5. Draft Housing Element (clean version) — Costa Mesa City Council, February 1, 2022 (part 2 of 4)

C M HARBOR
CM LLC C2 G 5
Harbor
MixedUse0.54 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
MixedUse0.62 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
MixedUse0.83 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
MixedUse0.56 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
MixedUse0.53 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
MixedUse0.58 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%
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
MixedUse0.58 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% 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.

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%
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.

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 selfstorage 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 selfstorage 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%
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.

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%
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.

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%
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.

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%
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.

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%
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.

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
MixedUse0.77 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
MixedUse2.50 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
MixedUse1.90 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
MixedUse1.27 60 B 74 14 7 14 39
Restaurant and
barbershop. Site is
anticipated to redevelop
4,434 69,124 6%
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.

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
MixedUse0.19 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
MixedUse2.40 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%
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.

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%
Summary of Community Engagement
Appendix C
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 6th 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:
• Virtual Townhall Meeting #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 organizations 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. • District 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 that can/cannot accommodate housing in their district, as well as provide insight on their districtspecific 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. • Targeted Focus Group Meetings – 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-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. • 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.

Therewasa total of 465 survey respondents who participated. The survey was available in Spanish DRAFT Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-2
and English. Participants were asked to consider existing housing and community needs and provide recommendations on the locations and types of housing that would best assist the City. • Planning Commission Study 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. • City Council Study Session – On March 23, 2021, the City held a City Council Study Session to 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. • City Council and Planning Commission Joint Study Session – OnApril 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, opportunities and constraints to housing, and potential housing opportunities to meet the RHNA allocation.
• Virtual Townhall 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-based organizations.A total of 69 participants attended the English Townhall and 7 participants attended the Spanish Townhall.
• City 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.

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 recording of the virtual townhall is available at www.costamesaca.gov/housing-element-update.

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].

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].

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
Total 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 Mesa
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
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 Mesa
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
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
Total 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 Mesa
Actualización del Elemento de Vivienda 2021-2029
¿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 Mesa
Actualización del Elemento de Vivienda 2021-2029
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 18th 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/housingelement-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.

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 5th 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.

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.

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.

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
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
1 2/25/2021
Community Survey Data – English (447 responses)
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
2 2/25/2021
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
3 2/25/2021
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
4 2/25/2021
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
5 2/25/2021
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 amenitiyrich, 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.

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.

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.

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 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 encouragesindividuals 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.

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
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).

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 aptsin 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 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 "grannyunits", 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.

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.

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 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 growthbut 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.

City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
1 2/25/2021
Community Survey Data – Spanish (18 responses)
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
2 2/25/2021
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
3 2/25/2021
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
4 2/25/2021
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
5 2/25/2021
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 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 additional 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 developments over 3 stories are too tall.
• ADUs present a viable option for survey respondents, given that the ADU remains smaller than the main 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 forhousing. 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. • Repurposing of hotels and motels into housing – this could be a good option for providing housing for lowincome 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/parks 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 areas - population needs to be more equally distributed throughout the City.
• Improve existing neighborhoods but not density – help to renovate existing aging housing stock.

City of Costa Mesa
Housing Element Update 2021-2029
Affordability
• More affordable housing – for families, low/mid income households, workforce, seniors, persons 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 parksnear residential areas. • There should be a focus on sustainability in both building housing and in transportation (options other than 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 affordable housing projects.

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 sticknotes and online polling exercises.

DRAFT Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-6
C.4 District Specific Meetings
The section contains all district specific meetings materials, flyers, PowerPoint presentation, participant activities, as well as all available public comments provided during the meetings. Public comments were received verbally and in written form through the Zoom chat. A video recording of eachmeeting is available at www.costamesaca.gov/housing-element-update.

District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
Spanish Breakout Room
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.

City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
19:38:12 From CarolBuchanan : 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!,, 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/riskassessment/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.

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 leadon social housing.
19:42:20 From Aaron Klemm : https://eastcountytoday.net/assemblymember-alex-leeintroduces-bill-to-establish-socialhousing/#:~: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 From 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/citydepartments/development-services/planning/housing-element-update 19:01:12 From Lucy : si gracias
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
19:01:17 From Molly Mendoza (Kimley-Horn) : https://www.costamesaca.gov/city-hall/citydepartments/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 From 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? DRAFT Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-7
C.5 Targeted Focus Meeting Notes
The section contains a summary of the targeted 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 marketrate housing developers, and interested property owners and landowners.

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 existing mobile home parks within Costa Mesa. The City did not identify any candidate housing sites on mobile home park sites within the Housing Element.

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 landowners. 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.

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 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. 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 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.
v.1, 2/26/2021
AGENDA –SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – MARCH 1, 2021 – PAGE 3

CITY OF COSTA MESA PLANNING COMMISSION

SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
MONDAY, MARCH 1, 2021 – 6:00 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG

ROLL CALL

SPECIAL STUDY SESSION ITEM
Public comments are limited to 2 minutes, or as otherwise directed.

1. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT – STATUS UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file.

ADJOURNMENT

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/accountabilityenforcement. 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 MINASHABI
Prin
�
cipal 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 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 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.

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.

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
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. 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.
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 6 th 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 statedefined 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 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/accountabilityenforcement.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 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 5th 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/developmentservices/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 5th 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
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 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 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.
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. 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. 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%
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. 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
Marriedcouple
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
Beach Income Orange County
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. 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.
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 19th 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 17 Boulevard that extends from 19th 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 17th Street as mixed use development or in close proximity to take advantage of the pedestrian connections on 17th 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 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 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
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 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:

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
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.

Note regarding agenda-related documents provided to a majority of the City Council after distribution of the City Council agenda packet (GC §54957.5):

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 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.

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

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
15 149
148
25 26
188
179
29 181
193
165
182
183
184
153
154
155
152
151 150 163
164 162
191
173 187
185 177
186
190
160
161
158
157 156 159
166
167
170
171
172
169
168
176
189
27 178 28 32
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
36 114 113
56 57
68 74
53 69 117
58 70 116
115
59 60
71 61
63 62
73 118
72 64
65 12 14
15 100 37 10 11
13 101
102
103
95 94
78 96
112
75 76
77 79
17 82
80 81
97 98
99 108
107
106
105
16 104
83 18
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

SEABRIGHT
CIR

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 AVE

VICTORIA 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 AVE

MEYER 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

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

WESTWARD
LN
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
MEADOW

VIEW LN

OXFORD LN

CORK LN

LIMERICK 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
RURAL
LN

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

TOMAS AVE
SANTO

COLORADO LN

RHODES DR

DONNYBROOK
LN

LEMNOS DR

DONNYBROOK
LN

MACKENZIE PL

BLUEBIRD CIR

CHEMIN DE FER
OHMS
WAY
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 LN

KILLARNEY 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
STREAM
WAY

EUGENIA WAY

CORNERSTONE LN

NEW HAMPSHIRE DR

CECIL PL

GIBRALTAR AVE

MADISON AVE

JOHNSON AVE

WESTMINSTER AVE

PARK DR

ROSE LN

CEDAR PL

GOLDENEYE PL

NORSE AVE
SAN

CARLOS LN
BACK
BAY
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

NEWPORT
BLVD

MURRAY LN

PINECREEK DR

PARK AVE

MANDARIN DR

CAPRI LN

THE MASTERS CIR
NB73 FY

RAMP TO
SB55 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

CORNELL DR

RUTGERS DR

COLGATE 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

ON RAMP
ANTON

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 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
ATTACHMENT 3
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.

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 participantsin 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 RHNAallocation
• 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 in 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-forhousing/ • 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 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 Accessory 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 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
What were the assumptions made?
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 special 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
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-EDE7-461F8127-922507F6D3D6 Public Comments: https://costamesa.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=E3&ID=892974&GUID=2EC89CD4-EDE7- 461F-8127-922507F6D3D6
City of Costa Mesa

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND HOUSING AUTHORITY
Agenda
City Council Chambers
77 Fair Drive
Monday, September 13, 2021 5:00 PM

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.

Page 1 of 5 ends

1 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND

HOUSING AUTHORITY
Agenda September 13, 2021

3. Zoom Webinar:

Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://zoom.us/j/98376390419?pwd=dnpFelc5TnU4a3BKWVIyRVZMallZZz09 Or sign into Zoom.com and “Join a Meeting”
Enter Webinar ID: 983 7639 0419/ Password: 905283
• 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” feature 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.

Participate via telephone:

Call: 1 669 900 6833 Enter Webinar ID: 983 7639 0419/ Password: 905283 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 3 minutes, or as otherwise directed.

4. Additionally, members of the public who wish to make a comment on a specific agenda item, may submit a written comment via email to the City Clerk at [email protected].

Comments received by 12:00 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.

5. 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.

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.

Page 2 of 5 ends

2 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND

HOUSING AUTHORITY
Agenda September 13, 2021
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.

All cell phones and other electronic devices are to be turned off or set to vibrate. Members of the audience are requested to step outside the Council Chambers to conduct a phone conversation.

Free Wi-Fi is available in the Council Chambers during the meetings. The network username available is: CM_Council. The password is: cmcouncil1953.

As a LEED Gold Certified City, Costa Mesa is fully committed to environmental sustainability.

A minimum number of hard copies of the agenda will be available in the Council Chambers.

For your convenience, a binder of the entire agenda packet will be at the table in the foyer of the Council Chambers for viewing.

Page 3 of 5 ends

3 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND

HOUSING AUTHORITY
Agenda September 13, 2021

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT STUDY

SESSION
SEPTEMBER 13, 2021 – 5:00 P.M.

JOHN STEPHENS
Mayor

MANUEL CHAVEZ ANDREA MARR
Council Member - District 4 Mayor Pro Tem - District 3

JEFFREY HARLAN LOREN GAMEROS
Council Member - District 6 Council Member - District 2

ARLIS REYNOLDS DON HARPER
Council Member - District 5 Council Member - District 1 City Attorney City Manager
Kimberly Hall Barlow Lori Ann Farrell Harrison

BYRON DE ARAKAL
Chair

JON ZICH DIANNE RUSSELL
Vice Chair Planning Commissioner

RUSSELL TOLER ADAM ERETH
Planning Commissioner Planning Commissioner

TARQUIN PREZIOSI JENNIFER LE
Assistant City Attorney Director of Economic and
Development Services

Page 4 of 5 ends

4 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND

HOUSING AUTHORITY
Agenda September 13, 2021

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL
NEW BUSINESS:

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
RECOMMENDATION:

Provide feedback on the Public Review Draft Housing Element before its submittal to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Draft Housing Element
Revised densities for candidates sites (545 & 575 Anton Blvd.) Public Comments
Attachments:

ADJOURNMENT

Page 5 of 5 ends

5 City of Costa Mesa
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
b File #: 21-375 Meeting Date: 9/13/2021
TITLE:

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
DEPARTMENT: ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

DEPARTMENT/PLANNING DIVISION
PRESENTED BY:

JENNIFER LE, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CONTACT INFORMATION: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
RECOMMENDATION:

Provide feedback on the Public Review Draft Housing Element before its submittal to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

BACKGROUND:

The basis of the 2021-2029 sixth cycle Housing Element Update is compliance with the State’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for the planning and zoning for additional housing units as allocated by the State and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The following table provides a breakdown of Costa Mesa’s final RHNA allocation:

Table 1 - Final RHNA Allocation
Income Category % of Area
Median
Income
(AMI)
Affordable
Monthly
Rent
Income Range Min. -
Max.

RHNA
Allocatio
n
Very Low Income 0-50% AMI $961 - $1,281 -- $64,050 2,919 units Low Income 51-80% AMI $2,561 $64,051 $102,450 1,794 units Moderate Income 81-120%
AMI
$3,090 $102,451 $123,600 2,088 units
Above Moderate
Income
%120% AMI >$3,090 $123,601 -- 4,959 units
Total 11,760 units
During the past year and a half, the City has held several town hall meetings and study sessions regarding the required Housing Element Update. Study sessions were previously held with the

Page 1 of 12 ends

6 b File #: 21-375 Meeting Date: 9/13/2021
regarding the required Housing Element Update. Study sessions were previously held with the Planning Commission and City Council on March 1, 2021, March 23, 2021, and April 27, 2021. At these study sessions, staff presented information regarding the RHNA process, new State housing regulations, consequences of non-compliance with State Housing Element law, Costa Mesa’s demographics and preliminary Community Profile data, a summary of community outreach efforts and feedback, and an introduction to the housing plan and the sites analysis process. The September 13, 2021 study session is the fourth publicly noticed study session regarding the housing element update and process.

The staff reports and meeting videos for previous study sessions are available at the following links:

March 1, 2021 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report:
http://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/planningcommission/agenda/2021/2021-03-01/SR-1.pdf Meeting Video:
<https://costamesa.granicus.com/player/clip/3670?view_id=10&redirect=true> March 23, 2021 City Council Study Session Staff Report:
<http://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/council/agenda/2021/2021-03-23/Item-1.pdf> Meeting Video:
<https://costamesa.granicus.com/player/clip/3697?view_id=10&redirect=true> April 27, 2021 City Council and Planning Commission Joint Study Session Staff Report:
<http://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/council/agenda/2021/2021-04-27/Item-1.pdf> Meeting Video:
<https://costamesa.granicus.com/player/clip/3710?view_id=10&redirect=true> ANALYSIS:

At the April 27, 2021 joint Planning Commission/City Council study session, a number of issues were discussed and feedback was received by the public, Planning Commission, and City Council. The purpose of the study session was to provide an opportunity for feedback on the proposed focus areas and corridors for potential housing and the housing opportunity sites and recommended densities within those corridors to finalize the City Council’s high-level housing goals. The following is a summary of general comments received during the study session and how they have been addressed in the Public Review Draft Housing Element.

Planning Commission Comments:
1) Consider 4-plex and 6-plex bungalows in single family neighborhoods since they maintain the same height and streetscape.
· The 4-plex and 6-plex development types can integrate well with established lowdensity residential neighborhoods. Staff will continue to evaluate how such housing types may be incorporated into the City’s planning and zoning codes. However, for Housing Element purposes, the State requires a minimum density of 30 du/acre to demonstrate compliance with RHNA requirements for the provision of housing in affordable categories. The incremental increase in housing in established single family neighborhoods will be addressed through ADU and JADUs and other incremental

Page 2 of 12 ends

7 b File #: 21-375 Meeting Date: 9/13/2021
changes.
2) Plans for housing should be integrated with more open space and consideration of the existing network of neighborhoods.
· Open space and other development standards will be evaluated with the comprehensive zoning code and general plan updates following adoption of the Housing Element.
3) Encouraged removal of the Mesa West Residential Ownership urban plan. · The Draft Housing Element includes a program for the potential removal of this urban plan following Housing Element adoption.
4) Add residential units on the 17th Street corridor as mixed-use development and around the airport area as alternative housing sites.
· The Draft Housing Element includes programs for further study of these corridors for potential housing opportunities. Even though specific sites in these areas are not identified as housing opportunity sites, the City could consider these locations as potential housing areas in the future.
5) The City should be proactive in its conversation with faith-based organizations for use of their properties for affordable housing.
· Programs to continue the conversation with the faith-based community are included in the Draft Housing Element. Please refer to Program 3J.
6) Infrastructure studies (water, sewer, etc) should be considered in planning for additional housing units.
· As part of the Housing Element Update, the City will prepare an environmental study that will include high-level studies related to infrastructure and public services at a program level. Additional more detailed studies would be undertaken as part of the zoning and General Plan Updates that would be necessary to implement the Housing Element programs.
7) Discussed a citizen advisory committee related to Measure Y. · Staff will be undertaking a larger community conversation about the necessity of a compliant Housing Element and the Measure Y process, which include formation of an advisory group. The City anticipates the General Plan and zoning changes necessary to implement the Housing Element will be subject to Measure Y. 8) Consideration should be given to environmental justice goals and affirmative fair housing related to air quality and quality of life with placement of housing along major freeways, near airports, etc.
· Environmental justice and fair housing goals are incorporated into the fabric of the Housing Element and staff agrees these goals must be a part of future General Plan and zoning actions related to Housing Element implementation. The Draft Housing Element identifies housing opportunity sites along the 405 Freeway such as the Home Ranch and Sakioka sites. These sites are very large and would allow for site planning of mixed-use projects including housing and office use that would allow for site planning solutions including sufficient setbacks for residential units. No housing opportunity sites have been identified along the airport industrial area though staff have included a Housing Element Program to further study this potential. 9) With the potential for housing along Newport Boulevard, Harbor Boulevard and the 17th Street corridors, visioning for these areas and form based codes should be considered to provide flexibility in development while maintaining the streetscape and human scale of development. · Through public outreach and comments received from the City Council and Planning Commission, staff recognizes that there is strong support in the community for

Page 3 of 12 ends

8 b File #: 21-375 Meeting Date: 9/13/2021
Commission, staff recognizes that there is strong support in the community for developing a specific vision for each of the corridors as identified in the Draft Housing Element for future growth. Visioning exercises and the potential for form-based codes will be evaluated during the general plan and zoning changes that follow the Housing Element.

City Council Comments:
1) Is 850 ADUs in relation to the number of residential lots a realistic assumption? · The ADU assumptions are realistic based on the number of applications received in the first 6 months of 2021. The City has also experienced an uptick in the number of ADU proposals in multi-family sites that could lead to even more ADUs than anticipated. 2) The City should consider tracking ADU affordability and data on units occupied by family members.
· Although there is not City specific data for ADU affordability rates, the Draft Housing Element uses the safe harbor assumptions resulting from SCAG a specific study of the Orange County area. The City could request information on anticipated rental prices or family member occupancy figures at the time of application. The Draft Housing Element recognizes that ADU programs will need to be monitored for effectiveness and includes this in Program 3L of the Housing Plan.
3) Understanding the reasons for Costa Mesa having the lowest number of housing development in the neighboring cities.
· The City has experienced a decline in larger development applications in the past several years. Based on general feedback from the development community, this is could be due to the uncertainty introduced by Measure Y. However, smaller developments that are below the 40 dwelling unit threshold have been processed since 2016 including a 38-unit development on Newport Boulevard. The Draft Housing Element refers to Measure Y as a potential constraint for housing development and that a vote of the people will be required to fully implement the adopted housing element as drafted. Please refer to Chapter 4, Housing Plan, Program 3G. 4) Importance of communication with the public on data gathered and how the data is being incorporated.
· The Draft Housing Element includes a comprehensive summary of all public meetings, town halls, surveys and individual submittals. Please refer to Appendix C of the Draft Housing Element.
5) Emphasize the importance of Community Profile and how it is used to formulate the housing plan such as the aging population and their housing needs. · The Community Profile includes detailed data on the population, housing and income levels. Based on this data, the housing programs and policies included in the Housing Element Update recognize the needs of seniors, large households and the affordability needs for various households. Although the Housing Element includes the opportunity sites and the programs to address housing needs, some of the incentive to develop these sites are market driven and may need to be adjusted at project level such as the mix of bedrooms in a development or universal design features, etc. Please refer to Section 4, Housing Plan Program 2D and 2E.
6) Integrate senior housing with the rest of the community to promote healthy aging. · The Draft Housing Element recognizes that specific features of co-housing and multigenerational housing needs to be further studied and included in development

Page 4 of 12 ends

9 b File #: 21-375 Meeting Date: 9/13/2021
generational housing needs to be further studied and included in development standards and guidelines in the general plan and zoning code update. Please refer to Chapter 4, Housing Plan, Program 3E.
7) Consider public gathering spaces as much as open space in planning of housing developments.
· The visioning exercises for specific corridors will include public open spaces and streetscapes studies appropriate for each neighborhood. This effort will be addressed with the General Plan and zoning code amendments following the Housing Element’s adoption.
8) Keep studying the airport area as a potential housing opportunity area for younger professionals.
· As directed by City Council, this area will be evaluated for potential housing opportunities. Coordination with the Airport Land Use Commission will be required.

Please see Chapter 4, Housing Plan, Program 3H.
9) Housing units should include a variety of household types such as singles, single parent households and larger families.
· The Draft Housing Element includes a comprehensive Community Profile that breaks down household types and their housing needs such as non-family households, which have increased in the past decade to more than 40 percent. Please refer to Chapter 4, Housing Plan, Program 3F.
10)Consider hotel/ motel conversion options and using available state funding for such. · The City will evaluate the potential benefits of motel conversion, co-living and efficiency housing options. Please refer to Chapter 4, Housing Plan, Program 3F. 11)Consider pre-approved ADU plans to incentivize ADU development. · The Draft Housing Element includes a program to promote development of ADUs such as permit ready plans, waiver or reduction of permit fees, expedited plan checks and exploring other funding options. Please refer to Chapter 4, Housing Plan, Program 3E. 12) Discuss housing development options with smaller developers and adjust programs and fees to accommodate large and small size developments.
· This would require fee studies and additional analysis to formulate an objective basis for varying housing development types. Local developers have been involved in the outreach process and have stated timing and streamlining of project review as an opportunity to improve the development environment.

Public Review Draft Housing Element
Following the April 27, 2021 study session, staff and the City’s expert housing consultants prepared the Public Review Draft Housing Element, incorporating feedback from the prior public town halls and study sessions. The Public Review Draft was posted online at the City’s website on August 17, 2021 and hardcopies were available at City Hall, the Donald Dungan Library and the Mesa Verde Library.

Approximately 40,000 flyers were mailed to Costa Mesa residents City-wide and the release was widely publicized via social media, community platforms and through local contacts with community organizations. Comments on the public review draft are being accepted through September 15, 2021.

As of the writing of this report, the City has received seven written comments via email and six online submissions. Public comments are provided as an attachment to this report and generally pertain to:
· the inclusion of the Chargers / The Hive site as a housing opportunity site;

Page 5 of 12 ends

10 b File #: 21-375 Meeting Date: 9/13/2021
· the inclusion of local hire requirements for development; · new housing being visually attractive, and include greenbelts, sound walls, be located near jobs, transit stops and high-resource neighborhoods;
· increase densities to make housing projects more financially feasible and encourage mixed income higher density communities, as well as other housing options like co-housing and motel conversions;
· consider whether the Casa Bella Apartments should be listed as an “at risk” affordable housing development (i.e. an affordable housing project “at risk” of converting to market rate units); and
· consider how assisted living and group living are counted toward the City’s housing need.

September 2, 2021 Town Hall Meeting
Staff held a town hall meeting on September 2, 2021 to discuss and receive feedback regarding the Public Review Draft. The meetings were virtual and provided in English and Spanish. More than 60 individuals participated in the English language breakout room and six in the Spanish language break out room.

Topics discussed at the town hall meeting included:
· the need for an inclusionary housing ordinance and requiring affordable housing in conjunction with added densities;
· consideration of potential quality of life impacts that may result from higher densities · use of consistent data related to housing cost burden; · options and incentives for development of Single Room Occupancies (SROs); · number of ADUs assumed in the Draft Housing Element;
· consideration of reduced parking and setbacks to incentivize development; · graphics that show comparison of existing and proposed densities on the identified housing opportunity corridors;
· use of federal monies to encourage higher density development as appropriate; · affordable housing units assumed for the State-owned Fairview Developmental Center; · assumptions regarding affordable housing on sites with Development Agreements; and · consideration of the impacts of added housing units to sewer, water, traffic, other infrastructure and public services including police and fire services.

Housing Element Guiding Principles
Based on input from the community, local officials and business community, and with consideration of the State’s requirements, the City established four guiding principles that were referenced throughout the Housing Element Update process, which shaped the sites analysis process and development of the housing goals, programs, and policies. The guiding principles are rooted in community engagement and local knowledge as follows:
• The City will plan for responsible growth that is fitting for each of the unique areas within the City with the understanding that the different characteristics, even within districts, result in different housing needs and appropriate housing types.
• The City will engage the Costa Mesa community at multiple times throughout the Housing Element update to incorporate local knowledge and input into the planning process.

Page 6 of 12 ends

11 b File #: 21-375 Meeting Date: 9/13/2021
• The City will create a plan, which meets the local needs of the community as well as the requirements of the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). • The City will develop actionable policies and programs that address identified constraints within the community profile analysis.

Based on community feedback, the Housing Element identifies housing opportunity sites within “focus areas” and along major corridors in the City that are most suitable for potential future housing growth. These areas include:
· Area north of the 405 Freeway
· SoBECA
· Harbor Boulevard corridor
· Placentia Avenue corridor
· West 19th Street corridor
· Mesa West Bluffs area/ southern portion of Newport Boulevard Within these corridors and areas, housing opportunity sites were identified for purposes of establishing compliance with RHNA, based on certain criteria.

Housing Element Organization
The Draft Housing Element represents the City’s policy program for the 2021-2029 6th Planning Period. The Draft Housing Element is comprised of the following Chapters:
• Chapter 1: The Introduction contains a summary of the content, organization and statutory considerations of the Housing Element;
• Chapter 2: Community Profile contains an analysis of the City’s population, household and employment base, and the characteristics of the housing stock; • Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing examines governmental and non-governmental constraints on production, maintenance, and affordability of housing and provides a summary of housing resources, including sites identification and funding and financial considerations; and
• Chapter 4: Policy Plan addresses Costa Mesa’s identified housing needs, including housing goals, policies, and programs.
• Appendices provide supplementary background resources including:
o Appendix A - Review of Past Performance of 5th Cycle Programs o Appendix B - Summary of Adequate Sites Analysis
o Appendix C - Summary of Outreach
o Appendix D - Glossary of Housing Terms
Chapter 1 - Introduction
The Introduction covers the basics of Housing Element requirements and the related State requirements; includes a reference to all required sections of the Housing Element; and refers to the guiding principles that directed all chapters and the related data sources.

Chapter 2 - Community Profile
The Community Profile provides an analysis of the Costa Mesa population and housing stock for

Page 7 of 12 ends

12 b File #: 21-375 Meeting Date: 9/13/2021
The Community Profile provides an analysis of the Costa Mesa population and housing stock for policy considerations within this Housing Element. The Costa Mesa community’s housing needs are directly correlated to the demographic composition of the population and the conditions of existing housing within the City. The data analyzed in this Community Profile sets the baseline for the Housing Element goals, policies, and programs, which are uniquely adapted to fit the needs of Costa Mesa. The following tables include a few excerpts of the data and highlights specific characteristics of the Costa Mesa population, household types and income levels.

Page 8 of 12 ends

13 b File #: 21-375 Meeting Date: 9/13/2021
For the full analysis of the population, income, household characteristics and housing needs, please refer to Chapter 2 of the Draft Housing Element.

Based on the data presented in Chapter 2, the City will need to consider the following findings in development of the housing programs and policies:
• The Costa Mesa population is showing aging trends - housing goals should consider the needs of seniors who may have less flexible income, need accessibility accommodations, or may seek assisted living options.
• Over a quarter of the Costa Mesa population identifies as Hispanic or Latino - housing needs should account for possible cultural needs such as larger or multigenerational housing units.

Additionally, housing information should be made available in Spanish to assist in the location of appropriate housing within the community.
• Approximately 47 percent of the Costa Mesa population earn a lower income, indicating that production of and access to affordable housing (i.e. housing affordable to Costa Mesa households who earn 80% of the Orange County Area Median or AMI) and homeownership facilitation should be considered.
• Costa Mesa housing units experienced the lowest growth in the past decade in comparison to neighboring cities - the following section analyzes potential constraints, which may be playing a role in the slowing of residential development in Costa Mesa. If identified, housing goals should be considered which look to mitigate or eliminate those constraints. • The majority of housing units in Costa Mesa were built over 30 years ago - households in older homes may benefit from assistance in renovating their homes and ensuring safe living environments with access to all utilities.

Chapter 3 - Housing Constraints, Resources and Fair Housing This section focuses on the variety of factors that could affect the number, type, and affordability of housing and the rate of housing development in a community including governmental housing constraints. Governmental constraints in Costa Mesa may include land use controls, residential development standards, development and permitting fees, and permitting processes, amongst other constraints. Nongovernmental constraints may include the cost of land, construction costs, including materials and labor, availability of financing, and the local economic conditions. These factors could incentivize or create barriers for the maintenance and addition of housing in Costa Mesa, and predominantly affordable housing. This section also identifies Measure Y as a potential constraint to implementation of a compliant Housing Element and the development of housing projects in Costa Mesa. The measure requires significant capital investment while introducing uncertainty for

Page 9 of 12 ends

14 b File #: 21-375 Meeting Date: 9/13/2021
investments due to uncertain election results regardless of the merits of any particular project.

Chapter 4 - Housing Plan
The Housing Plan describes the specific goals, policies, and programs to assist City decision makers to achieve the long-term housing objectives set forth in the Costa Mesa Housing Element. This Plan identifies goals, policies, and programs aimed at providing additional housing opportunities, removing governmental constraints to affordable housing, improving the condition of existing housing, and providing equal housing opportunities for all residents. These goals, policies, and programs are drafted to further a more diverse, sustainable, and balanced community through implementation of strategies and programs that will result in economically and socially diversified housing choices while preserving the special character of Costa Mesa.

The following housing goals have been included in the Draft Housing Element Update:
· Housing Goal #1: Preservation, conservation, and enhancement of existing housing stock and residential neighborhoods within Costa Mesa.
· Housing Goal #2: Providing a range of housing choices for all social and economic segments of the community, including housing for persons with special needs. · Housing Goal #3: Identification of adequate, suitable sites for residential use and development to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) at all income levels. · Housing Goal #4: Existing and future housing opportunities 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.

Each one of the housing goals are implemented through housing programs which are actions the City commits to taking to implement its housing plan within specific timeframes over the 8-year Housing Element planning period. Highlights of the housing programs include:
· Program 2A - Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
· Program 2D - Senior Housing Options
· Program 2E - Housing Options for Large Family Households · Program 3B - Fairview Development Center
· Program 3C - Update the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan · Program 3D - Update the City’s Urban Plans and Overlays · Program 3E - Promote the Development of Accessory Dwelling Units · Program 3F - Motel Conversions/Efficiency Units and Co-Living Housing Types · Program 3G - Measure Y
· Other programs related to evaluating the potential for future housing opportunities along the 17th Street corridor, Airport Industrial Area, and church-owned sites.

Appendix A - Review of Past Performances
This section is an evaluation of the 5th cycle’s Policy Program and considers all current and existing programs and projects, as well as the most current effectiveness and appropriateness for the 2021-

Page 10 of 12 ends

15 b File #: 21-375 Meeting Date: 9/13/2021
2029 6th Cycle.

Appendix B - Site Analysis
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 Draft Housing Element represent the City of Costa Mesa’s ability to plan for housing at the designated income levels within the 6th 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.

The analysis within this appendix shows that the City has the capacity to meet 2021-2029 RHNA allocation through a variety of methods, including:
• Identification of development capacity on sites which either currently permit or would 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) Appendix C - Community Outreach
As part of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update process, the City of Costa Mesa has conducted extensive public outreach activities beginning in fall 2020. These outreach efforts included virtual town hall 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 town hall and public meetings, notices, and draft public review documents are available on the City’s website:
www.costamesaca.gov/housing-element-update <http://www.costamesaca.gov/housing-elementupdate>.

Next Steps and Timeline
The study session is the final opportunity for City Council and Planning Commission feedback and revisions to the Public Review Draft Housing Element before staff submits the document to State HCD for review. The State has 60 days to provide comments on the Housing Element.

After staff receives the State’s comments, the Housing Element will be modified to respond and then scheduled for a formal public hearing with the Planning Commission for a recommendation, and City Council afterward for final approval. These hearings are anticipated to occur in December 2021/January 2022. An approved Housing Element must be submitted to the State by February 11, 2022 (which is within 120 days of the statutory deadline of October 15, 2021).

ALTERNATIVES:

No Housing Element decisions are being made at the Study Session; therefore, alternatives are not necessary.

FISCAL REVIEW:

There are no fiscal impacts associated with the study session.

Page 11 of 12 ends

16 b File #: 21-375 Meeting Date: 9/13/2021
LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed this report and approves it as to form.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

Diversify, stabilize and increase housing to reflect community needs.

CONCLUSION:

Staff is seeking additional Planning Commission, City Council and public feedback prior to submission of the Draft Housing Element to the State Department of housing and Community Development for its review and concurrence.

Page 12 of 12 ends

17 September 13, 2021
City Council/ Planning Commission Joint Study Session
Attachment 1 to Staff Report
The Draft Housing Element is available on the City’s Website. Due to the size of the draft Housing Element, click on the link below to view the document.

1. Cover

2. Introduction

3. Profile

4. Housing Constraints, Resources, and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing

5. Housing Plan

6. Appendix A - Review of Past Performance

7. Appendix B - Candidate Sites Analysis Overview

8. Appendix C - Summary of Community Engagement

9. Appendix D - Glossary of Housing Terms
18 September 13, 2021
City Council/ Planning Commission Joint Study Session
Attachment 2
During the Public Review period, a discrepancy in the anticipated density for candidate sites 206 and 207 was noticed. Prior to sending the Housing Element to HCD for review, the document will be revised to indicate a development yield on these sites at 90 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the other sites within the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. Future development on these and all sites within the Housing Element will be subject to the applicable development standards within that area. 90 du/ac is an appropriate planning assumption for the Housing Element document. 19 APN Unique
ID ADDRESS OWNER ZONING COUNCIL DISTRICT Specific Plans Size (Ac) Density Vacant Potential Consolidation Used in 5th
Cycle
Total
Units
Very
Low
(20%)
Low
(10%)
Moderate
(20%)
Above
Moderate
(50%)
Notes
410-501-25 206 545 Anton
Blvd
JKSCMFV
LLC
PDC 2 North Costa
Mesa 0.74 90 66 13 6 13 34
Small commercial our parcel uses. Property
owner has indicated interest in redeveloping
the site for residential uses.
410-501-36 207 575 Anton
Blvd
JKSCMFV
LLC
PDC 2 North Costa
Mesza 1.82 90 164 32 16 32 64
Small commercial our parcel uses. Property
owner has indicated interest in redeveloping
the site for residential uses.
20 September 13, 2021
City Council/ Planning Commission Joint Study Session
Attachment 3 to Staff Report
A total of 13 written public comments have been received to date which include comments directly emailed to City Staff as well as submittal of the online survey form.

The main topics included in the public comments are:
 The inclusion of the Chargers / The Hive site as a housing opportunity site  The inclusion of local hire requirements
 New housing being visually attractive, and include greenbelts, sound walls, be located near jobs, transit stops and high-resource neighborhoods  Increase densities to make housing projects more financially feasible and encourage mixed income higher density communities, as well as other housing options like co-housing and motel conversions.
 Consider whether Casa Bella Apartments should be listed as an at Risk affordable developments
 Consider how assisted living and group living are counted toward the City’s housing need
Refer to the attached public comments.
21 Invesco Real Estate
620 Newport Center Drive
Suite 350
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone (949) 222-6380
Facsimile (949) 222-6376
www.invesco.com
August 30, 2021
Mayor John Stephens
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Re: The Hive
Dear Mayor Stephens,
Thank you for taking the time last week to discuss Invesco’s ownership and future growth plans for The Hive and The Press properties. As we discussed, Invesco ($85.8B in Assets Under Management as of June 30, 2021) has made a substantial investment in The Press and The Hive and view these investments as long term in nature. We are very pleased with having Anduril Industries locating their headquarters at The Press. Anduril anticipates over 2,000 employees at this location which is a very strong economic driver for the City of Costa Mesa and surrounding communities.

With respect to The Hive, we acquired this asset with the understanding that the Charger’s tenancy would be temporary in nature. The Charger’s practice field is not adequate in size to effectively run their practices. We understand that the Chargers are actively seeking alternative locations that are more suitable for their operations. While the Chargers have certain termination rights, there is the possibility that they may seek to leave earlier than anticipated. For this reason, we need to prepare to plan for that occurrence and plan for a multi-family project on the field site. We have had success in other such mixeduse properties throughout the country and would seek to replicate this at The Hive.

As we discussed, we are prepared to advance a Specific Plan on the site concurrent with the City’s General Plan update. For us to justify investing the funds in this process, it is important we communicate to our investors that the field site has been included in the city’s upcoming Housing Element Update.

From a planning perspective we believe the site is ideal. In addition to being located directly adjacent to Anduril, the site in walking distance to a host of current and future employers in North Costa Mesa area.

We appreciate your support to include the site in the Housing Element Update and are hopeful that other Council and Planning Commission Members agree.

If you have any further questions, please contact me at 949-222-6390.

Sincerely,
Peter Cassiano
Managing Director
22 P: (626) 381-9248
F: (626) 389-5414
E: [email protected]
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101

VIA E-MAIL
September 1, 2021
Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Em: [email protected]
RE: City of Costa Mesa Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update To Whom It May Concern,
On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“Commenter” or “Southwest Carpenters”), my Office is submitting these comments on the City of Costa Mesa’s (“City” or “Lead Agency”) draft 2021-2029 update to the City’s General Plan Housing Element (“Draft HEU” or “Project”).

The Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing more than 50,000 union carpenters in six states and has a strong interest in well ordered land use planning and addressing the environmental impacts of development projects.

Individual members of the Southwest Carpenters live, work, and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental impacts.

Commenters expressly reserve the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to this Project. Cal. Gov. Code § 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.

Page 2 of 5 ends

Commenters incorporate by reference all comments raising issues regarding the EIR submitted prior to certification of the EIR for the Project. Citizens for Clean Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected to the Project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties).

Moreover, Commenters request that the Lead Agency provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21000 et seq, and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”), Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 65000–65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.

The City should require the use of a local skilled and trained workforce to benefit the community’s economic development and environment. The City should require the use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor Management apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California, or have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which would be required to graduate from such a state approved apprenticeship training program or who are registered apprentices in an apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California.

Community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note:
[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.
24 City of Costa Mesa – Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update September 1, 2021

Page 3 of 5 ends

March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling.

Skilled and trained workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded:
. . . labor should be considered an investment rather than a cost – and investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.1
Local skilled and trained workforce requirements and policies have significant environmental benefits since they improve an area’s jobs-housing balance, decreasing the amount of and length of job commutes and their associated greenhouse gas emissions. Recently, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program or a skilled and trained workforce with a local hire component” can result in air pollutant reductions.2

Cities are increasingly adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements into general plans and municipal codes. For example, the City of Hayward 2040 General Plan requires the City to “promote local hiring . . . to help achieve a more positive jobs-housing balance, and reduce regional commuting, gas consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.”3

1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf. 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10. 3 City of Hayward (2014) Hayward 2040 General Plan Policy Document at p. 3-99, available at https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General_Plan_FINAL.pdf. 25 City of Costa Mesa – Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update September 1, 2021

Page 4 of 5 ends

In fact, the City of Hayward has gone as far as to adopt a Skilled Labor Force policy into its Downtown Specific Plan and municipal code, requiring developments in its Downtown area to requiring that the City “[c]ontribute to the stabilization of regional construction markets by spurring applicants of housing and nonresidential developments to require contractors to utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint labor-management training programs, . . .”4 In addition, the City of Hayward requires all projects 30,000 square feet or larger to “utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint labor-management training programs.”5

Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits. As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:

People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled.6
In addition, local hire mandates as well as skill training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled. As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT reductions since the skill requirements of available local jobs must be matched to those held by local residents.7 Some municipalities have tied local hire and skilled and trained workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. As Cervero and Duncan note:

In nearly built-out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing.” The city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents, 4 City of Hayward (2019) Hayward Downtown Specific Plan at p. 5-24, available at https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/Hayward%20Downtown% 20Specific%20Plan.pdf. 5 City of Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 10, § 28.5.3.020(C). 6 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobshousing.pdf 7 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: JobsHousing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT825.pdf. 26 City of Costa Mesa – Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update September 1, 2021

Page 5 of 5 ends

especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational training to ensure residents are employment-ready. While the program is voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than 3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of approval for development permits.

The City should consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, air quality and transportation impacts.

I. CONCLUSION
Commenters request that the City consider the aforementioned issues raised. Please contact my Office if you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,
__________________________
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorneys for Southwest Regional
Council of Carpenters
Attached:

March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A); Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B); and Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C). 27 EXHIBIT A
28 1
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
March 8, 2021
Mitchell M. Tsai
155 South El Molino, Suite 104
Pasadena, CA 91101
Subject: Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling Dear Mr. Tsai,
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) is pleased to provide the following draft technical report explaining the significance of worker trips required for construction of land use development projects with respect to the estimation of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. The report will also discuss the potential for local hire requirements to reduce the length of worker trips, and consequently, reduced or mitigate the potential GHG impacts.

Worker Trips and Greenhouse Gas Calculations
The California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) is a “statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.”1 CalEEMod quantifies construction-related emissions associated with land use projects resulting from off-road construction equipment; on-road mobile equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling; fugitive dust associated with grading, demolition, truck loading, and on-road vehicles traveling along paved and unpaved roads; and architectural coating activities; and paving.2
The number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.3 1 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 2 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 29 2
Specifically, the number and length of vehicle trips is utilized to estimate the vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”) associated with construction. Then, utilizing vehicle-class specific EMFAC 2014 emission factors, CalEEMod calculates the vehicle exhaust, evaporative, and dust emissions resulting from construction-related VMT, including personal vehicles for worker commuting.4
Specifically, in order to calculate VMT, CalEEMod multiplies the average daily trip rate by the average overall trip length (see excerpt below):
“VMTd = Σ(Average Daily Trip Rate i * Average Overall Trip Length i) n Where:
n = Number of land uses being modeled.”5
Furthermore, to calculate the on-road emissions associated with worker trips, CalEEMod utilizes the following equation (see excerpt below):
“Emissionspollutant = VMT * EFrunning,pollutant
Where:

Emissionspollutant = emissions from vehicle running for each pollutant VMT = vehicle miles traveled
EFrunning,pollutant = emission factor for running emissions.” 6 Thus, there is a direct relationship between trip length and VMT, as well as a direct relationship between VMT and vehicle running emissions. In other words, when the trip length is increased, the VMT and vehicle running emissions increase as a result. Thus, vehicle running emissions can be reduced by decreasing the average overall trip length, by way of a local hire requirement or otherwise.

Default Worker Trip Parameters and Potential Local Hire Requirements As previously discussed, the number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.7In order to understand how local hire requirements and associated worker trip length reductions impact GHG emissions calculations, it is important to consider the CalEEMod default worker trip parameters. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input projectspecific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.8 The default number of construction-related worker trips is calculated by multiplying the 4 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14-15. 5 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 23. 6 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 8 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1, 9. 30 3
number of pieces of equipment for all phases by 1.25, with the exception of worker trips required for the building construction and architectural coating phases.9Furthermore, the worker trip vehicle class is a 50/25/25 percent mix of light duty autos, light duty truck class 1 and light duty truck class 2, respectively.”10 Finally, the default worker trip length is consistent with the length of the operational home-to-work vehicle trips.11 The operational home-to-work vehicle trip lengths are:
“[B]ased on the location and urbanization selected on the project characteristic screen. These values were supplied by the air districts or use a default average for the state. Each district (or county) also assigns trip lengths for urban and rural settings” (emphasis added). 12 Thus, the default worker trip length is based on the location and urbanization level selected by the User when modeling emissions. The below table shows the CalEEMod default rural and urban worker trip lengths by air basin (see excerpt below and Attachment A).13
Worker Trip Length by Air Basin
Air Basin Rural (miles) Urban (miles)
Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8
Lake County 16.8 10.8
Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8
North Central Coast 17.1 12.3
North Coast 16.8 10.8
Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8
Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8
Salton Sea 14.6 11
San Diego 16.8 10.8
San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8
San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8
South Central Coast 16.8 10.8
South Coast 19.8 14.7
Average 16.47 11.17
Minimum 10.80 10.80
Maximum 19.80 14.70
Range 9.00 3.90
9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 10 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 11 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14. 12 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 21. 13 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-84 – D-86. 31 4
As demonstrated above, default rural worker trip lengths for air basins in California vary from 10.8- to 19.8- miles, with an average of 16.47 miles. Furthermore, default urban worker trip lengths vary from 10.8- to 14.7- miles, with an average of 11.17 miles. Thus, while default worker trip lengths vary by location, default urban worker trip lengths tend to be shorter in length. Based on these trends evident in the CalEEMod default worker trip lengths, we can reasonably assume that the efficacy of a local hire requirement is especially dependent upon the urbanization of the project site, as well as the project location.

Practical Application of a Local Hire Requirement and Associated Impact To provide an example of the potential impact of a local hire provision on construction-related GHG emissions, we estimated the significance of a local hire provision for the Village South Specific Plan (“Project”) located in the City of Claremont (“City”). The Project proposed to construct 1,000 residential units, 100,000-SF of retail space, 45,000-SF of office space, as well as a 50-room hotel, on the 24-acre site. The Project location is classified as Urban and lies within the Los Angeles-South Coast County. As a result, the Project has a default worker trip length of 14.7 miles.14 In an effort to evaluate the potential for a local hire provision to reduce the Project’s construction-related GHG emissions, we prepared an updated model, reducing all worker trip lengths to 10 miles (see Attachment B). Our analysis estimates that if a local hire provision with a 10-mile radius were to be implemented, the GHG emissions associated with Project construction would decrease by approximately 17% (see table below and Attachment C).

Local Hire Provision Net Change
Without Local Hire Provision
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,623
Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 120.77 With Local Hire Provision
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,024
Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 100.80 % Decrease in Construction-related GHG Emissions 17%
As demonstrated above, by implementing a local hire provision requiring 10 mile worker trip lengths, the Project could reduce potential GHG emissions associated with construction worker trips. More broadly, any local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.

This serves as an example of the potential impacts of local hire requirements on estimated project-level GHG emissions, though it does not indicate that local hire requirements would result in reduced construction-related GHG emission for all projects. As previously described, the significance of a local hire requirement depends on the worker trip length enforced and the default worker trip length for the project’s urbanization level and location.
14 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-85. 32 5
Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
33 EXHIBIT B
34 SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 June 2019
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling operations, oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, and many other industrial and agricultural sources. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at dozens of sites and has testified as an expert witness on more than ten cases involving exposure to air contaminants from industrial sources. 35 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 June 2019
Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications:

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.
36 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 June 2019
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.
37 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 June 2019
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
38 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 June 2019
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ. 39 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 June 2019
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington. 40 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 June 2019
Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.

United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
41 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 June 2019
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19

In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case: No 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017

In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017
42 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 June 2019
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Jerry Dovico, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Valley View Sine LLC, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Doug Pauls, et al.,, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Richard Warren, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015
In The Third Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Mexico Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Del Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward DeRuyter, Defendants
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014
In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City Landfill, et al. Defendants.

Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014
43 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 June 2019
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant.

Case 3:10-cv-00622
Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013
In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland
Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013
44 1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa
Santa Monica, California 90401
Tel: (949) 887‐9013
Email: [email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
CEQA Review
Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

Professional Certifications:

California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:

Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring.

Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques.

Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2014; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); 46 • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities. • Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.
• Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation. • Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school. • Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
2 47
• Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. 3 48
• Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.

Executive Director:

As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.

Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
4 49
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.

With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. 5 50
Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
6 51
Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.

Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.
7 52
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 53
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009‐ 2011.
9 54

ARIOS, JUSTIN
From: Diane Kastner <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 2, 2021 12:56 PM
To: Housing Element
Subject: Feedback-Public Comment
Importance: High
Hello Housing ElementI have lived in Costa Mesa for well over sixty years. We can all agree, that the main concern should always be quality of life. We can all agree, streets that are clogged with congestion are the first signs of an unhappy living experience (see LA). Irvine is a great model of how to increase housing density without the burden of heavy congestion and traffic. We can all agree, we do not want to see concrete everywhere, housing tracts that are cold, austere, and entirely void of attractive elements such as; trees, bushes and green plant life. We all know that crime, aggressiveness and unhappiness increase when rats are placed in dense housing and are subject to congested living, well it is the same for the human beings.

Quality of Life:

1. Roads must be kept moving freely where new housing is considered. A roadway already fully impacted with rush-hour traffic should not be further burdened by the building of new housing. Areas to consider new housing must have roads that can flow well and handle new traffic going forward, particularly during rush hour.

2. Visually attractive housing is VERY important. People do not want to see housing that encroaches to the edge of a sidewalk with dense concrete built-up 3-6 stories high. Again, the City of Irvine is a great model. All new housing tracts require roadway setbacks where they must build greenbelts and install attractive sound barrier walls that keep housing separated from road noise and roadway views.

3. Housing needs to consider the humans that will live there for multiple generations into the future. Are we building housing environments that support a happy and content life? Or are we letting greed and high density dominate the landscape like a permanent scar in the most beautiful Climate on the planet? Only developers can determine what our future holds.

4. Please see that the City requires greenbelts, set-backs off the road, sound barrier walls, lessdense, less greed driven density with attractive housing that will make living positive for many generations to come.

Thank you for letting me freely share my opinions. Please feel free to share this with the powers that be.

Kind Regards, 55
Diane Kastner
Diane Kastner
[email protected]
Tel. (949) 378-1067
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
56 ARIOS, JUSTIN
From: Matthew Sheehan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 2, 2021 6:02 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL; Housing Element
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: City of Costa Mesa Housing Element Update Good evening,
My name is Matthew Sheehan and I live in Costa Mesa (District 48). I believe everyone should have access to housing in our community.

As a child, my family often struggled to pay for housing. My parents had to sign a new lease nearly every other year because they were unable to renew their leases due to rising requested rents and were not able to afford to purchase a house. During my elementary school years, I had to transfer to a new school each year due to our housing instability.

As a current resident of Costa Mesa, this is not the future I want for my family and future children.

Please use our housing element update to boldly plan for more housing near our jobs, transit stops, and high-resource neighborhoods. Let's clearly demonstrate to HCD and to our community that we are affirmatively furthering fair housing in our city.

Best,
Matthew Sheehan
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
57 ARIOS, JUSTIN
From: Nancy Henning <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 2, 2021 8:56 AM
To: Housing Element
Subject: Draft Housing Element 2021-2029
Hello,
Regarding Casa Bella Apartments, 1840 Park Ave...

Please check this only if you think it is worth checking into. In the prior housing element, Casa Bella was the most at risk subsidized senior housing in Costa Mesa due to having a for profit owner and due to the Hud contract expiring in 2015. The owner did renew the contract for 10 years at that time. *** Now, the contract expires in Sept 2025. And the for profit owner's mortgage deed restrictions ended in 2020. The owner changed property management companies in Autumn 2020 and beginning April 2021 began renovations to the building.. it appears in order to bring it up to code? All red flags in some of our opinions as tenants here.

I skimmed a few parts of the draft Housing Element and I "think" I read one paragraph that said there is no at risk housing in Costa Mesa in this plan??? My feeling is that Casa Bella is at risk?? But I have no idea. Did anyone check with the actual owner about future plans for this property? Thank you,
N. Henning
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
58 ARIOS, JUSTIN
From: Betsy Densmore <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 5, 2021 10:37 PM
To: Housing Element
Cc: CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Comments on Fair Housing Elements Draft
Attachments: CM Housing Element Testimony Take 2.docx
To Whom It May Concern:

I am very sorry that I was unable to attend the public hearing last Thursday. I attach the comments I would have made in person. Please acknowledge receipt of this email and let me know how I can review the discussion and comments which took place.

Best Regards,
Betsy
Betsy Densmore
[email protected]
949-500-2381
"Everything you have in life can be taken from you except one thing, your freedom to choose how you will respond to the situations you face. This is what determines the quality of the life we live-- not whether we've been rich or poor, famous or unknown, healthy or suffering." Viktor Frankls
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
59 Commentary on the Draft Costa Mesa Housing Element Plan My name is Betsy Densmore. I live in the Canyon neighborhood and I co-own a restaurant in Mesa Verde Plaza. I also serve on the Board of a local nonprofit affordable housing development company. I fully endorse the goals of the draft Housing Element and carefully read the various strategies for fulfilling those goals. Unfortunately, my take away is that there are several ways that these lofty goals will be thwarted.

The plan as written does not go far enough. New construction is very expensive and providing tenant services drives the cost per unit even higher. I believe that the proposed densities for many of the sites which are identified are not high enough to make the sites financially feasible. Can we find more or be more aggressive about promoting other alternatives to new construction? And too much of the plan hangs on the details of the “inclusionary housing ordinance” which will likely take months to be developed.

Will 25% or more of EACH new development be reserved for very low and low income tenants? Otherwise, won’t we perpetuate the problem we already have which is that service workers we need in Costa Mesa (like the folks who work in my restaurant) have great difficulty living here because moderately priced housing is so scarce. Those who own cars, clog our roads and spend too much of their income on car loans, gas and repairs. I sometimes hear people say that adding more housing and thus more people to Costa Mesa will just make traffic worse. I beg to differ. Those able to live close to work and amenities, can walk or ride their bikes.

We need more residential units for people in ALL income categories. Our market is too tight – shortages in any category have a domino effect on the others. I think we should be allowing multi-unit buildings in all neighborhoods. Moreover, I believe accelerating development of more “granny flats”, infill small apartment buildings and planned communities like One Metro West can’t happen fast enough.

How do we pick up the pace?
I also hear people assume that “affordable housing” will only draw undesirables- nonsense! Visit any housing developments with high numbers of subsidized units ( such as Section 8 ) in this area and you will see nothing of the sort. Trellis and SOS have plenty of stories about formerly “normal” citizens who succumb to drugs and mental illness after being traumatized by the loss of their homes. Restoring selfsufficiency for these folks starts with housing them.

Moreover mixed income, high density communities sustain local businesses. Mesa Verde Plaza is a case in point. My fellow tenants provide a wide variety of food, health, educational and personal services to the thousands of apartment dwellers who surround us. I believe every single one of the Plaza’s businesses survived the pandemic. The residents of these apartments are a broad range of old, young, affluent, middle class and working poor. Many stroll our boardwalk and buy from us. We know & support our neighbors and they know and support us.

I grew up in a single-family home and worked hard to my buy own as soon as I got out of college. We are taught that this is fundamental to the American Dream. However, as the years rolled on, my husband and I grew disenchanted with the effort required to maintain it and with the amount of stuff we accumulated to fill and take care of it. First, we downsized to buying a small apartment building and 60 these days we reside in a town house. The Canyon neighborhood is delightfully diverse, dense and peaceful but someday one or both of us may need to downsize again or invite others to share our home.

For this reason, I am glad to see that the plan includes promoting co-housing, motel conversions to what we used to call SROs (single room occupancy), and other approaches to small, efficiency units. Working with local churches and other non-profits who have a commitment to serving their community is also a good idea.

Congratulations on getting us this far. I welcome any opportunities to help make the vision of nearly 12,000 more housing units by 2029 a reality. You may reach me per the below contact information.

Best Regards,
Betsy
Betsy Densmore
Resident:
1006 Nancy Lane
949-500-2381
[email protected]
Sept 5, 2021
61 ARIOS, JUSTIN
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, September 5, 2021 4:30 PM
To: Housing Element
Subject: Community Profile
Dear Sirs:

On page 2-14 of the Community Profile PDF, the section on “Overcrowding” begins and offers its definition as relates to this document. My question here is whether the Assisted Living Facilities and the Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation Homes that heavily populate our city are considered in this study as “Residences” or are properly classified as standalone businesses excluded from these overall numbers. By the definition offered here, I believe each of those homes could qualify as “overcrowded” and artificially skew the data toward implying a greater need for housing remediation than actually exists.

If you should require a specific person to whom you should submit this question, please forward it to Nick, as he narrated the September 2nd webinar and would probably best know how to rout this request.

Thank you for your efforts on an otherwise thankless endeavor.

Sincerely,
Dr. Ron Housepian
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
62 City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
9/9/2021
Public Review Draft Community Comments
Chapter 1 (Introduction)
No comments
Chapter 2 (Community Profile)
• On page 2-14 of the Community Profile PDF, the section on “Overcrowding” begins and offers its definition as relates to this document. My question here is whether the Assisted Living Facilities and the Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation Homes that heavily populate our city are considered in this study as “Residences” or are properly classified as stand-alone businesses, and are therefore excluded from these overall numbers. By the definition offered here, I believe that each of those homes could qualify as “overcrowded” and artificially skew the data toward implying a greater need for housing remediation than actually exists. I will send the same question above in the form of an e-mail, as I would like to get an answer and this comment format doesn't allow for that. Thank You
Chapter 3 (Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH)
No comments
Chapter 4 (Housing Plan)
• Re Fairview Development Center property tagged for mixed use residential/commercial use with amenities, what kind of time frame do you envision for this redevelopment? It is a very large property with park like characteristics and would lend itself very well if its natural setting was preserved for the enjoyment of residents and commercial tenants. Do you plan a park with walkways, water fountains, sitting areas in your proposed redevelopment? Fairview is a prized piece of real estate in Costa Mesa, so it should be developed with Green in mind. Thank you. Ivan Alexander, CM resident
• Re Fairview Development renewal: Will you be able to preserve the natural beauty and have walking trails and bike trails for CM city residents to enjoy? Will new construction renewal incorporate a green intent with solar energy, water recycling, eco friendly construction materials where possible? Will there be a ‘victory garden’ to produce locally and create an outdoor gathering area?
Appendices
No comments
Additional Comments
• Hi - My name is Walter Chirichigno and live in College Park on Bowling Green. We used to live on the East side on Mesa Drive. The traffic and parking congestion got so bad we moved to our current home. I hope and pray that the proper traffic studies were done using ( pre - Covid 19 ) traffic numbers. I am very concerned that Fair Drive And Fairview will become more of a traffic nightmare than they already are. And of course we know anything being built on Harbor will just ad to the current ugly situation. Allowing Canes to be built with the overflow of drive thru customers stopping on Harbor has basically eliminated one lane from 12pm -2pm and 5pm - 7pm.
• Permitting small home building (used to be called grandmother suites) for any age group is a good idea. This helps with extra housing and permits residents with low income to rent the small house and avoid being forced out by high taxes. The mass building of the 3 story units around Costa Mesa has contributed to heavy traffic, which Costa Mesa now has all year round, instead of summer only. Most residents I've spoken to believe past members of the city council were paid off, which permitted the development of those crowded living spaces. 63 City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
9/9/2021
True or not, perception is reality for many. The freedom home track (west side) is unique to southern ca. If you over develop it you will ruin the country feel, increase traffic, not to mention increase water use. The element update will be too complicated for most residents to understand. There should be a more simple way of explaining the City's intent so residents completely understand. Overall, I'm discouraged by what I see. I mean no disrespect, but is seems like everything revolves around money and not quality of life. I hope you prove me wrong.
• For the future of Costa Mesa, can we have the city plant ‘fruit trees’ for our insects birds and humans consumption, and enjoyment, that also lower our carbon footprint? Examples, some that are drought tolerant:
tamarind, loquats, figs, guava, natal plum, mango, etc. It would be beautiful to know Costa Mesa is a leading city is planting Green, as well as the city of the arts. :) 64 DRAFT Appendix C: Summary of Community Engagement C-13 C.11 Public Comments
The section contains all public comments submitted throughout the Housing Element Update and during the Public Review Period. Comments were submitted through the Public Review Period feedback form and by email to City Staff. Public comments provided during the Townhall Meeting, Subject Matter Expert Meeting, District Meetings, Planning Commission and City Council Study Sessions, and Public Hearings are provided in the sections above.

City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Response to Public Comments Page 1
Response to Public Comments
Public Comment Response
The Housing Element should plan for more
housing near jobs, transit stops, and highresource neighborhoods.

As part of the Housing Element’s Section 3
on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
(AFFH), the City identifies and analyzes
disparities in access to opportunity,
including: “improving the quality of life for
residents of low-income communities, as
well as supporting mobility and access to
‘high resource’ neighborhoods. This
encompasses education, employment,
economic development, safe and decent
housing, low rates of violent crime,
transportation, and other opportunities,
including recreation, food and healthy
environment” (HCD Guidance on AFFH).

Adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance. The adoption of an inclusionary housing ordinance is Program 2A of the Housing
Element Update. The City is currently
working on developing an inclusionary
housing policy.

The City should adopt a program to allow
by-right development for projected
proposing 100% units affordable to very
low- and low-income households.

The City’s Housing Element meets State
requirements to allow by-right development
for sites identified in the Housing Element
that permit at least 20% affordable units as
described in Program 3M.

Create a Specific Plan for the Fairview
Developmental Center site to facilitate the
development of housing affordable to
extremely low-income to moderate income
households.

Program 3B addresses the City’s future
planning actions regarding development of
the Fairview Developmental Center.

Create new overlay zones along major
thoroughfares like Harbor Blvd. to replace
failing strip malls with mixed-use
developments.

Programs 3C and 3D within the Housing
Element will amend the existing specific
plans, urban plans, and overlays, many of
which are within major thoroughfares, to
better suit today’s development climate
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Response to Public Comments Page 2
Public Comment Response
while planning responsibly for future
potential growth within these areas.

All City Specific Plans and Overlays should
have densities of 60 DU/Acres and a
requirement of at least 20% affordable
units.

The City has proposed densities which take
into considerations the development
characteristics of each area. Proposed
densities range from 40 du/ac to 90 du/ac.

The City is working to develop an
inclusionary housing policy which will have a
citywide affordability requirement for
projects that meet established
requirements.

Create a land trust to hold donated land. The City is not proposing a policy related to creating a land trust but may consider that
strategy in future implementing efforts.

Add workforce housing. The City has established a housing strategy which looks to address housing for all
segments of the community. More
information can be found within Appendix
B.

The densities proposed in the Public Review
Draft are not high enough to make the sites
financially feasible.

The City worked with members of the
development community to identify
densities which are likely to promote the
development of housing at all income levels.

The City also analyzed past real world
development examples to determine at
what densities different housing types are
typically proposed.

We should be allowing multi-unit buildings
in all neighborhoods.

This is not included as part of the Housing
Element Update sites strategies; however,
Appendix B identifies sites and strategies to
accommodate the development of multiunit projects throughout the City.

The City should accelerate the pace of ADU
developments throughout the community.

Appendix B of the Housing Element
discusses projected ADU growth over the
next 8 years. Chapter 4: Housing Plan also
provides policies and programs the City will
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Response to Public Comments Page 3
Public Comment Response
implement to track and facilitate the
development of ADUs.

Casa Bella’s subsidized senior housing
contract expires in 2025 and should be
considered at-risk.

Casa Bella is included in Section 3 –
Inventory of Assisted Affordable Housing.

Select part of the Costa Mesa Golf Course
and driving range for candidate sites.

This site is not included as part of the
Housing Element Update sites strategy as
the City is able to meet the RHNA allocation
through the selection of other sites. It is also
important to the City to maintain limited
recreational open space for the community.

Create pathways to home ownership. The City’s Housing Element focuses on strategies for the attainment of both rental
and for sale housing. Strategies specifically
aimed at home ownership are not included.

Create an Ad Hoc Advisory Committee to
review Measure Y and potential constraints
on housing.

The City is currently pursuing the creation of
an Advisory Committee to review Measure Y
and its implications for housing
development.

Do not replace El Metate Market with
housing.

This site has been removed from the
Housing Element and is no longer
considered a candidate housing site.

Do not replace the Smart & Final with
affordable high-density housing on 19th
Street.

This site has been removed from the
Housing Element and is no longer
considered a candidate housing site.

Do not propose high density development
on 19th Street.

The City’s sites strategy includes
consideration of the West 19th corridor.

High-density housing on 19th Street will
further the parking shortage and decrease
property value.

Parking standards may be evaluated during
the amendment of the City’s overlays and
urban plans.

Stop the affordable unit tax on developers. The City is considering a inclusionary housing policy to address affordable housing
requirements for future development
projects.

The sites inventory must include probability
of development during the RHNA cycle.

Appendix B of the Housing Element provides
detailed information on the sites analysis
strategies, including the assumed
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Response to Public Comments Page 4
Public Comment Response
affordability percentages. The City has
allocated a buffer of units as part of its sites
analysis in order to plan for sites potentially
developing with lower densities than
maximum permitted.

The Housing Element should specify the
current available density and the proposed
new density for each site identified for
rezoning.

Appendix B of the Housing Element includes
a detailed list of all sites identified as part of
the sites analysis, including the current and
proposed densities.

Reduce traffic congestion and consider
parking shortages.

The City has considered mobility and access
to public transportation when identifying
candidate housing sites.

Costa Mesa should be a 15-minute city and
become less car-dependent.

The City has considered mobility and access
to public transportation when identifying
candidate housing sites. In addition, the
development of mixed-use projects
generally facilitates walkability and
sustainable transportation due to the
location of housing units near commercial
and retail uses.

Adopt a form-based code with objective
criteria.

The City will consider different development
strategies as part of the update to its
existing urban plans and overlays. Currently
the urban plans have a form-based like
development criteria.

The City should abandon its RHNA appeal
and add housing affordable to
disadvantaged residents.

The City was not successful in appealing its
RHNA allocation. The final RHNA allocation
was released by SCAG on March 4, 2021.

How much importance is placed on public
comments?
Public participation is critical to the success
of the Housing Element and is a required
component of the Update. All public
comments are included in the Housing
Element and all are provided to the City
Council for consideration.

The City must engage community
participation throughout all stages of the
Housing Element.

Appendix C of the Housing Element includes
all community engagement efforts and
public comments received throughout the
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Response to Public Comments Page 5
Public Comment Response
Housing Element Update period. The City
has solicited input from the community,
stakeholders, and local organizations at the
start of the Update process, during the
Public Review period, during public Council
and Commission meetings, as well through
meetings with City Staff and via email and
phone calls.

The City should include affordable housing
advocates and local organizations in
community outreach efforts.

Appendix C of the Housing Element includes
all community engagement efforts and
public comments received throughout the
Housing Element Update period. The City
outreached to and held multiple meetings
with local organizations and housing
advocates throughout the Update process.

The City should provide further analysis on
the constraints for Sakioka Lot 2, Home
Ranch, and Pacific Arts Plaza)
The City has considered known constraints
to development on these sites. Future
implementing projects will be subject to an
objective development review process
which further analyzes potential constraints.

Program 3F should include long-term
resident protections through antidisplacement, right-of-first refusal, and relocation benefits strategies.

The City’s Housing Element Draft does not
directly address long-term resident
strategies but does analyze displacement
risk and other environmental justice factors
within Section 3 of the document.

The City should adopt a stand-alone
program to make mid-cycle adjustments if
housing production is not moving forward
on identified large sites.

The City reports to HCD annually on its
progress towards meeting its RHNA
allocation. If HCD determines the City is not
making sufficient progress, the City must
revise its Housing Element in accordance.

Let single-family homes become duplexes
and triplexes.

The Housing Element Update does not
include a rezoning of all single-family
neighborhoods.

Consider the availability of public open
space.

The City has considered the availability of
public open space in its sites analysis.

Additionally, the City currently requires Park
Fees for new residential projects as a
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
Response to Public Comments Page 6
Public Comment Response
condition of approval. These fees ensure
compliance with State law and provide
funds to cover the cost of land acquisition
and parkland upgrades to support accessible
public park space as population grows.

Add The Hive as a candidate housing site to
allow for multi-family housing.

The Hive has been added as a candidate
housing site.

City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
9/24/2021
Public Review Draft - Community Comments
Chapter 1 (Introduction)

1. I have lived in Costa Mesa for well over sixty years. We can all agree,that the main concern should always be quality of life. We can all agree, streets that are clogged with congestion are the first signs of an unhappy living experience (see LA). Irvine is a great model of how to increase housing density without the burden of heavy congestion and traffic. We can all agree, we do not want to see concrete everywhere, housing tracts that are cold, austere, and entirely void of attractive elements such as; trees, bushes and green plant life. We all know that crime, aggressiveness and unhappiness increase when rats are placed in dense housing and are subject to congested living, well it is the same for the human beings.

Quality of Life:

Roads must be kept moving freely where new housing is considered. A roadway already fully impacted with rush-hour traffic should not be further burdened by the building of new housing. Areas to consider new housing must have roads that can flow well and handle new traffic going forward, particularly during rush hour.

Visually attractive housing is VERY important. People do not want to see housing that encroaches to the edge of a sidewalk with dense concrete built-up 3-6 stories high. Again, the City of Irvine is a great model. All new housing tracts require roadway setbacks where they must build greenbelts and install attractive sound barrier walls that keep housing separated from road noise and roadway views.

Housing needs to consider the humans that will live there for multiple generations into the future. Are we building housing environments that support a happy and content life? Or are we letting greed and high density dominate the landscape like a permanent scar in the most beautiful Climate on the planet? Only developers can determine what our future holds.

Please see that the City requires greenbelts, set-backs off the road, sound barrier walls, less-dense, less greed driven density with attractive housing that will make living positive for many generations to come.

Thank you for letting me freely share my opinions. Please feel free to share this with the powers that be.

2. It was very disappointing to see preserve single family neighborhoods (monoplex zoning) as a goal in the Housing element. This is contrary to Costa Mesa's professed values (safe, inclusive, vibrant) and emergent state law. It is also subjective, latently racist and classist. Subjective discretion has historically resulted in treating people with more resources better than those with fewer resources which is another way to say latently racist and classist exclusionary practices wrapped in a ball of boring planning language. Costa Mesa should adopt a formbased code, compliant with state law that uses objective criteria to treat everyone equally under the zoning code and law. If the exclusionary neighbors wish to preservemonoplex zoning they may do so by buying those properties and preserving those parcels through private action. It is not the city's role to preserve exclusionary, high resource enclaves and concentrate housing growth where pollution burdens are higher (arterial and freeway corridors).

Chapter 2 (Community Profile)

1. On page 2-14 of the Community Profile PDF, the section on “Overcrowding” begins and offers its definition as relates to this document. My question here is whether the Assisted Living Facilities and the Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation Homes that heavily populate our city are considered in this study as “Residences” or are properly classified as stand-alone businesses, and are therefore excluded from these overall numbers. By the definition offered here, I believe that each of those homes could qualify as “overcrowded” and artificially skew the data toward implying a greater need for housing remediation than actually exists. I will send the same question above in the form of an e-mail, as I would like to get an answer and this comment format doesn't allow for that. Thank You
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
9/24/2021
Chapter 3 (Housing Constraints, Resources, and AFFH)

1. The most powerful thing local elected officials can do on climate change is Urban Infill land use planning. https://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/ca-scenarios/index.html. This draft housing element is a swing and a miss that will jeopardize Costa Mesa’s land use authority. This draft is tantamount to climate and racial justice arson. The primary deficiency is a failure to address the primary Governmental constraint on housing, Measure Y. It is a governmental constraint because it is a referendum embedded in municipal code that can be superseded by State law, interpreted by the Attorney General and the courts all of which are all government agencies. City council through its budgetary authority can also choose to defund anything related to implementation of it.

In light of Title 13, Chapter IX, Article 22 of the municipal code (AKA Measure Y) the Housing Element made a lot more sense. This Municipal code conflicts with state law and all cities are subordinate to state law. The City Council and City Management’s unwillingness to confront Measure Y head on leadsthe this Housing Element to a state of turboparalysis where City Planners and their consultants make vigorous and dramatic motions to meet RHNA goals but the end result is the absence of steady movement any particular direction. This unwillingness to confront Measure Y will likely result in City Council and city management eventually losing its land use authority.

A second weakness in the draft is the defense of pretextual zoning for parking requirements. This is bad policy and bad planning and pretextual zoning in any form should not be included in any part of Costa Mesa's housing element. Pretextual zoning is contrary to Costa Mesa's values (safe, inclusive and vibrant) and the statutory requirement to AFFH. https://slate.com/business/2021/05/california-parking-minumums-planners-housingab1401.html.

The fees and services nexus studies will need to be re-done thanks to AB 602 which requires these fees to levied on a per square foot basis. The current and future fee nexus studies should be publicly noticed and freely available for inspection by Costa Mesans.

The Housing element draft makes it difficult to undertake an analysis of these fees to determine if they are a constraint on housing production or if the assumptions made at the times of these studies are still valid. One specific example of this is the DIF for San Joaquin Hills TCA. This fee is antithetical to the principal of a toll road where the users pay. This DIF should be re-visited as an obstacle to the city's climate goals and housing goals.

It is ridiculous and tantamount to climate arson that new infill housing (ADUs without parking) in Costa Mesa is used to support toll roads.

2. Parking Standards. My comment: Parking is always a problem in new developments, and also in high density residential areas. The City should NOT consider garage parking to be parking at all, since there is nothing assuring the City that is will be used for parking. I believe over half of garages within the city are NOT used for parking, but rather for storage or other uses. I would prefer the City require 1 outdoor parking space per bedroom AND 2-3 public street parking spaces per house/condo specifically for guests. Currently, there are not enough guest parking spaces in new developments or high density (apartment) areas. I always worry about going to a party at a new development, or near apartments, because I know parking is a problem. Taking a taxi is not an appropriate solution, this is not New York City. Riding my bike only works if I have extra time, it's daytime, and I am alone, so biking has limitations.

3. ADUs - Costa Mesa should create standardized ADU plans that residents can use. Most people are converting garages and those have set dimensions. So plans for studio and 1-bedrooms would cut down on costs, fasttrack the approval process and encourage more ADU builds. Households are becoming more multigenerational. Folks want to move their elderly parents in with them but still give them their own space. Or grown children move back home for whatever reason and also need a space of their own. Also, there are probably lots of unpermitted ADUs constructed (maybe due to the recession and the need for additional City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
9/24/2021
income). There needs to be a way to get those permitted after the fact (without punishing the homeowners).

It'll add to property valuations and increase tax revenue for the city.

4. AFFH - I believe access to affordable utilities applies to this policy. Approvals for solar power and home batteries should be fast-tracked and permitting should not be cumbersome or cost-prohibitive. Access to affordable energy is also an environmental justice issue. Current incentives for electric vehicles benefit affluent residents who can afford to charge their vehicles. Grants should be issued for lower income residents to install solar Chapter 4 (Housing Plan)

1. Re Fairview Development Center property tagged for mixed use residential/commercial use with amenities, what kind of time frame do you envision for this redevelopment? It is a very large property with park like characteristics and would lend itself very well if its natural setting was preserved for the enjoyment of residents and commercial tenants. Do you plan a park with walkways, water fountains, sitting areas in your proposed redevelopment? Fairview is a prized piece of real estate in Costa Mesa, so it should be developed with Green in mind. Thank you. Ivan Alexander, CM resident

2. Re Fairview Development renewal: Will you be able to preserve the natural beauty and have walking trails and bike trails for CM city residents to enjoy? Will new construction renewal incorporate a green intent with solar energy, water recycling, eco friendly construction materials where possible? Will there be a ‘victory garden’ to produce locally and create an outdoor gathering area?

3. Regarding the section "PROGRAM 3C: Update the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan", it would be better to not implement the NorthCosta Mesa Specific Plan, or to scale the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan back significantly.

Traffic on Bristol Street (and the neighboring streets) is already very congested. The changes proposed by the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan would worsen the traffic on Bristol Street (and the neighboring streets). Worse traffic reduces the quality of life. Worse traffic is also not "compatible with growth", which is one of the "guiding principles" of the Costa Mesa Housing Plan.

4. HCD requires cities to include a probability weighting of each site in its inventory of actually being developed during the 8 year cycle. Costa Mesa did not do that. Exceeding the city's RHNA goal by 34% addresses this partially but that still assumes that each of the identified sites has about a two thirds probability of being redeveloped. Based on the literature for California cities indicates the Costa Mesa's assumptions are optimistically high. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6786z5j9.

The housing element spatially concentrated new housing sites along arterial roads and freeway corridors. This decision places additional noise pollution from cars and particulate matter pollution burdens on those occupants, including low income people. It also concentrates new arrivals in low resource areas and keeps monoplex (single family) zoning exclusionary contrary to the city's values and legal mandate to AFFH.

5. I am not against the City having a Housing Plan in general. The agree that the City should have a "plan" regarding housing. However, I disagree with the allotted number given to each City (11,760). I disagree with some of the wording in the Plan that simply agrees with this number without any push-back. Not all residents agree with the proposal to add so many high density living spaces in the City. Many of us think this is a bad idea & do not support it. Where is our voice and our representation? If it's already listed in the document I am apologize, but I have missed thatpart.

6. Approve more affordable housing, less luxury housing and luxury apartments. Lobby state to remove CEQA requirements for affordable housing
Appendices

1. Site Analysis. My comment, the only site south of the Freeway that has real merit is the Fairview Developmental Hospital. It's a large site, off major streets, and would be a nice spot to live. I lived right off Harbor Blvd for 2 years, with my bedroom window facing the street. I hated living there because the traffic noise was constant.

City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
9/24/2021
I came to the conclusion that nobody wants to live right off a major street, and that people only live there because it's available. I now see so many little houses and apartments being built right on Harbor Blvd, and I scratch my head a little. Who is allowing these places to be built? Have they every lived right on Harbor? Do they know how much is sucks to live there? I have...and I know. The same thing goes for Placentia & 19th St.

Again, these are terrible places for people to live. Who wants their front door opening up to Placentia? It's ridiculous. I think all sites within 50 feet of any major street are not fit for anybody to live, not old people, not poor people, not millennials, nobody.

Additional Comments

1. Hi - My name is Walter Chirichigno and live in College Park on Bowling Green. We used to live on the East side on Mesa Drive. The traffic and parking congestion got so bad we moved to our current home. I hope and pray that the proper traffic studies were done using ( pre - Covid 19 ) traffic numbers. I am very concerned that Fair Drive And Fairview will become more of a traffic nightmare than they already are. And of course we know anything being built on Harbor will just ad to the current ugly situation. Allowing Canes to be built with the overflow of drive thru customers stopping on Harbor has basically eliminated one lane from 12pm -2pm and 5pm - 7pm.

2. Permitting small home building (used to be called grandmother suites) for any age group is a good idea. This helps with extra housing and permits residents with low income to rent the small house and avoid being forced out by high taxes. The mass building of the 3 story units around Costa Mesa has contributed to heavy traffic, which Costa Mesa now has all year round, instead of summer only. Most residents I've spoken to believe past members of the city council were paid off, which permitted the development of those crowded living spaces.

True or not, perception is reality for many. The freedom home track (west side) is unique to southern ca. If you over develop it you will ruin the country feel, increase traffic, not to mention increase water use. The element update will be too complicated for most residents to understand. There should be a more simple way of explaining the City's intent so residents completely understand. Overall, I'm discouraged by what I see. I mean no disrespect, but is seems like everything revolves around money and not quality of life. I hope you prove me wrong.

3. For the future of Costa Mesa, can we have the city plant ‘fruit trees’ for our insects birds and humans consumption, and enjoyment, that also lower our carbon footprint? Examples, some that are drought tolerant:
tamarind, loquats, figs, guava, natal plum, mango, etc. It would be beautiful to know Costa Mesa is a leading city is planting Green, as well as the city of the arts. :)

4. SB 9, SB 10, SB 477, AB 602 and SB 478 are all on the Governor's desk and polling indicates he will beat the recall and is likely to sign these bills. The city should actively embrace and enable these tools to legalize housing freedom, affirmatively further fair housing and practice Costa Mesa's values (safe, inclusive and vibrant).

5. Housing plan needs to include more dedicated bike paths, similar to the one that runs along the golf course and connects Harbor Blvd to Placentia Ave, and the one along Victoria.

6. According to FORBES what makes a great neighborhood/city is o Pride in ownership
o Low crime rate
o Great schools
o Outdoor activities abound
o Stepping back in time (tree lined streets)
o Access to medical care
o Family friendly
o Close to public transportation
o Nearby shopping and restaurants
City of Costa Mesa
2021-2029 Housing Element Update
9/24/2021
o Nightlife and entertainment
o Walkability
Rather than just looking at housing let's consider the above. Although the plan says it is responsible for policies and programs regarding inclusion and diversity I don't see how this is being done. Where is the infrastructure like safety, green space, water, sewer, schools, police, fire departments that will support any new housing.

Where is climate change and sustainability address in these new spaces. How are we going to attract new and interesting businesses? How are we going to get people to stay rather than be just a stop over (on the way to Newport Beach). How are we going to live up to our name, "the City of the Arts"? Where is the quality of life in this proposal rather than just getting more funding and adding more houses. Please consider those of us who really love this City and want to continue to invest it in. I care a lot.

Invesco Real Estate
620 Newport Center Drive
Suite 350
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone (949) 222-6380
Facsimile (949) 222-6376
www.invesco.com
August 30, 2021
Mayor John Stephens
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Re: The Hive
Dear Mayor Stephens,
Thank you for taking the time last week to discuss Invesco’s ownership and future growth plans for The Hive and The Press properties. As we discussed, Invesco ($85.8B in Assets Under Management as of June 30, 2021) has made a substantial investment in The Press and The Hive and view these investments as long term in nature. We are very pleased with having Anduril Industries locating their headquarters at The Press. Anduril anticipates over 2,000 employees at this location which is a very strong economic driver for the City of Costa Mesa and surrounding communities.

We appreciate your support to include the site in the Housing Element Update and are hopeful that other Council and Planning Commission Members agree.

If you have any further questions, please contact me at 949-222-6390.

Sincerely,
Peter Cassiano
Managing Director
P: (626) 381-9248
F: (626) 389-5414
E: [email protected]
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101

Individual members of the Southwest Carpenters live, work, and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental impacts.

City of Costa Mesa – Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update September 1, 2021

Page 2 of 5 ends

Costa Mesa City CouncilFebruary 1, 2022

Costa Mesa City Council
February 1, 2022