, including housing for persons with special needs.
HOU-2.1: Encourage concurrent
applications (i.e., rezones, tentative
tract maps, conditional use permits,
variance request, etc.) if multiple
approvals are required, and if
consistent with applicable processing
requirements.
Applications for multiple family residential projects requiring multiple approvals are generally processed concurrently. 1957 Newport Blvd. (38 units)
125 E. Baker (240 units)
2277 Harbor Blvd. (200 units)
Continued. The City recognizes that a
swift and effective review and
permitting process can encourage the
development of housing in Costa
Mesa. The City will continue
encouraging concurrent applications
when multiple approvals are required,
and if consistent with applicable
processing requirements during the
6th cycle.
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.
All units under density bonus agreements with the City are monitored on an annual basis; as of 20121, 2 projects (78 units) are in compliance with the density bonus program that exist in the City. The 2277 Harbor project includes 9 very low- income units; however, the project is still under construction and will be added to the monitoring list.
Continued. The City will continue to
work with developers to promote the
use of density bonus as a means of
providing affordable housing, as well
as continue to monitor all
developments which have been
granted density bonuses.
640
DRAFT Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A- 12 Policy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle HOU-2.3: Provide incentive bonus
units to encourage the
redevelopment of residential units
that are nonconforming in terms of
density. The incentive shall be limited
to the multi-family residential land
use designations. The density
incentive shall be limited to an
increase of 25 percent above the
Medium-Density or an increase of 50
percent above High-Density. In no
case shall the resulting number of
units exceed the existing number of
units on each site.
Property owners are encouraged to redevelop the site
bringing them into conformance while keeping the same
number of units.
Continued. The City will continue to
provide incentive bonus units to
encourage the redevelopment of
residential units that are
nonconforming in terms of density in
the 6
th cycle.
HOU-2.4: Encourage developers to
employ innovative or alternative
construction methods to reduce
housing costs and increase housing
supply.
Most housing construction of wrap and podium product is done with wood construction reducing construction cost.
Currently the City provides a variety of handouts regarding building construction on the City’s webpage:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/residents/information-
handouts-forms
Continued. The City continued to
encourage housing construction with
the materials that reduce costs during
the 5
th cycle. The City of Costa Mesa
will continue encouraging developers
to utilize alternative construction
methods to reduce housing costs and
increase housing supply in the 6
th
cycle.
HOU-2.5: Continue membership in
the Orange County Housing Authority
to provide rental assistance to very
low-income households.
The Orange County Housing Authority maintains the City of Costa Mesa housing assistance program (Section 8).
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
Continued. The City of Costa Mesa
has continued membership in the
Orange County Housing Authority to
provide rental assistance to very low-
income households in the 5
th cycle and
will continue to do so in the 6th cycle.
641
DRAFT Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A- 13 Policy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle transitional housing assistance and services to over 450 individuals.
• FY 13/14:
o 7 individuals provided homelessness prevention
services
o 23 individuals provided transitional housing
assistance and services
• FY 14/15:
o 7 individuals provided homelessness prevention
services
o 23 individuals provided transitional housing
assistance and services
• FY 15/16:
o 9 individuals provided homelessness prevention
services
o 41 individuals provided transitional housing
assistance and services
o 2 individuals funded with Rapid Rehousing
• FY 16/17:
o 20 individuals provided homelessness prevention
services
o 25 individuals provided transitional housing
assistance and services
o 1 individual funded with Rapid Rehousing
• 2018 APR:
o 7 individuals provided homelessness prevention
services
o 49 individuals provided transitional housing
assistance and services
o 23 individuals funded with Rapid Rehousing
642
DRAFT Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A- 14 Policy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle HOU-2.6: Provide clear rules, policies,
and procedures, for reasonable
accommodation in order to promote
equal access to housing. Policies and
procedures should be ministerial and
include but not be limited to
identifying who may request a
reasonable accommodation (i.e.,
persons with disabilities, family-
members, landlords, etc.),
timeframes for decision making, and
provisions for relief from the various
land-use, zoning, or building
regulations that ma constrain the
housing for persons of disabilities.
The City continued to address regulations for reasonable accommodation through Zoning Codes through the 5th cycle.
In March of 2013, the City adopted an Ordinance, in
accordance with Senate Bill 2, to permit emergency shelters by right in the Planned Development Industrial zone. The Ordinance also created provisions for transitional housing and supportive housing that would allow these uses to be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other
residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. This section is regularly updated to be consistent with State requirements.
Continued. As required by state law,
the City of Costa Mesa will continue to
provide, policies and procedures, for
reasonable accommodation in order
to promote equal access to housing
during the 6th cycle.
HOU-2.7: Monitor the
implementation of the City’s
ordinances, codes, policies, and
procedures to ensure they comply
with the “reasonable
accommodation” for disabled
provisions and all fair housing laws
Title 13, Chapter IX, Section 15 is regularly reviewed and updated as necessary to be consistent with State
requirements.
During the 5th cycle, 5 residential developments were
presented to the City with requests for reasonable
accommodation, of those proposed projects, 5 were
approved to include reasonable accommodation measures.
Continued. The City of Costa Mesa
continually updates City’s ordinances,
codes, policies, and procedures to stay
consistent with State requirements. As
required by State law, the City will
continue monitoring the
implementation of the City’s
ordinances, codes, policies, and
procedures to accommodation for
disabled provisions and all fair housing
laws.
643
DRAFT Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A- 15 Policy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle HOUSING GOAL 3: Provisions of Adequate Sites
Provide adequate, suitable sites for residential use and development or maintenance of a range of housing that varies sufficiently in terms of cost, design, size, location, and tenure to meet the housing needs of al segment of the community at a level that can be supported by infrastructure.
HOU-3.1: Encourage the conversion
of existing marginal or vacant motels,
commercial, and/or industrial land to
residential, where feasible and
consistent with environmental
conditions that are suitable for new
residential development.
The City continued to encourage the conversion of existing marginal or vacant industrial land as well as taking a number of other actions to support new residential development consistent with environmental conditions during the 5th cycle.
In 2006, the City adopted three Urban Plans to encourage the conversion of existing marginal or vacant industrial land in the West Side to mixed-use and residential developments. To date, a total of 966 units have been approved in the Urban Plans.
Continued. The City of Costa Mesa
will continue to support the change of
existing minor or tenantless motels,
commercial, and/or industrial land to
residential when conditions permit in
the 6th cycle.
HOU-3.2: Provide opportunities for
the development of well-planned and
designed projects which, through
vertical or of horizontal integration,
provide for the development of
compatible residential, commercial,
industrial, institutional, or public uses
within a single project or
neighborhood.
Through the 5th cycle, these design elements were reviewed and considered with development projects.
The City is currently reviewing a mixed-use project (One Metro West) with 1,057 residential units, 6,000 SF of
commercial retail and 25,000 SF of office space, proposed north of the 405 Freeway that allows for horizontal and vertical mixed use within a single project. The project is anticipated to be reviewed by City Council in mid-2021.
With the 2016 General Plan update, the City added a new urban plan overlay for mixed-use on 19
th street and Harbor.
Modified. The City acknowledges the
importance of well-integrated and
sustainable design for the future of
development in Costa Mesa. The City
will continue to review and encourage
well-planned, well-design projects
during the 6
th cycle.
HOU-3.3: Cooperate 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
The City has continued to facilitate discussion with the Chamber of Commerce, industrial and commercial
developers, and large employers to identify programs for a balanced employment/housing opportunity in Costa Mesa.
The proposed One Metro West (mixed-use) project has the Continued. The City of Costa Mesa
will continue to work with large
employers, the Chamber of
Commerce, and major commercial and
industrial developers to create
644
DRAFT Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A- 16 Policy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle to provide housing opportunities
affordable to the incomes of the
newly created job opportunities.
potential to provide affordable housing located within
proximity to jobs. It includes:
• Residential with up to 1,057 rental dwelling units,
• 6,000 square feet of specialty retail,
• 25,000 square feet of creative office, and
• Recreational uses.
HOU-3.4: Consider the potential
impact on housing opportunities and
existing residential neighborhoods
when reviewing rezone petitions
affecting residential properties.
Throughout the 5th cycle, the City continually reviewed rezone applications, of which 8 rezone proposals affected residential properties.
Continued. The City of Costa Mesa
will continue to review rezoning
applications through the 6
th cycle. The
City will continue to consider
HOU-3.5: Encourage transit-oriented
development along transportation
corridors.
The City of Costa Mesa is uniquely situated in that more than 90 percent of the residential properties in the City is located within a half-mile of public transit. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) developments are not subject to parking requirements if located within a half mile of a transit stop.
Continued. The City of Costa Mesa
recognizes the importance of mobility
in the framework of housing, the City
will continue to support development
that is transit oriented in the 6
th cycle.
HOUSING GOAL 4: Equal Housing Opportunity
Ensure that all existing and future housing opportunities are open and available to 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.
HOU-4.1: Support the intent and
spirit of equal housing opportunities
as express in Federal and State fair
housing laws.
The City of Costa Mesa continued to support equal housing in the 5th cycle, as well as continued an ongoing partnership with the Orange County Fair Housing Council.
Continued. As required by state law,
the City will continue to support
Federal and State fair housing laws
through equal housing opportunities
during the 6
th cycle. .
645
DRAFT Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A- 17 Policy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle HOU-4.2: Continue to provide fair
housing and counseling services for
all Costa Mesa residents in an effort
to remove barriers and promote
access to affordable housing in the
City.
The City is a member of a region-wide effort to ensure equal access to housing. Generally, activities have included
investigation, resolution, and education. During the 5th Cycle, the City assisted over 1,600 Costa Mesa households with fair housing issues.
• FY 13/14: 357 Costa Mesa households were assisted with fair housing issues
• FY 14/15: 331 Costa Mesa households were assisted with fair housing issues
• FY 15/16: 314 Costa Mesa households were assisted with fair housing issues
• FY 16/17: 204 Costa Mesa households were assisted with fair housing issues
• 2018 APR: 200 Costa Mesa households were assisted
with fair housing issues
• 2019 APR: 117 Costa Mesa households were assisted
with fair housing issues
• 2020 APR: 153 Costa Mesa households were assisted
with fair housing issues
Continued. The City continued to
provide Costa Mesa Residents with
fair housing and counseling services in
the 5th cycle and will continue
providing fair housing and counseling
services for residents during the 6th
cycle.
HOU-4.3: Encourage programs that
address the housing needs of senior
citizens.
Ongoing. The 2013-2021 Housing Element was adopted by
City Council on January 21, 2014. The Housing Element
includes special programs for special housing needs (i.e., seniors, large families, etc.).
As of 2013, accessibility is now required through ADA
standards. A 50 percent density increase for construction of very low.
Continued. The City was successful in
approving programs for senior housing
needs in the Housing Element as
shown under program
accomplishments. As required by state
law, the City will continue to support
programs for the housing needs of
senior citizens through the
appropriate methods listed in this
table as well as new methods should
646
DRAFT Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A- 18 Policy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle Additionally, a Single Room Occupancy Ordinance was
adopted in 1991, since three projects are completed and occupied for a total of 247 units; including 91 senior units and 11 SRO units.
they become available during the 6th
cycle.
HOU-4.4: Encourage and support the
construction, maintenance and
preservation of residential
developments which will meet the
needs of families and individuals with
specialized housing requirements.
2014/2015/2016/2017: The 2013-2021 Housing Element was
adopted by City Council on January 21, 2014. The draft was certified by California Department of Housing and Community Development on November 22, 2013 in meeting statuary
requirements. The Housing Element includes special
programs for special housing needs (i.e., seniors, large families, etc.).
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 Newport Beach to leverage scarce resources to better services the homeless population.
Continued. The City of Costa Mesa
completed a number of actions during
the 5
th cycle to support families and
individuals with specialized housing
requirements. As required by state
law, the City will continue to support
the construction, maintenance, and
preservation of residential
developments for families and
individuals with specialized housing
requirements.
647
DRAFT Appendix A: Review of Past Performance A- 19 Policy Objective Program Accomplishments Status for Sixth Cycle HOU-4.5: Encourage and support the
construction, maintenance, and
preservation of residential
developments to meet the needs of
the developmentally disabled
The 2013-2021 Housing Element was adopted by City Council on January 21, 2014. The draft was certified by California Department of Housing and Community Development on
November 22, 2013 in meeting statuary requirements. The Housing Element includes special programs for special
housing needs (i.e., seniors, large families, etc.).
The City partnered with Elwyn California to provide services to persons with special needs. The agency provided input on City's special needs populations, specifically economic opportunities for persons with developmental disabilities using CDBG funds ($5,720).
Continued. The City completed a
number of actions during the 5th cycle
to support the developmentally
disabled as shown under program
accomplishments. The City of Costa
Mesa will continue to promote
construction, maintenance, and
preservation of residential
developments for developmentally
disabled within the 6
th cycle.
HOUSING GOAL 5: Coordination and Cooperation
Coordinate local housing efforts with appropriate federal, state, regional, and local governments and/or agencies and to cooperate in the implementation of intergovernmental housing programs to ensure maximum effectiveness in solving local and regional housing problems.
HOU-5.1: Investigate alternative
intergovernmental arrangements and
program options to deal with area-
wide housing issues and problems.
The City of Costa Mesa continued to investigate alternative intergovernmental arrangements and program options to
meet the housing issues.
As of 2015, 48 single- and multiple-family units constructed over the last several years through a combination of
public/private partnerships.
Continued. As required by state law,
the City will continue to identify
alternative intergovernmental
arrangements and program for the
housing problem in the 6
th cycle.
648
Summary of Adequate Sites Analysis
Appendix B
649
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-1
A. Candidate Sites Analysis Overview
The Housing Element is required to identify potential candidate housing sites by income category to meet the City’s RHNA Allocation. The sites identified within the Housing Element represent the City of Costa Mesa’s ability to plan for housing at the designated income levels within the 6 th housing cycle planning
period (2021-2029). As described in this appendix, the development capacity for each site depends largely on its location within the City, a specific plan or urban plan area as well as known development factors.
Where possible, property owners were consulted to help the City better understand potential future housing growth on candidate housing sites within the City.
This appendix contains Table B-5, which identifies each candidate housing site within Costa Mesa’s sites inventory. The sites are identified by assessor parcel number (APN) as well as a unique ident ifier used to track sites within the inventory. Additionally, the following information is provided for each parcel. • 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
A summary of this information is included within the Housing Resources section (Chapter 3) of Costa Mesa’s 2021-2029 Housing Element.
Table B-1 shows the City’s 2021- 2029 RHNA need by income category as well as a summary of the sites identified to meet that need. The analysis within this appendix shows that the City of Costa Mesa has the capacity to meet their 2021-2029 RHNA allocation through a variety of methods, including:
• Identification of development capacity on sites which either currently permit or will be rezoned to permit development of residential uses at or above 30 dwelling units per acre • Identification of City owned properties suitable for the development of housing • Future development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) 650
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-2
Table B-1: 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 30, 2021) 3 19 9 8 39
Remaining Unmet RHNA 2,916 1,775 2,079 4,951 11,721
Large Sites
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 - Large
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%
1. Approved Projects and Projects in the Pipeline
Approved Projects since June 30, 2022
As shown in Table B -1, the City of Costa Mesa has approved residential development projects since the start of the projection period for the 6 th Cycle. The projection period is the time in which development activity can count towards meeting the City’s 6th Cycle RHNA need. Cities within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region can begin taking credit for the 6th cycle for development that was approved on or after June 30th, 2021. Table B-2 contains projects that received approvals during that timeframe.
651
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-3
Table B-2: Units Permitted
Address Building Permit
Number Date Issued Type Income Category
900 W 20th Street BC21-00060 7/6/2021 ADU Low
2994 Croftdon Street,
Unit B BC21-00123 7/7/2021 ADU Moderate
1850 Paros Circle BC20-00583 7/7/2021 ADU Moderate
230 Sherwood Place,
Unit B BC20-00469 7/12/2021 ADU Low
257 Knox Place BC21-00228 7/16/2021 ADU Moderate
2175 Tustin Avenue,
Unit C BC21-00121 7/20/2021 ADU Low
2545 Westminster
Avenue,
Unit B
BC21-00225 7/20/2021 ADU Low
281 E 20th Street BC20-00376 7/27/2021 SFR Above Moderate 281 E 20th Street,
Unit B BC20-00376 7/27/2021 ADU Low
118 Magnolia Street,
Unit B BC21-00261 8/11/2021 ADU Low
382 Ramona Way,
Unit B BC21-00110 8/11/2021 ADU Low
700 W 20th Street,
Unit D BC21-00296 8/12/2021 ADU Very Low
482 E 20th Street,
Unit A BC21-00321 8/13/2021 ADU Low
2049 Monrovia Avenue,
Unit B BC21-00113 8/31/2021 ADU Moderate
536 Caleigh Lane BC19-00957 9/8/2021 SFR Above Moderate 324 Costa Mesa Street,
Unit B BC20-00578 9/20/2021 ADU Low
227 Mesa Drive,
Unit B BC21-00140 9/22/2021 ADU Moderate
330 Ogle Street,
Unit B BC21-00355 9/27/2021 ADU Low
652
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-4
Table B-2: Units Permitted
Address Building Permit
Number Date Issued Type Income Category
379 E 19th Street,
Unit B BC21-00190 9/28/2021 ADU Low
861 Joann Street,
Unit B BC21-00269 9/28/2021 ADU Moderate
1951 Rosemary Place BC20-00111 9/28/2021 SFR Above Moderate 1951 Rosemary Place,
Unit B BC20-00111 9/28/2021 ADU Moderate
1939 Continental Avenue,
Unit B BC21-00166 10/5/2021 ADU Very Low
1984 Orange Avenue BC21-00461 10/13/2021 ADU Moderate
2510 Carnegie Avenue BC21-00339 10/14/2021 ADU Low
974 Linden Place BC21-00137 10/14/2021 ADU Very Low
2687 Elden Avenue,
Unit B BC21-00530 10/18/2021 ADU Low
320 Colleen Place BC21-00334 11/5/2021 SFR Above Moderate 320 Colleen Place,
Unit B BC21-00333 11/5/2021 ADU Low
3078 Roanoke Lane,
Unit B BC21-00265 11/5/2021 ADU Moderate
246 Cecil Place BC21-00293 11/16/2021 SFR Above Moderate 2014 Maple Avenue,
Unit 108 BC21-00534 11/22/2021 ADU Low
2014 Maple Avenue,
Unit 109 BC21-00535 11/22/2021 ADU Low
466 E 18th Street,
Unit B BC21-00408 11/23/2021 ADU Low
257 Flower Street BC21-00644 12/3/2021 SFR Above Moderate 2458 Norse Avenue BC21-00626 12/3/2021 SFR Above Moderate 2845 Ellesmere Avenue,
Unit B BC21-00341 12/7/2021 ADU Low
473 Ogle Street BC21-00694 12/14/2021 SFR Above Moderate 363 Rochester Street BC21-00625 12/20/2021 ADU Low
653
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-5
Projects in the Pipeline
Development projects that are in the planning process but have not received land use approvals or building permit 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 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 expected 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 as mandated by State law.
The below summary includes housing projects at various planning/development stages, and consist of potential housing developments of various sizes, types and housing affordability ranges. The summary includes recent housing projects that have been submitted for land use approvals at this time, but are not yet “approved”; projects that are “approved” but no building permits have been issued or applied for; and other housing projects that City staff is working on in partnership with other entities or agencies to develop housing resources in the City.
• Senior Housing Project at the Senior Center (Jamboree Housing ENA) – 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.
• Urban Plan Screening Project (1711 & 1719 Pomona Avenue) – On November 16, 2021, the City Council considered an Urban Plan Screening of a Master Plan request for eight live/work units on a 0.46-acre lot. The proposed Master Plan includes a deviation request from the Urban Plan’s live/work standards for minimum lot size. The urban planning screening process is the City’s first stage of development review for projects proposed in mixed -use overlay districts. The Council generally supported the project’s concept , including the request for a deviation from minimum lot size and provided the applicant guidance for the project proposal to include in a future application for Planning Commission consideration.
• Urban Plan Screening Project (1540 Superior Avenue) – On January 18, 2022, the City Council is scheduled to consider an Urban Plan Screening request for nine live/work units on a 0.44 -acre lot. The Urban Plan screening process is the City’s first stage of development review for projects proposed in mixed- use overlay districts. After the City Council screening, th e applicant will use 654
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-6
the City Council ’s guidance to include in a future application for Planning Commission consideration.
• One Metro West (1683 Sunflower Avenue) – The proposed project is a mixed-use development and consists of residential, specialty retai l, creative office, and recreational uses. The project is proposed to include up to 1,057 dwelling units (anticipated to be rental units), 25,000 square feet of commercial creative office, 6,000 square feet of specialty retail, and 1.5 -acres of public open space. The proposed development includes three multi -family residential structures with a maximum building height of seven stories; one stand -alone office building up to four stories in height; tenant-serving commercial retail space integrated into one of the residential structures; open space; landscaping; streetscape improvements; and a Class-I bike trail system on Sunflower Avenue providing access to the Santa Ana River Trail. The project was approved by City Council in 2021. The project includes 10 percent (106 units) of the residential development project component to be affordable (67 very low income units and 39 low income units) for 40 years. The proposed Project is subject to Measure Y, as codified in Article 22, Chapter IX of Title 13 (Zoning) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. Pursuant to Measure Y, after final approval by the City Council, including all CEQA review, the voters must then approve the Project. • Costa Mesa Village (2540 Newport Boulevard) – Costa Mesa Village is a n existing 97-unit SRO/efficiency development which was redeveloped many years ago from an existing motel. An application to update and amend the original entitlement ( which allowed for the conversion of the former motel into an SRO/efficiency unit development) was submitted in November of 2021.
The intent of the Conditional Use Permit amendment is to modify and update the conditions of the original entitlement while adhering to the City of Costa Mesa’s recent SRO policy. The update will include revisions to enhance project housing and social services to qualified low -income individuals and persons with disabilities. Up to 23 of the 97 housing units are anticipated to be supported by Section a 811 subsidy administered by the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) for persons with developmental disabilities , with the remaining units to continue as affordable housing units for individuals living/working in the City of Costa Mesa. The project is expected to be heard by the Planning Commission on January 24, 2022, with the final decision by the City Council thereafter.
• Project Homekey – 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 motel 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 individuals 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. 655
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-7
• The Plant (765-767 Baker Street and 2972 Century Place) – This project consists of the proposed renovation of three existing commercial buildings (containing the former Car Mart and Plant Stand) totaling 19,100 square feet, for retail and restaurant uses surrounding a central courtyard area. In addition, new buildings are proposed consisting of two greenhouse structures which will contain food stall uses, and a four-story mixed-use building with 48 residential units, 14 live/work units, and 2,570 square feet of workshop/maker office space above a two-level parking structure.
This project was approved by the City Council in 2019.
• Families Forward (Pomona Avenue) – Families Forward, founded in 1984, is committed to preventing and ending family homelessness in Orange County. Families Forward has acquired and is working on plans to rehabilitate and expand a multi -family property on Pomona Avenue. At completion, the project will include the interior and exterior renovation of the existing 6 units and the addition of 2 new accessory dwelling units that will collectively house 8 families at risk of, or experiencing, homelessness. Families Forward has submitted preliminary plans to the City and are working to advance construction plans which are expected to be submitted to the City for expedited review in January 2022. The project will be owned and operated by Families Forward, but is being constructed as a collaboration between Families Forward and HomeAid of Orange County. Families Forward will provide wrap -around services to low to moderate income family residents and provide a case manager, housing resource specialist, and other professionals to build a plan toward self -sufficiency. The families will also receive supportive services such as counseling, career coaching and access to our food pantry.
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 assis t qualified, very low -income households who are current residents of Costa Mesa (or households with strong community ties to Costa Mesa).
For a variety of reasons, not all projects in the pipeline complete the planning approval or building permit process and are built and occupied. However, these projects provide an indication of what future housing construction may include within the Housing Element planning period. As indicated above, City staff will continue to work with the aforementioned project applicants and other City housing efforts to reach the City’s goals.
656
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-8
Figure B-1: Map of Candidate Housing Sites (All Income Categories)
657
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-9
Figure B-2: Map of Candidate Housing Sites (By Zoning)
658
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-10
Figure B-2: Map of Candidate Housing Sites (SoBECA Focus)
659
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-11
2. Selection of Sites
The City of Costa Mesa has identified sites with capacity to accommodate the 2021 -2029 RHNA. The City has identified 99 parcels within a variety of different zones, specific plan areas, urban plans, and overlays.
Each of these either currently permit residential development or will be amended per Programs 3B and 3C to permit residential development at the densities specified in Table B-5. The identified sites have been evaluated to determine the extent to which on-site uses are likely to redevelop within the planning period.
It was found that a number of the existing uses (identified in Table B-5) are either permanently closed or available for lease. Many of the uses are in multi-tenant commercial centers with one ownership and most show little to no evidence of recent investment or redevelopment.
The City does not have access to most leas ing information as these are generally private documents but has conducted an analysis to identify sites that show characteristics indicating they are likely to redevelop within the planning period. When possible, the City had discussions with property owners to determine interest in redevelopment for residential uses. The analysis also includes several letters of potential residential development interest in Appendix A.
COMMUNITY INPUT ON SITES SELECTION
Community input was an important component of the sites identification and selection process. The City conducted multiple public outreach meetings, including district specific meetings where community members gave input on areas of importance within their district. This information was collected as notes on maps of each district and can be found in
Appendix C. Community members also provided feedback on potential housing development types and focus areas on the online community survey. Additionally, draft versions of the sites inventory were discussed at both Planning Commission and City Council study sessions, with decision makers providing input and community members able to make public comments.
Lastly, the City held discussions with major property owners within the City to better understand their long- range plans for development of the properties under their ownership. The City used these discussions to more accurately determine potential unit yield and affordability assumptions for some of the ide ntified candidate housing sites. Additional information is provided for specific properties in Table B-5.
3. 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. 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 Programs 3B and 3C.
As the City cannot accommodate 50 percent of the low/very low income RHNA, state law requires that the City analyze the following:
• Analysis of leases that would prevent redevelopment of the site, • The extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to the future residential development within the planning period,
• The City’s past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential uses, 660
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-12
• Current market demand for the existing use,
• Development trends and market conditions, and
• Regulatory or other incentives to encourage redevelopment.
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 lease agreements or other contractual agreements amongst parties because they are private documents.
Therefore, the City has conducted an analysis to identify sites that show characteristics indicating they are likely to redevelop within the planning period, including past performance, an on- the ground existing use analysis and a market analysis to understand cost of land, construction, and development trends in Costa Mesa.
Experience Developing Non-Vacant Sites for Residential Uses 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 B-3. 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-6.
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-6. 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.
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 B-3: Example Development of Non-Vacant Sites for Residential Uses Project
Address
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.
661
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-13
Table B-3: Example Development of Non-Vacant Sites for Residential Uses Project
Address
Dwelling
Units Zoning Use Prior to
Redevelopment Project Analysis
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. 17
th Street, this site shares
many geographic and existing use characteristics 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
662
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-14
Table B-3: Example Development of Non-Vacant Sites for Residential Uses Project
Address
Dwelling
Units Zoning Use Prior to
Redevelopment Project Analysis
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 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-6. 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.
Existing Uses on Candidate Sites and Redevelopment Opportunity The City has identified and analyzed existing use on candidate sites in Table B-6 below. As the City is a built- out community, consisting mainly of commercial retail, industrial and single-family housing, a primary goal was to identify sites compatible for the development of multifamily and mixed -use housing as well as not displace existing re sidents. Therefore, the City identified the best possible sites with the most feasible opportunity for redevelopment over the next 8 years. In additional to the analysis in Table B -6 the City utilized locally available SCAG data to identify the following key indicators that the sites included for low and very low-income opportunity are the most appropriate:
• Nine percent of the sites are within areas identifies as Highest Resource by the TCAC • 55 percent of the sites are within areas identified as moderate resource • On average, there are 90 healthcare facilities within a one-mile drive from the identified sites • On average, there are 4 grocery stores or markets within a one-mile drive from the identified sites • 97 percent of the sites identified are within a High-Quality Transit area, meaning the 97 percent of sites are within one half-mile of a well-serviced transit stop or a transit corridor with 15-minute or less service frequency during peak commute hours.
663
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-15
Housing Market Analysis
In addition to an on- the-ground existing use analysis, the City of Costa Mesa has market conditions to facilitate the redevelopment of non-vacant sites for residential. Table B-3 above shows that a total of 1,167 dwelling units have been constructed through redevelopment in the City. Additionally, a California Association of Realtors report for Historic Housing trends shows that the average time a unit spends on the market in Orange County is just 18.6 days in the last four years (2017-2021) and just 13.3 days in the last two years. 1 Specifically in Costa mesa, homes spent just over one month on market and the sale -to-list price ratio was 100.14%, indicating a sellers’ market and the need for more housing.2 According to the New Homes Directory (online resource), historical Housing Market data, the average price for an attached unit, 1,500 square feet or less, increased by 48 percent over the last planning cycle ($434,87 in 2014 to $645,000 in 2021).
3 Additionally, the according to the CAR Current Sales and Price Statistical Survey, the median cost of a home for sale in Orange County increased by 20 percent from 2020 -2021 (from $930,000 in October 2020 to $1,120,000 in October 2021).4 The indicators above signify an increased market demand for new housing.
4. Development of Small Site Parcels
The City of Costa Mesa has identified several candidate housing sites that are smaller than half an acre in size. Assembly Bill 1397 identifies general size requirements for ca ndidate housing sites of greater than half an acre and less than 10 acres in size. The City has only identified sites smaller than half an acre which show the likelihood of redeveloping in conjunction with other parcels which collectively meet the half acre requirement. The likelihood of redevelopment was based primarily on common ownership amongst adjacent parcels which share a property line. In most instances, these parcels are currently developed as a single use and it is reasonable to anticipate that the collection of parcels will redevelop as one new development to maximize efficiency and design of the new use.
The potential candidate sites which are anticipated to be consolidated into a single development are identified within
Table B-6.
The candidate sites that are smaller than half an acre are shown in Table B-4 below along with descriptions of their likelihood to redevelop that go beyond the descriptions in Table B-6.
1 Median time on Market of Existing Detached Homes, Historical Data, California Association of Realtors (CAR), Accessed online:
December 9, 2021. https://www.car.org/marketdata/data
2 Realtor.com, Housing Market Summary, Costa Mesa. Accessed Online : December 9, 2021. https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Costa-Mesa_CA/overview 3 New Homes Directory .com, Hi storical Housing Report in Costa Mesa, Accessed Online : December 9, 2021. https://www.newhomesdirectory.com/California/Costa_Mesa/historical-housing-report 4 Current Sales and Price Statistics, California Association of Realtors (CAR), Accessed online: Decem ber 9 , 2021. https://www.car.org/marketdata/data
664
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-16
Table B-4: Analysis of Candidate Housing Sites Under 0.5 acres APN Unique
ID Address
Specific
Plan/Urban
Plan Area
Size
(Ac) Use Description
42543103 20 1666
Superior Ave
19 West 0.29 These are all adjacent parcels in a
contiguous block bounded by E 16 th
Street, Superior Avenue, E 17 th Street,
and Newport Blvd. All parcels within this
block have been identified as candidate
housing sites and total 4.70 acres. Sites
22 and 23 are owned by the same
property owner. The existing uses are all
car-related in
dustrial uses which are
single-story.
As shown in Table B-2, the City worked
with property owners of parcels along
Industrial Way (Specifically 132, 134, and
140 Industrial Way, less than a quarter
mile southwest
of these identified
parcels) to facilitate the development of
residential uses on parcels previously
occupied with the same types of uses as
these three parcels (boat and auto repair
uses). These parcels are located within
the 19 West Urban Plan area and are
permitted to develop in the same
manner as the parcels along Industrial
Way.
42543105 22 126 E 16th St 19 West 0.42
42543106 23 126 E 16th St 19 West 0.35
41817101 208 754 Saint
Clair St
SoBECA 0.27 These parcels are occupied by
warehouse and light industrial uses
within the SoBECA Urban Plan area. The
SoBECA Urban Plan focuses on
residential as a mixed -use component
and promoting the development of
residential in addition to the existing
commercial anchors in the Mall and the
Camp. The City has established Program
3D to update the Urban Plans within the
City to focus more heavily on residential
uses at the identified densities.
As identified in Table B -2, the City
developed Baker Block on industrial
parcels which previously occupied
similar light industrial uses in a largely
industrial corridor approximately one -
41817102 179 752 Saint
Clair St
SoBECA 0.26
41820202 182 841 Baker St SoBECA 0.33
41820205 185 2969
Century Pl
SoBECA 0.09
13931321 203 1590 Adams
Ave
SoBECA 0.27
665
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-17
Table B-4: Analysis of Candidate Housing Sites Under 0.5 acres APN Unique
ID Address
Specific
Plan/Urban
Plan Area
Size
(Ac) Use Description
third of a mile from the SoBECA area.
These uses have similar historical
context and assumptions have been tied
to this project and others as examples of
redeveloping these types of uses for
residential within industrial areas.
14004183 198 N/A North
Costa
Mesa
0.23 This parcel is part of the overall Home
Ranch parcel described in the Large Site
analysis in the following section. Home
Ranch is currently a mostly vacant site
within the North Costa Mesa Specific
Plan area that has an existing
development agreement and is currently
planned for residential development.
The City has actively worked with the
property owner throughout the 6th Cycle
Housing Element update process to
identify an appropriate num ber of
residential units to allocate towards the
site. The property owner has indicated
they intend to develop residential uses
on the Home Ranch site and they are
permitted to alter their development
agreement or develop outside of it,
meaning there are no unit caps in place.
While this individual parcel is less than
half an acre, it is in common ownership
with the larger Home Ranch site which
exceeds the half acre standard. This
parcel is currently vacant.
Additionally, Policy LU-2.10 of the City of Costa Mesa’s Land Use Element within the General Plan promotes lot consolidation of residential properties. While the sites identified in the table above are commercial in nature, the intent of the policy remains effective in consolidating smaller parcels towards the creation of a larger residential development.
5. Development of Large Site Parcels
The 2021-2029 sites inventory includes several sites that are larger than 10 acres. These sites exceed the AB1397 size requirement and require additional analysis. The following background and analysis relates to each site in the inventory that exceeds that inventory. The City has conducted meetings with each of these 666
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-18
major property owners to determine their future int erest in developing housing on the identified properties.
FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER
The Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) is a State-owned property that is approximately 114 acres in size and located on Harbor Boulevard within Costa Mesa. The FDC currently serves as one of the largest residential facilities for developmentally disabled persons in the State of California. The FDC was previously identified in the City’s 5th cycle Housing Element (2013-2021) and the City has continued discussions with the State to determine the potential residential yield of the area taking into consideration the existing uses.
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 open a homeless shelter and identified opportunities for permanent supportive housing and integrated workforce housing within the City. Conceptual yield studies and draft plans have also been compiled for the property and helped to inform development capacity assumptions. There are no current development agreements or density caps on the property as residential uses are not currently permitted. The City will need to come to an agreement with the State of California for future use of the site and then solicit input from the development community on potential entitlement, likely through a competitive bid process. 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.
FDC was discussed multiple times in public workshops by local housing advocacy groups in support of residential uses on the site for primarily affordable housing developments and workforce housing. The City has established
Program 3B to work with the State of California to establish the FCD area as a mixed -use village with a combination of existing and future uses. As stated in Program 3B, the City envisions a two- year process to negotiate future residential development use on the site. If not established within two years, the City will identify additional sites to accommodate a potential shortfall in sites to accommodate the remaining RHNA.
The City’s 6th Cycle analysis includes an assumption of 2,300 dwelling units broken down into the very low, low, moderate, and above moderate-income categories.
SAKIOKA LOT 2
Sakioka Lot 2 is a 30.93-acre site located north of the 405 Freeway with General Plan Land Use designation that allows up to 660 residential units, 863,000 Square feet of office or retail use and a Floor Area Ratio of
1.0. The property is also located in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan.
The site is currently under a development agreement (DA) that was recently extended for ten years until May of, 2031. The City has had continued discussions with the property owners who have indicated there is the potential for future housing development on the site in strategic areas . This development would occur pursuant to the new densities identified within the Housing Element, which may lead to the development of more units than currently established under the DA. The property owner and City could potentially amend the current DA or the property owner may develop outside of the DA but under the 667
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-19
zoning requirements of the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan in order to achieve more than 660 residential units in the future. Therefore, the existing DA does not present a cap or restriction on the future number of potential units on the Sakioka Lot 2 parcel. Furthermore, there are not affordability caps within the current DA which would limit the number of units which may be affordable. The City’s 6 th Cycle analysis
includes an assumption of 1,200 dwelling units broken down into the very low, low, moderate, and above moderate-income categories. The property owner has expressed interest in communications with the City in developing for residential uses within the 8-year planning cycle.
HOME RANCH
Segerstrom Home Ranch is a 43- acre site located north of the 405 Freeway with a General Plan land use designation that allows up to 1.2 million square feet of office and up to 0.64 Floor Area Ratio. The property is also located in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. The site is currently under a development agreement that was executed in 2002 and extended in 2010 for additional 20 years until July of 2030.
The City has had continued discussions with the property owners who have indicated there is the potential for future housing development on the site in strategic areas. The property owner has expressed that there are future scenarios which consider fully developing the site for residential uses with some support commercial, which exceeds the assumptions in the housing element. The City conservatively analyzed the potential for a range of uses on the Home Ranch site. This would require a modification of the existing DA, which is possible with property owner and City support. The City’s 6th Cycle analysis includes an assumption of 2,215 dwelling units broken down into the very low, low, moderate, and above moderate -income categories. The property owner has expressed interest in communications with the City in developing for residential uses within the 8-year planning cycle.
SOUTH COAST PLAZA
South Coast Plaza is a large regional mall in the North Costa Mesa area. The mall has ample surface parking and as of adoption of this Housing Element, has a large, big box component which is currently vacant. The City has had continued discussions with the property owners who have indicated there is the potential for future housing development on the site in strategic areas. The sites analysis makes a conservative potential redevelopment assumption of approximately 15 acres of the 128-acre property.
The City’s 6
th Cycle analysis includes an assumption of 1,959 dwelling units broken down into the very low, low, moderate, and above moderate-income categories.
PACIFIC ARTS PLAZA
Pacific Arts Plaza project is an 18.3-acre site located in South Coast Plaza Town Center currently developed with a variety of office buildings and restaurants. The site is designated Cultural Arts Center (CAC) by the General Plan and has a zoning designation of Town Center (TC). The property is also located in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. Portions of the site are under a Development Agreement. The existing development approvals referenced in the original Development Agreement that allows for a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.55 and maximum building square footage of 1,227,978. The Development Agreement was recently extended for two years and will expire in August of 2023. The City has had continued discussions with the property owners who have indicated there is the potential for future housing development on the site in strategic areas.
The City’s 6
th Cycle analysis includes an assumption of 535 dwelling units broken down into the very low, low, moderate, and above moderate-income categories.
668
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-20
6. Accessory Dwelling Units
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.
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 202 1. In 2018, the City permitted 4 ADUs, followed by 6 in 2019 and a 450% increase in 2020 of 27. As of the end of November 2021, the City has issued permits for 41 ADUs and JADUs for development. Of the 41 permits issued, 1 was available at the extremely -low income level, 3 were available at the very -low income level, 25 were available at the low- income level, and 12 were available at the moderate income level. In compliance with State law, ADUs are allowed in all zones that allow single dwelling unit or multiple dwelling unit development. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JrADUs) are permitted only in single dwelling unit zones.
The City of Costa Mesa has determined based on past performance that it is appropriate to anticipate the development of 572 accessory dwelling units from 2021 to 2029. Approximately 389 of these units are anticipated to be affordable at the low and very -low-income categories. 172ADUs are a nticipated to be affordable at the moderate-income level and 11 ADUs are anticipated at the above moderate-income level.
This affordability estimation is based on guidance from SCAG and HCD based on surveys of existing ADUs in the SCAG region between April and June 2020.
The City performed a trend analysis looking at the growth in ADUs from 2018 – 2021. That analysis is shown in the table below.
Table B-5: ADU Trend Analysis (2018 – 2021)
Year
ADU Permitted
(2018-Based
Strategy)
Percent of
previous
year
Projection
Period Total: 572
2028 99 105%
2027 95 110%
2026 86 112%
2025 77 114%
2024 67 116%
2023 58 118%
2022 49 120%
2021* 41 152%
2020* 27 450%
2019* 6 150%
2018* 4
“*” indicates actual permitted ADUs within that year.
669
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-21
As shown in Table B-4, Costa Mesa has seen sustained increases in ADU production each year since 2018 with the lowest being a 50% increase between 2018 and 2019 as new State laws and local processes were not common knowledge amongst homeowners. The City expects that they while ADU production is likely to continue to increase year after year, there may be some drop off in that increase as more property owners develop ADUs. Table B-3 shows the anticipated increases which state the observed 152% increase between 2020 and 2021, with a slow t apering down to an anticipated 105% in 2028. The City has established
Program 3M to monitor ADU production every two years and has stated actions should production not match the anticipated amount in the housing element.
To assist in reaching the City’s ADU development projections, Costa Mesa has included Program 3J, which identifies 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 • Post a user-friendly FAQ on the City’s website to assist the public with the general questions. • Waiving specific permitting fees to make ADU development more feasible • 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
7. Water, Sewer, and Dry Utility Availability
Each site has been evaluated to ensure there is adequate access to water and sewer connections as well as dry utilities. Each site is situated with a direct connection to a public street that has the appropriate water and sewer mains and other infrastructure to service the candidate site. The City has sufficient total water and sewer capacity (existing and planned) to accommodate the 2021-2029 regional housing need. The City plans for future housing growth through the Mesa Water District Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP).
This was most recently updated in 2020. Future sewer capacity is planned for through the Costa Mesa Sanitary District Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP), which was most recently amended and recertified by the Board of Directors in January 2021.
B. Calculation of Unit Capacity
This section contains a description of the candidate sites identified to meet Costa Mesa’s RHNA need at all income levels. The full list of these sites is presented in Table B-6.
1. Realistic Capacity and Affordability Calculations
Costa Mesa’s 2021- 2029 Housing Element sites analysis assumes that each identified candidate housing site will develop with at a range of income levels. Primarily, it is assumed that sites identified within Table B-6 will redevelop with the following affordability characteristics:
• 30% of units available to residents in the low and very low-income categories • 20% of units available to residents in the moderate-income category • 50% of units available to residents in the above moderate-income category 670
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-22
Costa Mesa recognizes that not all sites within the inventory will develop such that they meet these affordability assumptions and has included a 3 7% buffer on the total number of units to assist in accommodating potential differences in future housing development. This buffer is to ac commodate the potential that sites may develop for 100% nonresidential uses, however recent development within Costa Mesa has indicated that is unlikely. The following developments have all occurred recently within the City’s urban plans, specific plans, overlays, or on non -residentially zoned sites. Many of these are described in more detail in
Table B-2.
• 2277 Harbor Blvd – Previous motel use that underwent a rezone from C1 to PDR-HD and developed as a fully residential project with 200 apartment units. • 671 W 17th Street – Previous industrial brownfield site in the Mesa West Bluff Urban Plan which developed as a fully residential project with 177 live/work units. • 1620 and 1644 Whittier Avenue – Previous industrial use in the Mesa West Bluff Urban Plan which developed as a fully residential project with 89 live/work units. • 1500 Mesa Verde East Drive – Commercially zoned parcel along Harbor Boulevard which developed as a fully residential project with 215 senior apartments. • Brickyard East and West – Previous industrial warehouse uses along Placentia Avenue which developed as a fully residential project with 29 townhouse units.
Consistent with local housing market trends data presented earlier in this appendices, the City of Costa Mesa is seeing an increase in residential development and rarely receives requests for fully non-residential uses in the area identified within the candidate housing sites analysis.
The City has established goals and programs within the Housing Element aimed at identifying funding opportunities and partnering with the development community to increase the amount of affordable housing built in future developments. If the City is able to identify partnerships leading to fully affordable projects, that would also help to cover any potential shortfall in capacity in any of the four income categories. The City of Costa Mesa recognizes that should a “No Net Loss” situation occur , they will be required to identify additional sites and has analyzed additional potential housing sites within the Housing Element’s environmental clearance document.
There are several candidate housing sites in which the affordability assumptions diffe r from those presented above. Those sites include:
• Costa Mesa Senior Housing Project (APN 424-211-01). This site is owned by the City of Costa Mesa who has had previous discussions with a developer on a fully affordable project on this site. This site assumes 60 units which are all affordable at the lower income levels. • Fairview Developmental Center. This site is analyzed previously in the large site analysis portion of this appendices. This site is owned by the State of California and the City antic ipates working in collaboration with the State to support the goal of developing affordable housing. The City has assumed that approximately 40% of the units on this site will be available to residents at the lower income levels, while 30% will be availab le to residents at the moderate -income levels. The remaining units are anticipated to be market-rate.
• Sakioka Lot 2. The City has conducted outreach meetings with this property owner and determined that it is realistic to assume that 15% of future unit s on this site may be available to residents at the lower income levels. This site has an existing development agreement. 671
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-23
• Home Ranch. The City has conducted outreach meetings with this property owner and determined that it is realistic to assume that 1 5% of future units on this site may be available to residents at the lower income levels. This site has an existing development agreement. • Pacific Arts Plaza and Town Center. The City has conducted outreach meetings with this property owner and determined that it is realistic to assume that 15% of future units on this site may be available to residents at the low and very-low income levels. This site has an existing development agreement.
2. Specific Plan, Urban Plan, and Overlays
As identified in Programs 3B and 3C, of the Housing Plan (Chapter 4), the City will be modifying some of the existing Specific Plans, Urban Plans, and Overlays within Costa Mesa. The densities identified in Table B-5 reflect revisions to many of these areas to permit resi dential development at a higher density than what the current zoning permits as of adoption of this document. As noted, the City has three years to complete these zoning amendments. The City is proposing to either analyze or modify the following areas:
• North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
• 19 West Urban Plan
• SoBECA Urban Plan
• Mesa West Bluff Urban Plan
• Residential Ownership Urban Plan
(Propose to Remove)
• Residential Incentive Overlay
• Harbor Mixed-Use Overlay
These areas, with the exception of the Residential Ownership Urban Plan, which is proposed to be removed, will be modified through Programs 3B through 3C to permit residential development at or above the default density for Costa Mesa of 30 dwelling units per acre. When considering appropriate densities, the City held outreach meetings with members of the community, decision -makers, the development community, and major property owners. As part of these meetings, the City discusses and analyzed what densities were appropriate to maintain the character of the surrounding neighborhoods while also presenting the opportunity for future residential development t hat can realistically facilitate the development of units available at the lower income levels.
The City will continue to conduct community outreach post adoption of the Housing Element to discuss potential revisions to development standards within these areas with the goal of effectively planning for future affordable housing. Densities established as a part of future zoning changes must accommodate the densities shown in
Table B-4 for the sites identified.
672
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B- 24 Costa Mesa Housing Element
6th Cycle – 2021-2029
Table B-6: 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
Id Address Owner Zoning
General
Plan
Land
Use
Council
District
Specific
Plans
Size
(Ac) Density Vacant
Potential
Consolid
ation
Used
In 5th
Cycle
Net
Units
Very
Low
(20%)
Low
(10%)
Moderate
(20%)
Above
Moderate
(50%)
Notes
Existing
Building
SF
Max
Buildout
per FAR
%
Occupied
424-202-
02 12 719 W
19th St
PANGE MARC
C TR PANGE
REVOC TR
C1 G 4 19
West 1.29 50 Yes 64 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.
12,509 70,028 18%
424-202-
03 13 707 W
19th St
MUNOZ
FAMILY
PROPERTIES
LLC
C1 G 4 19
West 2.00 50 99 19 9 19 52
Existing single-user
(Smart&Final) with large
surface parking lot.
Potential to redevelop
for mixed-use adjacent
to major transportation
corrridor (19th Street).
20,404 108,723 19%
424-211-
01 14 695 W
19th St
CITY OF
COSTA MESA C1 G 5
19 West
(Senior)
2.66 50 60 40 20 0 0 Proposed Senior Center
Housing project. 16,181 144,946 11%
424-281-
20 16
1710
Pomona
Ave
PACIFIC
MESA
PROPERTIES
MG LI 5 19
West 1.08 50 53 10 5 10 28
Existing self-storage
facility in close proximity
to new residential uses
and major
transportation corridor
(17th Street).
17,660 58,633 30%
424-281-
21 17 670 W
17th St
PACIFIC
MESA
PROPERTIES
MG LI 5 19
West 1.06 50 53 10 5 10 28
Existing 2-story office
and commercial uses in
close proximity to new
residential uses and
major transportation
corridor (17th Street).
12,364 57,813 21%
424-281-
22 18 660 W
17th St
PACIFIC
MESA
PROPERTIES
MG LI 5 19
West 2.22 50 110 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).
29,164 120,722 24%
673
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B- 25 Costa Mesa Housing Element
6th Cycle – 2021-2029
Table B-6: 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
Id Address Owner Zoning
General
Plan
Land
Use
Council
District
Specific
Plans
Size
(Ac) Density Vacant
Potential
Consolid
ation
Used
In 5th
Cycle
Net
Units
Very
Low
(20%)
Low
(10%)
Moderate
(20%)
Above
Moderate
(50%)
Notes
Existing
Building
SF
Max
Buildout
per FAR
%
Occupied
425-431-
02 19
1680
Superior
Ave
B D INNS INC CL G 6 19
West 2.11 50 105 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.
25,337 115,045 22%
425-431-
03 20
1666
Superior
Ave
SCHWARTZ
PAUL D 2007
TR
MG LI 6 19
West 0.29 50 A 14 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.
3,693 15,921 23%
425-431-
04 21 116 E
16th St
SHEEHAN
MICHAEL W
TR
MG LI 6 19
West 0.73 50 A 36 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.
13,899 39,955 35%
425-431-
05 22 126 E
16th St
126
PROPERTIES
LLC
MG LI 6 19
West 0.42 50 A 20 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.
10,868 22,831 48%
674
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B- 26 Costa Mesa Housing Element
6th Cycle – 2021-2029
Table B-6: 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
Id Address Owner Zoning
General
Plan
Land
Use
Council
District
Specific
Plans
Size
(Ac) Density Vacant
Potential
Consolid
ation
Used
In 5th
Cycle
Net
Units
Very
Low
(20%)
Low
(10%)
Moderate
(20%)
Above
Moderate
(50%)
Notes
Existing
Building
SF
Max
Buildout
per FAR
%
Occupied
425-431-
06 23 126 E
16Th St
126
PROPERTIES
LLC
C1 G 6 19
West 0.35 50 A 17 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.
5,158 19,226 27%
425-431-
07 24
1601
Newport
Blvd
WINKAL
HOLDINGS L L
C
C1 G 6 19
West 0.79 50 39 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.
9,604 42,763 22%
420-012-
16 38 2476
Mark St
STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
I&R-
MLT MUC 1
Fairvie
w
Develo
pmenta
l
108.91 60 2,300 575 345 690 690
Fairview Developmental
Center property. See
analysis in Appendix B
for additional
information on potential
to redevelop.
944,681 N/A N/A
141-361-
06 39
2700
Harbor
Blvd
FEMINO
JAMES J THE J
J & S FEMINO
LIVING TR
C1 G 3
Harbor
Mixed-
Use
0.68 50 34 6 3 6 19
Mixed us building with
first floor retail and
offices
8,228 37,198 22%
141-361-
11 40
2666
Harbor
Blvd
HARBOR CM
LLC C1 G 3
Harbor
Mixed-
Use
2.41 50 120 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)
44,693 130,965 34%
675
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B- 27 Costa Mesa Housing Element
6th Cycle – 2021-2029
Table B-6: 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
Id Address Owner Zoning
General
Plan
Land
Use
Council
District
Specific
Plans
Size
(Ac) Density Vacant
Potential
Consolid
ation
Used
In 5th
Cycle
Net
Units
Very
Low
(20%)
Low
(10%)
Moderate
(20%)
Above
Moderate
(50%)
Notes
Existing
Building
SF
Max
Buildout
per FAR
%
Occupied
141-361-
21 41
2790
Harbor
Blvd
LEFEBVRE
MAUREEN
ELIZABETH
C1 G 3
Harbor
Mixed-
Use
0.75 50 37 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).
10,347 40,932 25%
141-361-
22 42
2750
Harbor
Blvd
SRS COLLEGE
CENTER C1 G 3
Harbor
Mixed-
Use
1.71 50 85 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.
12,032 92,942 13%
141-361-
23 43
2730
Harbor
Blvd
SRS COLLEGE
CENTER C1 G 3
Harbor
Mixed-
Use
0.68 50 33 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.
12,075 36,948 33%
141-361-
27 44
2710
Harbor
Blvd
JOHNSON
GREGORY A
& JACLYN H
C1 G 3
Harbor
Mixed-
Use
0.67 50 33 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.
9,240 36,515 25%
141-361-
28 45
2706
Harbor
Blvd
MESA VERDE
CENTER LLC C1 G 3
Harbor
Mixed-
Use
0.97 50 48 9 4 9 26
Vacant Pier 1 Imports
box store and surface
parking lot. Building is
currently for lease.
14,997 52,666 28%
676
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B- 28 Costa Mesa Housing Element
6th Cycle – 2021-2029
Table B-6: 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
Id Address Owner Zoning
General
Plan
Land
Use
Council
District
Specific
Plans
Size
(Ac) Density Vacant
Potential
Consolid
ation
Used
In 5th
Cycle
Net
Units
Very
Low
(20%)
Low
(10%)
Moderate
(20%)
Above
Moderate
(50%)
Notes
Existing
Building
SF
Max
Buildout
per FAR
%
Occupied
419-031-
08 52
2200
Harbor
Blvd
GRAY
ENTERPRISES C1-S G 5
Harbor
Mixed-
Use
0.75 50 37 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.
0 40,935 0%
419-031-
09 53
2200
Harbor
Blvd
GRAY
ENTERPRISES C1-S G 5
Harbor
Mixed-
Use
1.17 50 58 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. While the
data shows a high
development usage, this
tenant space remains
vacant.
98,908 63,595 156%
419-031-
12 54
2200
Harbor
Blvd
GRAY
ENTERPRISES C1-S G 5
Harbor
Mixed-
Use
3.16 50 158 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.
98,908 172,145 57%
419-171-
58 56
2150
Harbor
Blvd
2150
HARBOR
BLVD LLC
C1 G 5
Harbor
Mixed-
Use
1.17 50 58 11 5 11 31
Norms restaurant with
large surface parking lot
adjacent to major
transportation corridor
(Harbor Blvd).
6,606 63,521 10%
422-021-
09 57
2131
Harbor
Blvd
SHERMAN
DONALD L H C2 G 4
Harbor
Mixed-
Use
0.83 50 41 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).
6,891 45,202 15%
677
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B- 29 Costa Mesa Housing Element
6th Cycle – 2021-2029
Table B-6: 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
Id Address Owner Zoning
General
Plan
Land
Use
Council
District
Specific
Plans
Size
(Ac) Density Vacant
Potential
Consolid
ation
Used
In 5th
Cycle
Net
Units
Very
Low
(20%)
Low
(10%)
Moderate
(20%)
Above
Moderate
(50%)
Notes
Existing
Building
SF
Max
Buildout
per FAR
%
Occupied
422-091-
11 58
2075
Harbor
Blvd
LEWIS JOHN
T & LEWIS
MARY K
C2 G 5
Harbor
Mixed-
Use
0.63 50 31 6 3 6 16
Tools and equipment
rental yard adjacent to
major transportation
corridor (Harbor Blvd).
3,032 34,196 9%
422-091-
12 59
2069
Harbor
Blvd
TANNER
DALE A C2 G 5
Harbor
Mixed-
Use
0.54 50 26 5 2 5 14
Auto repair shop with
large yard adjacent to
major transportation
corridor (Harbor Blvd).
5,032 29,322 17%
422-091-
14 61
2049
Harbor
Blvd
C M HARBOR
CM LLC C2 G 5
Harbor
Mixed-
Use
0.54 50 26 5 2 5 14
Auto repair shop with
large yard adjacent to
major transportation
corridor (Harbor Blvd).
4,586 29,226 16%
422-091-
24 62
2015
Harbor
Blvd
NEWPORT
MESA AUTO
CENTER LLC
C2 G 5
Harbor
Mixed-
Use
0.62 50 30 6 3 6 15
Newport Mesa Auto
Center with car repair
and car wash uses
adjacent to major
transportation corridor
(Harbor Blvd).
9,663 33,643 29%
422-091-
26 63
2007
Harbor
Blvd
949 STORAGE
LLC C2 G 5
Harbor
Mixed-
Use
0.83 50 41 8 4 8 21
Self-storage facility with
surface parking lot and
access to major
transportation corrdor
(Harbor Blvd).
14,103 45,248 31%
422-101-
03 64
1989
Harbor
Blvd
JUNEAU
PAULINE
BRECHT
C2 G 5
Harbor
Mixed-
Use
0.56 50 27 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).
624 30,425 2%
422-101-
06 65 1974
Charle St
CHARLE ST
REALTY LLC C2 G 5
Harbor
Mixed-
Use
0.53 50 26 5 2 5 14
Existing low-intensity
light industrial and
warehouse uses.
7,962 28,964 27%
422-193-
23 66
2215
Harbor
Blvd
CHEN-RONG
PROPERTIES
LLC
C2 G 4
Harbor
Mixed-
Use
0.58 50 28 5 2 5 16
Aging furniture store
structure with surface
parking lot adjacent to
major transportation
corridor (Harbor Blvd).
12,757 31,475 41%
678
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B- 30 Costa Mesa Housing Element
6th Cycle – 2021-2029
Table B-6: 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
Id Address Owner Zoning
General
Plan
Land
Use
Council
District
Specific
Plans
Size
(Ac) Density Vacant
Potential
Consolid
ation
Used
In 5th
Cycle
Net
Units
Very
Low
(20%)
Low
(10%)
Moderate
(20%)
Above
Moderate
(50%)
Notes
Existing
Building
SF
Max
Buildout
per FAR
%
Occupied
422-193-
24 67
2205
Harbor
Blvd
AQUA 26 LLC C2 G 4
Harbor
Mixed-
Use
0.58 50 28 5 2 5 16
Aging motel use with
large surface parking lot
adjacent to major
transportation corridor
(Harbor Blvd).
10,089 31,469 32%
422-282-
11 68
2044
Placentia
Ave
SAA 2 LLC MG LI 4 Mesa
West 1.18 40 47 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.
26,636 64,338 41%
422-291-
04 69
2065
Placentia
Ave
PUBLIC
STORAGE
PARTNERS
LTD
MG LI 4 Mesa
West 1.85 40 73 14 7 14 38
Self storage facility
adjacent to recently
developed townhouses
and apartments.
Building shows little sign
of recent renovation.
34,929 100,710 35%
422-291-
05 70
2065
Placentia
Ave
PUBLIC
STORAGE INC MG LI 4 Mesa
West 0.92 40 36 7 3 7 19
Self storage facility
adjacent to recently
developed townhouses
and apartments.
Building shows little sign
of recent renovation.
23,549 50,355 47%
422-291-
06 71
2051
Placentia
Ave
PLACENTIA
AVE
PROPERTIES
LLC
MG LI 4 Mesa
West 0.92 40 36 7 3 7 19
Existing office/light
industrial uses adjacent
to recently developed
townhouses and
apartments.
6,720 50,355 13%
422-301-
01 72
1987
Placentia
Ave
HARTLEY CO MG LI 4 Mesa
West 2.31 40 92 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.
37,645 125,891 30%
422-454-
28 74
2101
Placentia
Ave
CASACOS LLC MG LI 4 Mesa
West 0.91 40 36 7 3 7 19 Restaurant with large
surface parking lot. 4,802 49,428 10%
679
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B- 31 Costa Mesa Housing Element
6th Cycle – 2021-2029
Table B-6: 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
Id Address Owner Zoning
General
Plan
Land
Use
Council
District
Specific
Plans
Size
(Ac) Density Vacant
Potential
Consolid
ation
Used
In 5th
Cycle
Net
Units
Very
Low
(20%)
Low
(10%)
Moderate
(20%)
Above
Moderate
(50%)
Notes
Existing
Building
SF
Max
Buildout
per FAR
%
Occupied
Potential for mixed-use
development.
424-061-
01 75 885 W
18th St
MONROVIA
AVENUE
PARTNERS
LLC
MG LI 5 Mesa
West 1.25 40 49 9 4 9 27
Warehouses with large
surface parking lot. One
building on the site.
22,144 67,858 33%
424-061-
03 76 859 W
18th St
CRANK
FAMILY 2007
LLC
MG LI 5 Mesa
West 0.81 40 32 6 3 6 17 Auto repair shop with
surface parking lot. 16,926 44,209 38%
424-061-
04 77 851 W
18th St
SEA
PROPERTIES MG LI 5 Mesa
West 1.79 40 71 14 7 14 36 Auto body shop with
large surface parking lot. 25,478 97,501 26%
424-061-
05 78
1791
Placentia
Ave
BOYD WILLIS
BLAIR SR TR MG LI 5 Mesa
West 4.27 40 170 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.
72,191 232,421 31%
424-061-
06 79
1751
Placentia
Ave
BOYD WILLIS
BLAIR SR TR MG LI 5 Mesa
West 4.70 40 187 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.
80,909 255,845 32%
424-241-
11 96 610 W
18th St
COSTA MESA
WOMEN'S
CLUB
R2-HD HDR 5 Mesa
West 0.58 40 23 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.
5,857 31,413 19%
424-281-
01 97
1730
Pomona
Ave
C & K
PARTNERS MG LI 5 Mesa
West 0.99 40 39 7 3 7 22
Warehouses with
surface parking lot. One
building on the site.
11,802 54,028 22%
680
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B- 32 Costa Mesa Housing Element
6th Cycle – 2021-2029
Table B-6: 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
Id Address Owner Zoning
General
Plan
Land
Use
Council
District
Specific
Plans
Size
(Ac) Density Vacant
Potential
Consolid
ation
Used
In 5th
Cycle
Net
Units
Very
Low
(20%)
Low
(10%)
Moderate
(20%)
Above
Moderate
(50%)
Notes
Existing
Building
SF
Max
Buildout
per FAR
%
Occupied
424-281-
19 98
424
Pomona
Ave
PACIFIC
MESA
PROPERTIES
MG LI 5 Mesa
West 1.19 40 47 9 4 9 25
Warehouses with large
surface parking lot. One
building on the site.
19,676 64,716 30%
424-281-
23 99 660 W
17th St
PACIFIC
MESA
PROPERTIES
MG LI 5 Mesa
West 2.26 40 90 18 9 18 45
Large single-story self-
storage facility adjacent
to existing multi-family
residential.
50,219 122,853 41%
424-321-
17 100
1882
Whittier
Ave
AYRES SELF
STORAGE
COSTA MESA
LLC
R2-MD MDR 5 Mesa
West 1.08 40 43 8 4 8 23
Large single-story self-
storage facility adjacent
to existing multi-family
residential.
18,808 59,063 32%
139-031-
39 131
3303
Harbor
Blvd
SDCO COSTA
MESA
COMMERCE
PARK INC
PDI IP 1
North
Costa
Mesa
10.00 90 900 180 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.
160,463 326,700 49%
139-031-
42 132
1575
Sunflower
Ave
RREEF CPIF
1575
SUNFLOWER
LLC
MP IP 1
North
Costa
Mesa
8.03 90 722 144 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.
133,055 262,313 51%
139-031-
67 133
3333
Harbor
Blvd
BEG
HOLDINGS LP MP IP 1
North
Costa
Mesa
10.00 90 900 180 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.
130,197 326,700 40%
681
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B- 33 Costa Mesa Housing Element
6th Cycle – 2021-2029
Table B-6: 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
Id Address Owner Zoning
General
Plan
Land
Use
Council
District
Specific
Plans
Size
(Ac) Density Vacant
Potential
Consolid
ation
Used
In 5th
Cycle
Net
Units
Very
Low
(20%)
Low
(10%)
Moderate
(20%)
Above
Moderate
(50%)
Notes
Existing
Building
SF
Max
Buildout
per FAR
%
Occupied
140-041-
38 134
3390
Harbor
Blvd
HARBOR
ASSOCIATES MP IP 1
North
Costa
Mesa
5.78 90 520 104 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.
37,672 188,984 20%
140-041-
63 136
3390
Harbor
Blvd
C J
SEGERSTROM
& SONS
MP IP 1
North
Costa
Mesa
1.69 90 152 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.
0 55,367 0%
140-041-
82 137
3315
Fairview
Rd
C J
SEGERSTROM
& SONS
PDC CC 1
North
Costa
Mesa -
HR
7.58 90 C 443 44 22 44 333
Home Ranch property.
See analysis in Appendix
B for additional
information on potential
to redevelop.
40,025 211,382 19%
140-041-
93 138
1201
South
Coast Dr
HENRY T
SEGERSTROM
PROP LLC
PDC CC 1
North
Costa
Mesa -
HR
30.30 90 Vacant C 1,772 177 88 177 1,330
Home Ranch property.
See analysis in Appendix
B for additional
information on potential
to redevelop.
0 844,812 0%
410-051-
48 139 3400
Bristol St
SOUTH
COAST PLAZA TC CAC 2
North
Costa
Mesa
0.53 90 G 47 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.
18,147 40,626 45%
682
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B- 34 Costa Mesa Housing Element
6th Cycle – 2021-2029
Table B-6: 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
Id Address Owner Zoning
General
Plan
Land
Use
Council
District
Specific
Plans
Size
(Ac) Density Vacant
Potential
Consolid
ation
Used
In 5th
Cycle
Net
Units
Very
Low
(20%)
Low
(10%)
Moderate
(20%)
Above
Moderate
(50%)
Notes
Existing
Building
SF
Max
Buildout
per FAR
%
Occupied
410-051-
51 140
685
Sunflower
Ave
SOUTH
COAST PLAZA TC CAC 2
North
Costa
Mesa
0.88 90 G 78 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.
863 67,517 1%
410-051-
52 141 3410
Bristol St
SOUTH
COAST PLAZA TC CAC 2
North
Costa
Mesa
1.35 90 G 121 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.
1,014 104,331 1%
410-441-
17 142
14850
Sunflower
Ave
ROY K
SAKIOKA &
SONS
PDC UCC 2
North
Costa
Mesa -
SL2
30.93 90 Vacant 1,200 120 60 120 900
Sakioka Lot 2 property.
See analysis in Appendix
B for additional
information on potential
to redevelop.
15,275 1,347,311 1%
410-501-
31 144 N/A JKS-CMFV LLC PDC UCC 2
North
Costa
Mesa
3.39 90 305 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.
0 116,821 0%
412-491-
07 145 3333
Bristol St
SOUTH
COAST PLAZA PDC RC 2
North
Costa
Mesa
6.41 90 575 115 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.
15,390 248,505 6%
683
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B- 35 Costa Mesa Housing Element
6th Cycle – 2021-2029
Table B-6: 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
Id Address Owner Zoning
General
Plan
Land
Use
Council
District
Specific
Plans
Size
(Ac) Density Vacant
Potential
Consolid
ation
Used
In 5th
Cycle
Net
Units
Very
Low
(20%)
Low
(10%)
Moderate
(20%)
Above
Moderate
(50%)
Notes
Existing
Building
SF
Max
Buildout
per FAR
%
Occupied
412-491-
11 146 0 SOUTH
COAST PLAZA PDC RC 2
North
Costa
Mesa
5.37 90 483 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.
0 208,379 0%
412-501-
06 147 3333
Bristol St S-TRACT LLC PDC RC 2
North
Costa
Mesa
10.00 90 900 180 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.
232,135 387,684 60%
418-161-
06 176
2957
Randolph
Ave
ZELDEN
ALICE WILLER MG LI 2 SoBECA 0.72 60 43 8 4 8 23
Existing light
industrial/brewery with
large surface parking lot.
Site is within the SoBECA
Urban Plan
redevelopment area.
16,880 39,375 43%
418-162-
02 177
2968
Randolph
Ave
PALANJIAN
JERRY O MG LI 2 SoBECA 0.72 60 43 8 4 8 23
Warehouses with
surface parking lot. Site
is within the SoBECA
Urban Plan
redevelopment area.
18,531 39,251 47%
418-163-
05 178 2064
Bristol St PEP BOYS C1 G 2 SoBECA 1.47 60 88 17 8 17 46 Tire shop with large
surface parking lot. Site
is within the SoBECA
Urban Plan
redevelopment area.
19,022 79,928 24%
418-171-
02 179 752 Saint
Clair St
PURCILLY
GAY
WHEELER
C2 G 2 SoBECA 0.26 60 B 15 3 1 3 8
School yard for learning
center. Site is within the
SoBECA Urban Plan
redevelopment area.
424 14,201 3%
418-191-
04 180 766 Saint
Clair St
766 ST CLAIR
LLC C2 G 2 SoBECA 0.67 60 40 8 4 8 20
Gym with large surface
parking lot. Site is within
the SoBECA Urban Plan
redevelopment area.
12,329 36,507 34%
684
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B- 36 Costa Mesa Housing Element
6th Cycle – 2021-2029
Table B-6: 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
Id Address Owner Zoning
General
Plan
Land
Use
Council
District
Specific
Plans
Size
(Ac) Density Vacant
Potential
Consolid
ation
Used
In 5th
Cycle
Net
Units
Very
Low
(20%)
Low
(10%)
Moderate
(20%)
Above
Moderate
(50%)
Notes
Existing
Building
SF
Max
Buildout
per FAR
%
Occupied
418-202-
01 181 845 Baker
St
RMAFII LOC
LLC C1 G 2 SoBECA 0.87 60 52 10 5 10 27
Small strip mall with
large surface parking lot.
Site is within the SoBECA
Urban Plan
redevelopment area.
11,899 47,299 25%
418-202-
02 182 841 Baker
St
BAKER
STREET
PROPERTIES
LLC
C1 G 2 SoBECA 0.33 60 D 19 3 1 3 12
Nightclub with large
surface parking lot. Site
is within the SoBECA
Urban Plan
redevelopment area.
6,401 17,870 36%
418-202-
03 183 841 Baker
St
BAKER
STREET
PROPERTIES
LLC
C1 G 2 SoBECA 0.60 60 D 35 7 3 7 18
Nightclub with large
surface parking lot. Site
is within the SoBECA
Urban Plan
redevelopment area.
8,881 32,546 27%
418-202-
04 184 801 Baker
St
RED
MOUNTAIN
ASSET FUND
ILLC
C1 G 2 SoBECA 0.86 60 51 10 5 10 26
Strip mall with large
surface parking lot. Site
is within the SoBECA
Urban Plan
redevelopment area.
15,474 46,602 33%
418-202-
05 185
2969
Century
Pl
ECHAN
BARBARA
TRUST
C1 LI 2 SoBECA 0.09 60 E 5 1 0 1 3
Surface parking lot. Site
is within the SoBECA
Urban Plan
redevelopment area.
469 4,712 10%
418-202-
06 186
2969
Century
Pl
ECHAN
BARBARA
TRUST
MG LI 2 SoBECA 0.68 60 E 40 8 4 8 20
Gym with large surface
parking lot. Site is within
the SoBECA Urban Plan
redevelopment area.
13,488 36,893 37%
418-202-
07 187
2959
Century
Pl
GRAYBAR
ELECTRIC CO
INC
MG LI 2 SoBECA 0.50 60 30 6 3 6 15
Electrical equipment
manufacture/distributor.
Site is within the SoBECA
Urban Plan
redevelopment area.
10,200 27,436 37%
418-202-
10 188
2942
Century
Pl
SCM
ENTERPRISES MG LI 2 SoBECA 0.87 60 52 10 5 10 27
Coworking office with
large surface parking.
Site is within the SoBECA
Urban Plan
redevelopment area.
14,382 47,242 30%
685
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B- 37 Costa Mesa Housing Element
6th Cycle – 2021-2029
Table B-6: 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
Id Address Owner Zoning
General
Plan
Land
Use
Council
District
Specific
Plans
Size
(Ac) Density Vacant
Potential
Consolid
ation
Used
In 5th
Cycle
Net
Units
Very
Low
(20%)
Low
(10%)
Moderate
(20%)
Above
Moderate
(50%)
Notes
Existing
Building
SF
Max
Buildout
per FAR
%
Occupied
418-202-
11 189
2952
Century
Pl
GRAHAM
GORDON T
TR
MG LI 2 SoBECA 0.90 60 54 10 5 10 29
Warehouse with large
yard. Site is within the
SoBECA Urban Plan
redevelopment area.
17,227 49,090 35%
418-202-
12 190
2972
Century
Pl
PROJECT C
LLC MG LI 2 SoBECA 0.94 60 56 11 5 11 29
Auto repair shop with
surface parking. Site is
within the SoBECA
Urban Plan
redevelopment area.
18,109 51,374 35%
418-202-
13 191
2972
Century
Pl
PROJECT C
LLC MG LI 2 SoBECA 0.91 60 54 10 5 10 29
Warehouse with large
yard. Site is within the
SoBECA Urban Plan
redevelopment area.
18,372 49,319 37%
418-202-
14 193 765 Baker
St
PROJECT C
LLC C2 G 2 SoBECA 0.67 60 40 8 4 8 20
Existing auto repair shop
use. Site is within the
SoBECA Urban Plan
redevelopment area.
16,802 36,615 46%
419-041-
02 194
2180
Harbor
Blvd
FISHER REAL
ESTATE
PARTNERS
(COSTA
MESA) L P
C1 G 5
Harbor
Mixed-
Use
0.77 50 38 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).
11,827 41,947 28%
419-041-
06 195
2180
Harbor
Blvd
FISHER REAL
ESTATE
PARTNERS
(COSTA
MESA) L P
C1 G 5
Harbor
Mixed-
Use
2.50 50 125 25 12 25 63
99 cent store with large
surface parking. Site is
adjacent to a major
transportation corridor
(Harbor Blvd).
37,430 136,349 27%
418-101-
05 197 1425
Baker St
1425 BAKER
LLC C1 G 2
Harbor
Mixed-
Use
1.90 60 114 22 11 22 59 Existing auto dealer with large surface parking. 24,369 103,666 24%
140-041-
83 198 N/A
C J
SEGERSTROM
& SONS
PDC CC 1
North
Costa
Mesa -
HR
0.23 90 Vacant C 0 0 0 0 0
Home Ranch property.
See analysis in Appendix
B for additional
information on potential
to redevelop.
0 6,419 0%
418-101-
03 199 1491
Baker St
PURCILLY
GAY
WHEELER TR
C1 G 2
Harbor
Mixed-
Use
1.27 60 B 74 14 7 14 39
Restaurant and
barbershop. Site is
anticipated to redevelop
4,434 69,124 6%
686
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B- 38 Costa Mesa Housing Element
6th Cycle – 2021-2029
Table B-6: 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
Id Address Owner Zoning
General
Plan
Land
Use
Council
District
Specific
Plans
Size
(Ac) Density Vacant
Potential
Consolid
ation
Used
In 5th
Cycle
Net
Units
Very
Low
(20%)
Low
(10%)
Moderate
(20%)
Above
Moderate
(50%)
Notes
Existing
Building
SF
Max
Buildout
per FAR
%
Occupied
with adjacent parcels as
shown in this table.
424-202-
01 200 745 W
19th St
PANGE MARC
C REVOC TR C1 G 4 19
West 0.63 50 30 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.
9,838 34,468 29%
410-481-
05 201 3201 Park
Center Dr
THE IRVINE
COMPANY
LLC
TC CAC 2
North
Costa
Mesa -
Pac
Arts
6.27 90 H 186 18 9 18 141
Pacific Arts Center
property. See analysis in
Appendix B for
additional information
on potential to
redevelop.
81,187 483,505 17%
410-491-
07 202
601
Anton
Blvd
THE IRVINE
COMPANY
LLC
TC CAC 2
North
Costa
Mesa -
Pac
Arts
12.07 90 H 349 35 18 35 261
Pacific Arts Center
property. See analysis in
Appendix B for
additional information
on potential to
redevelop.
230,300 930,850 25%
139-313-
21 203
1590
Adams
Ave
C J
SEGERSTROM
& SONS
C1 G 1
Harbor
Mixed-
Use
0.19 50 F 9 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.
247 10,216 2%
139-313-
30 204
1590
Adams
Ave
C J
SEGERSTROM
& SONS
C1 G 1
Harbor
Mixed-
Use
2.40 50 F 120 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.
27,802 130,680 21%
410-051-
46 205 3420
Bristol St
SOUTH
COAST PLAZA TC CAC 2
North
Costa
Mesa
0.75 90 G 70 14 7 14 35
Existing office uses and
surface parking lot. The
City has discussed the
potential future
redevelopment of this
12,109 57,826 21%
687
DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B- 39 Costa Mesa Housing Element
6th Cycle – 2021-2029
Table B-6: 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
Id Address Owner Zoning
General
Plan
Land
Use
Council
District
Specific
Plans
Size
(Ac) Density Vacant
Potential
Consolid
ation
Used
In 5th
Cycle
Net
Units
Very
Low
(20%)
Low
(10%)
Moderate
(20%)
Above
Moderate
(50%)
Notes
Existing
Building
SF
Max
Buildout
per FAR
%
Occupied
site for high-density
residential uses with the
property owner.
410-501-
25 206
545
Anton
Blvd
JKS-CMFV LLC PDC UCC 2
North
Costa
Mesa
0.74 90 66 13 6 13 34
Small commercial out
parcel uses. Property
owner has indicated
interest in redeveloping
the site for residential
uses.
5,026 25,367 20%
410-501-
36 207 N/A JKS-CMFV LLC PDC UCC 2
North
Costa
Mesa
1.82 90 164 32 16 32 84
Surface parking lot.
Property owner has
indicated interest in
redeveloping the site for
residential uses.
5,026 62,729 8%
418-171-
01 208 754 Saint
Clair St
PURCILLY
GAY
WHEELER TR
C2 G 1 SoBECA 0.27 60 B 15 3 1 3 8
Existing learning center
use. Site is anticipated
to redevelop with
adjacent parcels as
shown in this table.
3,797 14,921 25%
140-041-
81 196 3333
Susan St
THE HIVE
CREATIVE
OFFICE INC
PDI IP 1
North
Costa
Mesa
4.00 90 432 72 36 72 252
Current Chargers
practice field facility.
The City has discussed
the potential future
redevelopment of this
site for high-density
residential uses with the
property owner.
93,238 130,680 71%
688
Summary of Community Engagement
Appendix C
689
DRAFT Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-1
Summary of Community Engagement
Section 65583 of the Government Code states that, "The local government shall make diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort." Meaningful community participation is also required in connection with the City's Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). A summary of citizen participation is provided below.
As part of the 6
th Cycle Housing Element Update process, the City of Costa Mesa has conducted extensive public outreach activities beginning in fall 2020. These recent outreach efforts included Virtual Townhall Meetings, District Specific Workshops, Stakeholder Meetings, City Council and Planning Commission Study Sessions, Online Community Survey, digital media and engagement, and noticed Public Hearings. Project materials, including recordings from townhall and public meetings, notices, and draft public review documents are available on the City’s website: www.costamesaca.gov/housing-element-update.
Outreach for the 6th Cycle Housing Element to the Costa Mesa community includes the following actions:
• V irtual Townhall M eeting #1 – The City conducted a virtual townhall meeting on November 18, 2020 for community members to come and learn about the Housing Element update process and provide initial feedback and guidance. The townhall was hosted in both Spanish and English .
Advertising for the townhall included handouts and flyers, posts on the City’s website, doorknob hangers, social media posts, text and email blasts, and outreach to local community organizatio n s and faith-based organizations. A total of 78 participants attended the Townhall. • Subject Matter Expert Meetings – Between February 9, 2020, and February 11, 2021, the City held meetings with various groups of professionals throughout the community to solicit topic-specific input as it relates to the Housing Element. These subject matter expert groups included Developers, Housing Advocates, and Homeless Assistance Providers. • D istrict Specific Meetings – On February 17th and 18th, 2021, the City held two district specific meetings to receive area-specific input from each Council District. The meetings allowed residents and local stakeholders from Council Districts 1- 6 to provide recommendations on areas th at can/cannot accommodate housing in their district, as well as provide insight on their district - specific needs and considerations as they relate to the Housing Element. Both meetings included a Spanish language breakout room for those who wished to participate in Spanish. • T a rgeted Focus Group M eetings – throughout the Housing Element Update period, the City focused outreach on sections of the community through Targeted Focus Meetings who are underrepresented in the planning process or who may not typically participate in community building processes. This included meetings with both English and Spanish -speaking faith -ba sed community, organizations that provide services for those experiencing homelessness, the Costa Mesa Housing Coalition, the Costa Mesa Mobile Home Park Advisory committee, affordable and market-rate housing developers, and interested property owners and landowners. • Online Community Survey – From November 19, 2020, to February 24, 2021, the City launched an online community survey to gather feedback and input regarding the Housing Element Update.
There was a total of 465 survey respondents who participated. The survey was available in Spanish 690
DRAFT Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-2
and English. Participants were asked to consider existing housing and community needs a nd provide recommendations on the locations and types of housing that would best assist the City. • Pla nning C ommission St udy Session – On March 1, 2021, the City held a Planning Commission Study Session to provide information regarding the status of the Housing Element. The study session informed the Planning Commission on the community outreach efforts to date, summarized housing and community demographics findings, and also provided an introduction to the sites analysis in order to meet the City’s RHNA allocation. • C ity Council Study Session – On March 23, 2021, the City held a City Council Study Session t o provide information regarding the status of the Housing Element. The study session informed the City Council on the community outreach efforts to date, summarized housing and community demographics findings, and also provided an overview of the potential areas of the City that could be appropriate to include in the City’s housing strategy. • C ity Council and Planning Commission Joint Study Session – On April 27, 2021, the City held a joint study session with the City Council and Planning Commission. The intent of the study session was to provide and update and request feedback on the Housing Element Update’s progress, including the Community Profile, op portunities and constraints to housing, and potential housing opportunities to meet the RHNA allocation.
• V irtual T ownhall Meeting #2 – The City conducted a second virtual townhall meeting on September 2, 2021, to provide information about the Public Review Draft and information on how the community can provide feedback. The townhall was hosted in both Spanish and English.
Advertising for the townhall included city-wide mailer, posts on the City’s website, social media posts, text and email blasts, and outreach to local community organizations and faith -ba sed organizations. A total of 69 participants attended the English Townhall and 7 participants atten d ed the Spanish Townhall.
• C ity Council and Planning Commission Joint Study Session – On September 13, 2021, the City held a joint study session with the City Council and Planning Commission. The intent of the study session was to provide an update on the Public Review Draft and request feedback prior to submission of the Draft Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development.
This Appendix contains all public comments regarding the Housing Element received by the City at scheduled public meetings. As required by Government Code Section 65585(b)(2), all written comments regarding the Housing Element made by the public have been provided to each member of the City Council.
691
DRAFT Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-3
C.1 Virtual Townhall Meeting #1
The section contains all townhall materials, handouts, flyers, PowerPoint presentation, as well as all available public comments provided during the meeting. Public comments were received verbally and in written form through the Zoom chat. A video recordin g of the virtual townhall is available at www.costamesaca.gov/housing-element-update.
692
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Virtual Community Townhall Meeting
We need your input! Please join us at our first virtual community townhall meeting for information about the City’s Housing Element Update, new State requirements, and to share your ideas about the future of housing in Costa Mesa.
When: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 6 PM
(el miércoles 18 de noviembre del 2020 a las 7:30 PM en español) For instructions on how to access the meeting go to:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/housing-element-update
For questions, please submit an email to [email protected]. 693
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Virtual Community Townhall Meeting
We need your input! Please join us at our first virtual community townhall meeting for information about the City’s Housing Element Update, new State requirements, and to share your ideas about the future of housing in Costa Mesa.
When: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 6 PM
(el miércoles 18 de noviembre del 2020 a las 7:30 PM en español) For instructions on how to access the meeting go to:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/housing-element-update
For questions, please submit an email to [email protected]. 694
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Virtual Community Townhall Meeting
We need your input! Please join us at our first virtual community townhall meeting for information about the City’s Housing Element Update, new State requirements, and to share your ideas about the future of housing in Costa Mesa.
When: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 6 PM
(el miércoles 18 de noviembre del 2020 a las 7:30 PM en español) For instructions on how to access the meeting go to:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/housing-element-update
For questions, please submit an email to [email protected]. 695
Ciudad de Costa Mesa
Actualización del Elemento de Vivienda 2021-2029
Taller Comunitario Virtual
¡Necesitamos su opinión! Por favor únase a nosotros en nuestra primera reunión comunitaria virtual para obtener información acerca de la Actualización del Elemento de Vivienda de la ciudad, los nuevos requisitos por parte del estado, y para compartir sus ideas acerca del futuro habitacional en Costa Mesa.
Fecha: el miércoles 18 de noviembre del 2020 a las 7:30 PM Para recibir instrucciones sobre cómo obtener acceso
a la reunión, vaya a:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/housing-element-update
Si tiene preguntas, favor de enviar un correo electrónico a [email protected]. 696
Ciudad de Costa Mesa
Actualización del Elemento de Vivienda 2021-2029
Taller Comunitario Virtual
¡Necesitamos su opinión! Por favor únase a nosotros en nuestra primera reunión comunitaria virtual para obtener información acerca de la Actualización del Elemento de Vivienda de la ciudad, los nuevos requisitos por parte del estado, y para compartir sus ideas acerca del futuro habitacional en Costa Mesa.
Fecha: el miércoles 18 de noviembre del 2020 a las 7:30 PM Para recibir instrucciones sobre cómo obtener acceso
a la reunión, vaya a:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/housing-element-update
Si tiene preguntas, favor de enviar un correo electrónico a [email protected]. 697
Ciudad de Costa Mesa
Actualización del Elemento de Vivienda 2021-2029
Taller Comunitario Virtual
¡Necesitamos su opinión! Por favor únase a nosotros en nuestra primera reunión comunitaria virtual para obtener información acerca de la Actualización del Elemento de Vivienda de la ciudad, los nuevos requisitos por parte del estado, y para compartir sus ideas acerca del futuro habitacional en Costa Mesa.
Fecha: el miércoles 18 de noviembre del 2020 a las 7:30 PM Para recibir instrucciones sobre cómo obtener acceso
a la reunión, vaya a:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/housing-element-update
Si tiene preguntas, favor de enviar un correo electrónico a [email protected]. 698
The City of Costa Mesa is in the process of updating the 2021-2029 Housing Element. This Fact Sheet answers commonly asked questions and provides information about the update process.
What is a Housing Element?
The Housing Element is one of the required elements of the City of Costa Mesa’s General Plan. The Housing Element provides policies, programs, and actions that support and encourage housing growth at all income levels.
Key Sections of the Housing Element:
• Population and housing analysis for Costa Mesa
• Evaluation of constraints to building housing and identifying potential resources for housing development
• Evaluation of 2013-2021 Housing Element programs and policies to determine what worked and what needs to be changed
• Analysis of potential housing sites that can accommodate Costa Mesa’s anticipated housing needs in the next eight years • Development of policies, programs, and quantified objectives for the 2021-2029 planning period
Income Category % of Area Median
Income (AMI) Income Range* RHNA Allocation
(Housing Units)
Min. Max.
Very Low Income 0 - 50% -- $51,500 2,912 units
Low Income 51 - 80% $52,530 $82,400 1,790 units
Moderate Income 81 - 120% $83,430 $133,900 2,084 units
Above Moderate Income > 120% $133,900 -- 4,947 units
To t a l 11,733 units
2021 - 2029 City of Costa Mesa RHNA Housing Needs Allocation *Income range is based on the 2020 HUD Area Median Income (AMI) for Orange County of $103,000.
What is the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Process? The RHNA process is mandated by state law and lays out the number of housing units in different income categories that Costa Mesa must plan for. The RHNA is determined by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and distributed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for each city in the Southern California region. For the 2021-2029 Planning Period, the City of Costa Mesa is allocated 11,733 housing units based on the income categories listed below. The Housing Element is required by the State to identify sites to accommodate this estimated growth.
City of Costa MesaCity of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE 699
Why is the City Updating the Housing Element?
The City of Costa Mesa is required by state law to update its Housing Element every eight years. The current adopted Housing Element is for the 2013-2021 planning period. The City is now planning for the 2021-2029 planning period.
Importance of Updating the Housing Element :
• Allows the community to provide feedback to guide the future of housing in Costa Mesa
• Ensures the City complies with State housing laws
• Allows the City to become eligible for State grants and funding sources • Demonstrates the ability to meet future anticipated housing growth needs What is Included in the Update Process?
The update process is community-based and will include a variety of activities to interface with the Costa Mesa community. Key features include:
• A series of community workshops and other community engagement opportunities
• Comprehensive review of the community to analyze existing conditions • Identification of sites to meet 2021-2029 RHNA
• Public Hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council How Can You Participate in the Update Process?
There are a variety of ways you can participate throughout the planning process:
• Virtual Townhall Meeting will be held on November 18, 2020 for community members to come and learn about the process and provide their feedback and guidance to the City. This townhall meetings will be hosted in English and in Spanish.
• District Specific Meetings in December 2020 for in-depth discussions related to issues and opportunities within each of the six unique districts. • Sign up to be placed on the interest contact list.
• Respond to the Community Survey available on the website. • Submit written comments to the email address provided below. • Once all public comments are collected, a Public Review Draft will be available for review and comments in Spring 2021.
For continuously updated information. please visit:
www.costamesaca.gov/housing-element-update
or contact:
Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner, City of Costa Mesa
[email protected]
Community
Towhall #1
(November 2020)
Outreach
Meetings Round 1
(December 2020)
City Council
& Planning
Commission
Study Sessions
(Winter 2020/2021)
Public
Review Draft
Community
Towhall #2
(Early Spring 2021)
Outreach
Meetings Round 2
(Early Spring 2021)
City Council
Study Session
(Spring 2021)
Pre-Submittal
Public
Hearings
(Summer 2021)
Project & Outreach Timeline
City of Costa MesaCity of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE 700
La ciudad de Costa Mesa está en proceso de actualizar el Elemento de Vivienda 2021-2029. Esta hoja informativa responde a las preguntas más frecuentes y proporciona información sobre el proceso de actualización. ¿Qué es un Elemento de Vivienda?
El Elemento de Vivienda es uno de los elementos requeridos por el Plan General de la ciudad de Costa Mesa. El elemento de vivienda proporciona normas, programas y acciones que apoyan y fomentan el crecimiento de la vivienda en todos los niveles de ingreso.
Secciones clave del Elemento de Vivienda:
• Análisis de población y vivienda para Cosa Mesa
• Evaluación de las limitaciones para construcción de viviendas e identificación de recursos potenciales para el desarrollo de viviendas
• Evaluación de los programas y normas del Elemento de Vivienda 2013-2021 para determinar qué funcionó y qué debe cambiarse • Análisis de sitios potenciales de vivienda que puedan adaptarse a las necesidades habitacionales anticipadas en los siguientes ocho años
• Desarrollo de normas, programas y objetivos cuantificados para el periodo de planificación 2021-2029
Categoría de
Ingresos
% de Ingreso
Familiar Rango
Medio (MFI)
Escala de Ingresos* Distribución del
RHNA
Min. Max.
Ingresos muy bajos 0 - 50% -- $51,500 2,912 unidades
Ingresos bajos 51 - 80% $52,530 $82,400 1,790 unidades
Ingresos moderados 81 - 120% $83,430 $133,900 2,084 unidades Ingresos por encima de
Ingresos Moderados > 120% $133,900 -- 4,947 unidades
To t a l 11,733 unidades
2021-2029 Distribución RHNA de las Necesidades de Vivienda de Costa Mesa El rango de ingresos se basa en el HUD Ingreso Familiar Rango Medio (MFI) del Condado de Orange de $103,000. ¿Qué es el Proceso de Evaluación de las Necesidades Regionales de Vivienda (RHNA)? El proceso RHNA es un mandato de la ley estatal y establece el número de unidades de Vivienda en las diferentes categorías de ingreso para las que Costa Mesa debe planificar. El RHNA es determinado por el Departamento de Vivienda y Desarrollo Comunitario del estado (HCD) y es distribuido por la Asociación de Gobiernos del Sur de California (SCAG) para cada ciudad en la región del sur de California. Para el Período de Planificación 2021- 2029, a la ciudad de Costa Mesa se le asignan 11,733 unidades de Vivienda según las categorías de ingreso que se indican a continuación. El estado requiere que el Elemento de Vivienda identifique los sitios que se adapten a este crecimiento estimado.
Ciudad de Costa MesaCiudad de Costa Mesa
Actualización del Elemento de Vivienda 2021-2029Actualización del Elemento de Vivienda 2021-2029 701
¿Por qué la ciudad está Actualizando el Elemento de Vivienda? La ley estatal requiere que la ciudad de Costa Mesa actualice su Elemento de Vivienda cda ocho años. El Elemento de Vivienda adoptado actualmente es para el período de planificación 2021-2029.
Importancia de Actualizar el Elemento Vivienda:
• Permite a la comunidad proporcionar comentarios para orientar el futuro habitacional de Costa Mesa
• Se asegura que la ciudad cumpla con las leyes estatales de vivienda • Permite que la ciudad sea elegible para subvenciones estatales y fuentes de financiación
• Demuestra la capacidad de satisfacer las futuras necesidades de crecimiento de vivienda previstas
¿Qué se incluye en el proceso de actualización?
El proceso de actualización se basa en la comunidad e incluirá una variedad de actividades para interactuar con la comunidad de Costa Mesa. Las características clave incluyen:
• Una serie de talleres comunitarios y otras oportunidades de participación para la comunidad
• Una revisión integral de la comunidad para analizar las condiciones existentes • La identificación de sitios para cumplir con el 2021-2029 RHNA • Audiencias públicas ante la Comisión de Planificación del Consejo Municipal ¿Cómo puede Participar en el Proceso de Actualización?
Hay una variedad de formas en las que puede participar a través del proceso de planificación:
• El Taller Virtual del Ayuntamiento se llevará a cabo el 18 de noviembre del 2020 para que la comunidad asista y aprenda sobre el proceso y proporcione sus comentarios y orienten a la ciudad. Estas reuniones públicas se llevarán a cabo en inglés y en español.
• Reuniones Específicas del Distrito en diciembre del 2020 para discusiones a fondo relacionadas con problemas y oportunidades dentro de cada uno de los seis distritos únicos.
• Anótese para registrarse en la lista de contactos interesados • Responda a la Encuesta Comunitaria disponible en el sitio web. • Envíe sus comentarios por escrito al correo electrónico que se proporciona abajo.
• Para revisar y proporcionar comentarios acerca del Borrador de la Revisión Pública en la primavera del 2021.
Para recibir información actualizada continuamente,
por favor visite:
www.costamesaca.gov/housing-element-update
o comuníquese con:
Minoo Ashabi, Planificado
[email protected]
Taller
Comunitario #1
(Noviembre 2020)
Reunión de
Difusión Ronda 1
(Diciembre 2020)
Sesiones de
Estudio
Del Consejo Municiap y de
la Comisión de
Planificación
(el Invierno 2020/2021)
Taller Comunitario #2
para la Revisión
Pública del Borrador
(Principios de
La Primavera 2021)
Reunión de
Difusión Ronda 2
(Principios de
La Primavera 2021)
Sesión de Estudio
del Consejo de
la ciudad
(Primavera 2021)
Audiencias previas
a la Entrega
(Verano 2021)
Cronograma del Projecto y la
Difusión
Ciudad de Costa MesaCiudad de Costa Mesa
Actualización del Elemento de Vivienda 2021-2029Actualización del Elemento de Vivienda 2021-2029 702
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
1 Last Updated: January 4, 2021
Housing Element Update Townhall Meeting Q&A
The first Housing Element Townhall meetings to kick start the community outreach were held on November 18 th at 6:00 (English) and 7:30 (Spanish). A total of 68 individuals participated in the virtual events and presented a number of questions that are included in the following summary. For more details on the meetings such as the video and presentations, please refer to the City’s Webpage at:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/city-hall/city-departments/development-services/planning/housing- element-update
RHNA – Regional Housing Needs Assessment
1. What is the status of the City’s RHNA allocations appeal? The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted the Draft RHNA Allocations for southern California on September 3, 2020. The City as well as many other cities in the region received a very large RHNA allocation for this Housing Element cycle. The City has appealed the Draft RHNA allocation. Based on initial information from SCAG, the City is anticipating an Appeal Hearing in January 2021. The City will be informed of any changes to the RHNA allocations after the January 2021 Appeal Hearings.
2. How many dwelling units have been allocated to Costa Mesa? Costa Mesa has been allocated a total of 11,733 housing units over the next 8 years.
3. What is the RHNA allocations breakdown based on income and can they be adjusted? The 11,733 units are divided into four income categories as shown below. The City can go beyond the requirement for very low and low income categories but these minimums are set by the state.
Very low and Low income category housing are the most challenging to develop because of the high price of real estate in Orange County.
Very Low Income: 2,912 units
Low Income: 1,790 units
Moderate Income: 2,084 units
Above Moderate Income: 4,947 units
4. Does permanent supportive housing count towards lower income categories? In most cases, newly developed Permanent Supportive Housing can count towards the City’s RHNA allocation at the income levels that units are being rented at. Units must meet the Census definition of a dwelling unit (for instance, group homes where tenants only lease a room may not qualify) and fall within the set income ranges for the very-low, low, moderate, and above moderate levels. Every project is a little different and additional project-specific information will be needed in the future to determine if units may qualify.
5. Are there requirements for the number of housing types as there is with income? There are no requirements for the number of housing types to be built in the next 8 years; however, the Housing Element includes provisions to address the housing needs of a variety of household types such as seniors, larger families, assisted living, etc. 703
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
2 Last Updated: January 4, 2021
6. Does the City have a contingency plan if the appeal is not approved? If the appeal is not approved, the City will need to proceed with the plan for the addition of 11,733 units over the next 8 years.
7. Why did the City have a very low RHNA during the 5th Housing Element Cycle? The methodology used to calculate the RHNA allocations are adjusted each cycle to address the housing need at that particular cycle. With the 5 th Cycle, many cities in Orange County received low RHNA numbers based on vacancy and other factors that were reflective of the recession at the time.
Costa Mesa
1. How many City Council districts are in the City?
There are 6 districts in Costa Mesa. Please visit this link to see which District you live in:
http://apps.costamesaca.gov/maps/VotingDistrict.html.
2. Are there reports on the number of recently built units? Annual Progress Reports are available on the City website and provide information on the number of permits granted and households added. The 2018-2019 Progress Report is available at this link:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=39281.
3. Can the City engage the State to build housing on publicly owned properties such as the Fairview Developmental Center and the OC Fairgrounds?
The City can discuss opportunities with the State and add the Zoning and General Plan to allow for additional housing on these sites; however, the State holds the decision making power on those properties and the housing element cycle is for 8 years. The State process for release of public land and development is very lengthy and may not be addressed in this cycle.
4. Does the City have an inclusionary housing ordinance? City Staff is currently reviewing options for an inclusionary housing ordinance to coincide with the Housing Element Update. The City Council will be the review and approving body on the ordinance which will also be subject to certain studies to develop potential in-lieu fees. Staff anticipates this ordinance to be ready for review by latter part of 2021.
5. How is rent control managed by the City?
The City does not currently have rent control measures. Any policies related to rent control at local level may be reviewed and addressed through the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Process.
Housing Element Update
1. How will zoning be affected?
The Housing Element Update will assess how additional housing units may be added throughout the City given existing zoning. If existing zoning does not enable the City to reach its RHNA allocation, the Housing Element may recommend future consideration of rezoning. 704
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
3 Last Updated: January 4, 2021
2. What email address can be used to reach the City’s Housing Element Update team? Please email any questions or comments regarding the Housing Element Update and future housing growth in Costa Mesa to: [email protected].
3. Is the focus on single-family homes or multi-family rental units? The Housing Element Update will look at all types of housing throughout the City and consider opportunities for new housing development. The purpose of the community outreach is to better understand the needs and support of residents on various housing options.
4. Will the new student housing at OCC count towards RHNA? The new student housing will not count towards RHNA as it was completed outside of the projection dates (June 30, 2021 to October 15, 2029).
5. How will the City ensure lower income housing is built once the plan is created/hold developers accountable for creating affordable housing?
The Housing Element may identify potential incentives available to developers who include affordable housing components to housing developments. Most affordable housing agreements require long-term affordability covenants; the state requires a minimum of 55 years.
6. What can be done about the development costs?
The Housing Element process will include public input regarding possible constraints due to development costs and/or fees. How are other City committees and groups involved in the Housing Element Update?
The City will be hosting Subject Matter Expert and Target Focus Group meetings to receive feedback from experts in the field on particular topics. These meetings will be posted to the City’s Housing Element Update webpage once a date is set and community members may attend.
Other
1. Can higher density housing improve traffic?
Higher density housing developments may mitigate additional traffic when located within walking distance from amenities, commercial and retail uses, and job centers. Housing developments that incorporate mixed-use methods (combining housing and retail uses) may also decrease the need for residents to drive.
2. How will parks and recreation space be increased as population increases? As housing developments are proposed, park fees are assessed in order to ensure adequate recreational open space and maintenance services are provided to the community. 705
DRAFT Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-4
C.2 Online Community Survey
This section contains an outline of the survey questions, summary of survey comments, and total survey results. The survey was made available on the City’s webpage and survey results were presented to the City Council.
706
The City of Costa Mesa
is updating its
Housing Element and
needs your input!
You can take the survey on the
Housing Element Update website at
https://qrco.de/bbsnzZ
or by scanning the
QR code below.
For continuously updated
information, please visit:
www.costamesaca.gov/
housing-element-update
707
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
1 2/25/2021
Community Survey Data – English (447 responses)
708
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
2 2/25/2021
709
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
3 2/25/2021
710
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
4 2/25/2021
711
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
5 2/25/2021
712
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
6 2/25/2021
Vision for Housing in Costa Mesa Comments
Retain character of residential neighborhoods. Use Fairview Developmental Center for an affordable housing enclave. Encourage high rise housing development north of the 405.
Live-work sites are too repetitive in style. Overpower neighbors. Subdividing for snaller lots? Need basic lot area a critical issue.
Supportive and transitional housing for homeless, construction with traffic safety in mind (speed bumps in neighborhoods, not more homes than parking, etc), lots of open space/oarks Housing should be multi-story on major thoroughfare and close proximity to freeways but not impacted by noise and air quality.
More walkable neighborhoods by promoting mixed use development. I see first floor commercial development with apartments or condos above the next few floors. Increasing housing while increasing quality of life.
Housing density has to increase. The choice is between density and sprawl. We need multi-story housing.
A senior living village on 19th at the senior center.
A mixed use neighborhood developed on FDC land that includes various levels of affordability, and affordable for sale work force housing.
A denser neighborhood north of the 405 that includes affordable work force housing.
Affordable housing for workforce
Supportive housing for those who need help
More affordable options for lower to mid income families. Especially focusing on what's available on the westside and making the westside as desirable but still affordable.
Costa Mesa focuses on infilling and densifying what it's already got, without needing to sprawl into the remaining open spaces. We are lucky to have many "centers" in town: W 19th, E 17th, SoBeca, Harbor and Adams, Harbor & 19th. We focus on concentrating our growth around these amenitiy- rich, walkable centers while also allowing context-sensitive infill into our existing neighborhoods. To the extent possible, all new development occur on small- to medium-sized lots by local developers.
Vulnerable groups are not institutionalized but accommodated in neighborhood environments. Each neighborhood contains a range of options to accommodate people in different life stages, and with different socio-economic conditions. With all new housing, the street matters most – front doors, big windows, small gardens, transitional space that fosters comfortable interaction within the community and a sense of ownership of the public realm. Trees are everywhere.
Liquid, affordable housing at all income levels near jobs. Costa Mesa should be a 15 minute city that doesn't require automobile ownership.
More of it without all the heartache from boomers. YIMBY Existing streets-incorporate landscaped wider walkways with separate designated bikeways especially high density areas (Monrovia)...make into one way street from 19th to 15th...gateway street to Newport!!!
Folks that moved to Costa mesa prior to 2010 have no idea what it is like in 2020 being a young family looking to set down ties in Costa Mesa. more housing only enhances our city.
Housing needs to be affordable, near public transit or protected bike lanes, and doesn't create additional drains on public services, utilities or additional demands on parks. Compliance with CEQA, height limits, setbacks and other administrative approvals are mandatory. We must avoid SB 35 streamlining.
More affordable. Safety in high traffic areas. Transitional housing for homeless. 713
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
7 2/25/2021
People with jobs working in the area can afford to buy an own housing in the area. Costa Mesa has far too much rental housing, already, and we need not build a single new rental unit. All new units should be ownership opportunities.
Costa Mesa used to be a safe place to raise families. Crime is on the rise as well as homelessness and apartments are overcrowded with multi families filling garages with people instead of vehicles which causes excessive parking problems and overpopulation, density and crime in some areas. The people of Costa Mesa are sick and tired of it and a lot of people have moved away because of it.
To work on beautifying the city. Work on rebuilding the older parts of the community. Start a slow growth plan
first time home buyers
Initial homes for people and luxury small apartment homes for those young with high paying jobs, but needing/wanting a high quality environment and location, but not needing a fancy address.
An inclusive city for people of all walks of life to live cohesively alongside one another.
A city that makes a place for people of all economic income levels. A place where people can work and recreate near where they live.
Safe, affordable, quality housing for all.
My vision is to STOP more housing. You have torn down business in our city to put up God-awful condos everywhere. Gross. Just leave it alone.
No growth.
Lower taxes.
Safer streets
Housing integration that prioritizes walkability and bikeability. Ideally, residents do not feel compelled to drive to groceries, entertainment, recreation etc within the city.
People who live in Costa Mesa now can choose to live here in the future. Diverse housing options make Costa Mesa desirable along income, age, and social characteristics. There is no shortage of housing for vulnerable populations (undocumented, seniors, homeless).
Affordable apartments or condos that are close to services needed, secure parking and entry. I would prefer no more then 3 to 4 levels and look modern to blend with the surrounding area. Trees, garden area including walking paths and reflecting area.
A diversified housing selection, that is realized through public-private-partnership utilizing Costa Mesa’s resources within the opportunity zone, new market tax credits map area, lihtc in the DDA area, and define the developer incentives within the overlays.
I don’t envision a large amount of new housing. The space that we have remaining is limited with many areas overcrowded with multiple families living in single family dwellings.
Let the market, and the market professionals determine the demand. If a city is built out, it's done...unless of course you want the kind of urban density that other now-undesirable cities have...Long Beach, L.A. etc... quit the social engineering and do the job of providing city services to city residents and businesses.
Let the market decide. Do you realize that your job isn't to provide housing? Do you understand the difference between the free market system and what they have in, say, Russia or China??? I would like to see higher density, for lower income levels, near transit. We have many parking lots, old shopping centers, and seemingly abandoned business parks that should all be changed to high density housing with public transit. Mixed use would also help keep people out of cars.
To make Costa Mesa the place where everyone living in Newport Beach, who grew up around there, wants to live. Making it more desirable for family's. Less crime. And rezoning old run-down retail centers, creatingmixed-use development's that increases walkability for the younger demographic, families.
714
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
8 2/25/2021
BEAUTY! Those big new ugly apartment boxes going up all over OC are AWFUL. SERVICES appropriate to all housing (roads, schools, etc.)
Stop the trend for high density box type living spaces. Tax paying legal residents need yards, side walks, parking. Not cramped into small areas. Traffic congestion has become a major problem.
More single family housing and small lot singe family homes. I do not want to see high rise high density housing which is all rental units. We need to incentive home owner ship in Costa Mesa somehow. I understand that not everyone can own a home here and understand building a small amount of affordable housing but why are we so concentrated on building affordable housing for people who can’t afford to live here? I want to live in Newport Beach. I want to live on balboa island, I want to live in CDM but I can’t afford it so I bought where I could here in CM if I couldn’t afford to live here I would move to a city where I can afford to buy a home or rent. We are a mile away from the beach and understandably people want to live here but is it not a right to live here. I worked my ass off and made some good decisions and saved 12 years for a down payment working as an Electrican to buy here. I am extremely worried of overcrowding, traffic, poultion, crime, trash , graffiti the stretching of our resources such as schools, police and fire and such. There has to be a point where we say enough is enough. No more space, to crowded and that’s it. What it comes down to is a quality of life issue here. The quality of life will be greatly diminished as we build the crap out of Costa Mesa.
Access to affordable housing is in line with the median household income. Affordable housing for everyone.
We need Life Cycle Housing opportunities in Costa Mesa. We need workforce housing. We need an Economic Development Director who will help in the creating of an Opportunity Zone vision We need Life Cycle Housing opportunities in Costa Mesa. We need workforce housing. We need an Economic Development Director who will help in the creating of an Opportunity Zone vision.
We need Life Cycle Housing opportunities in Costa Mesa, workforce housing, an Economic Development Director who will help in the creating of an Opportunity Zone.
Appeal the RHNA numbers determined by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and distributed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to numbers that reflect realistic growth in Costa Mesa based on available land and actual census data/ anticipated growth based on historical data. If the appeal is denied, the City of Costa Mesa needs to file a class action lawsuit with Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, etc against the State of California HCD. Protect Single Family Homes in R1 zoning at all costs. Do not allow ADU or small lot developments in R1 neighborhoods. Only Allow for more stories, increase building heights, increase FAR and units per acre in R2-HD and R3 zoning west of the 55 freeway/ Harbor Blvd. Provide specific plan overlays on 19th Street, Harbor Blvd, Superior Blvd, etc. that allow for 4 story max mixed use developments (apartments/ condos over retail or commercial). Allow for Live/ Work medium density Developments in MG and MP zoning. Provide developer incentives to build the types of developments that benefit the community.
I hope we will continue to have plenty of single family residences. I would hate to see more condense living arrangements.
The appeal of Costa Mesa is the safe, family-friendly neighborhoods with quality schools and without high-density inside traditional neighborhoods. It's the opposite of Los Angeles.
The city needs to house all income levels so a mixture of housing types will be required. The NIMBY will be very upset if their neighborhood dynamic is threatened so a major PR effort would be needed for any change.,
To make housing affordable to low income. For renters and buyers. 715
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
9 2/25/2021
Single family homes and detached townhouses that are affordable as in 400-600/k to bring in young couples to raise their families
Limit high density housing please
Easier renovations to single family housing
Stop building cage apartments, more affordable housing for middle class income PLEASE .
Something without HOAs and something with plenty of parking We need tob look at mixed use housing along with hi density housing that does not impact our local residents.
Affordable living with various options of housing , safe environment with no halfway houses.
Please NO SHORT TERM HOUSING
More affordable single family housing. Less three story master planned communities.
Affordable housing
I am hopeful that the city won’t become overcrowded. Parking in neighborhoods is already difficult, and new construction is being packed into very tight spaces. I would like to see some housing that allows space between units and room for front or backyards.
Let the market determine that within the existing zoning. Increasing home ownership versus rental as the city is upside down in the regard and becoming increasingly a second-class community...inexcusable for a near-beach community.
Affordable housing close to shopping snd transportation.
Eone thing I don’t want Costa Mesa to do is to change any of the zoning that exists today.
The one thing I don’t want Costa Mesa to do is to change any of the zoning that exists today.
I’d like to see decent housing for the variety of people that live in our community. These should be in safe areas (not on a major street or in areas f noise or other pollution (not freeway adjacent).
I know first-hand that the city must stop the influx of people coming to this city from around the country for rehab's. Insurance fraud the people that are let out just roam our streets in terrorize the neighborhoods.
More dense Multi-Family Rental Housing should be planned north of the 405 Freeway. 580 Anton and 3400 Ave of the Arts and Halcyon House are good examples of what could be and not impact the SFR neighborhoods south of the freeway.
I don't want to see a bunch of dense paraments popping up all over Costa Mesa. Our streets are packed enough with cars. I would rather see more single family homes when there is room to grow, but not they type with no yard.
With limited land, Costa Mesa cannot continue to place high density housing where traffic congestion is already a huge issue because of the proximity to the beach.
Promote single family properties. Not high density. Not sober living. CM is losing its charm fast. Have lived here since ‘88
High Density DUs north of the 405, in the older industrial section, would be perfect.
Less multi home structures on small plots. There are too many cars parked on the streets due to these developments making it unsafe for children to ride.
My vision for the future of housing in CM is that the community shifts focus on the high cost of housing to focusing on the acts of the family in the home.
I think retaining Costa Mesa's character is very important and not reflected in the 3-story box developments in the Westside. I think future developments should include increased public 716
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
10 2/25/2021
transportation to limit traffic. Any new developments must include public parks and open spaces, not a fee to the city that robs residents of recreational opportunities and facilities.
The city is overcrowded already with too much traffic. You would do well to deport illegals so Americans can have access to the housing they are taking up.
Less high density housing in Costa Mesa with improved land use. Current efforts to remove business from Costa Mesa in favor of housing has cost the community dearly. Time to consider the need for business to exist in the City instead of the continued rush to create more housing.
Affordable for single people living alone making a $50,000 salary. These new housing blocks being built all over Costa Mesa with units costing $800,000 or more are ridiculous.
That we face the fact that one city can only accomodate so many people and not destroy everyone's quality of life by making it too dense. I believe in the post-Covid era there will be many shifts in how and where people work, and in what businesses they patronize. It would be wise to see how these trends develop and incorporate the new normal into housing plans.
A variety of housing options at multiple price points to ensure economic diversity of residents. Hourly wage earners need to be able to live where they work to reduce traffic, GhG, other pollutants, and chronic stress
A median income community appealing to families that supports infrastructure and where neighbors cared about each other.
Single story apartments, condos or houses. We have large aging community.
Clean up some of the run down areas. More parks but there doesn't seem to be room. Fill the vacant old shopping centers and large vacant stores with housing.
Safe, clean and a city where I can live and work with peers and multi-generational family members Housing for families with the majority being for sale housing rather than rental. I realize the idea of home ownership now ranges from the stand alone home to attached duplex houses to condo units.
But home ownership stabilizes a community and encourages individuals to take an interest in that community. Most renters don’t have an affinity to the town they live in.
Iwould like to see Costa Mesa expand the housing to the maximum without overcrowding. A fair representation of all social classes and races. More high rises perhaps.
More housing everywhere. Especially along Newport Blvd. The model is what they did over by Trader Joe’s.
With all residents willing, and developers open, we can add a mix of housing in all districts evenly. We can reduce traffic, and improve our quality of life by creating more mixed-use spaces we can walk and bike to, increasing community connection, supporting business. It takes everyone.
No overcrowding. affordable, attractive housing, family oriented.
Keeping CM beautiful will keep property values and taxes up. Let's not forget about incorporating trees, looking for power line alternatives in the planning efforts.
Diverse people living in medium-to-high density mixed use spaces, live/work areas, and close to affordable and reliable public transportation/
We have to choose between density and sprawl. Density is better.
Smaller houses with large lots to improve the overall landscape, gain better air quality and grow food N/A
I would prefer limited growth to avoid an already overloaded system.
A safe community with good schools and access to a good mix of large stores and independently owned businesses.
717
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
11 2/25/2021
I think Costa Mesa has already built in every square foot of land. I have seen so many high density residential area pop up in Costa Mesa. I think we need to take a hard look at whether we are overbuilding and we should not change any zoning laws in Costa Mesa.
I do not believe that building additional housing would benefit Costa Mesa residents, other than permitting accessory dwelling units. Taking away retail, using city property or permitting multi-family housing in neighborhoods is not something residents want and causes more congestion in the neighborhoods and city.
Too many new multi-level boxy looking homes built now; need more traditional single-level & low multi-level homes
Maintain the single family home style being unique to the allure of Costa Mesa. Invest in downtown CM to increase tourist revenues for all CM business's. Make certain Fairview Park remains untouched.
Build houses where the Early College H.S. is. Adams Elementary could be a jewel of CM in a heartbeat for immediate surrounding families.
My vision for housing in Costa Mesa is that every neighbor would have a place to live, connect with others, and thrive because their housing costs are within their budget. I believe this is possible with creativity and developers who are willing to make it happen. I applaud the work of the city to not only pursue a plan, but implement it.
Affordability
Future housing would take advantage of greener living (solar panels, etc), and provide safe spaces for those in the unhoused community, while keeping the safety of neighborhood in mind. Gentrification would be replaced by a more collaborative approach, with minimal hostile architecture.
Maintain Costa Mesa single family housing. No more recovery housing/homeless shelters.
Resident Permit Parking Needs To Be In Place.
Please start enforcement again. We fought hard for Resident Parking Permits.
Transform older neighborhoods into newer, improved neighborhoods. Turn Westside CM into Eastside CM / CdM flower streets. Property values go up.
To maintain the status quo. We moved to Costa Mesa almost 40 years ago for its large lots, lack of HOAs, freeway and shopping access. The city needs to push back on the state for mandated housing increases. My neighbors, like me, do not want to live in a congested, high density neighborhood. We successfully fought an out of town developer from ruining our tract with HD housing a few years ago and we’ll do it again.
More single family homes. Streets requiring parking permits. Reduce apartment building or require adequate parking to be part of process, 2 car spaces at least per unit. If house is zoned for senior or special needs living, must stay that way. Current issue with previously senior home now rented to 7 people with cars, issues with parking for neighbors.
More single family than apartments, even if it means condos with green space around them. There is too little attention to green spaces for walking, riding bikes, exercise. No new housing should be allowed unless it provides open space for parks!
Let the market dictate the response to needs, not the bureacrats in Sacramento...good grief, this should be obvious...quit social engineering experiments.
Developing some of the industrial land and run-down hotels into quality housing keeping in mind room for plenty of parking and green space. Not 3 story townhouses Costa Mesa is already impacted any new housing should be multiuse and schools should be open for recreation.
My husband and I are hospital workers (RN) living in a rental duplex. Have wanted to purchase our own single family home but it’s just out of reach. Would love to see some affordable single family homes under $500k
718
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
12 2/25/2021
Less apartments which increase parking problems in virtually every area in the Westside. The 3 story with roof deck properties (now at a 4th floor position) are ugly. The 2 on my street, Poets Place and next door are basically failures. They look horrible, ruin property values in surrounding areas and they do not sell or rent well. Both properties are mostly not rented, and live in homeowners are very few and far in between. They are essentially high priced apartments which do not rent. Few people want to navigate 3 steep floors.
No more tower housing. It’s too congested. Simple like before A place where we value everyone in our community, regardless of home much money they make.
That is why we need housing for very low and extremely low income neighbors. We have so many folks working low wage jobs that serve us, but we don't provide anywhere affordable that they can live in our community.
More affordable housing
SLO growth, additional traffic concerns, we have too many cars parked along streets as is Costa Mesa is upside down in its ownership to rental ratio. We do not need a single additional rental property. Ownership has proven and enormous community benefits at all levels; all aspects of this plan should focus on increasing opportunities for ownership.
We do not need a single additional rental property. Ownership has proven and enormous community benefits at all levels; all aspects of this plan should focus on increasing opportunities for ownership.
Smaller units work just fine as ownership opportunities. I live in about 1000 square feet and that has been enough for 28 years.
Existing single family home keep the variety of housing architecture. Small rental housing blogs (3 and 4 units). Large developments and small lot homes deteriorate the existing culture.
I believe in placing more value in housing than parking, if you look at an aerial view of most cities, there is more parking area than there is buildings.
Would like Costa Mesa to be free of Homelessness, Low Crime/Drugs, and Open to those that can afford it.
More maintained, nice affordable housing for multiple groups. A mixture of single family homes as well as multi-family units.
Hope there will be opportunities for people who work in Costa Mesa to also live here from CEO's and doctors to service and maintenance workers - a potentially difficult balance.
Density is the only thing that can prevent sprawl. I'm in favor of it.
Unless we are also creating a robust retail environment, quality food, artisan retailers, local businesses, and quality education, as well as sufficient parks and open spaces, I don’t believe there should be additional housing units.
Mixed, sustainable, and creative. We need more creative thinking that produces the housing equivalent of the Camp/LAB and less like Triangle Square. The fairgrounds, Fairview development center, and civic center offer a blank canvas to make a new housing hub and “place”.
Low to medium density homes which are manageable to buy or rent by mid-level wage earners.
Safe and pleasant neighborhoods based on a shared sense of community and ownership - protecting the product of joint effort and long term investment in places in which our kids can grow up in and continue a legacy
My vision is if people work for it then they will take care of it and the community. If they are provided with a handout from the government they will run this city into the ground. I think our city is very dense and traffic is already congested. The state should consider putting this housing where there is tons of land that isn't already being used (like the desert near Barstow). 719
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
13 2/25/2021
Encourage higher density / mixed use housing in areas that are north of the 405 around South Coast Plaza. Try to protect existing single family neighborhoods with incremental increases of development surrounding them. Realistic economic factors must be considered in order for housing to be developed. The projects must make economic sense or else they won't be built. Flexibility in land planning is key while letting the market determine what is ultimately constructed.
More ownership of housing. Updating older two story rental unit buildings. Using industrial properties as a way to increase housing by converting them to mix use housing and commercial space. clean and safe
The prices continue to sky rocket, existing workforce continues to get pushed out More affordable apts in the commercial areas west of Superior Ave. More housing is needed on the west side of the city.
More housing options and locating them in areas to make the city more walkable. All hands on deck approach.
I think we need to keep CM as primarily a suburb with mostly single family homes. That is why people want to live here.
we don't need more high end housing, we need affordable housing units for very low and low income.
We need several hundred supportive housing units
That all citizens who want to make COSTA MESA home can do so in a property that matches their needs
I personally believe that we have enough housing in CM already. Every time I see a new high-density housing project go up I get really angry. I do support projects for specific at-need groups, including senior housing or assisted living facilities, and more transitional housing for homeless seeking to get off the street.
For the city to meet the needs of every type of housing where people can call home, for those who have families, senior living, student housing,and homeless run housing.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HOUSING THAT IS LESS THAN 3 STORIES. aLSO RESIDENTIAL OVER
COMMERCIAL
I would want a denser community with multi-use developments. I want it to be easier to get around as well.
A lot of houses for low income people, disabled and seniors.
Keep present zoning. Especially R-1, the most in demand housing type. There’s plenty of open land inland a few miles. No high density
we need to take old hotel/bldgs for the homeless. also create more senior living/independent living facilities
To preserve the nature of Costa Mesa I think no housing of any kind should be above 3 stories high, and nothing should be built out to the streets. There should be ample landscaping around all housing (NOT like the awful stuff going up along Placentia) and all housing should have enough parking so there is no overflow onto streets. The pandemic has shown that dense housing is not healthy.
Affordable, walkable/bikable lively neighborhoods.
Quality and serenity,, focus on seniors and families with children Housing that is affordable for all segments of society and all income levels.
The State wants and we should require at least 20% of new housing to be affordable units for the workers who live here, which is to say low and very low income units. Water is becoming more scarce, and most of the new building leaves no permeable ground for rain percolation, which already is causing flooding and depletion of our ground water. With thousands of new housing units 720
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
14 2/25/2021
expected, and with no ability to widen roads, parking and traffic congestion will go from bad to worse.
No housing plan can be independent of traffic, parking, and resource solutions.
The puss shown here are a good solution. You must preserve CM as a family city. NB plans to put there’s bordering CM, and CM looking at out lying spaces. CM already provides MANY homeless persons services, SOS health clinic, soup kitchens, food banks. Do not create housing that will draw more homelessness. We are doing a lot asa city to help.
Affordable housing is becoming harder to find. It would be nice if more affordable housing was available for seniors who only have S.S. for income. Maybe a large community of studio apartments.
More housing for the homeless where they could receive the services they need would be nice.
Safe housing for all demographics. But ample parking for units must be required whether for apartments or additional units in neighborhoods
Do not overcrowd Costa Mesa by building up and allowing multi-family developments in R1 and R2 neighborhoods. Preserve the suburban feel that is already being threatened in the City with too many muti-family developments. Turn over MF and CM development areas in decline into small lot, no more than 3 stories.
As Costa Mesa ages so do the people that live here, affordable housing for the Age group 55 and older and affordable housing for first time homebuyers.
Redevelop retail and major streets to accommodate 5-6 story mixed use development with a 15% low income or 12% very low income housing.
replace old one story rentals that have no parking with two story units that provide ample parking. the huge lot houses could add a smaller additional unit or units depending on lot size. a lot of costa mesa is of 70+ year old construction. this would be an opportunity to upgrade to current codes and safety.
I am against the destruction of the single family neighborhoods. I don't have a problem with the small "granny units", but someone built an entire second house taking up the whole backyard in my neighborhood and that is just wrong. The Kmart can be converted to a smart retail/living unit complex if people really think outside the box and not just be motivated by greed.
Take away the seedy motels that attract crime and replace them with housing.
Mixed-use along major arterials, with apartments on older shopping centers and city properties, and incentivize walkability. Keep single-family neighborhoods as cohesive units, i.e. do not allow duplexes/triplexes to be placed inconsistently in single-family neighborhoods.
I would love townhomes near the lab and camp/ triangle where I can walk to things and not have to drive. We have apartments there but the older condo options don’t make me want to buy More enclaves such as Chino has begun building. The homes are reasonably priced on smaller lots...but very quaint. Each enclave has it's own activity center such as a pool and tot lots. Others (The Preserve) have a central facility that has a theater, library, pool, park etc.
I would love options for inclusive housing opportunities without losing the character of our city. I hate when a development goes up in a neighborhood and it stands out. I'd love for new housing to blend it with already existing neighborhoods and infrastructure.
Costa Mesa drew me in because of its large R1 residences which were affordable and accessible 40 years ago. For the future, building on city owned properties and apartments will allow CM to stay accomodate more residents. Multiple housing units on former R1 lots will ruin the city, not everyone can afford to live where they want. I’d love to own a home in South Laguna Beach, that isn’t going to happen...
Cleanup and refurbish older housing, incorporation of mixed use and modular compact housing My visions for future housing is providing housing for low income families. 721
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
15 2/25/2021
I want more affordable rental housing for families, for disabled people, for the homeless. I want smart, creative, "green" development that will be attractive and beneficial to the entire community. I want Costa Mesa to have a balanced housing supply that lets lower income people live affordably here, not just higher income folks (like me).
Affordable homes for first time buyers. Minimal apartments.
Less transitional housing more senior housing for current residents. Take care of residents and less focus on trying to cram so many more people in our crowded city.
Bring back the family feel instead of the singletons and those who buy for vacation homes.
Affordable, plentiful housing for all financial or age demographics in the city. Housing near jobs and commercial areas to allow for biking and walking and reduce traffic Village like with a multiple variety of units for those who are not able to earn high incomes A real mess. The State and SCAG did not take into account the lack of infrastructure (roads, sewer, water) Our K-12 school blogs were built in the 50’s. This will not resolve affordability and overall make this a less desirable place for families to reside.
I would hope that the City of the Arts would accommodate their retiring ARTISTS who may be living only on Social Security and retirement, about $3,500 per month.
Less density in west side neighborhoods, more family friendly housing with walkable and green space in neighborhoods
Modern stackable container housing for low income. Perhaps grants for upgrades to older apartments.
My vision would be to have more affordable apartments and mixed use developments. I think Costa Mesa has an ample supply of luxury apartments. Housing is needed for essential workers and their families.
My vision does not include high density living situations that will reduce the quality of life in Costa Mesa
Costa Mesa should be guided by our neighbor Newport Beach in how we handle housing. We should not be guided by Santa Ana or other downscale cities.
Apartments with ample parking on major streets with easy freeway access - We have overcrowded roads - especially in rush hours. Most apts have multiple vehicles - terrible waivers on parking in the past. No parking on streets next to apts.
Combination of high density in portions of the city that has infrastructure in place that includes low, very low and senior housing option, then utilize the ability to build small units on lots (legal), and work-live in spots that really are work-live and not the random developments recently built Combination of high density in portions of the city that has infrastructure in place that includes low, very low and senior housing options, then utilize the ability to build small units on lots (legal), and work-live in spots that really are work-live and not the random developments recently built A future where there is enough housing at various price/rent for the various income groups.
I would like to see more affordable housing.
Costa Mesa does not need to implement more programs that would lead the city to invite less desirable inhabitants.
Better bike/walk access to work school and shopping areas, better safer bus type transportation, we have great climate many people awesome recreation & shopping, no every has / or can afford a car, since rents are so high these days.
Safe place for our children to walk to school and home. People take pride in where they live and follow community rules. Affordable pricing for lease and renting without huge increases. 722
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
16 2/25/2021
A lot less sober living and senior based facilities, with more traditional single family home in low traffic areas and multifamily units in high traffic areas.
Help residents who want to be able to buy with maybe a rent to own type program or something that helps them work towards purchasing. Eliminate slum lords in our community, those who don’t maintain their rental property but charge higher rent. Keep outside developers from over building in our neighborhoods. Maybe convert that police substation by Lions Park to housing? I never see police there. And the giant jail building at City Hall? Is that empty? Fairview Development Center? We could use that property a variety of housing types, plus open space. Unless it remains a hospital? Maybe add a residential community adjacent to IKEA? Or in the former law school near IKEA? The AAA offices don’t really need all that space, they could convert some for housing. Please don’t destroy our single family home neighborhoods, we’ve worked hard our whole lives to find our homes and our neighborhoods. I don’t think I could have survived this pandemic anywhere else but in our Eastside humble home.
Preserving the lovely single family, large lot areas that are fine (please don't ruin them with high density and additions) while moving into the run down and depressed areas and improving them.
More walkable and bikeable neighborhoods, with a larger variety of housing to support working class families and people from all walks of life.
Our family owns three homes in Costa Mesa and moved to the city in 1967. 3 generations later, our view of the city's housing is troubling. Too many renters and airbnb. Lack of city oversight over older conversions/condos. Condo owners and homes around complexes are tired of condo managements not being accountable for maintaining properties. Please help.
I want Costa Mesa to retain its look, that is to say no big signs (especially L.E.D.), no housing over 3 stories, no overcrowding, keep traffic low.
My vision for Costa Mesa is no more building. Stop all building and do not add anymore living quarters. There is no more room here, build houses in Victorville.
One that meets the needs of our community
I have lived in Costa Mesa my entire life. It concerns me to see so much congestion and poor planning.
We need to avoid density wherever possible to continue to enjoy the midsized city feeling. Let's not turn into Los Angeles. Small is good!!!
I have lived in Costa Mesa my entire life. It concerns me to see so much congestion and poor planning.
We need to avoid density wherever possible to continue to enjoy the midsized clean and safe city feeling. Let's not turn CM into Los Angeles.
All people who work in Costa Mesa should be able to live in Costa Mesa, paricularly those in lower income jobs. Priority to lower income housing should be based on: 1) History of residency in C.M.; 2) Employment in C.M.
Workforce/senior housing located near transit, shopping and entertainment.
I like how Costa Mesa has residential pockets mixed in with retail and restaurants. I don't want retail/services to go away in favor of housing. Also, we need more parks/community center for our children.
no comment
I think costa mesa has done a great job so far keeping up with growth and building sufficient affordable housing. Costa Mesa should continue creating more housing for its lowest income residents.
A place where housing is affordable and available for all people.
I think building 11,000 new housing units is unattainable for our city. Absolute no way. We must push back on this. When does there come a point that we say no more vacancies we are all full? It comes down to a quality of life issue for the current and future residents of Costa Mesa. Costa Mesa will be 723
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
17 2/25/2021
unlivable with the amount of people all this new housing would bring. More people more traffic more pollution, trash, graffiti, trash, blight. All of it. This is proven no doubt. We don’t went high rise appt complex’s up and down harbor Blvd or especially that disaster One metro west. Bad idea. reasonable size 4 story’s max medium density condos if not detached units best I don't have anything exciting to add here, but I'd like to see affordable and accessible housing for all kinds of people here, and housing provided for those experiencing homelessness.
Maintain neighborhood feeling in R1 neighborhoods with creative solutions for more densely built housing especially live work to reduce traffic. Make sure new units have ample parking.
No more vertical townhomes packed tightly together. Quality, unique single family homes with yard space for kids. Encourage uniqueness with design and architecture. Quality - not quantity. Apartments could be great if they are unique, family friendly and have nice outdoor space.
More plan regarding numbers and traffic problems
To improve the overall variety of housing choice without all the density and poor traffic impact we’ve been experiencing
A reinvention of the high density rental properties that will make them more desirable, welcoming, friendly and modern.
Stop adding houses, Costa Mesa is already to crowded. Fixing up the junky apartments. From what I hear people in Costa Mesa hate all the new high rise single family homes built.
Preservation of open space; leave parks and existing out door recreational areas intact. Add housing capacity through careful planning of many types of projects; easing zoning to allow easy accessory dwelling units, encourage multiuse commercial with living units above nicely landscaped with buffers to streets and sidewalks so it doesn’t “feel” overbuilt. If higher density apartment type projects are approved, they need to also include outdoor green space.
More housing with more options for more people.
My vision is a blend of residential and commercial industry, with a large focus on open spaces, protecting nature and supporting arts/seniors and other community activities.
We need to plan for the growth but should use other cities experiences that have gone through this growth 10-15 years ago and duplicate the successful ones.
We should hold off on building as long as we can. State requirements may change. No more building in high density areas. All income levels and demographics evenly distributed throughout the city.
Every area to feel welcoming, seamless and loved.
Enough units to stop all these homeless mothers and children. Scattered through out the city so no one neighborhood has too much of any element. Get rid of some of the sober living homes to make space for families.
Why must there be more housing in already impacted cities? Multigenerational single family homes and ADU’s in neighborhoods and co-op room leases near shopping centers for singles.
Higher density with no plan to accommodate the growing population is irresponsible. Traffic, trash, homelessness are all growing in Costa Mesa and at the nearby beaches. At some point, push back to the State should be made. We are ruining the environment. There was no place on this survey for open spaces, and our commitment to preserving what little nature parks we have. A more obvious place for higher density living would be in the environs of South Coast Plaza, since there are already larger buildings there.
724
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
1 2/25/2021
Community Survey Data – Spanish (18 responses)
725
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
2 2/25/2021
726
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
3 2/25/2021
727
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
4 2/25/2021
728
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
5 2/25/2021
729
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
6 2/25/2021
Vision for Housing in Costa Mesa Comments
Ver mas casas y viviendas con precios mas comodos (venta y de renta).
Tener más control para que los dueños no cobren más de lo que es.
Que los dueños de apartamentos cuando renten el apartamento vaya incluido el garage,porque por donde yo vivo les rentan a otros personas los garages
Que ayga viviendas gusta
Ya han construido demasiados apartamentos en la calles 18th y placentia ,además de otras áreas, lo cual ha incrementado demasiado el tráfico en la ciudad, vendiendo o rentando estos duplex o departamentos a precios demasiado altos. Existe una verdadera necesidad de vivienda o solo están especulando para que los que están construyendo se hagan más ricos? No sobrepoblen la ciudad por favor.
Una zona más comercializada, pero no se olviden que es importante mantener los vecindarios familiares, eso es prioridad.
Mi vision es que aiga mas vivendas acsesibles para la gente con bajos recursos Un lugar con oportunidad de tener mas viviendas asequibles, par familias de bajos recursos
730
City of Costa Mesa
Housing Element Update 2021-2029
Summary of Survey Comments
Survey respondents were provided with a variety of opportunities throughout the survey to write in additiona l comments and feedback. The following provides summaries of the most common comments received organized by topic.
Housing Types:
• Respondents noted that there needs to be more middle housing (i.e. duplex, triplex, etc.) and for -sale condos, especially near transportation corridors. Most recognize that density is the solution to lowering housing costs; however, design and heigh must be considered. Respondents have noted that developm ent s over 3 stories are too tall.
• ADUs present a viable option for survey respondents, given that the ADU remains smaller than the m a in residence and that it is made affordable.
• Tiny homes have been proposed as a solution for those experiencing homelessness. • Senior housing must be made affordable and near services/commercial necessities. Respondents have identified a lack of options that allow them to “age in place”. Senior housing should include open/green space and remain affordable.
• Mixed-use housing paired with commercial retail may assist in lowering the need for driving. Respondents have also noted that open and green spaces are important for children and families and must therefore be considered for such developments. This in part participates in preserving and establishing a neighborhood feel.
• There is a need for additional transitional and supportive housing to house those experiencing homelessness.
Location of Housing
• Utilize State-owned properties, such as Fairview Developmental Center. City-owned properties should be used for housing or parks/open space.
• Underutilized properties could be used for housing. According to survey comments, respondents recognize there is a low availability of vacant land, but that this would be a good option for future housing. • Repurpos ing of hotels and motels into housing – this could be a good option for providing housing for low- income single apartments or for those experiencing homelessness. The Vagabond Inn has been identified as a potential site.
• Respondents have expressed concern about adding density to existing single-family neighborhoods – they wish to retain a neighborhood/ "Costa Mesa feel”.
• Housing in industrial areas could be a possibility, but there is a lack of services and open space/pa rks in those areas
• Mixed use at shopping centers to support small businesses but be careful not to replace businesses with housing.
• Adding senior housing at the existing Senior Center has been identified as a potential option.
Density
• Respondents recommended not to further increase high density area s - population needs to be more equally distributed throughout the City.
• Improve existing neighborhoods but not density – help to renovate existing aging housing stock.
731
City of Costa Mesa
Housing Element Update 2021-2029
Affordability
• More affordable housing – for families, low/mid income households, workforce , seniors , pe r sons experiencing homelessness, and disabled
• Aid in creating a track to ownership, not all rental units. More ownership units and less new rental units. • Respondents recommend the City looks into creating an Opportunity Zone.
Open Space
• Lack of open space and services in industrial areas that would affect housing planned in those areas • City-owned properties should be used for housing or parks/open space • Respondents have identified a need for open space and parks near residential areas. • There should be a focus on sustainability in both building housing and in transportation (options other t ha n driving)
Parking
• Walkability and bikability are important factors to survey respondents. Some have noted the City should strive to be a “15-minute city”.
• Traffic has been identified as being a topic of concern when considering the planning of additional housing units along major streets. Respondents are concerned about creating further traffic on the roads. • However, respondents have proposed that parking requirements should be lowered for future afforda ble housing projects.
732
DRAFT Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-5
C.3 Subject Matter Expert Meetings
This section contains notes and meeting materials provided during the meetings. These include virtual stick- notes and online polling exercises.
733
734
735
736
DRAFT Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-6
C.4 District Specific Meeting s
The section contains all district specific meetings materials, flyers, PowerPoint presentation, participan t activities, as well as all available public comments provided during the meeting s. Public comments were received verbally and in written form through the Zoom chat. A video recording of each meeting is available at www.costamesaca.gov/housing-element-update.
737
District 1 738
District 2 739
District 3 740
District 4 741
District 5 742
District 6 743
Spanish Breakout Room 744
City of Costa Mesa
2021- 2029 Housing Element Update
District Specific Meetings Chat
District 2:
19:11:40 From Cash Rutherford : Denser = cheaper. Agreed! 19:22:57 From Mildred Perez : Affordable housing overlays to provide incentives for developers 19:23:17 From Cash Rutherford : Great points - agree with you all. 19:24:12 From Daniel : Didn't a high density development north of the 405 just get voted down? 19:25:48 From Cash Rutherford : I believe the developer has the project on hold due to the constraints of Measure Y.
19:26:56 From Daniel : Would those constraints also be applied to any high density building we are talking about now?
19:27:39 From Cash Rutherford : Yes. Other cities have ran into legal trouble due to policies like Measure Y that prevent high density housing in job-rich areas. 19:30:23 From Daniel : Cash do you know if those cities come to a resolution with that situation? 19:32:04 From Cash Rutherford : There is a precedent of courts and/or state regulators intervening to resolve restrictive policies like measure Y. At a minimum the Housing Element is required to recognize local constraints to development.
19:37:59 From Cynthia McDonald : Cash, Measure Y is based on Redondo Beach's ordinance.
That ordinance was litigated and to my knowledge stands to this day. Its is one of the reasons we used it as the basis of our ordinance.
19:38:40 From Daniel : Thank you for the information everyone. I appreciate the shared knowledge.
District 3:
18:49:47 From Carol Buchanan : Is it possible to consider the hosiptal grounds Harbor and Fair by the Gold Course
18:50:02 From Carol Buchanan : Golf Course
18:56:38 From Carol Buchanan : I will have to drive around and look since I have no idea 18:57:05 From Carol Buchanan : It is pretty dense in Costa Mesa 19:05:18 From Carol Buchanan : Also my husband and myself 19:07:35 From Andrea Marr to Matt Horton, Kimley-Horn(Direct Message) : Belearic 19:09:58 From Carol Buchanan : How about the closed Law school opposite AAA on Harbor 19:13:54 From Carol Buchanan : Interesting
19:24:07 From Andrea Marr to Matt Horton, Kimley-Horn(Direct Message) : south coast drive not augusta :)
19:24:22 From Matt Horton, Kimley-Horn to Andrea Marr(Direct Message) : thanks! 19:25:34 From Carol Buchanan : They will fight you for that parking lotu 19:26:11 From Carol Buchanan : Thank you!!
19:27:03 From Carol Buchanan : Back Bay Golf Course would be a great location 19:27:29 From Carol Buchanan : Everyone there hates the fly over from John Wayne 19:30:20 From Carol Buchanan : To bad.
745
City of Costa Mesa
2021- 2029 Housing Element Update
19:38:12 From Carol Buchanan : Thank you, I really enjoyed this insight. I will attend future meeting
19:38:32 From Carol Buchanan : Good Night
District 4:
19:07:12 From Christine Nolf : I have to sign off. I really enjoyed this time with my neighbors.
Thank you for facilitating and listening. Count me in for investing in our community. 19:07:36 From Ines Galmiche : Thank you Christine for joining us! 19:08:47 From James : 55+ is senior per HUD rules.
19:09:14 From Linda Kraemer : Love the diversity in District 4 19:12:26 From James : Nature. Good point. Read "The Nature Fix." 19:17:05 From Linda Kraemer : Nature even in our buildings. Green spaces 19:18:29 From Jenna and Alex to Ines Galmiche(Direct Message) : you’re doing amazing! 19:28:36 From James : We have a couple of community gardens but need more. 19:50:47 From James : Please allow Airbnb for home owners.
District 5:
18:48:20 From Aaron Klemm to Nick Chen(Direct Message) : My recommendation for the Housing element should plan for SB 9 to pass this session. 18:50:33 From Aaron Klemm to Nick Chen(Direct Message) : Additionally, the base condition 10' setback on exterior side lot lines should be made more conditional. The 10' setback makes sense if the sidewalks/parkway is narrow. However when there is a 7' city owned parkway that is more than adequate to ensure pleasant streetscapes.
18:58:05 From Aaron Klemm : I would encourage the city to keep it simple. 18:59:00 From Aaron Klemm : State policy is focused on high opportunity areas which in practice means traditional SFH zoning. Traditional SFH is super racist/segregationist. 19:01:43 From Aaron Klemm : For 4 story zones, old dilapidated warehouse, boat storage and industrial spaces on the westside are preferable to some of those pollution hotspots. 19:03:19 From Aaron Klemm : I heard the question about parking adequacy. This brings up the issue of complete/safe streets. We can't have more neighbors and more fun without reducing the waste and geometry problems of cars.
19:03:30 From Aaron Klemm : and ceding most of our public spaces to cars. 19:04:08 From Wendy Leece : There are multiple owners/family of the shopping center 19:04:40 From Aaron Klemm : I prefer missing middle housing. 19:05:00 From Aaron Klemm : https://missingmiddlehousing.com/ 19:08:17 From Ben Glassman : Aaron you are saying you prefer missing middle over a large apartment complex?
19:09:17 From Aaron Klemm : I think missing middle is the correct next step for Costa Mesa to keep our pro-housing councilmember elected to keep moving to more housing after we exhaust the missing middle.
19:11:05 From olga : Costa Mesa must think about doesn't exist yet but is pictured.....lets narrow streets and have some creative housing in these areas!,, 746
City of Costa Mesa
2021- 2029 Housing Element Update
19:12:40 From olga : We must promote global thinking about housing spaces and sharing public spaces.
19:13:51 From Adam Ereth : The D6 group was just talking about this a few mins ago on Newport Blvd.
19:14:22 From Arlis Reynolds - SOUTH : The "15 minute city" is something I've been learning about as a concept for city planning - reduces traffic, improves health, increases community connections and happiness: https://www.15minutecity.com/about
19:17:06 From Wendy Leece : Have you estimated how many units could be built with in the existing overlays?
19:17:41 From Ben Glassman : Arlis - do you know what ratio CM is currently at regarding the 15min city?
19:18:02 From Arlis Reynolds - SOUTH : I don
19:18:11 From Lori Ann Farrell Harrison : Thank you everyone for your participation!! The City is conducting a Parking Study to identify multiple solutions to address current parking shortages in D4 and D5. Community meetings will be held next month on Thursday, March 4th and on Monday, March 15th.
More info to follow. SAVE THE DATE!!!!
19:18:15 From Cindy Brahs : Agree with Jay's concerns however I think Covid has forever impacted a lot of businesses utilitzing WFH. I know of a lot of business that are letting their office leases expire.
19:18:42 From Aaron Klemm : Induced demand exists for both cars and bikes, pedestrian and transit infrastructure. If you make it as safe and convenient as a car the riders will come. Adding road capacity does not reduce congestion. The evidence and literature is very clear on that. 19:19:05 From Arlis Reynolds - SOUTH : I don't - it's a study I'd like to do.. perhaps something we can crowdsource... we've done some research on this for park access (we are deficient) but not other amenities.
19:20:04 From Aaron Klemm : Adding highway lanes to deal with traffic congestion is like loosening your belt to cure obesity.
19:21:29 From Ben Glassman : Lol @Aaron correct not the solution to the root problem 19:21:49 From Eileen Cirillo to Nick Chen(Direct Message) : In the Housing Element are there any requirements for affordable Senior Housing
19:24:18 From olga : What are the sizes of the units in the proposed 30 units per acre? 19:32:10 From Cindy Brahs : Is there a map of county a/o government owned vacant parcels in the city?
19:35:28 From Aaron Klemm : If the housing element can target ab AB 2588 pollution hotspot with an upzoning that makes the land valuable enough to end the pollution that would be great. 19:35:35 From Aaron Klemm : http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk- assessment/ab2588_annual_report_2019.pdf?sfvrsn=30
19:36:24 From Ben Glassman : I agree Olga
19:36:33 From Ben Glassman : Love all the parks and river trail 19:37:02 From Dianne Russell : Yes- we have a great area! Lots of open space. 747
City of Costa Mesa
2021- 2029 Housing Element Update
19:39:14 From Arlis Reynolds - SOUTH : @Olga I think 30 units per acre could look very different with different designs.. here's an article that shows some examples:
https://www.theurbanist.org/2017/05/04/visualizing-compatible-density/ 19:39:52 From Arlis Reynolds - SOUTH : @Cindy - I will ask for that map. 19:42:14 From Aaron Klemm : Support Alex Lee's bill AB 387 for California to lead on social housing.
19:42:20 From Aaron Klemm : https://eastcountytoday.net/assemblymember-alex-lee- introduces-bill-to-establish-social-
housing/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20bill%2C%20t,limited%20equity%20homeownership%20ho using%20and
19:44:11 From Cindy Brahs : There are modular ADU companies out there too. 19:47:43 From olga : I agree Wendy that the staff at city hall needs to be open minded and more learned about the vareities of housing elements!
19:50:49 From Jim : @Arlis and everyone I suppose: there is a catalog of preapproved renovations for the Freedom Home tract.
https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=250 19:50:57 From Jim : Same could be done for ADUs
19:53:23 From Cindy Brahs : We may want to reconsider some office zoning. 19:53:48 From Wendy Leece : Someone just posted about the pre made plans for Freedom homes. Could include ADU.
19:55:30 From Cindy Brahs : Thank you!
19:55:45 From Wendy Leece : Thank you Good use of time! 19:56:04 F rom olga : How about small spaces for rvs i think Tustin or Orange have at least one. 19:57:20 From olga : great idea...we should just do it!!! 19:57:57 From Eileen Cirillo : Thank you.
19:58:02 From olga : great idea on the swales at the dividers at oak and 20tho District 6:
20:00:35 From L. Alejandra Reyes R. C. : Thank you!!
20:01:14 From Jeffrey Harlan : Thanks, all. That was really very helpful and enlightening--great ideas and discussion.
Spanish Breakout Room:
18:39:19 From Lucy : si
18:39:24 From Lucy : si gracias
18:41:41 From Lucy : gracias por la información
18:42:08 From Andy Godinez : De nada, gracias por su participacion 18:47:27 From Andy Godinez : https://www.costamesaca.gov/city-hall/city- departments/development-services/planning/housing-element-update 19:01:12 From Lucy : si gracias
748
City of Costa Mesa
2021- 2029 Housing Element Update
19:01:17 From Molly Mendoza (Kimley-Horn) : https://www.costamesaca.gov/city-hall/city- departments/development-services/planning/housing-element-update 19:01:25 From Mary Martinez. : gracias
19:08:42 From Molly Mendoza (Kimley-Horn) to Rossina.Chichiri(Direct Message) : Even if its not related to the map - can you add their comments?
19:09:12 From Molly Mendoza (Kimley-Horn) to Rossina.Chichiri(Direct Message) : just so we can capture anything additional, we can always reformat 19:25:19 From Molly Mendoza (Kimley-Horn) to Andy Godinez(Direct Message) : Andy - will you just encourage everyone to participate - they don't have to but we want to hear from them :) 19:25:32 F rom Andy Godinez to Molly Mendoza (Kimley-Horn)(Direct Message) : Copy 19:42:33 From Lucy : gracias
19:43:06 From Andy Godinez : Gracias muchisimo por su tiempo y sus propociones 19:44:02 From Andy Godinez : https://costamesahousingsurvey-sp.metroquest.com/ Other Comments:
18:14:20 From Jan H. to Everyone : Did the State approve our appeal for lowering the total amount of housing Costa Mesa is supposed to cover?
18:14:44 From Jon Zich to Everyone : No
18:16:07 From Minoo Ashabi to Everyone : The City submitted an appeal along with over 50 other cities in the region. Only two appeals were approved based on technical errors so the City's appeal was not approved.
18:16:59 From Jan H. to Everyone : The appeal was very well written. I’m surprised that the state turned it down.
18:19:21 From Molly Mendoza (Kimley-Horn) to Everyone : More information on the cities that appealed and the process is available here: https://scag.ca.gov/rhna 18:27:17 From Pamela Morgan to Everyone : thanks for that info 18:32:46 From Jan H. to Everyone : Do units that are completed in 2021 count towards our total units for Costa Mesa?
18:34:54 From Jan H. to Everyone : How many people are on this zoom meeting? 749
DRAFT Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-7
C.5 Targeted Focus Meeting Notes
The section contains a summary of the targe ted focus meetings held with: English and Spanish-speaking faith-based community, organizations that provide services for those experiencing homelessness, the Costa Mesa Housing Coalition, the Costa Mesa Mobile Home Park Advisory committee, affordable and market- rate housing developers, and interested property owners and landowners. 750
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Targeted Focus Meeting Notes
Targeted Focus Meeting Notes
The City of Costa Mesa employed a community outreach strategy that engaged community members multiple times at a Citywide level through live workshops, online surveys, and a thirty-day public review draft document. Next, the City went one level lower and held meetings by individual districts to determine what unique characteristics should be taken into consideration. Lastly, the City focused outreach on sections of the community through Targeted Focus Meetings who are underrepresented in the planning process or who may not typically participate in community building processes. These communities can be affected by long-range housing plans, just as the rest of the community is, and community feedback from these groups is important to get when developing the Housing Element.
As part of the Targeted Focus Meetings, the City held one on one discussions with representatives from the following segments of the community:
• Faith-based community (English and Spanish). The City met with some of the local leaders within the faith-based community to discuss housing-related services currently being provided through church facilities or organizations. Participants in the meeting discussed the challenges the local organizations face when assisting members of the community in looking for housing and the recent successful example at Lighthouse Church. Participants included leaders from Lighthouse Church, The Crossing, and several other local churches as well as Ian Stevenson with Trellis, a community group established by people from all over Costa Mesa to tackle problems faced by residents each day.
• Organizations that provide services for those experiencing homelessness. The City met with organizations that provide services to people experiencing homelessness or who are in need of other services, such as locating jobs or completing and filing governmental paperwork. These are organizations that currently work fairly independently. The City discussed future ways in which they could collaborate and potentially assist in the efforts.
• Costa Mesa Housing Coalition. The City met with the Costa Mesa Housing Coalition who has been an active participant in all housing element related community meetings and workshops, in addition to the one-on-one meeting held. Some of the comments expressed were that Fairview Development Center should be strongly considered as a viable solution for lower-income housing, that accessory dwelling units were important to the community, and that mobile home parks, churches, and city-owned properties should all be explored. The most important point was that the City needs to pass an inclusionary housing ordinance, which is a program in the housing element and already currently underway.
• Costa Mesa Mobile Home Park Advisory Committee. The Mobile Home Park Advisory Committee is a City -established committee comprised of current mobile home park residents. Attendees discussed current issues within the mobile home parks and the need to further protect existin g mobile home parks within Costa Mesa. The City did not identify any candidate housing sites on mobile home park sites within the Housing Element.
751
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Targeted Focus Meeting Notes
• Affordable and market -rate housing developers. City staff met with developers of both affordable and market-rate housing. Many of the participants had previously done work within the Orange County region and gave recommendations on topics such as density, product type, and potential candidate housing sites.
• Interested property owners and lando wners. Property owners provided valuable input into existing uses and lease agreements, development agreements with the City, and other background information used in the sites analysis to determine feasibility of some of the candidate housing sites. They also provided information the types of future development they are considering.
752
DRAFT Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-8
C.6 Planning Commission Study Session
The section contains all study session materials, PowerPoint presentation, and all available public comments provided during the March 1, 2021, study session. Public comments were received verbally and in written form through the Zoom chat.
Agenda: https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/46937/637502847448170000 Video Recording: https://costamesa.granicus.com/player/clip/3670?view_id=10&redirect=true
753
v.1, 2/26/2021
AGENDA –SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – MARCH 1, 2021 – PAGE 1
AGENDA
CITY OF COSTA MESA
PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
VIA ZOOM WEBINAR
Monday, March 1, 2021
6:00 p.m.
BYRON DE ARAKAL – CHAIR
KEDARIOUS COLBERT – VICE CHAIR
DIANNE RUSSELL - COMMISSIONER
JOHN STEPHENS – COMMISSIONER
RUSSELL TOLER – COMMISSIONER
JENNA TOURJE – COMMISSIONER
JON ZICH – COMMISSIONER
In order to minimize the spread of the COVID-19 virus, Governor Newsom has issued Executive Orders that temporarily suspend requirements of the Brown Act which allows Planning Commission Members to attend Planning Commission meetings telephonically. Given the health risks associated with COVID -19, the City Council Chambers will be closed to the public until further notice.
If you would like to participate in this meeting, you can participate via the following options:
1. You are strongly encouraged to observe the Planning Commission meetings live on COSTA MESA TV (SPECTRUM CHANNEL 3 AND AT&T U-VERSE CHANNEL 99) AND ONLINE AT youtube.com/costamesatv.
2. Zoom Webinar – March 1, 2021 6:00 PM
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://zoom.us/j/96060379921?pwd=N2lvbzhJM2hWU3puZkk1T3VYTXhoQT09
Or sign into Zoom.com and “Join a Meeting”
Webinar ID: 960 6037 9921/ Passcode: 595958
• If Zoom is not already installed on your computer, click “Download & Run Zoom” on the launch page and press “Run” when prompted by your browser. If Zoom has previously been installed on your computer, please allow a few moments for the application to launch automatically.
• Select “Join Audio via Computer.”
• The virtual conference room will open. If you receive a message reading, “Please wait for the host to start this meeting,” simply remain in the room until the meeting begins. 754
v.1, 2/26/2021
AGENDA –SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – MARCH 1, 2021 – PAGE 2
• During the Public Comment Period, use the “raise hand” function located in the participants’ window and wait for city staff to announce your name and unmute your line when it is your turn to speak. Comments are limited to 2 minutes, or as otherwise directed.
Participate via telephone: US: + 1 669 900 6833
Webinar ID: 960 6037 9921/ Passcode: 595958
During the Public Comment Period, press *9 to add yourself to the queue and wait for city staff to announce your name/phone number and press *6 to unmute your line when it is your turn to speak. Comments are limited to 2 minutes, or as otherwise directed.
3. Members of the public who wish to make a comment on a specific agenda item may submit your comment via email to [email protected] . Comments received by
12:00 PM on the date of the meeting will be provided to the Planning Commission, made available to the public, and will be part of the meeting record. Any photos, PowerPoints or other materials for distribution to the Planning Commission must be 10 pages or less and submitted to the City as described above NO LATER THAN 12:00 PM on the day of the hearing. All materials, pictures, PowerPoints, and videos submitted for display at a public meeting must be previously reviewed by staff to verify appropriateness for general audiences.
No links to YouTube videos or other streaming services will be accepted. A direct video file will need to be emailed to staff prior to each meeting in order to minimize complications and to play the video without delay. The video must be one of the following formats: .mp4, .mov, or .wmv. Only one file may be included per speaker for public comments. Please note that materials submitted by the public that are deemed appropriate for general audiences will not be redacted in any way and will be posted online as submitted, including any personal contact information.
4. Please know that it is important for the City to allow public participation at this meeting. If you are unable to participate in the meeting via the processes set forth above, please contact the City Clerk at 714 -754-5225 or [email protected] and we will attempt to
accommodate you. While the City does not expect there to be any changes to the above process for participating in this meeting, if there is a change, the City will post the information as soon as possible to the City’s website.
5. The City of Costa Mesa’s goal is to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in all respects. If, as an attendee or a participant at this meeting, you will need special assistance beyond what is normally provided, we will attempt to accommodate you in every reasonable manner. Please contact the City Clerk’s office 24 hours prior to the meeting to inform us of your particular needs and to determine if accommodation is feasible 714- 754-5225 or at [email protected]. El objetivo de la ciudad de Costa Mesa es cumplir con la ley de Estadounidenses con Discapacidades (ADA) en todos los aspectos. Si como asistente o participante en esta reunión, usted necesita asistencia especial, más allá de lo que normalmente se propo rciona, intentaremos de complacer en todas las maneras. Favor de comunicarse a la oficina del Secretario de la Ciudad con 24 horas de anticipación para informarnos de sus necesidades y determinar si alojamiento es realizable al 714-754-5225 o [email protected]
The City of Costa Mesa thanks you in advance for taking all precautions to prevent spreading the COVID-19 virus.
755
v.1, 2/26/2021
AGENDA –SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – MARCH 1, 2021 – PAGE 3
CITY OF COSTA MESA PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
MON
DAY, MARCH 1, 2021 – 6:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
PLED
GE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
ROLL C
ALL
SPECIA
L STUDY SESSION ITEM
Public comments are limited to 2 minutes, or as otherwise directed.
1. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT – STATUS UPDATE
RECOM
MENDATION:
Receive and file.
ADJ
OURNMENT
756
757
758
Even though, there was a general discussion among the subcommittee members that the 5th cycle RHNA allocation of 1.34 million housing units to the SCAG region was unrealistic and that legislation is needed to modify the RHNA process at the state level, all appeals but two were denied (all Orange County appeals were denied). The final RHNA number for Costa Mesa will increase slightly from 11,733 to 11,760 due to redistribution of units as a result of the two approved appeals.
Final RHNA Allocation
The following table provides a breakdown of Costa Mesa's final RHNA allocation by state-defined income category
(pending the March 3, 2021 decision):
Income Category % of Area Median 2021-2029 RHNA Income (AMI) Very Low Income < 50% 2,919
Low Income 51% -80% 1,794
Moderate Income 81%-120% 2,088
Above Moderate Income > 120% 4,959
TOT AL (Costa Mesa) 11,760
TOTAL (SCAG Reaion) 1,341,827
SB 35, AB 72 and Consequences of a Non-compliant Housing Element In addition to obtaining a certified Housing Element, every April, cities and counties must submit Annual Progress Reports for the prior year, showing whether they are on-track to meet their housing needs. Progress is measured by how many housing construction permits a city has issued for housing units at various income levels. This requirement is part of Housing Element compliance and is tracked by HCD. If adequate progress is not reported, SB 35 (2017) could be enacted as described in the next section of this report.
The
City is also required to ensure that housing potential or capacity is maintained on sites with the potential to accommodate affordable units (as described in the Housing Element) throughout the eight year planning period. If those sites are instead developed for market rate housing, the City will eventually trigger the "No Net Loss" provision of State law and will need to identify additional sites to accommodate the unmet need.
AB 72, enacted in 2017, grants HCD the authority to review any action or failure to act by a local government that may be inconsistent with an adopted Housing Element or housing element law. This includes failure to implement program actions included in the Housing Element. Consequently, HCD may revoke Housing Element compliance if the local government's actions do not comply with state law. HCD's website on AB 72 (Accountability and Enforcement) lays out potential scenarios, though each case is unique.
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/accountability- enforcement. shtm I
HCD also has the authority to notify the California Office of the Attorney General that a local jurisdiction is in violation of state law for non-compliance with housing element law, 3 759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
�,�MINASHABI
Principal Planner
ATIACHMENTS:
JE�M�k
Director of Economic and
Development Services
1. Social Media Data
2. Community Survey Summary- English language
3. Community Survey Summary- Spanish language
14 770
771
772
DRAFT Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-9
C.7 City Council Study Session
The section contains all study session materials, PowerPoint presentation, and all available public comments provided during the March 23, 2021, study session. Public comments were received verbally and in written form through the Zoom chat.
Agenda: https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/47187/637516952381070000 Minutes: https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/47746/637552180849270000 Video Recording: https://costamesa.granicus.com/player/clip/3697?view_id=10&redirect=true
773
AGENDA –SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – MARCH 23, 2021 – PAGE 1
AGENDA
CITY OF COSTA MESA
CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
Tuesday, March 23, 2021
5:00 p.m.
CITY HALL, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
77 FAIR DRIVE, COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
KATRINA FOLEY - MAYOR
ANDREA MARR - MAYOR PRO TEM
MANUEL CHAVEZ – COUNCIL MEMBER
LOREN GAMEROS - COUNCIL MEMBER
JEFF HARLAN - COUNCIL MEMBER
DON HARPER - COUNCIL MEMBER
ARLIS REYNOLDS – COUNCIL MEMBER
In order to minimize the spread of the COVID-19 virus, Governor Newsom has issued Executive Orders that temporarily suspend requirements of the Brown Act which allows Council Members to attend City Council meetings remotely. Given the health risks associated with COVID-19, the City Council Chambers will be closed to the public until further notice.
If you would like to participate in this meeting, you can participate via the following options:
1. Members of the public can view the City Council meetings live on COSTA MESA TV (SPECTRUM CHANNEL 3 AND AT&T U-VERSE CHANNEL 99) or
http://costamesa.granicus.com/player/camera/2?publish_id=10&redirect=true and online at youtube.com/costamesatv (Note the chat feature on YouTube is disabled).
2. Zoom Webinar:
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://zoom.us/j/94075129334?pwd=Z3B5aUVvU0MrUmRkUFlKaFM4S01Ddz09 Or sign into Zoom.com and “Join a Meeting”
Enter Webinar ID: 940 7512 9334/ Password: 030331
If Zoom is not already installed on your computer, click “Download & Run Zoom” on the launch page and press “Run” when prompted by your browser.
If Zoom has previously been installed on your computer, please allow a few moments for the application to launch automatically.
Select “Join Audio via Computer.”
The virtual conference room will open. If you receive a message reading, “Please wait for the host to start this meeting,” simply remain in the room until the meeting begins.
During the Public Comment Period, use the “raise hand” function located in the participants’ window and wait for city staff to announce your name and unmute your line when it is your turn to speak. Comments are limited to 3 minutes, or as otherwise directed.
774
AGENDA –SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – MARCH 23, 2021 – PAGE 2
Participate via telephone: Call: 1 669 900 6833
Enter Webinar ID: 940 7512 9334/ Password: 030331
During the Public Comment Period, press *9 to add yourself to the queue and wait for city staff to announce your name/phone number and press *6 to unmute your line when it is your turn to speak. Comments are limited to 2 minutes, or as otherwise directed.
3. Members of the public who wish to make a comment on a specific agenda item, may submit your comment via email to the City Clerk at [email protected].
Comments received by 1:00 p.m. on the date of the meeting will be provided to the City Council, made available to the public, and will be part of the meeting record.
4. Please know that it is important for the City to allow public participation at this meeting.
If you are unable to participate in the meeting via the processes set forth above, please contact the City Clerk at 714-754-5225 or [email protected] and staff will attempt to accommodate you. While the City does not expect there to be any changes to the above process for participating in this meeting, if there is a change, the City will post the information as soon as possible to the City’s website.
Please note that records submitted by the public will not be redacted in any way and will be posted online as submitted, including any personal contact information. All pictures, PowerPoints, and videos submitted for display at a public meeting must be previously reviewed by staff to verify appropriateness for general audiences. No links to YouTube videos or other streaming services will be accepted, a direct video file will need to be emailed to staff prior to each meeting in order to minimize complications and to play the video without delay. The video must be one of the following formats, .mp4, .mov or .wmv.
Only one file may be included per speaker for public comments. Please e-mail to the City Clerk at [email protected] NO LATER THAN 12:00 Noon on the date of the meeting.
Note regarding agenda-related documents provided to a majority of the City Council after distribution of the City Council agenda packet (GC §54957.5):
Any related documents provided to a majority of the City Council after distribution of the City Council Agenda Packets will be made available for public inspection. Such documents will be posted on the city’s website at www.costamesaca.gov or by clicking here.
The City of Costa Mesa’s goal is to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in all respects. If, as an attendee or a participant at this meeting, you will need special assistance beyond what is normally provided, we will attempt to accommodate you in every reasonable manner. Please contact the City Clerk’s office 24 hours prior to the meeting to inform us of your particular needs and to determine if accommodation is feasible 714-754-5225 or at [email protected]. El objetivo de la ciudad de Costa Mesa es cumplir con la ley de Estadounidenses con Discapacidades (ADA) en todos los aspectos. Si como asistente o participante en esta reunión, usted necesita asistencia especial, más allá de lo que normalmente se proporciona, intentaremos de complacer en todas las maneras. Favor de comunicarse a la oficina del Secretario de la Ciudad con 24 horas de anticipación para informarnos de sus necesidades y determinar si alojamiento es realizable al 714-754-5225 o [email protected] The City of Costa Mesa thanks you in advance for taking all precautions to prevent spreading the COVID-19 virus.
775
AGENDA –SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – MARCH 23, 2021 – PAGE 3
CITY OF COSTA MESA CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2021 – 5:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
SPECIAL STUDY SESSION ITEM:
Public comments will be heard after staff presentation. Public comments are limited to 2 minutes, or as otherwise directed.
1. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT – STATUS UPDATE – Development Services Department/Planning Division
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
Receive and file.
ADJOURNMENT
776
1 CITY COUNCIL – SPECIAL STUDY
SESSION AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: MARCH 23, 2021 ITEM NUMBER: 1
SUBJECT: 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT – STATUS UPDATE
DATE: MARCH 11, 2021
FROM: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT/PLANNING DIVISION
PRESENTATION BY: JENNIFER LE, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC AND
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
MINOO ASHABI, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT:
MINOO ASHABI, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
[email protected]
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file.
PURPOSE
This study session is intended to provide information and receive feedback from the City Council regarding the Housing Element Update. This report includes information regarding Housing Element law, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), the Housing Element community outreach efforts, Costa Mesa’s Community Profile data, and an overview of potential areas of the City that could be appropriate to include in the City’s forthcoming housing strategy.
BACKGROUND
The Housing Element is one of the required chapters or “elements” of the General Plan and is the only element that has a process for State certification. Costa Mesa’s Housing Element is required by state law to be updated every eight years. Adopting a Housing Element requires a General Plan Amendment and is subject to at least one public hearing each by the Planning Commission and the City Council. The adopted General Plan update is required to be submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for certification by October 15, 2021.
777
2 A City Council Study Session was first held in October 2019 and a second in February 2020 to discuss the Housing Element and RHNA. The staff reports, meeting minutes and videos for these study sessions are available at the following links:
October 8, 2019 Staff Report:
http://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/council/agenda/2019/2019-10-08/Item-1.pdf
Meeting Minutes:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=46106
Video:
http://costamesa.granicus.com/player/clip/3458?view_id=10&redirect=true
February 25, 2020 Staff Report:
http://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/council/agenda/2020/2020-02-25/Item-1.pdf
Meeting Minutes:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=46110
Video:
https://costamesa.granicus.com/player/clip/3517?view_id=10&redirect=true
Following the February 2020 Study Session, the City retained Kimley–Horn as the City’s consultant expert and launched the Housing Element Update effort in August 2020.
For the Housing Element Update, the City must identify potential land suitable for housing development to meet the City’s RHNA allocation. As part of the update, the City must also establish goals, policies, objectives and an implementation program that responds to recent housing legislation and demonstrates how Costa Mesa will meet its existing and future housing needs for all income levels.
Although the City does not build housing, the Housing Element creates a strategy and high-level regulatory framework that provides opportunities for the private sector to develop housing.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment Update (RHNA)
State law requires that jurisdictions have a certified Housing Element that provides appropriate zoning at adequate residential densities to accommodate the number of units at the required levels of affordability identified in the City’s RHNA allocation. The RHNA allocation is planned for an eight-year cycle. The City is currently in the 6th RHNA/Housing Element cycle with an eight year planning period from October 2021 to October 2029.
Under the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG’s) approved RHNA methodology for the 2021-2029 Housing Element planning period, Costa Mesa’s draft RHNA allocation was 11,733 units.
778
3 RHNA Appeal
On October 20, 2020, the City Council authorized and directed staff to appeal the RHNA allocation. The City submitted its appeal to SCAG on October 26, 2020. SCAG received a total of 52 appeals (19 from Orange County jurisdictions) indicating several common reasons why the RHNA allocation was unrealistic and could not be accommodated in the eight-year RHNA cycle. City staff presented the appeal at a public hearing on January 22, 2021 and made a compelling argument that there were many constrained areas of land in the City which are subject to external factors and not feasible for housing development within the eight-year cycle.
Even though there was a general discussion among the appeal board members that the 6th cycle RHNA allocation of 1.34 million housing units to the SCAG region was unrealistic and that legislation is needed to modify the RHNA process at the state level, all appeals but two were denied (all Orange County cities’ appeals were denied). SCAG’s decision was ultimately ratified at its meeting of February 16, 2021. The final RHNA allocation for Costa Mesa was increased slightly from 11,733 to 11,760 housing units due to redistribution of units as a result of the two approved appeals.
Final RHNA Allocation
The following table provides a breakdown of Costa Mesa’s final RHNA allocation by state- defined income category based on SCAG’s March 3, 2021 decision):
Table 1 – Final RHNA Allocation
Income Category % of Area Median
Income (AMI) 2021-2029 RHNA
Very Low Income < 50% 2,919
Low Income 51% - 80% 1,794
Moderate Income 81% - 120% 2,088
Above Moderate Income > 120% 4,959
TOTAL (Costa Mesa) 11,760
TOTAL (SCAG Region) 1,341,827
The area median income for a 4-person household in Orange County in 2020 was $103,000.
SB 35, AB 72 and Consequences of a Non-compliant Housing Element
A jurisdiction with a non-compliance Housing Element has limited access to state funding programs, potentially jeopardizing millions of dollars in transportation-related grants, CDBG funds, HOME Investment Partnership Program funds, and the newly established Senate Bill 2 and Assembly Bill 101 State planning grants.
In addition, recent legislation such as AB 72 and SB 35 authorizes the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to find a jurisdiction out of compliance with state housing law. Under those provisions, HCD now has the authority to decertify a 779
4 Housing Element, if an action by a City is not in compliance with the adopted Housing Element.
In addition to obtaining a certified Housing Element, every April, cities and counties must submit Annual Progress Reports for the prior year, showing whether they are on-track to meet their RHNA allocation. Progress is measured by how many housing construction permits a city has issued for housing units at various income levels. This requirement is part of Housing Element compliance and is tracked by HCD. If adequate progress is not reported, SB 35 (2017) could be enacted as described later in this report.
The City is also required to ensure that housing capacity is maintained on sites with the potential to accommodate affordable units (as identified in the adopted Housing Element) throughout the eight year planning period. If those sites are instead developed for market rate housing, the City may eventually trigger the “No Net Loss” provision of State law and will need to identify additional sites to accommodate the unmet need.
AB 72, enacted in 2017, grants HCD the authority to review any action or failure to act by a local government that may be inconsistent with an adopted Housing Element or housing element law. This includes failure to implement program actions included in the Housing Element. Consequently, HCD may revoke Housing Element compliance if the local government’s actions do not comply with state law. HCD’s website on AB 72 (Accountability and Enforcement) lays out potential scenarios, though each case is unique. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/accountability- enforcement.shtml
HCD also has the authority to notify the California Office of the Attorney General that a local jurisdiction is in violation of state law for non-compliance with housing element law, the Housing Accountability Act, “no net loss” law, density bonus law, or anti-discrimination law. A non-compliant Housing Element would mean that the City could be subject to the following actions.
1. Potential loss of access to certain State grant funds
2. Potential loss of control over development; for example, a city may be required to approve any proposed development that offers at least 20% of the units affordable to low-income households. CEQA streamlining provisions may also be applied to these projects.
3. A court may suspend the City’s authority to issue any building permits or other approvals.
4. HCD may forward a noncompliance case to the California Office of the Attorney General.
5. Developers and housing advocacy groups may sue the city.
PAST PERFORMANCE
The projected housing need for the SCAG region for the 5th cycle RHNA 2013 to 2021 planning period was 412,137 units. The City’s RHNA allocation for the 5th Cycle 2013 to 780
5 2021 planning period was only two housing units (one very low income unit and one low income unit). In general, many cities received low RHNA allocations during the 5 th cycle (Newport Beach was allocated five units and Laguna Beach two units) due to several factors such as foreclosures and high vacancy rates during the recession.
Per Government Code section 65400 the City has prepared annual progress reports (APR) on the status of the Housing Element and the City’s progress in meeting its RHNA allocation. https://www.costamesaca.gov/city-hall/city-departments/development- services/approved-plans-for-city/2015-2035-general-plan/general-plan-annual-reports
The most recent report shows that between 2014 and 2019, the City finalized building permits for 948 new housing units. Of those, eight housing units fell into lower income categories. Additional housing units are currently under construction, including an additional nine deed-restricted “very low income” units associated with the project at the former Costa Mesa Motor Inn site (2277 Harbor Boulevard). As such, the City expects to meet and exceed its RHNA allocation for this planning period.
HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
California’s housing element law acknowledges that for the private market to adequately address the housing needs and demand of Californians, local governments must adopt plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for (and do not unduly constrain) housing development.
The Housing Element does not mandate construction of units, though SB 35 streamlining provisions (which are already in place), may become stricter if housing construction is not occurring. Currently under SB 35, the City is required to provide developers with the opportunity to streamline development as outlined in the law for developments proposing at least 50% affordable housing. This is because the City has done a good job meeting its RHNA need in the 5 th cycle. That threshold could drop to 10% affordable housing if during HCDs annual review, the City is found to not be keeping proportionate pace of housing. As long as the City plans for and maintains capacity to accommodate housing units at all income levels, the City should remain in compliance.
Following the adoption of the Housing Element and its associated policies and implementation program, the City has three years to complete any follow-up actions related to the General Plan or Zoning for housing sites as outlined in the Housing Element implementation program.
The Housing Element contains the following major components:
Community Profile
Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
Goals, policies and objectives
Implementation Program
Appendices
Summary of Community Outreach
781
6 Review of Past Performance
Sites Analysis
The following sections discuss the various components of the Housing Element Update currently underway.
Community Outreach
Based on direction from the City Council, staff have worked with Kimley-Horn to implement a comprehensive outreach approach including using creative methods to engage harder-to-reach populations including senior citizens, families experiencing or at risk of housing insecurity, and non-English speakers. The following is a summary of the major outreach events completed to date:
1. Virtual Townhalls – The first townhall meeting was held on November 18, 2020.
The intent of this meeting was to introduce the Housing Element requirements and provide an overview of the process. More than 65 individuals participated. There was a general presentation on the Housing Element Update and public comments were received. The presentation and video of the meeting are available at this link:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=46282 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5GNLnLabD4&feature=youtu.be
2. Community Surveys – Following the townhall meeting, a survey was released in English and Spanish; it was intended to gather high-level information required to understand the general views of Costa Mesa residents on housing issues as prompted by key housing and affordability questions. Staff used several methods to publicize the survey by distribution of fliers, posting on the City’s website and social media as well as the City’s snapshot articles. Email blasts were also sent to the Housing Element interest list, home builders, stakeholders, school district staff, and utility contacts. The survey window closed on February 22, 2021; 465 surveys were received including 447 in English and 18 in Spanish. There were 10 questions in the survey including questions related to which district the respondents live, whether they own or rent their home, housing availability, questions regarding desired multi-family and single-family housing types, opportunity areas for additional housing and the age group of the respondents. There were also more than 160 written comments received that staff is in the process of analyzing. A summary of the survey results is included as Attachments 2, 3, and 4.
3. District-specific Meetings – Two District-specific workshops were held on February 17 and 18, 2021 to allow for a more detailed discussion of the unique issues and opportunities within each Council district. The first meeting included districts one, two and three; the second meeting included districts four, five and six. Both meetings started with an overview of the Housing Element and were followed by break out rooms (one per district) to discuss constraints, potential housing opportunity sites, and compatible housing types for each district. Each meeting also included a breakout room for Spanish language participants. The District 782
7 presentation and break out room videos are posted on the Housing Element Webpage.
4. Subject Matter Expert Meetings – Staff held meetings to solicit feedback from groups that may hold specific expertise or information related to housing resources or housing needs such as community organizations, home builders, affordable housing developers, homeless services providers and housing advocates. In addition, staff is in the process of meeting with major landowners and holding targeted meetings with neighborhood groups in harder-to-reach areas of the community.
o Home Builders/ Developers - Staff held a meeting with housing developers and home builders, which was attended by 11 participants. The following ideas and comments regarding constraints and opportunities were shared at this meeting:
By right residential zoning in appropriate areas (for example, specific plans or downtowns plans) is recommended
Lower parking standards to match parking demand for large residential complexes
Uncertainty associated with the Measure Y process discourages investment
Expedite and streamline planning application processing Provide a clear, comprehensive fee schedule
Defer development impact fees
o Housing Advocacy Groups – There were five participants in this meeting.
The following general ideas and comments regarding constraints and opportunities were shared:
Housing Element should plan for workforce housing
Housing development in Costa Mesa has been unbalanced with an increase in above-moderate income housing and not enough affordable housing
Combine changes in zoning with an inclusionary housing ordinance to achieve affordability with new development
Provide by right zoning for housing development in appropriate locations
Partner with churches and City-owned properties to develop housing in underutilized parking lots
Housing should be equitable and distributed fairly in the community There is a need for larger units to accommodate larger households at affordable levels
o Homeless and service Providers – There were seven participants in this meeting who specialized in homeless services, transitional and permanent housing for homeless individuals and families as well as social services for 783
8 domestic violence and women and children. The following general ideas regarding constraints and opportunities were shared:
Setting aside affordable housing with each development should be considered
Density bonus should be encouraged with relaxed parking standards Option of a 99-year ground lease on City properties for housing development should be considered
Education and services are needed to help individuals facing housing challenges such as improving credit score, filing paperwork, fear of immigration issues, and mental illness
Supportive housing with wraparound services, employment training, subsidized housing, education and mentorship programs are needed Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) and other rental subsidy programs are needed
Place housing close to transportation and providing bike and pedestrian accessibility
Alternative housing options such as co-living and conversion of commercial and office building into residential units are recommended
Tiny house sites are recommended
5. Outreach Materials in English and Spanish – The meeting fliers, email blasts, social media posts, and PowerPoint presentations for the virtual townhall and district-specific meetings were provided in both English and Spanish. In addition, Spanish language breakout groups at the district-specific meetings were offered for a more in depth discussion with the Spanish speaking community.
6. Social Media, Community Platforms, and Online Engagement – There has been a consistent focus on online engagement through multiple platforms including the City’s website e-blasts, social media including Facebook and Twitter, community sharing platforms such as NextDoor, and text blasts. By early March, there were a total of 83,331 “impressions” on social media; summary information on the total number of engagements for each posting is provided as Attachment 1.
City staff are continuing its community outreach efforts including: connecting with community organizations and neighborhood leaders to engage in more detailed conversations with harder-to-reach communities; meetings with major landowners to discuss future plans for vacant sites and sites under development agreements; and launch of a series of short videos focused on the Housing Element and community housing issues. A detailed description of feedback received for all outreach efforts will be included in the draft Housing Element.
784
9 Community Profile
The first step in development of the Housing Element is to collect the housing, population, and economic data for the City and to summarize this information for the community and decision-makers. Such data is useful in understanding the community’s changing demographics and to inform future policy discussions regarding existing and future housing needs. Specifically, the Community Profile describes the community’s population, employment, economics, and household characteristics. Special needs groups and housing stock characteristics are also described. Basically, the Community Profile provides a baseline analysis to inform the goals, programs, and policies included in the Housing Element.
The information in the Community Profile is divided into three major topics of: Population, Economics, and Household Characteristics that are discussed as follows.
1. Population Characteristics – This data includes population growth at the City level, population age characteristics, and population race/ethnicity characteristics.
The following is a snapshot of population growth in Costa Mesa and adjacent cities:
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. 785
10 The following table shows age distribution in Costa Mesa showing that 20.3% of the population is 17 years old and under, 9.6% is 18 to 24 years old, 35.2% are ages 25 to 44, 24.3% are ages 45 to 64, and 10.7% of the population is 65 years old or above.
The following table shows racial and ethnic distribution in Costa Mesa.
786
11 The following chart represents the ethnic and racial composition of the City in comparison to Orange County.
2. Economics Characteristics – This data includes wages, employment, industry sectors, unemployment rates and median salaries by occupation. The following is a snapshot of the employment data of Costa Mesa and adjacent cities and shows a steady increase in employment in the county and in local cities.
Jurisdiction 2012 2020 2035 2040 % Change
2012-2020
% Change
2020-2040
Numeric
Change
2012-2040
Newport Beach 76,000 77,900 78,900 79,100 2.5% 1.5% 3,100 Costa Mesa 84,600 89,600 92,700 93,200 5.9% 4.0% 8,600
Irvine 224,400 280,600 314,000 320,000 25.0% 14.0% 95,600 Santa Ana 154,800 160,600 165,200 166,000 3.7% 3.4% 11,200 Huntington
Beach 75,800 82,900 86,400 87,000 9.4% 4.9% 11,200
Orange County 1,526,000 1,730,000 1,870,000 1,899,000 13.4% 9.8% 373,000 Source: SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Growth Forecast by Jurisdiction Report.
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%
787
12 The following table shows employment growth in the City and adjacent cities.
Table 5: Employment Growth Trends, 2012-2040
Jurisdiction 2012 2020 2035 2040 % Change
2012-2020
% Change
2020-2040
Numeric
Change
2012-2040
Newport Beach 76,000 77,900 78,900 79,100 2.5% 1.5% 3,100 Costa Mesa 84,600 89,600 92,700 93,200 5.9% 4.0% 8,600
Irvine 224,400 280,600 314,000 320,000 25.0% 14.0% 95,600 Santa Ana 154,800 160,600 165,200 166,000 3.7% 3.4% 11,200 Huntington
Beach 75,800 82,900 86,400 87,000 9.4% 4.9% 11,200
Orange County 1,526,000 1,730,000 1,870,000 1,899,000 13.4% 9.8% 373,000 Source: SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Growth Forecast by Jurisdiction Report.
3. Households Characteristics – This data includes household types and size, and median incomes. In Costa Mesa, the total number of households is 41,019. The following is a snapshot of household data, which shows that 10.7% of the population in Costa Mesa is over 65, which is similar to Irvine and Santa Ana but lower than other adjacent coastal cities.
Persons 65 and over
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.
788
13 The following table shows that in Costa Mesa 42.8% of households are married-couple households in comparison with the County that has 54.7% married-couple households.
40.2% are non-family households, with 10.2% being female-headed households.
Jurisdiction
Married-
couple
Family
Households
% of Total
Households
Female
Household,
No Spouse
Present
% of Total
Households
Non-Family
Household
% of Total
Households
Total
Household
s
Newport
Beach 18,965 50.1% 1,870 4.9% 16,088 42.5% 37,870
Costa Mesa 17,568 42.8% 4,191 10.2% 16,509 40.2% 41,019 Irvine 51,682 54.2% 8,418 8.8% 31,636 33.2% 95,371
Santa Ana 41,543 54.3% 13,754 18.0% 14,337 18.7% 76,521 Huntington
Beach 37,588 48.9% 8,263 10.8% 26,961 35.1% 76,821
Orange
County 564,685 54.7% 121,753 11.8% 290,652 28.2% 1,032,373 Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.
The following graphic shows that the median household income in Costa Mesa is $79,207 slightly lower than the county average.
4. Housing Issues - The Community Profile also analyzes data on housing issues such as overcrowding, over-payment/cost burden, large households, single-parent households, homeless individuals, special needs groups and seniors. The following is a snapshot of the housing data regarding large households, which shows that large households constitute approximately 10% of total households. Of those large households, 62.8% are renter households and 37.2% are owner households.
$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
BeachIncome Orange County
789
14 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
The following is a snapshot of the housing data regarding overcrowding, which shows that 9% of Costa Mesa’s housing units are considered “overcrowded”, similar to the County overall.
The following is a snapshot of the housing data regarding rental rates, which shows that as of January 2020, average monthly rent for a one bedroom rental unit is $2,159, $2,649 for a two bedroom unit, and $3,160 for a three bedroom unit.
790
15 The Community Profile in its entirety will be included in the draft Housing Element.
Housing Programs and Policies
In addition to the Community Profile, the Housing Element must include an analysis of opportunities and constraints (both governmental and non-governmental) and must also articulate housing goals, policies and objectives that support and promote housing.
Previous Housing Element goals and policies focused on: 1) preserving the existing housing stock including mobile home parks; 2) promoting use of programs such as density bonus to promote affordable housing development; 3) encouraging development or maintenance of a range of housing types that varies sufficiently in terms of cost, design, size, location, and tenure; and 4) ensuring existing and future housing opportunities are open and available to all social and economic segments of the community.
Given that the 6th Cyle RHNA allocation includes 11,760 units, the policies and programs of this Housing Element Update will need to be more detailed and assertive to ensure compliance with State requirements and to support future compatible housing opportunities over the next 8 years.
Site Inventory Analysis
In addition to programs and policies that encourage housing at all income levels, the Housing Element is required to identify specific sites where housing could be located. The Housing Element team will undertake a comprehensive review of all land uses and potential housing sites referred as a “Site Inventory”. The site analysis process will consider the fair and equitable distribution of housing throughout the City and at all income levels.
791
16 While the sites analysis is not complete, it is clear that because the City has very few areas which permit residential development at or above 30 du/ac (the default density identified by State HCD as the density at which the market may create affordable housing), the City likely does not have the existing capacity to meet its RHNA allocation in affordable categories without re-visioning and revising zoning in certain areas. In fact, the City’s base zoning districts do not allow more than 20 du/acre, with higher densities allowed in certain areas by specific plan, overlay/urban plan or other means.
Given the high RHNA allocation of 11,760 units, a combination of strategies will need to be considered such as: modifying the zoning in appropriate locations to allow a minimum density of 30 du/acre to meet the default density requirements set by State HCD; revisiting the City’s Urban Plans and Specific Plans to allow higher densities at strategic locations such as on Commercial and Industrial sites; and planning for housing development in appropriate underutilized areas such as surface parking lots. ADUs and Junior ADUs could contribute additional units in lower density areas of the city; however, this strategy will likely accommodate only a small portion of the RHNA allocation.
In discussions with Subject Matter Expert groups and during the District-Specific outreach meetings, the following areas were identified as potential areas for housing:
1. Fairview Developmental Center – This site is currently zoned to allow 582 units.
Additional units could be accommodated at the large 100-acre site; however, given that the site is owned and operated by the State Department of General Services, the City will need to continue to coordinate with the State as to the future vision and opportunities for housing at the site.
2. Industrial sites – There are three major industrial hubs within the City:
a. the area north of the I-405, some of which is covered by the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan;
b. the industrial area near Baker Block; and
c. the industrial area near John Wayne Airport.
Since these areas include larger parcels, such parcels may be appropriate for larger scale housing development; however, for industrial areas near John Wayne Airport, the airport noise contours may limit opportunities. Properties in the industrial area near Baker Block could also be considered. The City will need to evaluate long-term fiscal and employment considerations as part of its land use policy discussions for housing in these industrial areas.
3. Newport Boulevard Specific Plan area – The Specific Plan that includes properties fronting Old Newport Boulevard from Mesa Drive to 19 th Street was adopted in 1996. The Specific Plan allows for residential development at a maximum density of 17 du/acre. Additional housing opportunities could be possible in this area.
4. Surplus School and Church properties – School sites are largely overseen by the school district and the State; however, the City could evaluate potential surplus land. Large church sites with Public/Institutional zoning could also be considered in the analysis.
5. Mixed Use Zoning along Major Commercial Corridors such as Harbor Boulevard, 19th Street, and 17th Street – There is currently a mixed use overlay along Harbor 792
17 Boulevard that extends from 19 th Street to north of Victoria Street that could be modified to allow more options for mixed use and residential development.
Suggestions were also made to consider walk up apartments either along 17 th Street as mixed use development or in close proximity to take advantage of the pedestrian connections on 17 th Street. Both horizontal and vertical mixed use opportunities could be considered.
6. Rezone of Commercial Centers with high vacancy – The City could evaluate commercial centers with high vacancy rates to allow an option for mixed use development.
7. Accessory Dwelling Units – The City’s local ordinance includes development standards that allow for and encourage ADU and Junior ADU development. These units could be counted toward the City’s RHNA allocation and provide additional housing opportunities in neighborhoods with existing low density housing.
8. Focus on Reuse of Commercial and Industrial Sites instead of Redevelopment of Existing Housing Sites - In order to maintain the City’s current housing stock, policies related to rehabilitation of existing housing and a focus on non-residential sites such as commercial and industrial areas for additional housing may be desired.
City staff and our consultant team are evaluating the above listed areas as part of the Sites Analysis effort and will return to the City Council at a future meeting to discuss the opportunities and constraints analysis, sites analysis, and the draft policy and implementation program.
Measure Y
As the Housing Element team evaluates areas throughout the City for its ability to support compatible housing projects in Costa Mesa, it appears that Measure Y may present a major challenge in developing a compliant Housing Element. While the state-required Housing Element update itself is exempt from Measure Y, the language of Measure Y is unclear as to how it might apply to any planning or zoning efforts necessary to meet the State-mandated RHNA allocation. Should the City fail to achieve Housing Element certification or fall out of compliance due to an inability to plan or zone for housing needs, the City would be subject to sanctions such as ineligibility for state grants and the loss of transportation funding. This is important as the City receives approximately $5 million per year in funding from the state which currently funds the City’s streets, curb and gutter repair, active transportation and other critical infrastructure projects.
In addition to difficulties in maintaining a compliant Housing Element, Measure Y appears to present an impediment to property owners deciding to develop housing in Costa Mesa because of the uncertainty that arises from the need for a ballot measure requiring voter approval. Such potential impediments make it difficult for the City to maintain a compliant Housing Element (given a RHNA allocation of this magnitude), and/or to show sufficient progress toward meeting the City’s RHNA allocation each year as required by state law.
Staff has already seen a number of interested property owners and developers choose 793
18 to invest in other communities rather than risk the time, cost and uncertainty of processing a request through Measure Y.
Maintaining a compliant Housing Element in the context of Measure Y is an important issue warranting continued conversations with the Costa Mesa community, housing advocates, property owners and City staff and officials. Ultimately, we must come to consensus on how to move forward with a successful housing strategy that allows us to achieve our common housing goals.
PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION
The Planning Commission held a study session on March 1, 2021. There were six public speakers who provided comments regarding several topics including: 1) the importance of an inclusionary housing ordinance with a minimum affordability requirement; 2) amending the Urban Plan and Residential Incentive Overlays to require a minimum affordability requirement; 3) upzoning Fairview Developmental Center to allow a mix of uses, densities and housing types; 4) including provisions for permanent supportive housing; 5) allowing higher densities to attract market rate housing developers that could lead to development of affordable housing; and 6) recognizing Measure Y as a potential impediment, consequences of non-compliance, and that SB 35 that could lead to housing development without California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance.
The Planning Commission discussed the City’s challenges in meeting its high RHNA allocation and provided comments including but not limited to the following:
1. Importance of recognizing that non-compliance with RHNA/State laws will have consequences such as losing local control and streamlining of projects without local input
2. State requirement of AB 1397 related to site area of ½ acre minimum and 10 acre maximum for housing development will affect the City’s sites analysis
3. Consideration of allowing for housing on large parking lots of commercial properties
4. Consideration of clustering development in appropriate locations while maintaining open space and the potential for a transfer of development rights policy
5. Consideration of policies that lead to a variety of housing types and designs that are compatible with the Costa Mesa fabric and meet the needs of various populations in terms of household type, age, and income groups
6. Consideration of City-owned properties for housing development
7. Consideration of housing policies that provide a pathway to homeownership
The Planning Commission Study Session can be viewed at the following link:
https://costamesa.granicus.com/player/clip/3670?view_id=10&redirect=true
794
19 NEXT STEPS:
The next few months are critical to the Housing Element Update process and to meeting the State mandated timeline for adoption. In the next few months, the Housing Element Update team will:
Continue with targeted community outreach efforts
Complete the Opportunities and Constraints analysis and the comprehensive Sites Analysis
Hold a joint Planning Commission/City Council Study Session in April to discuss the housing strategy for meeting the City’s RHNA allocation, potential programs and policies, and the Housing Element Implementation Program
Based on collected data, public input, and feedback from the Planning Commission and City Council, staff will complete a draft Housing Element for public review, referred to as the “Public Review Draft.” The Public Review Draft will be released for a 30-day public comment period. After, the revised draft will be submitted to HCD for review. Following any revisions, a final-draft Housing Element will be released to the public, along with the required CEQA compliance analysis. Public hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council are anticipated in late summer through fall 2021. Ultimately, an adopted Housing Element is required to be submitted to HCD by October 15, 2021.
_________________________ _________________________
MINOO ASHABI JENNIFER LE Principal Planner Director of Economic and Development Services
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Social Media Data
2. Community Survey Summary- English language
3. Community Survey Summary- Spanish language
4. Community Survey Comments Summary
795
DRAFT Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-10 C.8 City Council/Planning Commission Study Session
The section contains all study session materials, PowerPoint presentation, and all available public comments provided during the April 27, 2021, study session. Public comments were received verbally and in written form through the Zoom chat.
Agenda: https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/47682/637551264967530000 Minutes: https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/48002/637571885573630000 Video Recording: https://costamesa.granicus.com/player/clip/3710?view_id=10&redirect=true
796
AGENDA –SPECIAL JOINT STUDY SESSION – APRIL 27, 2021 – PAGE 1
AGENDA
CITY OF COSTA MESA
CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL JOINT STUDY SESSION
Tuesday, April 27, 2021, 5:00 p.m.
VIRTUAL LOCATIONS, COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
JOHN STEPHENS - MAYOR
ANDREA MARR - MAYOR PRO TEM
MANUEL CHAVEZ – COUNCIL MEMBER
LOREN GAMEROS - COUNCIL MEMBER
JEFF HARLAN - COUNCIL MEMBER
DON HARPER - COUNCIL MEMBER
ARLIS REYNOLDS – COUNCIL MEMBER
BYRON DE ARAKAL – PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR
KEDARIOUS COLBERT – PLANNING COMMISSION VICE CHAIR
ADAM ERETH – PLANNING COMMISSIONER
DIANNE RUSSELL – PLANNING COMMISSIONER
RUSSELL TOLER – PLANNING COMMISSIONER
JENNA TOURJE – PLANNING COMMISSIONER
JON ZICH – PLANNING COMMISSIONER
In order to minimize the spread of the COVID-19 virus, Governor Newsom has issued Executive Orders that temporarily suspend requirements of the Brown Act which allows Council Members to attend City Council meetings remotely. Given the health risks associated with COVID-19, the City Council Chambers will be closed to the public until further notice.
If you would like to participate in this meeting, you can participate via the following options:
1. Members of the public can view the City Council meetings live on COSTA MESA TV (SPECTRUM CHANNEL 3 AND AT&T U-VERSE CHANNEL 99) or
http://costamesa.granicus.com/player/camera/2?publish_id=10&redirect=true and online at youtube.com/costamesatv (Note the chat feature on YouTube is disabled).
2. Zoom Webinar:
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://zoom.us/j/98137963334?pwd=RnBkRThrdGhVaCtnZmtWbEU4eWtWZz09 Or sign into Zoom.com and “Join a Meeting”
Enter Webinar ID: 981 3796 3334/Password: 440975
If Zoom is not already installed on your computer, click “Download & Run Zoom” on the launch page and press “Run” when prompted by your browser.
If Zoom has previously been installed on your computer, please allow a few moments for the application to launch automatically.
Select “Join Audio via Computer.”
The virtual conference room will open. If you receive a message reading, “Please wait for the host to start this meeting,” simply remain in the room until the meetin g begins.
During the Public Comment Period, use the “raise hand” function located in the participants’ window and wait for city staff to announce your name and unmute your line when it is your turn to speak. Comments are limited to 2 minutes, or as otherwise directed.
Participate via telephone: Call: 1 669 900 6833
797
AGENDA –SPECIAL JOINT STUDY SESSION – APRIL 27, 2021 – PAGE 2
Enter Webinar ID: 981 3796 3334/Password: 440975
During the Public Comment Period, press *9 to add yourself to the queue and wait for city staff to announce your name/phone number and press *6 to unmute your line when it is your turn to speak. Comments are limited to 2 minutes, or as otherwise directed.
3. Members of the public who wish to make a comment on a specific agenda item, may submit your comment via email to the City Clerk at [email protected]. Comments received by 1:00 p.m. on the date of the meeting will be provided to the City Council, made available to the public, and will be part of the meeting record.
4. Please know that it is important for the City to allow public participation at this meeting. If you are unable to participate in the meeting via the processes set forth above, please contact the City Clerk at 714-754-5225 or [email protected] and staff will attempt to accommodate you. While the City does not expect there to be any changes to the above process for participating in this meeting, if there is a change, the City will post the information as soon as possible to the City’s website.
Please note that records submitted by the public will not be redacted in any way and will be posted online as submitted, including any personal contact information. All pictures, PowerPoints, and videos submitted for display at a public meeting must be previously reviewed by staff to verify appropriateness for general audiences. No links to YouTube videos or other streaming services will be accepted, a direct video file will need to be emailed to staff prior to each meeting in order to minimize complications and to play the video without delay. The video must be one of the following formats, .mp4, .mov or .wmv. Only one file may be included per speaker for public comments. Please e-mail to the City Clerk at [email protected] NO LATER THAN 12:00 Noon on the date of the meeting.
Note regarding agenda-related documents provided to a majority of the City Council after distribution of the City Council agenda packet (GC §54957.5):
Any related documents provided to a majority of the City Council after distribution of the City Council Agenda Packets will be made available for public inspection. Such documents will be posted on the city’s website at www.costamesaca.gov or by clicking here.
The City of Costa Mesa’s goal is to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in all respects. If, as an attendee or a participant at this meeting, you will need special assistance beyond what is normally provided, we will attempt to accommodate you in every reasonable manner. Please contact the City Clerk’s office 24 hours prior to the meeting to inform us of your particular needs and to determine if accommodation is feasible 714-754-5225 or at [email protected]. El objetivo de la ciudad de Costa Mesa es cumplir con la ley de Estadounidenses con Discapacidades (ADA) en todos los aspectos. Si como asistente o participante en esta reunión, usted necesita asistencia especial, más allá de lo que normalmente se proporciona, intentaremos de complacer en todas las maneras. Favor de comunicarse a la oficina del Secretario de la Ciudad con 24 horas de anticipación para informarnos de sus necesidades y determinar si alojamiento es realizable al 714-754-5225 o [email protected]
The City of Costa Mesa thanks you in advance for taking all precautions to prevent spreading the COVID-19 virus.
798
AGENDA –SPECIAL JOINT STUDY SESSION – APRIL 27, 2021 – PAGE 3
CITY OF COSTA MESA CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL JOINT STUDY SESSION
TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 2021 – 5:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Mayor Stephens
ROLL CALL
SPECIAL STUDY SESSION ITEM:
Public comments will be heard after staff presentation. Public comments are limited to 2 minutes, or as otherwise directed.
1. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT – Development Services Department/Planning Division
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council and Planning Commission:
Provide feedback and receive and file.
ADJOURNMENT
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
CONCLUSION:
Identification of opportunities and constraints and housing opportunity sites are critical steps in the Housing Element Update. Staff is seeking input on the proposed opportunity sites and recommended densities to finalize this step. Staff is also seeking initial feedback regarding the Council's high-level housing goals, in light of the Community Profile, as well as constraints inherent with Measure Y as discussed in this report.
MIN °ASHABI/
Principal Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
JENNl�RLE
Director of Economic & Development
Services
1. Community Profile (Final Draft)
2. Housing Opportunity Areas Summary
3. Map of Potential Housing Opportunity Areas
15 814
815
816
817
818
149
148
25 26
188
179
29 181
193165
182
183
184
153
154
155
152
151 150 163
162164
191
173 187
177185
186
190
160
161
158
157 159156
166
167
170
171
172
169
168
176
189
27 178 2832
31 180
30 43
34 41
42 44
40 45
119
38 120
125
121
122
123
126
128
124
127
130
35 54 129
66 67
195
194
11436 113
5657
68 74
53 11769
58 11670
115
59 60
71 61
63 62
73 118
72 64
65 12 14
15100 3710 11
13 101
102
103
95 94
78 96
112
75 76
77 79
1782
80 81
97 98
99 108
107
106
105
16 104
1883
87 19
109
92 22
4 20
21 23
84 24
85 86
88 110 89
90 91
1 3
2 8
9 93
7 6
5 52
39 33
33 33
PALOMA DR
SUPERIOR AVE
BEAR ST
VANGUARD WAY
SENATE ST
VALLEY
FORGE RD
VALLEY
FORGE RD
WHITNEY WAY
SUSAN ST
E 15TH ST
BERNARD ST
WAKEHAM PL
ALISO AVE
W 19TH ST
SUNFLOWER AVE
CORTE VENOSA
DEL MAR AVE
SMALLEY RD
RIVIERA DR
JIAN WAY
S ST
DANUBE WAY
BROOKVIEW
WAY
ZUMA
23RD ST
OLD NEWPORT BLVD
NATIONAL AVE
CONTINENTAL AVE
WIMBLEDON WAY
RANDOLPH AVE
SANTA ANA AVE
INDUSTRIAL WAY
EUCALYPTUS LN
MOONLIGHT
W 16TH ST
CANYON DR
VILLAGE WAY
PACIFIC AVE
SEA BLUFF DR
DAHLIA AVE
MALIBU
MILBRO ST
WESTMINSTER AVE
E BAY ST
RAYMOND AVE
WASHINGTON AVE
MAPLE ST
SEABRIGHTCIR
TANAGER DR
CINNAMON AVE
LANAI DR
KLONDIKE AVE
CLUB HOUSE RD
PONDEROSA ST
RICHMOND WAY
POST RD
SALINAS AVE
E WILSON ST
W PAULARINO AVE
HAMPTON DR
OLYMPIC AVE
WAKE FOREST RD
SOMERTON DR
STATE AVE
GRAYLING BAY
LUMIERE DR
LA SALLE AVE
ESTHER ST
COLLEGE AVEVICTORIA ST
ALABAMA CIR
SUMMERSET CIR
CANARY DR
PARKHILL DR
SANTA ROSA AVE
FUCHSIA ST
RAYMOND AVE
W BAY ST
AVENUE OF THE ARTS
WESTMINSTER AVE
GROVE PL
SAN
CLEMENTE DR
MESA VERDE DR E
YELLOWSTONE DR
DORSET LN
SANTA CATALINA DR
JOANN ST
TUSTIN AVE
SB405 FY HOV TO NB55 FY
DEEDEE DR
SHANTAR DR
SB55 FY HOV TO NB405 FY
ALBATROSS DR
YUKON AVE
SANTA CLARA CIR
BROOKLINE LN
SANTA ISABEL AVE
REDDING AVE
MORRISTOWN LN
VAN BUREN AVE
ST CLAIR ST
TARA
JEFFREY DR
TOWN CENTER DR
CANTERBURY DR
MONACO TER
RUE DE CANNES
VALLEY RD
NAPOLI WAY
CATHEDRAL
DR
WATSON AVE
BRISTOL ST
W BAKER ST
WESTMINSTER DR
THURIN ST
KILLYBROOKE LN
MAGELLAN ST
JEFFERSON AVE
VILLANOVA RD
CEYLON DR
ANDROS ST
PRESIDIO DR
BRENTWOOD ST
GANNET DR
PEMBA DR
SAMOA PL
LEXINGTON LN
ALLEGHENY AVE
JUNIPERO DR
CEYLON RD
MINORCA PL
SUMATRA PL
MONROVIA AVE
DE SOTO AVE
LORETO AVE
FREMONT LN
MONTE VISTA AVE
VELASCO LN
CIBOLA AVE
AMBERLEAF
BABB ST
LARKSPUR ST
ORANGE AVE
PITCAIRN DR
SANDPIPER DR
WARREN LN
REDWOOD AVE
SAMAR DR
SALVADOR ST
JOANN ST
BEGONIA AVE
REPUBLIC AVE
COOLIDGE AVE
BUCKNELL RD
NASSAU RD
CLEVELAND AVE
SAN LEANDRO LN
MISSION DR
PUENTE AVE
LONDONDERRY ST
MISSOURI ST
LIARD
PL
PLACENTIA AVE
MINNESOTA AVE
WESTMINSTER DR CHARLESTON ST
JACARANDA AVE
CALIFORNIA ST
FLAMINGO DR
NOTRE DAME RD
CONWAY AVE
EUROPA DR
AUSTIN ST
LABRADOR DR
CARSON ST
STROMBOLI RD
LUDINGTON ST
FEDERAL AVE
INDIANA AVE
PALAU PL
BERMUDA DR
ROANOKE LN
PRIMROSE ST
ARNOLD AVE
REPUBLIC AVE
CARNEGIE AVE
MAPLE AVEMEYER PL
PRINCETON DR
MYRTLEWOOD ST
PIERPONT DR
OAK ST
CARLTON PL
VICTORIA
FRONTAGE RD
JAMAICA RD
BALEARIC DR
COLUMBIA DR
COLUMBIA DR
W 20TH ST
COLLEGE AVE
SALMON
WAY
SAKIOKA DR
LOREN LN
LOYOLA RD
NEWPORT BLVD
EL CAMINO DR
CARAWAY DR
DANIELLE
DR
HARBOR GATEWAY S
WINTERGREEN PL
MARK LN
E 20TH ST
PLACENTIA AVE
PELICAN PL
FILLMORE WAY
WALNUT
ST
FULLERTON AVE
FULLERTON AVE
ALISO AVE
WESTMINSTER AVE
HUMMINGBIRD DR
CHEYENNE ST
WESTMINSTER AVE
W 20TH ST
SAN JOSE
AVE
ARBOR ST
HARDING WAY
HYLAND AVE
GRANT AVE
E 15TH ST
OREGON AVE
COLUMBIA DR
BOA VISTA DR
WOODLAND PL
NANTUCKET PL
BERNARD ST
TAHITI DR
W WILSON ST
FUCHSIA ST
AIRPORT LOOP DR
SWAN DR
GOLF COURSE DR
ANAHEIM AVE
ROYAL PALM DR
MESA DR
HANOVER DR
MONTANA AVE
ELDEN AVE
VICTORIA ST
CORTE
ALEMANO
WESTWARDLN
E 17TH ST
E PAULARINO AVE
FAIR DR
CARNATION AVE
SOUTH COAST DR
PARSONS ST
MINORCA DR
COOLIDGE AVE
ELM AVE
CORPORATE DR
SCENIC AVE
ALBERT PL
LINDEN PL
CADILLAC AVE
GARFIELD AVE
W BAY ST
LORENZO AVE
W PAULARINO AVE
GOLDENROD DR
BELFAST AVE
WHITTIER AVE
IOWA ST
DRAKE AVE
PULLMAN ST
21ST ST
OLD NEWPORT BLVD
DAKOTA AVE MICHIGAN AVE
MONTEREY AVE
WESTMINSTER
AVE
ELDEN AVE
CORONADO DR
ROCHESTER ST
MERRILL PL
SANTA ANA AVE
FORDHAM DR
CARDINAL DR
AVOCADO ST
CLINTON ST
PROMENADE
NEW YORK AVE
PULLMAN ST
W 17TH ST
MACARTHUR BLVD
HAMILTON ST
SEA COVE LN
CORTEZ ST
FRANCIS LN
NEWHALL ST
PRESIDENT PL
FLORENCE WAY
MEADOWVIEW LN
OXFORD LN
CORK LNLIMERICK LN
ROSS ST
SEAL ST
SHARON LN
SURF ST
BEACH ST
SUNLAND LN
COVE ST
BRAY LN
PARK
CENTER DR
PEACE PL
BRISTOL ST
ELLESMERE AVE
NB405 FY
BRISTOL
TRANSITION
NEBRASKA PL
GRACE LN
HOTEL WAY
AMHERST RD
E BAKER ST
DEAUVILLE PL
CORVO PL
MAIN ST
LA PERLE LN
ESTHER ST
MINDANAO DR
W 17TH ST
LA PERLE PL
SPRINGFIELD ST
MESA VERDE DR W
WALNUT PL
COUNTRY CLUB DR
PRESIDENT PL
S CAPELLA CT
CENTER ST
RURALLN
CABRILLO ST
TULIP LN
BUOY ST
TULANE
RD
NB405 FY AV
OF THE ARTS
OFF RAMP
RURAL PL
ANTON BLVD
ESTHER ST
17TH PL
WINDSOR
CT
PALMER ST
E BAY ST
CROFTDON ST
WALNUT ST
BABB ST
OGLE ST
POMONA AVE
KNOX ST
E 19TH ST
BROADWAY
ROBIN HOOD LN
E 17TH ST
FLOWER ST
DEODAR AVE
SHERWOOD ST
W 18TH ST
JAMES ST
E BAY ST
WALLACE AVE
CENTER ST
VIRGINIA PL
RALEIGH AVE
ESTHER ST
16TH PL
ALVA LN
WEELO DR
RUTGERS DR
COSTA MESA ST
MAGNOLIA ST
ESTHER ST
LENWOOD
DR
AVALON ST
16TH PL
KNOX PL
TERMINAL WAY
SCOTT PL
SUNSET DR
CHURCH ST
CORTE MALTERA
SHALIMAR DR
SIERKS ST
SANTOTOMAS AVE
COLORADO LN
RHODES DR
DONNYBROOK
LN
LEMNOS DR
DONNYBROOK
LN
MACKENZIE PL
BLUEBIRD CIR
CHEMIN DE FER
OHMSWAY
E 18TH ST
HARMONY
WAY
CENTURY PL
OGLE ST
E 16TH ST
SUNFLOWER AVE
AMERICAN AVE
CAPITAL ST
KINGSTON
ST
DENVER DR
SAN DIEGO FWY
TABAGO PL
KALMUS DR
MCCORMICK AVE
PIERCE AVE
22ND ST
KERRY LNKILLARNEY LN
RED HILL AVE
UNION AVE
HALF
MOON LN
STARBIRD DR
PARKCREST DR
FORD RD
BIMINI PL
BRIGGS
AVE
BRIOSO DR
BALTRA PL
SONORA RD
GULF
STREAMWAY
EUGENIA WAY
CORNERSTONE LN
NEW HAMPSHIRE DR
CECIL PL
GIBRALTAR AVE
MADISON AVEJOHNSON AVE
WESTMINSTER AVE
PARK DR
ROSE LN
CEDAR PL
GOLDENEYE PL
NORSE AVE
SAN
CARLOS LN
BACKBAY
LOOP
FERNHEATH LN
HUDSON AVE
LANSING LN
ENTERPRISE ST
SICILY AVE
TANANA PL
DALE WAY
COMMERCIAL
WAY
DARRELL ST
GARLINGFORD ST
KINGLET CT
ARLINGTON DR
DOGWOOD ST STERLING AVE
GREENBRIAR LN
OC AIRPORT
FRONTAGE RD
TO NB 55
KNOWELL PL
ELM AVE
NEWPORT BLVD
GREGORY WAY
TURLOCK DR
HARBOR GATEWAY N
CALVERT AVE
PLATTE DR
AIRWAY AVE
N SHELLEY CIR
ROYCE LN
SANTIAGO RD
NEWPORTBLVD
MURRAY LN
PINECREEK DR
PARK AVE
MANDARIN DR
CAPRI LN
THE MASTERS CIR
NB73 FY
RAMP TOSB55 FY
ANACAPA DR
ADAMS AVE
HARBOR BLVD
METRO DR
VISALIA DR
DARRELL ST
JOANN ST
NEWPORT BLVD
TRINITY DR
MENDOZA DR
GOVERNOR ST
CONGRESS ST
FISCHER AVE
GARDEN LN
PONDEROSA ST
KORNAT DR
SAN JUAN LN
CONCORD ST
VANGUARD PL
MADEIRA AVE
SERANG PL
JAVA RD
COLGATE DRRUTGERS DRCORNELL DR
PORTOLA DR
BOWLING GREEN DR
NEVADA AVE
VALENCIA ST
NB405 FY
BRISTOL
OFF RAMP
CORONA LN
MINER ST
MEYER PL
PRESIDIO SQ
N BAKER ST
NB405 FY
ANTONON RAMP
CLUB HOUSE CIR
BABCOCK ST
PALACE AVE
WALLACE AVE
TOWNE ST
CAMELLIA LN
CENTER ST
ROCHESTER ST
FAIRWAY DR
PLUMER ST
WESTMINSTER AVE
CENTER ST
PEARL WAY
BARBADOS PL
PEPPERTREE LN
CABRILLO ST
PETERSON PL
COLLEGE DR
BRISTOL ST
PARK CENTER DR
CORIANDER DR
NEWPORT BLVD
SPT CO RR
ORIOLE DR
PHALAROPE CT
CORSICA PL
GOVERNOR ST
AZALEA DR
FAIRVIEW RD
MONITOR WAY
TULARE DR
STURGEON DR
GISLER AVE
CHARLE ST
MANISTEE DR
TRAVERSE DR
LOGAN AVE
ENCLAVE CIR
BUCKINGHAM DR
MERRIMAC WAY
SB55 FY BRISTOL OFF RAMP
LEGEND
City Boundary
Specific Plan
17 East Overlay
19 West
Airport Overlay
Church Properties
Fairview Developmental
Harbor Mixed-Use
Mesa West
Newport Blvd
North Costa Mesa
One Metro West
Res Incentive - Harbor
SoBECA±
0 0.75 1.50.375 Miles
ATTACHMENT 3
819
DRAFT Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-11 C.9 Virtual Townhall Meeting #2
The section contains all townhall materials, handouts, flyers, PowerPoint presentation, as well as all available public comments provided during the meeting. Public comments were received verbally and in written form through the Zoom chat. A video recording of the virtual townhall is available at www.costamesaca.gov/housing-element-update.
820
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Townhall #2 – September 2, 2021 Page 1
Townhall Meeting #2 Summary
The City of Costa Mesa held a virtual public community workshop in Spanish and English for the 2021- 2029, 6th Cycle Housing Element Update on Thursday September 2, 2021. The intent of the workshop was to provide information on the Public Review Draft Housing Element and to gather feedback from the public on proposed housing sites and policy programs. The workshop had a total of 69 participants in the English workshop and 7 participants in the Spanish workshop.
The workshop included a PowerPoint presentation providing information on the following topics:
• The Housing Element Update Process
• Summary of the City’s RHNA allocation
• Community Engagement Efforts
• Housing Element Strategy
• Overview of Proposed Housing Programs
• Community Conversation
• Breakout Group #1: Candidate Housing Sites Analysis
• Breakout Discussion #2: Housing Goals, Policies, and Programs Summary of Community Questions and Comments
Following the presentation, the City provided time for open questions from the public regarding the Housing Element. Questions and comments from the attendees included the following:
• This has been a great process so far with the diligence by the city. I’m excited to see more housing opportunities for folks in our community!
• Was the safe harbor formula not used to have a more realistic estimation of ADU’s that could be built?
• What programs would make sure that the built ADU’s would be units for Lower income families? • Can you discuss why the city didn't follow HCD guidance and model practice when using inventory sites in a housing element to discount those sites with a probability of being developed during the cycle?
• HCD will treat the proportion of parcels i n the previous housing element that were developed during the previous planning period as the presumptive probability of development for current inventory sites.
• In Costa Mesa that is not feasible since the prior cycle the city only had an RHNA of a couple units.
Recent state law requires stricter feasibility assessment for each site. City must comply. • Nothing precludes the city from voluntarily assigning probabilities for a more accurate plan https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/research/what-gets-built-on-sites-that-cities-make-available-for- housing/
• More housing, more neighbors, less housing burdened people makes for a more fun/lively city.
Legalize all types of housing.
• Build more bike lanes so people have options other than a car for local trips! • What is the city's plan to incorporate local control measures SB 9 and SB 10? Is the city going to incorporate these bills in the housing element or address them in the manner that ADU legalization was handled?
• Publish the incentives: developer competition encourages affordability 821
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Townhall #2 – September 2, 2021 Page 2
• The area on 17th street and Newport Blvd. is on the way to the beach. I have a difficult time understanding how that’s a valid census.
• OC has vast, world class water recycling programs that turn wastewater into potable water local supplies.
A video of the full presentation and PowerPoint, including public comments, are available on the City’s Housing Element Update webpage: http://www.costamesaca.gov/housing-element-update .
Whiteboard Activity
During the workshop the City conducted a community activity to further engage participants.
Candidate Sites
Participants were asked to share their thoughts on opportunities areas in the City as well as A ccessory Dwelling Units (ADUS). The majority of participants were familiar with the high cost of housing and felt there is currently enough housing in the City. In each breakout room participants discussed the following topics:
• Short discussion on why the CEQA analysis may differ a bit from the Housing Element and why the list is smaller than previously shown.
• Are there any areas within the City which should be given further consideration? • Are there resources which the City can provide to make it easier for those who wish to develop Accessory Dwelling Units?
• Are there any questions we did not cover relating to the Candidate Housing Sites Strategy the City has proposed as part of the draft Housing Element?
Comments and Questions on Candidate Sites
Opportunity Sites
Quality of life is what we’re looking for – congestion and traffic concerns with sites 5% or 10% for inclusionary housing ordinance
Concerned about wording in the Housing Element
Need an overall visioning process for the City – need a unified urban plan Questions on affordability categories
Concerned about the language being used in the document – models currently being used is 10% affordability
Pretty significant changes
Quality of life – members of the community should benefit from the programs Data check affordability – overburdening
Nothing within motel conversion proves to look at what percentages are made Consider infrastructure first – look at both sides of the coin, all types of housing development Densities we have now make the community – you can get anything in Costa Mesa Attach entire census tract near Newport Blvd. and 17th St. census tract Access ory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
What were the assumptions made?
822
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Townhall #2 – September 2, 2021 Page 3
Housing Plan
Participants were asked to share their thoughts on the Housing Element’s goals. In each breakout room participants discussed the following topics:
• Quick overview of the City’s overall housing goals.
• Are there any questions on the purpose of the Housing Plan section within the Housing Element? • Do you believe there are groups who may have spe cial housing needs that are not represented within this plan?
• Are you aware of any funding sources the City can explore further to implement these programs or promote the development of future housing?
• Are there any questions we did not cover relating to the City’s proposed Housing Plan? Comments and Questions on the Housing Plan
Incentives to developers
DDA Census tract areas – find ways to take advantage of tax credits – target housing towards areas with federal funding
More effectively advertise incentives that exist
Water needs
Geographic distribution of identified capacity
Local workforce
How will infrastructure accommodate this proposed capacity? Small parcels and high cost
Make sure more housing happens – young professions
Housing for all ages and incomes
Look for opportunities to do more
What is the city’s plan to incorporate local control measures SB 9 and SB 10? Is there housing element going to address them in the same manner as ADUs?
Coordination with adjacent cities
Inclusionary housing ordinance – consider implementing faster SRO and congregate living options
Opportunity zones – address traffic and transportation needs Communicate opportunities – publish the incentives: developer competition encourages affordability More specifics on constraints of Measure Y
Low-income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and New Market Tax Credits (NMTC) bring our federal tax dollars to our community to benefit low-income community members Conversion of commercial/retail to housing opportunities ADU income restrictions – multigenerational housing
How to encourage ADUs to be affordable?
How will monitoring of ADU affordability and production be implemented? Lot size restrictions for ADUs
Are ADUs allowed in every neighborhood? Do neighbors have anything to say about one on adjacent property?
West side of 19th St. supermarkets – address food deserts Have conversations with owners taken place?
Development agreements on identified sites
Set aside affordable housing requirements
823
DRAFT Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-12 C.10 City Council/Planning Commission Study
Session
The section contains all study session materials, PowerPoint presentation, and all available public comments provided during the September 13, 2021, study session. Public comments were received verbally and in written form through the Zoom chat.
Agenda: https://costamesa.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=PA&ID=892974&GUID=2EC89CD4-EDE7-461F- 8127-922507F6D3D6
Public Comments: https://costamesa.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=E3&ID=892974&GUID=2EC89CD4-EDE7- 461F-8127-922507F6D3D6
824
City of Costa Mesa
R
EGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND HOUSING AUTHORITY
Agenda
City Council Chambers
77 Fair Drive
5:00 PMMonday, September 13, 2021
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT STUDY SESSION The City Council meetings are presented in a hybrid format, both in-person at City Hall and virtually via Zoom Webinar. The Governor’s Executive Orders N-25-20 and N-29-20 suspend certain requirements of the Brown Act, and City Council Members, Commissioners, and staff may choose to participate in person or by video conference.
You may participate via the following options:
1. Attending in person: All attendees are required to wear a face covering at all times while in the Council Chambers or City Hall. Please maximize spacing by utilizing all seating in the Chambers.
2. Members of the public can view the City Council meetings live on COSTA MESA TV (SPECTRUM CHANNEL 3 AND AT&T U-VERSE CHANNEL 99) or
http://costamesa.granicus.com/player/camera/2?publish_id=10&redirect=true and online at youtube.com/costamesatv.