Costa Mesa City Council
February 1, 2022

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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).

EXHIBIT A
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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

EXHIBIT B

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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
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
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
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

EXHIBIT C
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); • 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 • 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 • 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 • 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 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 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 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 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 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.

ARIOS, JUSTIN
From: Aaron Klemm <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 5:48 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL; Housing Element
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Costa Mesa Draft Housing element study session City Council members and Planning staff and consultants:

I live in Westside Costa Mesa and vote in District 5.

Costa Mesa should live up to its professed values to be safe, inclusive and vibrant by updating the draft housing element to include the high resource neighborhoods that are studiously avoided in the draft Housing Element but required by state law to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing.

The draft housing element is problematic because it doesn't follow the law or HCD's guidance. The sites inventory needs to include a probability of development during the RHNA cycle (AB 1397). The draft Housing element doesn't do that.

The housing element describes Measure Y as a growth management initiative. This is incorrect, it is a government constraint on housing. If the city continues to tiptoe around Measure Y allowing this governmental constraint on housing the remedies of the Housing Accountability Act will kick in up to by-right affordable housing that city council and city management cannot reject.

Both San Mateo and Huntington Beach have lost major court cases that firmly established the constitutionality of the Housing Accountability Act. I encourage Costa Mesa to not waste scarce time and money on another fruitless legal challenge and get started legalizing housing in all neighborhoods.

The city should live up to its professed values and embrace the positive vision of a safe, inclusive and vibrant Costa Mesa.

1. Safety achieved by reducing speeds and the number of cars on the city's public property.

2. Inclusive by updating the zoning to a form based code that uses objective criteria to allow the full RHNA allocation plus 20% to be built in this cycle in all neighborhoods.

3. Vibrant by moving to a form based code that allows services in all neighborhoods to reduce car dependence.

Aaron Klemm
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.

Paul Dumont
6535 Lankershim Boulevard
North Hollywood CA 91609
[email protected]
818.968.5627
September 13, 2021
Costa Mesa City Council
and Planning Commission
via [email protected]
RE: Public Comment on the Draft Housing Element & Regional Housing Needs Dear Costa Mesa:

I have worked to provide housing for special needs, low income people for 20 years.

Many come from Orange County in general and many are from Costa Mesa specifically.

They all suffer from a lack of affordable housing options in their community of choice.

I am writing on their behalf to encourage you to abandon the appeal of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment determination required by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Besides the sound legal reasoning behind the assessment, you should act in your constituent’s best interests by facing reality: there is simply not enough affordable housing for the people who already live in Costa Mesa.

My experience is that when low income Costa Mesa residents can’t find housing there, they migrate to other communities - even though Costa Mesa has been their home.

And that is the precise reason you, along with other Orange County communities, are pushing back on the requirement that you plan for housing for all of your residents.

Pushing “undesirable” people out of town is not only morally reprehensible; it’s illegal.

Planning to make housing unavailable for already disadvantaged residents will not pass constitutional muster, and it certainly will not improve your City in the long term.

Providing all people with housing opportunities will improve Costa Mesa for everyone.

The incredible amount of taxpayer money you spend to harm poor people’s ability to live and thrive in Costa Mesa is fiscally irresponsible. Moving your perceived “problem people” to other jurisdictions is incredibly selfish and solves nothing. You have a duty to make room for everyone. I encourage you to plan accordingly – it’s the law.

Sincerely,
Paul Dumont
Paul Dumont

ARIOS, JUSTIN
From: Betsy Densmore <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 10:04 PM
To: Housing Element; CITY COUNCIL
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Comments on Fair Housing Elements Draft
Good evening,
It was a pleasure to attend this evening's study session and observe the high degree of well-informed, thoughtful discussion by my representatives.

Since protocol prevents observers from speaking at the end, I am writing again to especially applaud Commissioner's Zich's suggestion that we put more attention creating pathways to home ownership as an alternative to privately developed apartment complexes. Many developers are not even local so the money they collect in rent leaves town and the tenants are at the mercy of rent increases.that currently consume much too much of their income.

I also appreciated Commissioner Toler and Flo Martin's comments which favored looking for more ways to create additional housing in R-1 zones. Both these ideas are potential strategies for reducing housing instability.

Finally, I hope that the idea of starting an Ad Hoc Advisory Committee to address the constraints posed by Measure Y is implemented. As Mayor Stephens said, this seems most pressing if we need another referendum in 2022.

Thank you for serving us!
Best Regards,
Betsy

Elizabeth Densmore, Business Manager/Co-owner
Great Mex Grill LLC
www.greatmexgrill.com
[email protected]
949-500-2381
On Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 10:37 PM Betsy Densmore <[email protected]> wrote:

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

ARIOS, JUSTIN
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 8:02 PM
To: Housing Element
Subject: 19th Street - Housing Element Draft Proposal (September 13, 2021) Please enter these comments into the public record regarding the Housing Element Draft Proposal presented September 13, 2021.

1. I request/vote to; deny the Housing Element Draft Proposal to tear down Smart & Final and El Metate Market and replace it with ‘affordable’ high density housing on 19th Street.

2. Local residents in our neighborhood depend on Smart & Final for groceries with a large number of residents commuting on foot. Smart & Final has little competition as it is the largest grocery store serving the community of Costal Mesa on 19th Street west of Harbor Blvd.

3. So many units proposed for 19th Street will not fix the homeless problem. Adding high density developments in place of the Smart & Final and the Soup Kitchen presents instability within an already high-density zoned neighborhood. This is a recipe for crime and overcrowding. There is already a shortage of parking within our residential streets and authorizing additional high-density housing will further ruin property values.

4. There are other properties identified and proposed which are much more appropriate to re-zone for high-density housing.
a. Golf course practice area/driving range which is raw land next to the 2 (two) 18-hole golf courses. Partial use of this property of 100-acres would easily hold 4000 affordable homes which the state law requires. Building out just the practice area is a much better option than ruining an already stressed neighborhood. b. Another potential location identified for these proposed units would be the Fairview Development Center.

5. Either of the properties identified in paragraph 3. above impacts our already high-density zoned neighborhood community of Costa Mesa in the least possible way.

6. Stop the affordable unit tax on developers and they will build better market rate projects that build neighborhood value.

Regards,
Bryan Markle
717 Center St.

Costa Mesa, Ca 92627
[email protected]
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.

ARIOS, JUSTIN
From: Eric Markle <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 5:55 PM
To: Housing Element
Subject: 19th Street
As a home owner there is already to many people around the 19th st. area. Street parking is very limited, traffic in the neighborhood streets is high. This is not an acceptable place to add low income homes. This will also eliminate markets that the community uses.

The Golf course is a better option.
19th street has to high a population. Its unsafe for my wife to run in the mornings alone and my kids to play in front yard. Due to all the traffic. More housing in this area will make it worse for existing residents.

Low income housing needs to be in a location that can handle the increase in population. 19th is not the place! Eric Markle
--
Eric Markle
His Word Your Story Podcast
LinkedIn
Instagram
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.

ARIOS, JUSTIN
From: Holly Rahill <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 3:38 PM
To: Housing Element
Subject: Concerns regarding Proposed W 19th Street Development

Please enter these comments into the public record regarding the Housing element draft proposal presented September 13, 2021.

1. Many people walk to Smart & Final and El Metate Market to get their groceries. I request that to deny the proposal to tear both of these down and put hundreds of high-density units in their place. Where will the residents buy their food? Do not tear down the grocery store and replace it with 'affordable' high-density housing on 19th Street.

2. So many units proposed for 19th Street will not fix the homeless problem, and adding high density development in the soup kitchen neighborhood smacks of instability over a multi-year period. Do not force higher density in here. It is a recipe for a slum and overcrowding. Currently, there is a shortage of parking on the residential streets that will be overrun if this plan moves forward.

3. Use the golf course practice area/driving range which is raw land next to the 2 (two) 18 hole golf courses.

These 100 acres will easily hold the 4000 affordable homes state law requires to be planned for. This will give certainty that the required 4000 affordable homes will be built at all. All 100 acres don't need to be taken, and the 2 18 hole courses are totally separate from the practice area.

3.1 The proposed plan contains no certainty at all, and a lot of wishful thinking that the hundreds of retrofit projects actually take place. Utilizing the raw land that the practice area provides will impact the community in the least possible way.

4. Stop the affordable unit tax on developers and they will build better market rate projects that build neighborhood value.

Sincerely,
Holly Rahill
Costa Mesa Resident & Home Owner

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.

ARIOS, JUSTIN
From: Kyle Harper <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 3:47 PM
To: Housing Element
Subject: Proposed W 19th Street Development
Please enter these comments into the public record regarding the Housing element draft proposal presented September 13, 2021.

1. Many people walk to Smart & Final and El Metate Market to get their groceries. I request that to deny the proposal to tear both of these down and put hundreds of high-density units in their place. Where will the residents buy their food? Do not tear down the grocery store and replace it with 'affordable' high-density housing on 19th Street.

2. So many units proposed for 19th Street will not fix the homeless problem, and adding high density development in the soup kitchen neighborhood smacks of instability over a multi-year period. Do not force higher density in here. It is a recipe for a slum and overcrowding. Currently, there is a shortage of parking on the residential streets that will be overrun if this plan moves forward.

3. Use the golf course practice area/driving range which is raw land next to the 2 (two) 18 hole golf courses.

These 100 acres will easily hold the 4000 affordable homes state law requires to be planned for. This will give certainty that the required 4000 affordable homes will be built at all. All 100 acres don't need to be taken, and the 2 18 hole courses are totally separate from the practice area.

3.1 The proposed plan contains no certainty at all, and a lot of wishful thinking that the hundreds of retrofit projects actually take place. Utilizing the raw land that the practice area provides will impact the community in the least possible way.

4. Stop the affordable unit tax on developers and they will build better market rate projects that build neighborhood value.

Kyle Harper
HarperPromotional
949.278.1055
Sent from my iPhone
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.

ARIOS, JUSTIN
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 3:33 PM
To: Housing Element
Subject: Proposed W 19th Street Development
Please enter these comments into the public record regarding the Housing element draft proposal presented September 13, 2021.

1. Many people walk to Smart & Final and El Metate Market to get their groceries. I request that to deny the proposal to tear both of these down and put hundreds of high-density units in their place. Where will the residents buy their food? Do not tear down the grocery store and replace it with 'affordable' high-density housing on 19th Street.

2. So many units proposed for 19th Street will not fix the homeless problem, and adding high density development in the soup kitchen neighborhood smacks of instability over a multi-year period. Do not force higher density in here. It is a recipe for a slum and overcrowding. Currently, there is a shortage of parking on the residential streets that will be overrun if this plan moves forward.

3. Use the golf course practice area/driving range which is raw land next to the 2 (two) 18 hole golf courses. These 100 acres will easily hold the 4000 affordable homes state law requires to be planned for. This will give certainty that the required 4000 affordable homes will be built at all. All 100 acres don't need to be taken, and the 2 18 hole courses are totally separate from the practice area.

3.1 The proposed plan contains no certainty at all, and a lot of wishful thinking that the hundreds of retrofit projects actually take place. Utilizing the raw land that the practice area provides will impact the community in the least possible way.

4. Stop the affordable unit tax on developers and they will build better market rate projects that build neighborhood value.

Best,
Ryan Forman, Resident
Brentwood Property Appraisal
Lic. #3004308
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.

ARIOS, JUSTIN
From: Eleanor Markle <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 5:31 AM
To: Housing Element
Subject: Housing element draft proposal
Please enter these comments into the public record regarding the Housing Element Draft Proposal presented September 13, 2021.

1. I request/vote to; deny the Housing Element Draft Proposal to tear down Smart & Final and El Metate Market and replace it with ‘affordable’ high density housing on 19th Street.

2. Local residents in our neighborhood depend on Smart & Final for groceries with a large number of residents commuting on foot. Smart & Final has little competition as it is the largest grocery store serving the community of Costal Mesa on 19thStreet west of Harbor Blvd.

3. So many units proposed for 19th Street will not fix the homeless problem. Adding high density developments in place of the Smart & Final and the Soup Kitchen presents instability within an already high-density zoned neighborhood. This is a recipe for crime and overcrowding. There is already a shortage of parking within our residential streets and authorizing additional high-density housing will further ruin property values.

4. There are other properties identified and proposed which are much more appropriate to re-zone for high-density housing.
a. Golf course practice area/driving range which is raw land next to the 2 (two) 18-hole golf courses.

Partial use of this property of 100-acres would easily hold 4000 affordable homes which the state law requires. Building out just the practice area is a much better option than ruining an already stressed neighborhood.
b. Another potential location identified for these proposed units would be the Fairview Development Center.

5. Either of the properties identified in paragraph 3. above impacts our already high-density zoned neighborhood community of Costa Mesa in the least possible way.

6. Stop the affordable unit tax on developers and they will build better market rate projects that build neighborhood value.

Regards,
Eleanor Markle
717 Center St.

Costa Mesa, Ca 92627
[email protected]
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.

Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition
September 10, 2021
Ms. Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
RE: Comments on Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update (August 2021) Dear Ms. Ashabi:

On behalf of the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition (the Coalition), we thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the city of Costa Mesa’s draft Housing Element—6 th
cycle—2021-2029. As you know, the Coalition is a local advocacy group which for many years has been encouraging Costa Mesa to actively facilitate the construction of affordable homes for the city’s lower income residents. We submit this letter as part of our public comments on the draft Housing Element.

First of all, we congratulate the city for its success in conducting a remarkably robust, open, and serious process of public engagement. The Coalition had the opportunity to meet several times with you and your excellent consultant, Kimley-Horn, in both small and large group settings.

Throughout this process, we have been impressed with the city’s willingness to listen to our concerns and consider our ideas for spurring the development of homes affordable to the city’s lower income residents.

In this letter, we recommend a few important substantive changes to the draft Housing Element and seek clarification on a number of important issues. We begin with recommendations on our two most pressing concerns: the need for the city to adopt expeditiously an effective inclusionary zoning ordinance, and the related need to postpone until after adoption of the inclusionary zoning ordinance all zoning changes the Housing Element identifies as essential for meeting the city’s 2021-2029 RHNA.

Recommendations and Requests for Clarification

1. The city must move expeditiously to adopt an effective inclusionary zoning ordinance. It is widely understood such an ordinance is one of the most important tools available to a city for spurring the construction of affordable housing for lower income households. We are aware the city has engaged a consultant to help draft an inclusionary zoning ordinance, and the ordinance is nearly ready for presentation to the Planning Commission and City Council for adoption.
a. We recommend the draft Housing Element be revised to include a deadline of the end of October 2022 for adoption of an inclusionary zoning ordinance. b. Given the city’s high 2021-2029 RHNA for lower income units and the city’s persistent failure to produce any significant amount of lower income units through the last three planning periods, we recommend the city’s

inclusionary zoning ordinance contain provisions for setting aside a minimum of 15% of the units for lower income households.

2. The city must postpone enactment of any zoning changes or other land use changes affecting allowable residential densities identified in the draft Housing Element as necessary to meet the city’s 2021-2029 RHNA until after the city adopts the inclusionary zoning ordinance.
a. It would be a grave mistake for the city to enact any zoning or land use changes which increase residential densities without first ensuring those changes are tied to housing affordability requirements. Otherwise, developers could lock in the new increased densities by entering into a development agreement which would not be bound by the new inclusionary zoning ordinance.
b. Assuming the city meets its October 2022 deadline for adoption of the inclusionary zoning ordinance, we believe the city will be able to meet its obligation to accomplish the specified zoning and other land use changes within three years of certification of the Housing Element.

3. The city should create a stand-alone program that allows by-right development for new construction projects which make 100% of the units affordable to low-, very low- and extremely low-income households.

4. The city should provide additional analysis on the Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) and the implications of SB 82. In the Housing Element, the city identified FDC as a 109-acre opportunity site and assumes 40% of future units on the site will be affordable to lower income households (575 very low and 345 low).1 However, SB 82 states:
“Notwithstanding any other law, the Director of General Services, with the consent of the Director of Developmental Services, may, in the best interests of the state, let to any person or entity real property not exceeding 20 acres located within the grounds of the Fairview Developmental Center for a period not to exceed 55 years, at a price that will permit the development of affordable housing for people with developmental disabilities… A minimum of 20 percent of the housing units developed shall be available and affordable to individuals with developmental disabilities served by a regional center…” 2 5. The city should decrease the FDC’s affordability assumption that 40% of the units will be for lower income. A more realistic affordability assumption for FDC is 20% for lower income. While SB 82 indicates that a minimum of 20% of units will be affordable to individuals with developmental disabilities, we are unaware of any written or public statement from the state expressing interest in making more than 20% of homes affordable to lower income households.

6. The city should create a stand-alone program and commit to working with the state to ensure that at least 40% of the total future units on the FDC site will be

1 City of Costa Mesa Housing Element 2021-2029 Public Review Draft, Appendix B Candidate Sites Analysis Overview, August 2021, p. B-16.
2 California Legislative Information, Bill Text SB-82 Developmental Services, June 24, 2015. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB82

affordable to lower income households. There is ample land at FDC to accommodate the affordable housing needs of the city’s developmentally and physically disabled residents and the city’s lower income working families. To further that end, the city should create a specific plan for FDC which would allow high density residential throughout the 109 acres. The city should also issue a request for proposal for the creation of a master plan for a housing village at FDC.

7. Measure Y is Costa Mesa's largest unique constraint to development because it incentivizes less dense, and thus unaffordable development, and perpetuates exclusionary zoning. The city council should adopt a policy to exempt from Measure Y any projects approved under the inclusionary zoning ordinance which contribute units toward meeting the city’s extremely low-, very low-, and low-income RHNA requirements.

8. The city should provide further analysis on the constraints for the three large sites (Sakioka Lot 2, Home Ranch, and Pacific Arts Plaza) which are in the 2021-2029 sites inventory but are currently under development agreements. Specifically, the city should analyze the affordability assumptions of “15% lower income” for these three sites in light of each site’s respective development agreement and whether that development agreement will be affected by the city’s anticipated future adoption of an inclusionary housing ordinance.
a. Sakioka Lot 2 and Home Ranch have been vacant for decades. How realistic is it that these two sites will be developed in the 2021-2029 cycle? b. Though these three large sites are in the 2021-2029 sites inventory, because they are each currently under a development agreement, they will be exempt from the requirements of the inclusionary housing ordinance the city intends to adopt. The only way these sites would be bound by that ordinance is if the property owners opt into future General Plan and zoning regulations. This fact was confirmed during the city’s consideration of the proposal to extend Sakioka Lot 2’s Development Agreement. The city confirmed that “if the Agreement were extended, and if an inclusionary housing ordinance was adopted along with future General Plan and zoning regulations, the developer would need to comply with the inclusionary housing ordinance IF they opted to develop per the future General Plan and zoning regulations.”3
c. On April 6, 2021, the city council extended the Development Agreement for Sakioka Lot 2 for an additional 10 years. Prior to that extension, the city’s Planning Commission recommended the Development Agreement include affordable housing requirements to help achieve the city’s RHNA goals.4 The
property owner, however, was only interested in having Sakioka Lot 2 identified as a housing opportunity site; he was not “amenable” to any affordable housing requirements. Given the property owner’s recent strong opposition to including any affordable housing provisions in the extended Development Agreement, it seems unrealistic to assume the property owner will prioritize the

3 Costa Mesa City Council Agenda Report, An Ordinance for an Extension To And Amendment of the Sakioka Farms Development Agreement, March 18, 2021, p. 11.
4 Costa Mesa City Council Agenda Report, An Ordinance for an Extension To And Amendment of the Sakioka Farms Development Agreement, April 6, 2021, p. 9-10.

development of housing affordable to lower income households in developing the property.
d. Similarly, in applying the “15% lower income” assumption to these three large properties, it seems the city is over relying on the assumption that the developers will use the city’s existing density bonus to produce affordable units. It should be noted the density bonus alone has not been effective in producing affordable housing for lower income households. From 2014-2020, only 30 permitted units were issued at low and very low income.5
Of those, only 9 units are deed
restricted at very low and 21 units are non-deed restricted ADUs at very low and low income.

9. The city should add a chart specifying both the current allowable density and the proposed new density for each of the sites identified for rezoning to accommodate the city’s 2021-2029 RHNA. This information will help the public understand the proposed zoning changes.

10. The city should strengthen Program 3F: Motel Conversions, Efficiency Units, and Co-living Housing Types to include long-term resident protections through antidisplacement, right-of-first refusal and relocation benefits strategies.

11. The city should include a stand-alone program to make mid-cycle adjustments if production is not moving forward on identified large sites and if production falls short of the expected yield during the first half of the planning period.

Thank you for considering these recommendations for further revisions to and clarifications of the draft 2021-2029 Housing Element update. We welcome the opportunity to continue our dialogue with the city to ensure that the draft Housing Element includes effective policies that will result in new affordable homes for extremely low-, very low- and low-income working families in Costa Mesa.

Sincerely,
Kathy Esfahani
Kathy Esfahani
For The Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition
cc: Paul McDougall, California Housing and Community Development Department Richard Walker, Public Law Center
Cesar Covarrubias, The Kennedy Commission

5 Planning Commission Agenda Report- 2020 Annual Review of the Costa Mesa 2015-2035 General Plan, City of Costa Mesa, p. 5, April 26, 2021.

From: Elizabeth Hansburg P4H
To: Chen, Nick; ASHABI, MINOO
Subject: Examples of Workforce Housing by a Market rate developer Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 2:23:55 PM
Done by a private developer, large, 5+ bedrooms, to serve multi-gen families. The project they did in Fullerton did not have enough open space, IMO, but they hit the product type 100%. https://www.urbanpacific.com/creating-affordable-homes-for-multigenerational-living/ https://www.urbanpacific.com/education/urban-pacific-announces-the-start-of-construction/ --
Elizabeth Hansburg
Co-Founder & Executive Director
c. (714) 872-1418
e. [email protected]
Click here to become a member of People for Housing!
From: ASHABI, MINOO
To: LE, JENNIFER; Chen, Nick
Subject: FW: 19th Street
Date: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 5:59:53 PM
From: Eric Markle <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 5:55 PM
To: Housing Element <[email protected]>
Subject: 19th Street
As a home owner there is already to many people around the 19th st. area. Street parking is very limited, traffic in the neighborhood streets is high. This is not an acceptable place to add low income homes. This will also eliminate markets that the community uses.

The Golf course is a better option.
19th street has to high a population. Its unsafe for my wife to run in the mornings alone and my kids to play in front yard. Due to all the traffic. More housing in this area will make it worse for existing residents.

Low income housing needs to be in a location that can handle the increase in population. 19th is not the place!
Eric Markle
--
Eric Markle
His Word Your Story Podcast
LinkedIn
Instagram
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.

From: ASHABI, MINOO
To: LE, JENNIFER; Chen, Nick
Subject: FW: Comments on Fair Housing Elements Draft
Date: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 8:58:09 AM
From: Betsy Densmore <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 10:04 PM
To: Housing Element <[email protected]>; CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Comments on Fair Housing Elements Draft
Good evening,
It was a pleasure to attend this evening's study session and observe the high degree of wellinformed, thoughtful discussion by my representatives.

Since protocol prevents observers from speaking at the end, I am writing again to especially applaud Commissioner's Zich's suggestion that we put more attention creating pathways to home ownership as an alternative to privately developed apartment complexes. Many developers are not even local so the money they collect in rent leaves town and the tenants are at the mercy of rent increases.that currently consume much too much of their income.

I also appreciated Commissioner Toler and Flo Martin's comments which favored looking for more ways to create additional housing in R-1 zones. Both these ideas are potential strategies for reducing housing instability.

Finally, I hope that the idea of starting an Ad Hoc Advisory Committee to address the constraints posed by Measure Y is implemented. As Mayor Stephens said, this seems most pressing if we need another referendum in 2022.

Thank you for serving us!
Best Regards,
Betsy
Elizabeth Densmore, Business Manager/Co-owner
Great Mex Grill LLC
www.greatmexgrill.com
[email protected]
949-500-2381
On Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 10:37 PM Betsy Densmore <[email protected]> wrote:

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.

From: ASHABI, MINOO
To: LE, JENNIFER; ARIOS, JUSTIN; Chen, Nick
Subject: FW: Community Profile
Date: Monday, September 6, 2021 10:39:17 AM
Please add to public comments.

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, September 5, 2021 4:30 PM
To: Housing Element <[email protected]>
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 stand-alone 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.

From: ASHABI, MINOO
To: LE, JENNIFER; Chen, Nick
Subject: FW: Concerns regarding Proposed W 19th Street Development Date: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 3:45:10 PM
From: Holly Rahill <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 3:38 PM
To: Housing Element <[email protected]>
Subject: Concerns regarding Proposed W 19th Street Development Please enter these comments into the public record regarding the Housing element draft proposal presented September 13, 2021.

1. Many people walk to Smart & Final and El Metate Market to get their groceries. I request that to deny the proposal to tear both of these down and put hundreds of high-density units in their place. Where will the residents buy their food? Do not tear down the grocery store and replace it with 'affordable' high-density housing on 19th Street.

2. So many units proposed for 19th Street will not fix the homeless problem, and adding high density development in the soup kitchen neighborhood smacks of instability over a multi-year period. Do not force higher density in here. It is a recipe for a slum and overcrowding. Currently, there is a shortage of parking on the residential streets that will be overrun if this plan moves forward.

3. Use the golf course practice area/driving range which is raw land next to the 2 (two) 18 hole golf courses. These 100 acres will easily hold the 4000 affordable homes state law requires to be planned for. This will give certainty that the required 4000 affordable homes will be built at all. All 100 acres don't need to be taken, and the 2 18 hole courses are totally separate from the practice area.

3.1 The proposed plan contains no certainty at all, and a lot of wishful thinking that the hundreds of retrofit projects actually take place. Utilizing the raw land that the practice area provides will impact the community in the least possible way.

4. Stop the affordable unit tax on developers and they will build better market rate projects that build neighborhood value.

Sincerely,
Holly Rahill
Costa Mesa Resident & Home Owner
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.

From: ASHABI, MINOO
To: LE, JENNIFER; Chen, Nick; ARIOS, JUSTIN
Subject: FW: Costa Mesa Draft Housing element study session Date: Monday, September 13, 2021 6:00:16 PM
From: Aaron Klemm [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 5:48 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>; Housing Element <housing[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Costa Mesa Draft Housing element study session City Council members and Planning staff and consultants:

I live in Westside Costa Mesa and vote in District 5.

Costa Mesa should live up to its professed values to be safe, inclusive and vibrant by updating the draft housing element to include the high resource neighborhoods that are studiously avoided in the draft Housing Element but required by state law to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing.

The draft housing element is problematic because it doesn't follow the law or HCD's guidance.

The sites inventory needs to include a probability of development during the RHNA cycle (AB 1397). The draft Housing element doesn't do that.

The housing element describes Measure Y as a growth management initiative. This is incorrect, it is a government constraint on housing. If the city continues to tiptoe around Measure Y allowing this governmental constraint on housing the remedies of the Housing Accountability Act will kick in up to by-right affordable housing that city council and city management cannot reject.

Both San Mateo and Huntington Beach have lost major court cases that firmly established the constitutionality of the Housing Accountability Act. I encourage Costa Mesa to not waste scarce time and money on another fruitless legal challenge and get started legalizing housing in all neighborhoods.

The city should live up to its professed values and embrace the positive vision of a safe, inclusive and vibrant Costa Mesa.

1. Safety achieved by reducing speeds and the number of cars on the city's public property.

2. Inclusive by updating the zoning to a form based code that uses objective criteria to allow the full RHNA allocation plus 20% to be built in this cycle in all neighborhoods.

3. Vibrant by moving to a form based code that allows services in all neighborhoods to reduce car dependence.

Aaron Klemm
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.

From: ASHABI, MINOO
To: Chen, Nick; LE, JENNIFER
Subject: FW: Draft Housing Element 2021-2029
Date: Thursday, September 2, 2021 9:20:50 AM
From: Nancy Henning <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 2, 2021 8:56 AM
To: Housing Element <[email protected]>
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.

From: ASHABI, MINOO
To: LE, JENNIFER; Chen, Nick; ARIOS, JUSTIN
Subject: Fw: Housing Element comments
Date: Thursday, November 19, 2020 8:17:37 AM
From: Russell Toler <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 9:01 PM
To: Housing Element
Cc: CITY COUNCIL; HARLAN, JEFFREY; PERKINS, MARC; TOURJE, JENNA; ZICH, JON; COLBERT, KEDARIOUS; DEARAKAL, BYRON; RUSSELL, DIANNE
Subject: Housing Element comments
Hello,
I wanted to provide some comments on the Housing Element update.

There is a full range of historic housing types in between the single family home and the big ugly apartment complex. The “Missing Middle Housing” types – duplexes, quadplexes, rowhouses, and other small multi-family buildings – with good development standards, can all fit well within whatever shades of neighborhood character we’re hoping to create or preserve, including our R-1 neighborhoods. Without assaulting the cherished feel of our surroundings, these can help us increase the amount of housing, while also allowing neighborhoods to accommodate people of all ages, incomes, and family sizes (so that families can stay close and people can age in place, among other benefits). I hope that through this update, we focus not just on big projects on big sites, but on facilitating organic and stable neighborhood growth from local, small developers through many small projects. A big reason this sort of incremental development often doesn’t pencil out because of parking requirements, which brings me to my next point: cars.

As we grow, we need to figure out how to become less of a car-depended and car-oriented city, otherwise the NIMBYs are right – we’ll be a tangled mess of traffic, which no one wants. So to what extent is this new document going to deal with the question of how to uncouple housing from the car demand (or toll) that unnecessarily comes with it? As we try to accommodate 11,000 units over the next 10 years, what are we doing to ensure that owning a car and is optional rather than virtually required?
Lastly, I hope that the discussion over housing and the resulting decisions we make reflect some sort of unified vision for how we want to grow. While it may be necessary to balance out our spreadsheets and zone for the necessary amount of units, it is crucial that this is all decided within the context of how we want our city to look, feel, and function. How will the occupants of the new housing get around? How will the developments fit into the existing urban fabric and contribute to the neighborhood they’re in? How will the new buildings relate to and shape the public space they sit on? We don’t want islands of amenity-rich high-density housing fortressed in from bleak rights of way and full of people who never leave the property without a car (if you want to know what I’m describing, drive up Jamboree in Irvine some time). The sustainable, equitable, fair, and good way to approach this is not to resist growth, but to plan for it, so that as we inevitably grow, we grow well. I hope that we can approach our housing need holistically, taking more into consideration than where we can allow the spaceship developments to land, and nesting the whole conversation into a greater discussion about what our physical vision is for our city.

Thank you for reading. I look forward to participating in this process.

Russell Toler (lifelong Costa Mesa resident, husband, father, car driver, bike rider, walker, and renter, who can barely afford to stay)
From: ASHABI, MINOO
To: LE, JENNIFER; Chen, Nick; EMERY, SUSAN; ARIOS, JUSTIN Subject: FW: Opinión
Date: Monday, February 15, 2021 8:09:30 AM
FYI,
We had a comment submitted in Spanish that Andy translated for us. -----Original Message-----
From: GODINEZ, ANDY
Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2021 11:15 PM
To: ASHABI, MINOO <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Opinión
Minoo,
To the best of my ability I translated the email below:
"I just wanted to know how much importance will be placed on the comments that are posed by tenants? The importance shouldn't just be placed on the comments posed by business and property owners, but also the people who inhabit those properties. Because without the tenants, the property owners cannot prosper." Please note that LOA I QUIMONOS is not a word, so I am assuming they meant LOS INQUILINOS, which means THE TENANTS.

Also, it seemed to be one run on sentence so I had to break it into a question and two sentences.

The last portion seems to be a Bible verse and I believe it is being used as part of their signature, so I didn't feel the need to translate that.

Andy Godinez
Code Enforcement Officer
Community Improvement Division
77 Fair Drive
City of Costa Mesa, CA 92626
OFFICE HOURS:

MON.-THURS. 7:00 AM – 5:30 PM
Office: (714) 754-5209
Fax: (714) 754-4856
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: ASHABI, MINOO
Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2021 11:24 AM
To: GODINEZ, ANDY <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Opinión
Hi Andy,
We have received this email; could you please translate? -----Original Message-----
From: Dalia Silva [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2021 3:31 PM
To: Housing Element <[email protected]>
Subject: Opinión
Solo quería saber que tan importante son los comentarios de loa i quimonos, porque no solo importa la opinión de los comerciantes y dueños de casa sino del que los habita, porque sin el inquilino, los arrendatarios no pueden prosperar.

Juan 3:16
Porque de tal mantra amo Dios al hombre que dio a su hijo unigenito para que todo aquel que en El crea no se pierda mas tengo vida eterna.

From: ASHABI, MINOO
To: LE, JENNIFER; Chen, Nick
Subject: FW: Proposed W 19th Street Development
Date: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 4:00:53 PM
From: Kyle Harper <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 3:47 PM
To: Housing Element <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed W 19th Street Development
Please enter these comments into the public record regarding the Housing element draft proposal presented September 13, 2021.

1. Many people walk to Smart & Final and El Metate Market to get their groceries. I request that to deny the proposal to tear both of these down and put hundreds of high-density units in their place. Where will the residents buy their food? Do not tear down the grocery store and replace it with 'affordable' high-density housing on 19th Street.

2. So many units proposed for 19th Street will not fix the homeless problem, and adding high density development in the soup kitchen neighborhood smacks of instability over a multi-year period. Do not force higher density in here. It is a recipe for a slum and overcrowding. Currently, there is a shortage of parking on the residential streets that will be overrun if this plan moves forward.

3. Use the golf course practice area/driving range which is raw land next to the 2 (two) 18 hole golf courses. These 100 acres will easily hold the 4000 affordable homes state law requires to be planned for. This will give certainty that the required 4000 affordable homes will be built at all. All 100 acres don't need to be taken, and the 2 18 hole courses are totally separate from the practice area.

3.1 The proposed plan contains no certainty at all, and a lot of wishful thinking that the hundreds of retrofit projects actually take place. Utilizing the raw land that the practice area provides will impact the community in the least possible way.

4. Stop the affordable unit tax on developers and they will build better market rate projects that build neighborhood value.

Kyle Harper
HarperPromotional
949.278.1055
Sent from my iPhone
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.

From: ASHABI, MINOO
To: ARIOS, JUSTIN; Chen, Nick; LE, JENNIFER
Subject: FW: Public Comment: City of Costa Mesa Housing Element Update Date: Thursday, September 2, 2021 6:02:55 PM
From: Matthew Sheehan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 2, 2021 6:02 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL <[email protected]>; Housing Element <housing[email protected]> 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.

August 17, 2020
Dear City of Costa Mesa:

St. Joseph Hospital is an acute-care not-for-profit faith-based hospital founded in 1929 by the Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange, located in the City of Orange, California. St. Joseph Hospital has 465 licensed beds, 379 of which are currently available, and a campus that is approximately 38 acres in size. The hospital’s Primary Service Area includes the cities of Orange, Santa Ana, Tustin, Anaheim, Garden Grove, Villa Park, and Westminster. Major programs and services include cardiac care, critical care, diagnostic imaging, emergency medicine, obstetrics and behavioral/psychiatric services. St.

Joseph Hospital dedicates resources to improve the health and quality of life for the communities it serves, with special emphasis on the needs of the economically poor and vulnerable.

Over the past two years, St. Joseph Hospital along with 13 other Community-based Organizations have been working together to address the issues of Economic Development, Housing, and Mental Health. In Central Orange County. The goal is to impact systemic change and determinants of health. In addition, St. Joseph Hospital has identified Homeless & Housing as one its key priorities of focus over the next three years. We will develop strategies to address lack of affordable housing under the framework of equity and racial disparities. We firmly believe that in order for communities to thrive, there must be equitable systems in place that support social consciousness, economic stability, and diverse development.

As you are aware, Housing Elements for the 6th cycle period (2021-29) are due to the California Department of Housing and Community Development by October 2021. St. Joseph Hospital understands the importance of each city’s Housing Element in guiding housing programs, policies, zoning, and funding, as well as in reducing current obstacles to affordable housing development. We also understand the importance of Housing Elements in addressing racial equity in housing, particularly with the new statutory requirements mandating the inclusion of programs that affirmatively further fair housing in 6th cycle Housing Elements.¹ Together with local housing advocate groups, we support their efforts on ensuring that each jurisdiction increases affordable housing opportunities by implementing proven strategies, policies, and incentives that encourage affordable housing development.

St. Joseph Hospital seeks to ensure that jurisdictions engage the public in revising their Housing Elements. Public engagement is a necessary component of the Housing Element process as California Housing Element law states: “The local government shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element…” Broad participation and true engagement of the public increases the likelihood that the community members involved in the discussion and planning processes will support new housing strategies and housing developments. Public engagement should include participation from residents of diverse communities, housing consumers, service providers, and advocates.

As the City embarks upon the 2021-29 Housing Element update, St. Joseph Hospital requests that the City include us and our local housing advocates in the upcoming Housing Element review and evaluation of the current 5th cycle planning period goals, policies, and accomplishments.

St. Joseph Hospital further requests that the City conduct a robust public participation process for the 6th cycle Housing Element update and that it incorporate St. Joseph Hospital, affordable housing advocates, and residents of low-income communities in this process. We believe that you will achieve a stronger Housing Element update through diverse community participation, outreach and community planning process.

To ensure adequate public participation St. Joseph Hospital recommends the following:

1. The City should engage community participation and feedback at all stages of the Housing Element review and update. Participation should not be limited to public hearings.

2. The City should allow for various methods of engagement to encourage public participation. For instance, for members of the public who may not have access to the internet or a computer, or who are unable to use video applications, consistently provide an adequate telephone option – available in multiple languages – and generally ensure that members of the community who lack adequate technology can participate in meetings about the Housing Element review.

3. The City’s public participation and outreach opportunities should be meaningful and create various platforms (for example, virtual, written, workshops, webinars, community meetings, and public hearings) for the engagement of community members who reside in lower-income communities, affordable housing partners, Legal Aid organizations, and advocates.

4. The City should create a diverse Housing Element Working Group to evaluate the current Housing Element policies and accomplishments. This Working Group could help create policies and recommendations for the new Housing Element update to ensure that you meet the housing needs of those who are most vulnerable in the City.

5. The City should include affordable housing advocates in any anticipated Housing Element Work Group and provide the opportunity for them to provide their analysis on 5th cycle RHNA progress and be a part of developing policy recommendations on the 6th cycle update.

6. The City should engage community organizations representing and advocating for families and individuals residing in lower-income communities to ensure that members of these communities can directly participate and that the City considers their perspective as part of the evaluation and creation of policies that create affordable housing.

We would appreciate the City giving us notice of any public meetings regarding the Housing Element. We look forward to working with the City to encourage effective housing policies that will help create balanced housing development and create much-needed affordable housing in our local communities. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (714) 771-8000 Ext. 17535 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Cecilia Bustamante Pixa, MPH, MHCML
Director, Community Health Investment

¹California Government Code § 8899.50 (Assembly Bill 686).

Mr. Mayor, Members of the City Council,
I felt that it would be helpful to write out some thoughts on the Housing Element in hopes that it might both shape the document and help keep the conversation going in what I believe to be a good direction. Although much of what I say in this letter is aspirational, I truly believe that Costa Mesa - much more than most of our neighbors - is set up to grow well into a leafy, sustainable, interesting, and beautiful urban city. Some of what is written below is immediately applicable to the task at hand (updating the Housing Element), while some of it is applicable to the larger task of updating the Circulation Element and Title 13 of the Municipal Code (zoning) in the wake of the updated Housing Element.

Please note that the ever-present risk of discussing these things is that certain terms and ideas are likely to present themselves very differently in each of our heads. To keep this letter from getting too long, I’m taking that risk. I’ve provided links throughout and resources at the bottom that might help refine the things I’m trying to say, and I’m also always available to chat.

The entire planning profession can be boiled down to "how do we fix the problems caused by cars and apartment bans without banning cars or allowing apartments" - Someone on Twitter

1. The shape of the city
A good, healthy city is a collection of complete neighborhoods. Complete neighborhoods are geographically finite areas with civic, cultural, and commercial uses embedded into them. They also have a variety of housing types (among other benefits, like the mixing of ages and socio-economic status, this allows people to move through stages of life without having to leave their neighborhoods behind). This idea that neighborhoods are limited in size1is key. We often talk about how complete our city is (citing the number of dwellings, amount of office and commercial space, etc.), but what matters is the proximity of everything. That is really the whole point of a city. But when we disregard the human scale, we create a contradiction of a city. When civic, cultural, and commercial uses, and different housing options are embedded into our neighborhoods and within comfortable walking 1 A complete neighborhood should roughly have a ¼ mile radius (5-minute walk), since that is the distance that people are generally willing to walk before opting to drive instead. distance of each other, the city can flourish. But when they are grouped into sectors, miles away from each other and only accessible by car, the city cannot function well.

I say this because we need to think about what each neighborhood is lacking before designating vacant or underutilized lots as “opportunity sites” for housing. 2 This is important to remember, because once land is developed, it stays like that for a very long time. However good an increase in housing supply may be, a neighborhood which contains nothing but housing - or worse: nothing but one master-planned, centrally-managed product - is an incomplete neighborhood. Density without amenity is just car-dependent density. See this great blog post on the 5 Cs of neighborhood planning by urban designer Howard Blackson.

My point: We need to make sure that this Housing Element is actively helping make all of our neighborhoods more complete. And we need to make sure that we aren’t precluding the future “completion” of neighborhoods by planning for every last bit of available land to be filled in with nothing but more housing.

2. Regulating What Matters
As with many other cities, it’s our development standards that are largely responsible for our shortage of housing. Pre-WWII neighborhoods that represent the best of what we’re trying to imitate with our R-1 standards contained a variety of building types, densities, and even uses. What we like about them is that the streets are lined with shade trees, cars move slowly, the buildings are mostly one or two stories and aren’t too wide, they have conspicuous front doors and big front windows, they have porches and small gardens in front that make for comfortable transitions between private and public space, etc. If these (and whatever else we identify as the features that make such places desirable) successfully embody the spirit of what R-1 is intended to be, then these are the things that we should be regulating. And the same principle applies to whichever type of environment we’re trying to achieve - whether we’re talking about R-1-type streets or whatever the subsequent “clicks up” are.3
3 The subsequent “clicks up” shouldn’t be on their own, far away: they should be embedded into the same neighborhoods - or even blocks!
2 This requires a lot-by-lot analysis, but for a simple example - have we identified any land as an “opportunity site” that is in a park-poor neighborhood? (see General Plan Figures OS-R 2 & 3).

But rather than regulating the physical things that matter, we’ve been regulating the abstract things that no one actually cares about. Density caps, minimum lot sizes, and costly parking mandates are three principal zoning culprits that have kept traditional American housing types - those that can deliver good density at multiple scales - out of our city.4 As a result, our neighborhoods are frozen: single-family homes are selling for millions of dollars, and the only other product that gets built are distorted variants of the single-family home - crammed together unnaturally on jointly-owned lots, often turned away from the public realm. But we need to get our development codes right (code the things that we actually care about) so that our “built-out” parts can be liberated to evolve incrementally and organically.

There are many potential housing types that should be embedded into our neighborhoods, but are simply coded out. Missing middle housing traditionally refers to multiplexes that are the general size and shape as houses and therefore integrate seamlessly into R-1-type environments. But there are many other possibilities of types that are larger than missing middle products, but smaller than wraps or podiums, that - if done well - can work just fine in the right parts of each of our neighborhoods. We need to not only allow, but actively facilitate these “small” multi-family, or even mixed-use, infill projects. See here for some examples. We should not be depending on mega-projects to deliver all of our new housing.

Much of what I’m trying to get at is summed up in this line from a great Strong Towns post by Daniel Herriges:

Let single-family homes become duplexes and triplexes. Let small apartment buildings, 8 to 12 units, go up on corner lots. Let mom-and-pop stores and cafes open in these areas to serve growing populations.

Then there are the large parcels in the city - both those still undeveloped and those that are ripe for redevelopment. Historically, large sites have been developed as sealed off pods of a single building type. Monticello - the 20 acre mega-project that turns its back on 3,000 feet of public streets - may have been the first of this type in town, and until recently have been in the form of garden apartments, like these, these, these, these, and these. But this model of development neglects the most fundamental principles of city-making: urban 4 To take the simplest example: currently, how could you build a duplex in R-2? To subdivide your land, each new parcel would need 12,000 square feet and 100 feet of frontage(!) To build on an existing, smaller parcel, you would be allowed one unit per 3,630 square feet of lot area (meaning that you would not be able to build a duplex on a typical 6,000 square foot lot). If your lot has been that size since 1992, however, you can build a duplex - but only if you can fit 5 parking spaces on it. land should be carved into small, walkable blocks, public open spaces, and streets of shared use; buildings should address, and take pedestrian access off those spaces.

These are the characteristics that every desirable urban environment shares. But look what we’re still allowing to happen with Superior Pointe, 17th West, The Enclave, and Miraval.

The edge buildings in the first two at least address and take access off the street (though with questionable frontages), while The Enclave and Mirval have followed in the tradition of walling themselves off from the outside world. Rather than authentic places, these are all homogenous (in so many ways) faux-“communities” - unstitched from the fabric of the surrounding environment, impenetrable by the public, and wholly unable to evolve. You have to leave the whole project if your financial situation changes, if your family grows, or if it’s time for grandma to be closer. We are making static, stagnant projects rather than places - despite how they are branded and marketed. 5 This is largely a matter of getting our codes right, and it should not have to require a colossal effort.

My point: Our existing neighborhoods cannot be frozen and protected from any change. We need to make sure that our code is set up so that the change that does happen is incremental, context-sensitive, and in the right parts of each neighborhood. For the bigger projects, we need to especially make sure we have better subdivision standards. In all contexts, we should be regulating the things we actually care about, so that each project contributes to the aesthetic quality of our “urban commons.”

3. Corridor Visioning
I have heard the idea from the dais that we might want to articulate a vision - or visions - for our corridors, and even regulate them with form-based codes. I want to throw in my support. Like much of Southern California, our grid of corridors is a result of the Public Land Survey System from long before our time. When the functional classification system of highways is applied to this pattern, the result can only be seen as ideal by the most myopic observer. Look what has happened to places like Huntington Beach. We instantly recognize this interpretation of what a street is supposed to be as not good, yet we’ve been allowing the same thing to happen - project-by-project - along what perhaps is our corridor with the most potential: Harbor Blvd. Look at all the new development (for example Blue Sol, Twenty8, Aura, Azulon) and note what they have in common - they don’t want to have 5 580 Anton is a different sort of project, but errs in the same way as many others. The entirety of the ground floor that is adjacent to the public realm - 700 feet of frontage - is dead. A lot of planning energy went into this project, yet the building fails in its most basic role (from an urban design perspective): shape and engage with the public space of the street. In the core of the City of the Arts, we need to do a better job of communicating our belief that beauty actually matters. anything to do with Harbor Blvd. This is understandable, since we’ve allowed Harbor Blvd. to become a high-speed 6+ lane highway (making it a convenient place to drive through, but a very unpleasant place to be). We also - bewilderingly - have been allowing (even more) single-family homes to back right up to the boulevard. Is this consistent with our vision for our corridors? Is the future of Harbor Blvd. a high-speed channel of privacy walls with the backs of low-density, car-dependent housing on either side? The Planning Commission recently reviewed the plans for a new car wash to be built on a commercially-zoned lot on Harbor and Dale. I checked the zoning: 2 stories maximum, 20-foot setback required for both streets, FAR capped at 0.4, etc. It’s no wonder that a car wash is moving in. Each new development betrays the embarrassing fact that we don’t know what we want. We don’t have a vision.

We would be wise to remember Principle no. 19 of the Charter of the New Urbanism (which is worth reading in its entirety): A primary task of all urban architecture and landscape design is the physical definition of streets and public spaces as places of shared use.

The establishing of a form-based code would force us to figure out what the barriers to development are, what the market can support, and what ideal-yet-practical buildout should look, feel, and function like. The development code, then, would be set up to deliver physically-predictable results that are consistent with that vision, and with as little headache as possible each time an application comes in.

My point: Yes to visioning our corridors, yes to code revisions in light of those established visions, yes to form-based zoning if necessary.

4. Open Space
When the countryside is far away, the city becomes a prison. - Christopher Alexander
In Southern California we’ve carpeted the land with low-density, car-dependent sprawl. In our worst suburban pockets, we lack both the benefits of the city and the benefits of the country. A wise response is not to try to freeze growth and long for more rural times. Nor is it to swing the other way and hastily welcome any and all growth. Our best approach is to strategically do what we can to control the shape and character of our city as the market and the State push us to grow (see No. 1, above). This obviously applies at all scales and should permeate all of our discussions about everything planning-related, but what I’m bringing up here is the topic of semi-wild, easily-accessible open space within the city. The concept of “transfer of development rights” (TDR) programs is traditionally applied to cities that want to curb outward sprawl and protect surrounding farmland. It is dependent on the not-ideal system of regulating the abstract concept of density via the DUA metric. While I very much hope that we can stop regulating density through zoning at the parcel level, the DUA caps at the Land Use Plan6level may suffice to make a program like this viable. We have some very large vacant and underutilized parcels in the city, and it would be folly to let them just get paved over without considering whether they (in whole or part) might be opportunities to get more quality open spaces in the city that are easily-accessible to more people. This approach has the added benefit of not requiring that the city purchase the land: the property owner only sells the rights to build a specified number of units to another property owner elsewhere, and maintains ownership of the land - with a newly-recorded easement. I’ve never seen TDR programs set up like this before. But I don’t see why the idea wouldn’t be worth exploring if we are truly interested in rewilding parts of our city and providing more quality open space to more people as we densify.7 Having said that, we also need to recognize the obvious: the topic of urban open spaces and the lack of access to them is a modern, self-inflicted problem. The most common open space is the space between buildings - streets. But since we’ve allowed most of our streets to be monopolized by cars - and therefore unsafe and unpleasant for people outside of vehicles - none of it “counts.” This really is amazing, considering the amount of open space there is in the city and how close it is to all of us! Instead, we provide pockets of turf with plastic play equipment where we can manage, but leave it up to residents to figure out how to navigate to those places safely through a network of disqualified open space that is dominated by fast-moving cars. Whenever we talk about the need for open space, we need to also talk about the need to reconceptualize our streets.

My point: We need more public open space, and we need it more easily-accessible to more people. This topic increases in importance as we increase in population. A TDR program might be one means towards this end, or maybe we have better ideas. Our streets should serve as public open space too, but they cannot fulfill this basic role when driving convenience is treated as the highest good.
7 I am using semi-wild spaces (like Canyon, Talbert, and Fairview Parks) as a gold standard here, but other forms of accessible open space may work well too - especially those that might provide some revenue to the property owner.
6 Using DUA at the Land Use Plan level is fine. It should inform our zoning. But when the metric is being applied parcel-by-parcel through zoning, it is being used inappropriately.

5. Parking & Mobility
In The High Cost of Free Parking, which the American Planning Association published in 2005, I argued that minimum parking requirements subsidize cars, increase traffic congestion, pollute the air, encourage sprawl, increase housing costs, degrade urban design, prevent walkability, damage the economy, and penalize poor people. Since then, to my knowledge, no member of the planning profession has argued that parking requirements do not cause these harmful effects. Instead, a flood of recent research has shown they do cause these harmful effects. Parking requirements in zoning ordinances are poisoning our cities with too much parking. Minimum parking requirements are a fertility drug for cars.
- Donald Shoup
The right to access every building in a city by private motorcar, in an age when everyone owns such a vehicle, is actually the right to destroy the city. - Lewis Mumford
Before we go too deep in our analysis of how much and what sort of housing is possible, we need to figure out what we’re going to do about our costly on-site car storage mandates, AKA parking minimums. Arguments in favor of keeping them can only be from the myopic perspective of the driver who has been accustomed to free and easy parking (and no traffic) wherever they go, despite how unrealistic and unsustainable that expectation may be. Arguments for their reduction or removal include sound logic and big-picture thinking.

As we grow, our dependence on cars needs to weaken, and the comfort and convenience of getting around in more spatially-efficient ways needs to become more viable for more people. Right now, despite our aspirational statements about being a multi-modal city, our codes ensure that driving remains the most convenient option to get around - through the continued use of LOS, high on-site parking requirements, the limitation of FAR and DUA by estimated trip generation, etc.8 As we prepare for this growth spurt, we need to figure out 8 Donald Shoup: Consider the three main elements of city planning. First, divide the city into separate zones (housing here, jobs there, shopping somewhere else) to create travel between the zones. Second, limit density to spread everything apart and further increase travel. Third, require ample off-street parking to spread everything even farther apart and make cars the easiest and cheapest way to travel. Cities have unwisely adopted these three car-friendly policies. Separated land uses, low density, and ample free parking create drivable cities but prevent walkable neighborhoods. Although city planners did not intend to enrich the automobile and oil industries, they have shaped our cities to suit our cars. what we need to do to function and thrive as a car-lite city. If we allow the accommodation of cars to shape (and price) the development of 11,760 units, then this problem will be further entrenched for decades, and we will be marching away from our city and state climate goals. Now is the time to decide that we are going to grow sustainably (both spatially and environmentally), and calibrate our codes around more noble needs like beauty, green and active mobility, and affordable housing.

My point: If we plan for cars and traffic, we’ll get cars and traffic. Right now, despite what we say, we are still very much planning for cars and traffic. The discussion of the future of local housing must be intertwined with the discussion of the future of local access and mobility.

I don’t want any of the above points to be construed as hard-edged propositions. They are not intended as solutions, only ideas in an attempt to move the conversation in what I believe is the right direction. I want to push them to the front of our discourse over the vision of our city, and I hope that they can be on our minds as we continue to work out our future.

Thanks for reading,
Russell Toler
Resources
● Blog Post: Density Done Well
● Publication: Density Done Well
● Book: Soft City
● Missing Middle Housing
● AARP Handbook for Improved Neighborhoods
● Users Guide to Zoning Reform
● Lean Code Tool
● Biophilic Cities
● Residential Infill Project (Portland) (Oregon City)
● Random examples of new “small” infill
From: ASHABI, MINOO
To: "[email protected]"
Cc: ARIOS, JUSTIN; Chen, Nick
Subject: RE: Housing Element Comments
Date: Monday, May 3, 2021 3:00:01 PM
Hello Riley,
Thank you for your interest in the Housing Element Update. We will add your name to the interest list for future email blasts. You could also check the City’s website for periodic updates including two new videos:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/city-hall/city-departments/development-services/planning/housingelement-update Your comment below is noted and will be included in the public comments provided to the City Council.

Minoo Ashabi, AIA
Principal Planner
City of Costa Mesa
714/754-5610
[email protected]
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2021 2:54 PM
To: Housing Element <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Housing Element Comments
Hello,
I have been watching the recorded community meetings on District 4 & 5, and I would like to be included in future meetings or information updates.

I am a home owner and live in the freedom homes in district 5. I am very busy with young children, as are many of my neighbors, and hence I don’t have allot of time for city involvement. However, this housing issue has been a hot topic for the 10+ years I have lived in Costa Mesa. After listening to these meetings, I feel like people like me were not well represented, and I would like to share a few of my own comments. I bought my house in 2015 for $570K. An average lot in my neighborhood is 0.2 acres, so that makes 5 houses per acre. When I heard the State has decided that 30 “housing units” per acre is the only way to have “affordable” housing, my jaw dropped a little. 30 “housing units” per acre is 6X the housing density of my neighborhood. Pause a little and contemplate 6X the density of my neighborhood as the new “norm” & it will make your head spin a little. I am biased like everyone, and I enjoy the lifestyle that a less dense neighborhood provides. I also feel that the majority of my neighbors do as well. I am not excited to think about the entire lower west-side of Costa Mesa be transformed into high density neighborhoods, but I truly feel powerless to fight the state. I would only like to offer my suggestions to this conversation:

1. Consider the parking situation! Please! Do not believe that people bike or walk & don’t have cars, that’s a ridiculous idea. Go to any high density area (like district 4), and you find parking is very hard to find. I love walking & biking around town, but also realize most people do not, and most times biking & walking is not possible (ex: night time…raining…doctors appt… errands…the list goes on & on).

2. We must set a housing “unit” to Park space ratio! If you want to attract families, you must have local park space! No exceptions. And I’m not talking about the little tiny parks they put in those high density neighborhoods with only 1 play structure & no swings or space to run around. Those are not sufficient & should not count towards park space.

3. Please realize these 3 story + rooftops places that are popping up everywhere are selling for MORE money than small houses in my spacious neighborhood. So it is NOT TRUE that high density = less cost.

4. If you really wanted to build affordable houses, you would build a simple house (1 or 2 stories, Asphalt driveway, formica countertops, simple fixes, 1 bathroom, etc…) That is the only really affordable house. All other types are not affordable. And government assistance does not mean affordable. If you need help to pay for something, is it affordable?
Thank you,
Riley Watson
NOTICE: The information contained in this email, and attachment(s) thereto, is confidential and may contain attorney - client privileged citation. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the email from your computer system without retaining any copies.

From: Cash Rutherford
To: Kathy Esfahani; Elizabeth Hansburg P4H
Cc: Chen, Nick; ASHABI, MINOO; Rutherford Cassuis; Dianne Russell Subject: RE: Sharing Willowick proposal
Date: Thursday, February 11, 2021 12:32:27 PM
Attachments: image001.jpg
Thanks to Minoo, Nick and TeamCM for meeting with us on the housing element update. Please do keep Kathy and the CM affordable housing coalition apprised of the process at is unfolds. We are eager to stay engaged.

Kudos to Elizabeth for sharing the info about Willowick – I think there are definitely some lessons learned in how to approach developing FDC.

All the best,
Cash
Cash Rutherford
Field Coordinator, United to End Homelessness
Orange County United Way
18012 Mitchell South, Irvine, CA 92614
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 949.477.4502
Mobile: 951.265.0461
From: Kathy Esfahani <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 11:44 AM
To: Elizabeth Hansburg P4H <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; ASHABI, MINOO <[email protected]>; Cash Rutherford <[email protected]>; Rutherford Cassuis <[email protected]>; Dianne Russell <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Sharing Willowick proposal
Thanks very much, Elizabeth, for sending this. And thanks to Nick, Minoo, and all involved for hosting such a productive and satisfying meeting. We look forward to participating further in the Housing Element Update process.

Kathy
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 3:10 PM Elizabeth Hansburg P4H
<[email protected]> wrote:

To be clear, this is a PROPOSAL, and no decision has been made, but for proof of concept, Willowick is a comparable site in size for FDC. It would be an interesting exercise to analyze how these partners are proposing to use the 90+ acres. The partners are City Ventures and Jamboree Housing.
--
Elizabeth Hansburg
Co-Founder & Executive Director
Image removed by sender.
c. (714) 872-1418
e. [email protected]
Click here to become a member of People for Housing!
© 2018 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA.| 2019159 | 06-28-19

SANTA ANA, CA
Massing Model

WILLOWICK
36 © 2018 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA.| 2019159 | 06-28-19

SANTA ANA, CA

ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN

WILLOWICK

WILLOWICK

4.2 INSPIRATIONAL IMAGERY

RIVERFRONT PARK

COMMUNITY PARK

NEIGHBORHOOD VIBE
3 4
4 5
5 3

WILLOWICK

COMMUNITY

PARTNERS

CONCEPTUAL LAND USE PLAN

WILLOWICK
Summary
Residential
2-Story SFD
2-Story Townhomes
3-Story Townhomes
4-Story M/U Apartments Over Retail*
4-Story M/U Apartments Over Cultural*
Non-Residential
Retail
Rec Center
Community Park
Roads and Misc Open Space
Total
* Includes provision of 423 Affordable Homes in total (25%) PA-1
2-Story Townhomes
± 10.6 Acres

15.2 Homes/Acre
±160 Homes
PA-2
3-Story Triplex
± 5.0 Acres

15.6 Homes/Acre
±80 Homes
PA-3
2-Story SFD
± 7.2 Acres

11.2 Homes/Acre
±80 Homes
PA-4
3-Story Townhomes
± 5.7 Acres

19.2 Homes/Acre
±110 Homes
PA-5
3-Story Townhomes
± 5.7 Acres

24.2 Homes/Acre
±140 Homes
PA-6
Community Park
± 5.1 Acres
PA-7
4-Story M/U Apartments
Over Cultural*
± 4.9 Acres
± 77,000 SF

61.2 Homes/Acre
±300 Homes
PA-8
2-Story SFD
± 5.0 Acres

11.8 Homes/Acre
±60 Homes
PA-9
3-Story Townhomes
± 5.1 Acres

19.2 Homes/Acre
±100 Homes
PA-10
3-Story Townhomes
± 3.5 Acres

24.6 Homes/Acre
±90 Homes
PA-11
4-Story M/U Apartments
Over Retail*
± 5.4 Acres

60.0 Homes/Acre
±320 Homes PA-12
4-Story M/U Apartments
Over Retail*
± 4.1 Acres

60.0 Homes/Acre
±250 Homes
PA-13
Rec Center
± 2.7 Acres
PA-14
Campesino Park
± 6.4 Acres
PA-15
Retail
± 6.6 Acres
± 70,000 SF
PA-16
Riverfront Park
± 16.8 Acres
Acres

62.2 12.2

10.6 25.0

9.5 4.9

61.9 6.6

2.7 32.1

20.5 124.1
± 5,000 SF
± 20,000 SF
Homes
1,390
140
160
520
570
300
1,690
SF
102,000
25,000
77,000
70,000
70,000
172,000
Santa Ana
River
Spurgeon
Intermediate
School
Spurgeon
Park
OC Street Car Alignment
Hazard Ave.
11th St.

W. Washington Ave.
5th St.

W. 7th St.

N. Jackson St. N. Jackson St.

Proposed
OC Street
Car Station

WILLOWICK

COMMUNITY

PARTNERS

PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ANALYSIS

WILLOWICK
Proposed
OC Street
Car Station
Summary
Within Golf Course Boundary
Community Park
Rec Center
Riverfront Park
Linear Park/ Trails
Outside Golf Course Boundary
Campesino Park
Riverfront Park
Total
Net Area (Golf Boundary Area)
Gross Area (Includes Outside Areas)
Community Park
± 5.1 Acres
Linear Park
± 0.38 Acres
Linear Park
± 0.71 Acres
Linear Park
± 0.93 Acres
Linear Park
± 0.59 Acres
Linear Park
± 0.25 Acres
Linear Park
± 0.69 Acres
Linear Park
±0.24 Acres
Rec Center
± 2.7 Acres
Campesino Park
± 6.4 Acres
Riverfront Park
± 3.7 Acres
Riverfront Park
± 13.1 Acres
Acres

15.3 5.1

2.7 3.7

3.8 19.5

6.4 13.1

34.8 101.8
124.1
Percent O.S.

15.1%

5.0%

2.7%

3.6%

3.7%

15.1%

28.0%
Santa Ana
River
Spurgeon
Intermediate
School
Spurgeon
Park
OC Street Car Alignment
Hazard Ave.
11th St.

W. Washington Ave.
5th St.

W. 7th St.

N. Jackson St. N. Jackson St.

From: Brent Stoll
To: Chen, Nick
Subject: SCMW
Date: Friday, March 12, 2021 9:31:04 AM
Something to think about. Most of the council members and some of the planning commissioners have seen versions of this over the years.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/khkj4sk4j5e6qzz/AAAj7go8lWZBJ8804ndhkwcGa?dl=0 From: LE, JENNIFER
To: ASHABI, MINOO; ARIOS, JUSTIN; EMERY, SUSAN
Cc: Chen, Nick
Subject: Update
Date: Friday, January 15, 2021 11:35:49 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Hi—
I had a meeting with Kathy Esfahani today of the Affordable Housing Coalition. They are gearing up to participate in the Housing Element and to launch an outreach effort asking Costa Mesa residents to support some bold policies they will be advocating for. Their outreach focus is on promoting understanding of who affordable housing residents are (workforce housing) and confronting density with visuals of example affordable projects. Although we have a different role than an advocacy group, their messaging is in line with ours in terms of promoting an understanding of density and affordable housing issues. These are both topics for our short videos being developed.

Their top 3 policy asks are:
· Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
·A land use plan for Fairview Development Center that incorporates a master planned housing village of sorts with a mix of densities including rentals and low to mod affordable housing mix including a PSH component. Current cap of 500 units and “golf course” style housing is not their vision. Possibly lobbying the State to put the property in a land trust.
·Amending Measure Y so as not to function as a barrier to housing. ·Not top 3 but other things that are priorities for them: Preserving affordable MH parks and motel conversions and ADUs as a potential part of a solution for affordable housing. Offered to be a facilitator of conversations on motel conversions with Hotel owners who they had a relationship with from past efforts (Mike Lin owner of Travelodge was mentioned).

We already have them on our list I’m sure, but they will be one to include in our stakeholders meeting and possibly a one-on-one meeting in the future as we develop our adequate sites analysis and policy plan.

Jennifer Le
Director of Economic and Development Services
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, 92626
(714) 754-5617
Development Services staff are available to assist you Monday through Thursday, 8AM to 5PM. Please note: Until further notice, Costa Mesa City Hall is closed to the public in keeping with Governor Newsom’s direction regarding COVID-19. The City is committed to continuing to provide essential services and will be providing services to the public online, via telephone, and via email in order to follow the Governor’s guidance and reduce the potential spread of COVID-19.

Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition
March 23, 2021
Mayor John Stephens and City Council Members
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Re: Our Public Comments for the Housing Element Study Session Dear Mayor Stephens and City Council Members:

The Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition (the Coalition) applauds the extensive outreach efforts of city planning staff and the consultant in attempting to involve the community in the 2021-2029 Housing Element update. The Coalition has been glad to participate in many of these efforts and we appreciate the open minds and skillful listening displayed on the part of the city’s agents.

Given the huge RHNA numbers assigned to Costa Mesa in the new planning period, and our community’s desperate need for affordable housing, we urge the city to adopt in its Housing Element Update bold policies aimed at ensuring affordable housing actually gets built here. These are our major policy suggestions:

1. Adopt a highly effective inclusionary housing ordinance. The affordability requirement must hit the sweet spot: It should be high enough that it will help the city meet its RHNA numbers for low and very low income households, but not too high as to discourage development. We believe an excellent model is the inclusionary ordinance which works so well in Irvine. We note it is imperative the ordinance’s in lieu fee is high enough to encourage developers to include affordable units in their project, rather than opt for paying the fee.

2. Amend Measure Y so it does not constrain the building of affordable housing.

Additionally, we urge the city to interpret Measure Y as written as exempting from the “voter approval” requirement all developments which make at least 20% of their units affordable to low and very low income households.

3. Create a specific plan for the 100-acre Fairview Developmental Center site. The plan should allow densities of at least 60 units to the acre, with at least 20 percent of all units affordable to low and very low income households. Also, lobby the Governor’s office to

get the state to either donate the property to the city for affordable housing development or sell the property at a discount to nonprofit developers for that purpose.

4. Create new overlay zones along major thoroughfares like Harbor Blvd. where mixed use development can replace failing strip malls with vibrant new communities of apartments, restaurants and small businesses, incorporating walking and bike trails. These overlays should require at least 20% of the housing to be affordable for low and very low income households.

5. Review and amend all specific plans and overlays in the city to include increased densities of 60 units/acre and a requirement of at least 20% affordable units.

6. Create a housing trust fund to hold the in-lieu fees generated by our new inclusionary ordinance, and prioritize in-lieu fees for use at the Fairview Developmental Center site/cityowned sites/affordable housing in overlay zones.

7. Create a land trust to hold donated land.

Thank you for considering our input on this crucial planning document. We look forward to partnering with you to increase affordable housing in Costa Mesa. Please let us know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Kathy Esfahani
Kathy Esfahani, on behalf of the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition cc: Mayor John Stephens and City Council Members
Cesar Covarrubias, Kennedy Commission
Richard Walker, Public Law Center
August 3, 2020
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Dr
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Dear City of Costa Mesa:

The Kennedy Commission (the Commission), a broad-based coalition of residents and community organizations, advocates for the production of homes affordable for families earning less than $20,000 annually in Orange County. Formed in 2001, the Commission has successfully partnered and worked with Orange County jurisdictions to create effective housing and land-use policies that have led to the new construction of homes affordable to lower-income working families.

As you are aware, Housing Elements for the 6th cycle planning period (2021-29) are due to the California Department of Housing and Community Development by October 2021. The Commission understands the importance of each city’s Housing Element in guiding housing programs, policies, zoning, and funding, as well as in reducing current obstacles to affordable housing development. We also understand the importance of Housing Elements in addressing racial equity in housing, particularly with the new statutory requirements mandating the inclusion of programs that affirmatively further fair housing in 6th cycle Housing Elements.1 Our work focuses on ensuring that each jurisdiction increases affordable housing opportunities by implementing proven strategies, policies, and incentives that encourage affordable housing development.

Further, the Commission seeks to ensure that jurisdictions engage the public in revising their Housing Elements. Public engagement is a necessary component of the Housing Element process as California Housing Element law states: “The local government shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element...” Broad participation and true engagement of the public increases the likelihood that the community members involved in the discussion and planning processes will support new housing strategies and housing developments. Public engagementshould include participation from residents of diverse communities, housing consumers, service providers, and advocates.

As the City embarks upon the 2021-29 Housing Element update, the Commission requests that the City include us in the upcoming Housing Element review and evaluation of the current 5th cycle planning period goals, policies, and accomplishments. The Commission further requests that the City conduct a robust public participation process for the 6th cycle Housing Element update and that it incorporate the Commission, affordable housing advocates, and residents of low-income communities in this process. We believe that you will achieve a stronger Housing Element update through diverse community participation, outreach, and community planning process.

To ensure adequate public participation the Commission recommends the following:
1 California Government Code § 8899.50 (Assembly Bill 686). www.kennedycommission.org
17701 Cowan Ave., Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
949 250 0909
Housing Element Update Recommendations
July 30, 2020July 30, 202030, 2020y 30, 2020

1. The City should engage community participation and feedback at all stages of the Housing Element review and update. Participation should not be limited to public hearings.

2. The City should allow for various methods of engagement to encourage public participation. For instance, for members of the public who may not have access to the internet or a computer, or who are unable to use video applications, consistently provide an adequate telephone option – available in multiple languages – and generally ensure that members of the community who lack adequate technology can participate in meetings about the Housing Element review.

3. The City’s public participation and outreach opportunities should be meaningful and create various platforms (for example, virtual, written, workshops, webinars, community meetings, and public hearings) for the engagement of community members who reside in lower-income communities, affordable housing partners, Legal Aid organizations, and advocates.

4. The City should create a diverse Housing Element Working Group to evaluate the current Housing Element policies and accomplishments. This Working Group could help create policies and recommendations for the new Housing Element update to ensure that you meet the housing needs of those who are most vulnerable in the City.

5. The City should include The Commission in any anticipated Housing Element Working Group and provide the opportunity for the Commission to provide its analysis on 5th cycle RHNA progress and be a part of developing policy recommendations on the 6th cycle update.

6. The City should engage community organizations representing and advocating for families and individuals residing in lower-income communities to ensure that members of these communities can directly participate and that the City considers their perspective as part of the evaluation and creation of policies that create affordable housing.

We would appreciate the City giving us notice of any public meetings regarding the Housing Element. We look forward to working with the City of Costa Mesa to encourage effective housing policies that will help create balanced housing development and create much-needed affordable housing in our local communities. If you have any questions, please free to contact me at (949) 250-0909 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Cesar Covarrubias
Executive Director
Working for systemic change resulting in the production of homes affordable to Orange County’s extremely low-income households

Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition
January 26, 2021
Jennifer Le, Director of Economic and Development Services City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Re: Working Together on Policies and Programs for the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Dear Jennifer,
It was so nice to “meet” you in our recent Zoom call. As I mentioned then, the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition looks forward to discussing with you, your staff and the consultant the programs and policies Costa Mesa should include in its 2021-2029 Housing Element Update to address the City’s housing affordability crisis. We are eager to work with you to help the City meet its steep RHNA challenge.

This letter is advance notice of some of our “big ideas” for the Housing Element Update, to frame our upcoming discussion. We have many other ideas to share, but will save those for another time.

Our overall goal for this Housing Element Update is that it will reflect the City’s commitment to prioritize and facilitate the development of rental homes affordable to lower income working families. Market rate (and above) housing has never needed much encouragement to flourish in Costa Mesa. Lower income housing, on the other hand, needs determined support from the City to ensure its development here. We suggest three key strategies for the City to pursue in that regard:

1. Reimagine the 100-acre Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) site as a master planned “housing village” which will provide housing for a broad spectrum of Costa Mesa residents at affordability levels from extremely low income through moderate income; advocate with state officials for donation of the entire 100-acre site for that purpose; take concrete steps at the local level to advance that policy.

2. Adopt a city-wide Inclusionary Housing Ordinance which requires a minimum of 15% of new housing development to be affordable to lower income households.

3. Identify Measure Y as a constraint in the production of housing affordable to lower income households and take steps to amend Measure Y so it no longer constrains that production.

More detailed discussion of the three key strategies:

1. Create a “housing village” on the Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) site 1 1 The current General Plan permits up to 582 residential units on FDC, with a mix of 250 single family units (6 du/ac on a minimum of 50 acres) and 332 multiple family units (40 du/ac).

a. The City should reimagine the FDC site as a housing “village” which meets the housing needs of multiple segments of the community by providing rental housing at different income levels, from extremely low through moderate. The village should offer housing for young families just starting out as well as for lower income families with multiple children in need of larger (three- and four-bedroom) apartments; permanent supportive housing for the developmentally disabled community; veterans housing; and mixed-use housing which will allow village residents to work and shop in ground level retail and offices within the village, which itself incorporates generous parks and open space.
b. The City should commit to an intense lobbying campaign to convince Governor Newsom and the Department of General Services to donate the entire 100-acre site into the City’s (not yet established) affordable housing land trust for the purpose of facilitating the development of a substantial amount of the affordable housing required by the City’s large RHNA allocation.
c. The City should identify the entire FDC site as an opportunity site for lower and moderate income housing. The City should change the site’s current land use designation in the General Plan and its zoning to allow the site to be developed as a master planned “housing village” (described above), including allowable densities of 30-60 units to the acre and mixed-use housing.
d. The City should include a policy in the Housing Element Update to ensure affordable housing gets built at the FDC site, and a policy that requires the issuance of RFP’s for affordable housing at the site.

2. Adopt a highly effective Inclusionary Housing Ordinance containing the following elements:
a. A minimum of 15% of all new housing development will be set aside for extremely low, very low and low income levels.
b. The ordinance should include the following options for meeting the affordable housing requirement: build affordable units on-site or off-site; donate land into the City’s affordable housing land trust; pay an in-lieu fee (fee range $10-$20/sf or $10K to $20K per unit).
c. Create a housing trust fund to hold the in-lieu fees and create a land trust to hold donated land.
d. Prioritize in-lieu fees for use at FDC site/ city-owned sites/affordable housing in overlay zones.

3. Amend Measure Y so it is no longer a barrier to meeting the city’s RHNA requirement for lower income housing.

a. The Housing Element Update should identify Measure Y as a constraint in producing affordable housing.
b. The Housing Element Update should include as a program that the City will take steps to amend Measure Y so it is no longer a barrier to meeting the RHNA requirement for extremely low, very low, and low income housing.

We look forward to partnering with you to increase affordable housing in the City and discussing these ideas at a meeting with you soon. Please let me know some available dates and I’ll coordinate with members of our Coalition. Thank you!
Sincerely,
Kathy Esfahani
Kathy Esfahani, on behalf of the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition cc: Mayor Katrina Foley and City Council Members
Planning Commission Members
Cesar Covarrubias, Kennedy Commission
Richard Walker, Public Law Center
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 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
From: REYNOLDS, ARLIS
To: LE, JENNIFER; Chen, Nick; ASHABI, MINOO
Subject: Notes on draft HEA
Date: Thursday, August 12, 2021 10:23:46 AM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important All,
I spent about an hour skimming through the draft HEA and keeping these notes on the side. I certainly do not expect you to address every note. I’m sharing these for perspective and to share reactions from this westside reader . I highlighted what I think would be the most relevant comments that we may be able to address in an revised draft.

I’ll try to get to the rest tonight!
Cover page – as I mentioned on the call, my first reaction was that these images do not reflect the diversity we want to honor and protect; the image strikes at the common westside sentiment of “the city” wanting to replace us with they often referred to as “high quality families”. It may seem trivial, but the sentiment is real and we want people to feel welcome right away.

Can we put our new mission statement up front in the document? Can we add a table of contents?

this page:

Public Review Period
Instructions / opportunities to give feedback – e.g., email XXX; survey on website, etc. ; date of planning/council meeting

diversity of existing housing stock to remind ourselves that we have a pretty big range of housing types already!

Add the year range at the end of the paragraph – “over the eight-year planning cycle (2021-2019).”
Consider adding a statement that clarifies what the HE is and is not…. It is a planning document to show opportunities for housing development; it is NOT a housing plan in the sense that the city dictates construction. (I’m sure there is better language for this!)

Not sure if we anticipate any substantive changes from 2010.

Seems to be a typo in the second principle
I thought we had a principle that touched on protecting/maintaining homes of existing residents or minimizing displacement… can we say something about that here, or minimizing impacts on existing residents? It’s valuable to acknowledge that we are consciously trying to not create a plan that targets development/overhaul of specific neighborhoods.

If appropriate, it would be great to state upfront here our recognition of the existing diversity in housing stock and our recognition that this plan requires similar diversity/variety in housing solutions
CH 2 – community profile
Table 2-8
What is the order here? Should these be in order from highest to lowest? All but one job in this list is below the OC median income – is that accurate? I get that a family with two working adults will be above $103… but my goodness!!!
source says American Community Survey. Are these numbers specific to Costa Mesa?

to have definitions somewhere.

Table 2-9 – could we add a table note describing what “non-family household” includes? It sounds bad at first glance (no family!) I think includes senior living alone or young professionals alone or as roommates… totally normal!

describing housing burden and “ideal” ratio of income to rent/mortgage; and state that high housing burden reduces residents’ ability to spend in the local economy and make educational investments for example. (I see now the section on page 2-15.. but still think we can add something about why a community should care that some people are overburdened)
Figure 2-5 --- can we connect this somehow with the data in Table 2-8? E.g., with each income category, give an example of the type of job? I want to make sure we recognize the value lower income jobs have in community

households have at least one of the four housing problems.” Consider putting this in bold or a call-out box.

Table 2-20 – what is the definition of poverty, relative to the income levels?

good to include a statement on this. My takeaway is that Costa Mesa’s low vacancy rate (lower than average in OC) reflects high demand for living in the city and low housing stock available to meet that demand. If I’m right, this is an important takeaway

(yikes!) and 75% is at least 40 years old (yikes, yikes!). What does that mean for HE? Potential unsafe conditions? Need for new housing to replace old housing? Opportunity to add housing units with necessary rehabilitation?

Table 2-35 – this tells me that Moderate income families cannot afford to purchase a home in Costa Mesa, and most low income families cannot afford to rent either. Is that right? Can we say something somewhere to acknowledge these are not the ingredients for a healthy community?

burden on Costa Mesa families. We should include also:

46.5 percent of Costa Mesa households have at least one of the four housing problems.

Something on the low vacancy rate
Something about affordability
I didn’t see much about children/families with children – not sure what we can add here or what the data says, but I know that HOAG as found in its recent community analyses that housing stability is one of the top three health challenges in the community.

CH 3 -
Archived: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 9:12:10 PM
From: ASHABI, MINOO
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 4:18:40 PM
To: ARIOS, JUSTIN
Subject: FW: Feedback for City of Costa Mesa
Response requested: No
Sensitivity: Normal
Please add his name to the list and respond with the usual verbiage. Thank you.

From: AZAD, ARZO
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 8:19 AM
To: ASHABI, MINOO <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Feedback for City of Costa Mesa
Minoo, please see email below…
Arzo Azad
Website Coordinator
City Manager’s Office
(714) 754-5340
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 4:25 PM
To: AZAD, ARZO <[email protected]>
Subject: Feedback for City of Costa Mesa
You have received this feedback from Herme Gonzalez < [email protected] > for the following page:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/city-hall/city-departments/development-services/planning/housing-element-update To whom it may concern, I feel as though the city needs to do something about the cars that are parked with no movement on the street. Parking is an ongoing issue and with less cars on the street better. PARKING GARAGES would be ideal in every few blocks to help with this. Thank you.

Archived: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 9:12:24 PM
From: Fred Arnold
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 2:57:29 PM
To: Housing Element
Subject: Housing Element Team update
Sensitivity: Normal
Attn: Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner
I have been attempting To review and understand the new State and City requirements as it relates to Costa Mesa. With all due respect, I feel it is akin to theoretical science fiction. It is difficult to break it down to simple terms such as; high density impact. When traffic, waste removal, fire and flood emergencies etc. are factored in it runs into funding. I can't follow the money because there is none. Costa Mesa is broke.

Orange County is broke. The State is broke and looking to the Feds for a bail-out. I see grants are mentioned but from who. More taxes? Please say it isn't so!
We will be watching. We're long term residents of Eastside Costa Mesa and care about the future of our home. Good luck.

Sincerely, Fred and Karen Arnold
Archived: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 9:12:32 PM
From: Russell Toler
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 9:01:16 PM
To: Housing Element
Cc: CITY COUNCIL; HARLAN, JEFFREY; PERKINS, MARC; TOURJE, JENNA; ZICH, JON; COLBERT, KEDARIOUS; DEARAKAL, BYRON;

RUSSELL, DIANNE
Subject: Housing Element comments
Sensitivity: Normal
Hello,
I wanted to provide some comments on the Housing Element update.

There is a full range of historic housing types in between the single family home and the big ugly apartment complex. The “Missing Middle Housing” types – duplexes, quadplexes, rowhouses, and other small multi-family buildings – with good development standards, can all fit well within whatever shades of neighborhood character we’re hoping to create or preserve, including our R-1 neighborhoods. Without assaulting the cherished feel of our surroundings, these can help us increase the amount of housing, while also allowing neighborhoods to accommodate people of all ages, incomes, and family sizes (so that families can stay close and people can age in place, among other benefits). I hope that through this update, we focus not just on big projects on big sites, but on facilitating organic and stable neighborhood growth from local, small developers through many small projects. A big reason this sort of incremental development often doesn’t pencil out because of parking requirements, which brings me to my next point: cars.

As we grow, we need to figure out how to become less of a car-depended and car-oriented city, otherwise the NIMBYs are right – we’ll be a tangled mess of traffic, which no one wants. So to what extent is this new document going to deal with the question of how to uncouple housing from the car demand (or toll) that unnecessarily comes with it? As we try to accommodate 11,000 units over the next 10 years, what are we doing to ensure that owning a car and is optional rather than virtually required?
Lastly, I hope that the discussion over housing and the resulting decisions we make reflect some sort of unified vision for how we want to grow. While it may be necessary to balance out our spreadsheets and zone for the necessary amount of units, it is crucial that this is all decided within the context of how we want our city to look, feel, and function. How will the occupants of the new housing get around? How will the developments fit into the existing urban fabric and contribute to the neighborhood they’re in? How will the new buildings relate to and shape the public space they sit on? We don’t want islands of amenity-rich high-density housing fortressed in from bleak rights of way and full of people who never leave the property without a car (if you want to know what I’m describing, drive up Jamboree in Irvine some time). The sustainable, equitable, fair, and good way to approach this is not to resist growth, but to plan for it, so that as we inevitably grow, we grow well. I hope that we can approach our housing need holistically, taking more into consideration than where we can allow the spaceship developments to land, and nesting the whole conversation into a greater discussion about what our physical vision is for our city.

Thank you for reading. I look forward to participating in this process.

Russell Toler (lifelong Costa Mesa resident, husband, father, car driver, bike rider, walker, and renter, who can barely afford to stay) Archived: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 9:12:40 PM
From: ASHABI, MINOO
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 4:10:53 PM
To: Steven C. Shepherd, Architect
Cc: ARIOS, JUSTIN; LE, JENNIFER
Subject: Re: Thank You for last night's workshop! I have a question Sensitivity: Normal
Hi Steven,
Thank you for your participation; we look forward to your continued input and other events for community engagement. Here are the responses to your questions. I hope you find these responses helpful, but feel free to reach out if you have further questions.

We will also include these questions as well as others presented last night on the general Q & A document we are preparing and post it on the webpage.

1. While I understand where RHNA numbers and allotments come from, how does the city actually demonstrate compliance? The City will need to adopt policies and programs that allow for development of housing at various locations and densities that in entirety address the allocated RHNA. The City is only required to change the general plan and zoning designations that would accommodate the growth but is not accountable for construction of the units. This effort will follow adoption of the Housing Element through a series of general plan amendments and zone changes (all subject to approval by City Council and potentially subject to Measure Y). The City is also required to submit an annual progress report to HCD (Dept. of Housing and Community Development) on development of housing during each year of the housing element cycle.

2. Is compliance based on identifiable land-use densities? yes, please see above

3. Since ADU's & Jr ADU are now allowed based on State law, how does that impact RHNA compliance? HCD allows the City to count ADUs and JADUs toward RHNA but up to a percentage (latest information is 5 times the number of approved ADUs since 2018)

4. If property currently designated as single-family residential was allowed "by-right" to convert a single-family residence into a duplex or triplex, how would that impact RHNA compliance?
Same as above, the City can only account for a certain percentage of construction or conversion related to ADUs based on past trends. We distinguish ADUs and JADUs as a second unit subordinate to the main house and subject to certain requirements (max. size, etc.), although triplex and duplexes could be the same size.

Development Services staff are available to assist you Monday through Thursday, 8AM to 5PM. Until further notice, Costa Mesa City Hall is closed to the public in keeping with Governor Newsom’s direction regarding COVID-19. The City is committed to continuing to provide essential services and will be providing services to the public online, via telephone, and via email in order to follow the Governor’s guidance and reduce the potential spread of COVID-19.

Thank you!
Minoo Ashabi
Principal Planner | (714) 754-5610
Development Services Department
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626
From: Steven C. Shepherd, Architect <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 1:24 PM
To: Housing Element
Subject: Thank You for last night's workshop! I have a question Hello and Thank you for your very informative presentation/workshop last night! I learned a lot and really appreciated hearing the statements of residents.

I have a couple of very basic questions:

1. While I understand where RHNA numbers and allotments come from, how does the city actually demonstrate compliance?

2. Is compliance based on identifiable land-use densities?

3. Since ADU's & Jr ADU are now allowed based on State law, how does that impact RHNA compliance?

4. If property currently designated as single-family residential was allowed "by-right" to convert a single-family residence into a duplex or triplex, how would that impact RHNA compliance?
Sorry to ask such foundational questions, but I am trying to educate myself and have never really been involved these types of issues.

Thank you.
--
Regards,
Steven C. Shepherd, Architect
P: 714 785 9404
www.ShepherdArchitects.com
Archived: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 9:12:50 PM
From: Nancy Henning
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:46:06 PM
To: Housing Element
Subject: 2013-2020 and 2021-2019 Costa Mesa Housing Element Plan Sensitivity: Normal
I have a few questions re the 2013-2020 plan. I recently viewed it online due to some changes where I live...at Casa Bella Apartments... and am wondering if you have any recent info about the status of Casa Bella that you are allowed to share with residents. Possibly you can direct this email to the appropriate person if someone else handles these types of inquiries.

For your convenience, I copied the sections from your plan that I'm interested in below in this email. In November 2020, Casa Bella totally changed property mgt companies which included a new manager. So far communications have not been great possibly because the new mgr was solely part time to begin and full time beginning this week. He is still getting organized. So far it seems the new company knows very little about Casa Bella and Hud though I could be wrong.

Several residents are worried including myself. We are worried that Casa Bella might be in the process of converting to market rates soon? Based on your 2013- 2020 plan, it seems likely that the for profit owner might wish to convert to market rates. But your plan also mentioned that the residents of Casa Bella would be given a year's notice and also be given Section 8 vouchers (see below). I'm not sure if that is what the City of Costa Mesa just wishes in order to help us or if it is mandatory for the owner to provide the year's notice as well as vouchers??? Also, if we are given Section 8 vouchers, can we use them anywhere in Orange Co or even anywhere in CA or out of state? I realize that most likely the new mgt company will be notifying us eventually. Some of us are just wanting to get prepared ahead if this is the case...that Casa Bella converts to market rates possibly in 2021?
Thank you so much for any information you can provide,
Nancy Henning
See sections below if helpful...copied from your 2013-2021 plan...

At Risk Status
Twenty-five properties with 156 affordable units have density bonus agreements that were executed mostly in the late 1990s. These agreements are expiring between 2018 and 2020. Among these units, 85 units are for very low income and 71 are for low-moderate income.

Another property, Casa Bella, is at risk of converting to market-rate housing or losing their low income subsidies within the next ten years. At Casa Bella, a total of 75 units are “at-risk” of converting to market rate rents over the next ten-year period. Specifically, Section 8 contract at Casa Bella is set to expire on September 11, 2015. Casa Bella is considered the highest priority, due to the owner being a for-profit entity. However, the City imposed a land use restriction on Casa Bella in exchange for the initial land write down, density increases, parking reductions and participation in HUD financing. The land use restrictions require Casa Bella to remain affordable for the length of the mortgage, 40 years.

In other words, Casa Bella is not “at-risk” of converting to market rate through a mortgage prepayment. The risk with Casa Bella converting to market rate is associated with the termination of a tenant-based Section 8 contract.

8. Preservation of At-Risk Housing
Overall, 231 housing units in the City of Costa Mesa are considered at risk of converting to market-rate housing. Specifically 25 projects with 156 affordable units are at risk due to the expiring density bonus agreements executed during the 1990s.

Another project – 75-unit Casa Bella – is at risk due to the potential expiration of its Section 8 contract.
2013-2021 Objectives: Monitor at-risk status of affordable units. For Casa Bella, work with HUD and the property owner to extend the Section 8 rent subsidy contract. Notify tenants of potential risk of conversion at least one year prior to conversion. Provide information regarding HUD’s special vouchers set aside for households losing project-based Section 8 assistance (applicable to Casa Bella only). Work with property owners to pursue State and federal funds for preserving at-risk housing.

Archived: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 9:12:59 PM
From: James Gerrard
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 10:16:03 AM
To: Housing Element
Subject: Housing Element Updates
Sensitivity: Normal
Hello,
I hope this email finds you well.

My name is James Gerrard, and I am the Government Relations Coordinator for Habitat OC.

Please add me to your housing element notification list. Habitat OC currently has 11 families living in Costa Mesa and as a community and county stakeholder we would like to stay update to on our local housing elements. Our mission is to create a world where everyone had a decent place to live, so we believe it is important to ensure a voice for affordable housing and especially affordable homeownership.

Thank you for your time and look forward to participating in your housing element process.

All the best,
James Gerrard
Government Relations Coordinator | Habitat for Humanity of Orange County P.O. Box 15821 | Santa Ana, CA 92735 | www .HabitatOC.org Office: (714)434-6200 ext. 250 | [email protected]
Facebook: /HabitatOC | Twitter: @HabitatOC | Instagram: @HabitatOC | Shop the Habitat ReStores | Learn about homeownership The Habitat for Humanity of Orange County team is working remotely while managing normal operations. Along with the health and well-being of our staff, our top priority is to continue to serve families and community partners in the safest and most effective way possible.

Archived: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 9:13:42 PM
From: ASHABI, MINOO
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 11:13:07 AM
To: ARIOS, JUSTIN
Subject: Fw: Senior Housing Waitlist
Sensitivity: Normal
From: Carol Buchanan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 9:13 AM
To: ASHABI, MINOO
Subject: Senior Housing Waitlist
Good Morning,
I am concern that I may miss the option to apply for affordable senior housing when it comes available. So, I would love to be put on a future senior housing list to be advised when I could move in. I do not want to miss this opportunity.

I read the information sent out and it was disturbing that the last words, where the study does not guarantee anything will be done.

I am seeing donut shop (which we do not need) going in and senior housing only be spoken about for a maybe option. Right now, what is available in Costa Mesa is whatever the market can squeeze out of you.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Sincerely,
Carol Buchanan

ARIOS, JUSTIN
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 2:54 PM
To: Housing Element
Subject: Fwd: Housing Element Comments
Hello,
I have been watching the recorded community meetings on District 4 & 5, and I would like to be included in future meetings or information updates.

I am a home owner and live in the freedom homes in district 5. I am very busy with young children, as are many of my neighbors, and hence I don’t have allot of time for city involvement. However, this housing issue has been a hot topic for the 10+ years I have lived in Costa Mesa. After listening to these meetings, I feel like people like me were not well represented, and I would like to share a few of my own comments. I bought my house in 2015 for $570K. An average lot in my neighborhood is 0.2 acres, so that makes 5 houses per acre. When I heard the State has decided that 30 “housing units” per acre is the only way to have “affordable” housing, my jaw dropped a little. 30 “housing units” per acre is 6X the housing density of my neighborhood. Pause a little and contemplate 6X the density of my neighborhood as the new “norm” & it will make your head spin a little. I am biased like everyone, and I enjoy the lifestyle that a less dense neighborhood provides. I also feel that the majority of my neighbors do as well. I am not excited to think about the entire lower west-side of Costa Mesa be transformed into high density neighborhoods, but I truly feel powerless to fight the state. I would only like to offer my suggestions to this conversation:

1. Consider the parking situation! Please! Do not believe that people bike or walk & don’t have cars, that’s a ridiculous idea. Go to any high density area (like district 4), and you find parking is very hard to find. I love walking & biking around town, but also realize most people do not, and most times biking & walking is not possible (ex: night time…raining…doctors appt…errands…the list goes on & on).

2. We must set a housing “unit” to Park space ratio! If you want to attract families, you must have local park space! No exceptions. And I’m not talking about the little tiny parks they put in those high density neighborhoods with only 1 play structure & no swings or space to run around. Those are not sufficient & should not count towards park space.

3. Please realize these 3 story + rooftops places that are popping up everywhere are selling for MORE money than small houses in my spacious neighborhood. So it is NOT TRUE that high density = less cost.

4. If you really wanted to build affordable houses, you would build a simple house (1 or 2 stories, Asphalt driveway, formica countertops, simple fixes, 1 bathroom, etc…) That is the only really affordable house. All other types are not affordable. And government assistance does not mean affordable. If you need help to pay for something, is it affordable? Thank you,
Riley Watson
NOTICE: The information contained in this email, and attachment(s) thereto, is confidential and may contain attorney - client privileged citation. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the email from your computer system without retaining any copies.

ARIOS, JUSTIN
From: TONY DOUGHER <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 10:31 AM
To: Housing Element
Subject: Costa Mesa Mobile Home Coalition
Good Morning Mr. Ashabi,
My name is Michael Dougher, I am a Commissioner on the Mobile Home Advisory Committee and President of the Costa Mesa Mobile Home Coalition.

I have been in contact with Willa Killeen as it pertains to our concerns over the rulings and subsequent planning of 11,000 plus, new dwellings to be built in the next 8 years here in the City and She directed me towards you, the council and the planning commission. We as owners of mobile homes and as rent payers, are more than a little bit terrified about the ramifications that this ruling might have on our lives. As you know a lot of the parks in this city are senior parks where people on very fixed incomes reside. That said, the affordability of owning a mobile home and paying what is now and has been for decades very reasonable rates to lease the land our homes sit on, has afforded the luxury to continue to be able to live here in this beautiful place. The prospect of having our homes torn out from under us at the hands of the City and or faceless Corporate Developers is, as I said, simply terrifying. The Mobile Home Coalition has attended Council meetings; we have submitted Overlay and Zoning proposals and have heard nothing back in at least a year. The Advisory Committee has not met even via ZOOM in a year or more. We understand lockdowns,regulations and restrictions on the already slow wheels of government have practically ground it to a halt.

That does not mean however, that we can just leave the most vulnerable among us waving in the breeze as low hanging fruit for developers to pick off without any protections in place.

You need an angel on the affordable housing issue to help with the requirements of the ruling RIGHT? Well here you go Most people who live in MH Parks fall into the low income category, The dwellings are already in place and there are hundreds of them already occupied. It is my hope that you can guide me to the help we need to address this as soon as possible. We need a meeting Sir. I implore you to contact me and get this ball rolling. I believe we can work out a WIN! WIN! for all parties involved.

Yours Respectfully:

Michael Dougher. SP #14
Playport Mobile Village
President: HOA Playport Mobile Village
President: CMMC
Commissioner CMMHAB
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

SECRETARY
Merri Lopez-Keifer
Luiseño

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk

COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache

COMMISSIONER
Julie TumamaitStenslie
Chumash

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment

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,
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.

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.

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.

ARIOS, JUSTIN
From: LE, JENNIFER
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 11:31 AM
To: Chen, Nick; ARIOS, JUSTIN
Subject: FW: CM - Revised densities for candidate sites (545-575) Anton Attachments: Revised densities for candidates sites (545 575) Anton Blvd.pdf From: George Sakioka [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 11:30 AM
To: ASHABI, MINOO <[email protected]>
Cc: LE, JENNIFER <[email protected]>
Subject: CM - Revised densities for candidate sites (545-575) Anton Hi Minoo,
Here are our comments for the “revised density for candidate sites” – attachment 2 on the Agenda for 9/13/2021. (see attachment)
These comments are in addition to our previous email comments to the initial draft.

Unique ID sites:

Site 206
 size = 0.75 acres
 typo = “Small commercial out parcel uses.”
Site 207
 address = N/A , it is a surface parking lot, not the 575 Anton Building itself.  notes = surface parking lot
Thanks and I’m happy to discuss in more detail.

George
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.

ARIOS, JUSTIN
From: ASHABI, MINOO
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 11:31 AM
To: ARIOS, JUSTIN; Chen, Nick
Subject: FW: CM- Housing Site Analysis- comments
From: George Sakioka <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 11:28 AM
To: ASHABI, MINOO <[email protected]>
Cc: LE, JENNIFER <[email protected]>
Subject: CM- Housing Site Analysis- comments
Hi Minoo,
Here are our initial comments/clarifications on the DRAFT Housing Element before the “revised densities” for the 9/13/21 agenda.
(I will send comments on the “revised densities” in a separate email.) Attached is the CM Housing Element Update - Appendix B site analysis - highlighted with notes for the Sakioka parcels.

Please refer to the PDF pages of the attached Appendix B Site Analysis for comments/clarifications:
· PDF - Page 11
o Sakioka Lot 2 = 30.93 acres
· PDF - Page 23
o Site 142 = Roy K. Sakioka & Sons (owner) and 30.93 acres o Site 144 = address is N/A since it is a surface parking lot only. Remove 24/hr Fitness in the Notes section.
· PDF - Page 25
o Site 206 = .75 acres
· PDF - Page 26
o Site 207 = address is N/A since it is a surface parking lot only. o Notes = surface parking lot only
I have also included the following attached documents for your reference. · CM Plat Map Sakioka Lot 2
· CM Plat Map 545 Anton, Parking Lot & Lot 3
1 Thank you and I’m happy to discuss any of our comments.

George
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.
2 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.

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.

DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-10
requirement. The likelihood of redevelopment was based primarily on common ownership amongst adjacent parcels which share a property line. In most instances, these parcels are currently developed as a single use and it is reasonable to anticipate that the collection of parcels will redevelop as one new development to maximize efficiency and design of the new use.

The potential candidate sites which are anticipated to be consolidated into a single development are identified within Table B-3.

4. Development of Large Site Parcels
The 2021-2029 sites inventory includes several sitesthat are larger than 10 acres. These sites exceed the AB1397 size requirement and require additional analysis. The following background and analysis relates to each site in the inventory that exceeds that inventory. The City has conducted meetings witheach of these major property owners to determine their future interest in developing housing on the identified properties.

FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER
The Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) is a State-owned property that is approximately 114 acres in size and located on Harbor Boulevard within Costa Mesa. The FDC currently serves as one of the largest residential facilities for developmentally disabled persons in the State of California. The FDC was previously identified in the City’s 5th cycle Housing Element (2013-2021) and the City has continued discussions with the State to determine the potential residential yield of the area taking into consideration the existing uses.

In January 2020, the Costa Mesa Fairview Developmental Center Ad Hoc Committee met to discuss potential development yields for the site. The Committee presented a report to the City Council which summarized its strategic engagement in the development of the local vision, priorities, and reasoning behind the stated preliminary vision of a solutions-based, housing-first model for the site. The Committee took into consideration the City’s recent efforts to open a homeless shelter and identified opportunities for permanent supportive housing and integrated workforce housing within the City.

The City’s 6th Cycle analysis includes an assumption of 2,300 dwelling units broken down into the very low, low, moderate, and above moderate-income categories.

SAKIOKA LOT 2
Sakioka Lot 2 is a 33-acre site located north of the 405 Freeway with General Plan Land Use designation that allows up to 660 residential units, 863,000 Square feet of office or retail use and a Floor Area Ratio of

1.0. The property is also located in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. The site is currently under a development agreement that was recently extended for ten years until May of, 2031. The City has had continued discussions with the property owners who have indicated there is the potential for future housing development on the site in strategic areas. The City’s 6th Cycle analysis includes an assumption of 1,200 dwelling units broken down into the very low, low, moderate, and above moderate-income categories.

HOME RANCH
Segerstrom Home Ranch is a 43-acre site located north of the 405 Freeway with a General Plan land use designation that allows up to 1.2 million square feet of office and up to 0.64 Floor Area Ratio. The property is also located in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. The site is currently under a development agreement DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-22
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6th Cycle – 2021-2029
Table B-3: 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 COUNCIL DISTRICT Specific Plans Size (Ac) Density Vacant Potential Consolidation Used in
5th
Cycle
Very
Low
(20%)
Low
(10%)
Moderate
(20%)
Above
Moderate
(50%)
Notes
410-441-17 142
14850
Sunflower
Ave

ROY K SAKIOKA
INC PDC 2 North Costa
Mesa - SL2 33.02 90 Vacant 120 60 120 900 Sakioka Lot 2 property. See analysis in Appendix B for additional information on potential to redevelop.
410-501-31 144 575 Anton
Blvd JKS-CMFV LLC PDC 2 North Costa Mesa 3.39 90 61 30 61 153 Existing 24-hourfitness with large surface parking lot.

Analysis assumes only redevelopment of the surface
parking lot area. The City has discussed the potential
future redevelopment of this site for high-density
residential uses with the property owner.
412-491-07 145 3333
Bristol St

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

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

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

PURCILLY GAY
WHEELER C2 2 SoBECA 0.26 60 B 3 1 3 8 School yard for learning center. Site is within the SoBECA Urban Plan redevelopment area.
418-191-04 180 766 Saint
Clair St 766 ST CLAIR LLC C2 2 SoBECA 0.67 60 8 4 8 20 Gym with large surface parking lot. Site is within the SoBECA Urban Plan redevelopment area. 418-202-01 181 845 Baker
St RMAFII LOC LLC C1 2 SoBECA 0.87 60 10 5 10 27 Small strip mall with large surface parking lot. Site is within the SoBECA Urban Plan redevelopment area.
418-202-02 182 841 Baker
St

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

DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-24
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6th Cycle – 2021-2029
Table B-3: 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 COUNCIL DISTRICT Specific Plans Size (Ac) Density Vacant Potential Consolidation Used in
5th
Cycle
Very
Low
(20%)
Low
(10%)
Moderate
(20%)
Above
Moderate
(50%)
Notes
418-101-05 197 1425
Baker St 1425 BAKER LLC C1 2 Harbor MixedUse 1.90 60 22 11 22 59 Existing auto dealer with large surfaceparking. 140-041-83 198 N/A C J SEGERSTROM
& SONS PDC 1 North Costa Mesa - HR 0.23 80 Vacant C 0 0 0 0 Home Ranch property. See analysis in Appendix B for additional information on potential to redevelop. 418-101-03 199 1491
Baker St

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

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

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

6.27 60 H 18 9 18 141
Pacific Arts Center property. See analysis in Appendix
B for additional information on potential to
redevelop.
410-491-07 202 601 Anton
Blvd

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

12.07 60 H 35 18 35 261
Pacific Arts Center property. See analysis in Appendix
B for additional information on potential to
redevelop.
139-313-21 203
1590
Adams
Ave

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

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

SOUTH COAST
PLAZA TC 2 North Costa
Mesa 0.79 90 G 14 7 14 35
Existing office uses and surface parking lot. The City
has discussed the potential future redevelopment of
this site for high-density residential uses with the
property owner.
410-501-25 206 545 Anton
Blvd JKS-CMFV LLC PDC 2 North Costa Mesa 0.74 130 19 9 19 48 Small commercial out parcel uses. Property owner
has indicated interest in redeveloping the site for
residential uses.

DRAFT Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-25
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6th Cycle – 2021-2029
Table B-3: 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 COUNCIL DISTRICT Specific Plans Size (Ac) Density Vacant Potential Consolidation Used in
5th
Cycle
Very
Low
(20%)
Low
(10%)
Moderate
(20%)
Above
Moderate
(50%)
Notes
410-501-36 207 575 Anton
Blvd JKS-CMFV LLC PDC 2 North Costa
Mesa 1.82 170 61 30 61 157
Small commercial out parcel uses. Property owner
has indicated interest in redeveloping the site for
residential uses.
418-171-01 208 754 Saint
Clair St

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

ARIOS, JUSTIN
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 4:37 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL; DEARAKAL, BYRON; RUSSELL, DIANNE; ERETH, ADAM; TOLER, RUSSELL; ZICH, JON; Housing Element
Cc: LE, JENNIFER; ASHABI, MINOO; FARRELL HARRISON, LORI ANN Subject: Housing Element Update
Dear City Council Members, Planning Commissioners and City Staff:

A city is a living thing. It will always grow and expand, because if it doesn’t, it stagnates. The challenge is growing a city so that it is the best city it can be. It must satisfy the needs of the current residents, while providing for the needs of new and future residents. It needs to be financially stable, but safe and healthy for its residents. In today’s world, it must be sustainable and socially equitable. All of this takes good planning by city leaders and city employees.

The Housing Element Update is a very important part of the comprehensive planning process for the City of Costa Mesa. It is an element of the blueprint for the growth of our city. We need it to be the best plan possible for our residents, businesses, and visitors.

This draft Housing Element is built around satisfying the requirements of SCAG and the RHNA that has been imposed on Costa Mesa. The strategy used was to look at the current planning tactics used by the City and adapt those to meet our RHNA. Consideration was given to proximity to transit corridors so that the impacts of traffic caused by any increase in density could potentially be offset by the use of mass transit and active transportation. However, there is no requirement that new housing be mixed-use in order to deter the use of motor vehicles. How will we encourage people to use transit other than cars? There is no requirement that new development include active transportation facilities. That needs to be addressed as part of the process that results from the adoption of the Housing Element Update.

During the recent joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session it was stated that the diversity and unique characteristics of neighborhoods would be complemented. The size of the parcel would have to accommodate at least 30 du/ac, which narrowed down the choice of some of the parcels. Identifying the potential to redevelop the parcels is also required. However, we see a great deal of the burden of increased density falling on areas that have already been subjected to projects whose impacts were not mitigated, thus causing more stress on residents who already are affected by traffic, pollution, and a decreasing amount of open space.

An inclusionary housing ordinance (“IHO”) is being considered. Much has been said about the reasons why young people and seniors cannot afford to live in Costa Mesa. The primary reason why affordable housing hasn’t been built is because the price of land is high. But another reason is that the City has not adopted an IHO and no developer will build truly affordable housing unless it is required to do so. Why is an IHO being “considered” when it should have been drafted and implemented long ago as a tactic to satisfy our RHNA? The City needs to move this off the back burner and get it done. By no means should the City Council approve the final zoning changes contemplated by in the Housing Element Update until the City has adopted an IHO.

Many of the identified parcels are being zoned at densities that are typically used for rental housing. We are upside down compared to other cities in terms of home ownership versus rental housing. Homeowners tend to be invested in their communities, which is something encouraged by most cities. How is the City going to make certain affordable home ownership opportunities are provided?
Including ADUs and JADUs to satisfy the numbers is reasonable. However, the City needs to consider ways to induce or assist homeowners to build them. Grants, loans, and tax abatements are all incentives the City should consider.

As noted in Program 3G of the draft Housing Element and by some of the City Council and Planning Commission members, the Housing Element Update will need to be put to a vote by the citizens because it exceeds the limitations under Measure Y. This will require the City to present information to the public, including depictions of buildings of the new levels of density, what you anticipate traffic VMT to be, and environmental impacts.

Measure Y came about because, despite the illusion of the City welcoming participation by residents in the planning process, the voices of the residents were largely ignored. Many residents were not aware of large projects that impacted their quality of life until the framing began. The purpose of Measure Y was not only to engage citizens in the process and give them the ability to have input into large projects, but also to encourage developers to bring better projects to Costa Mesa. Additionally, it was anticipated that the City would adopt a better General Plan because that document would likely be subject to a vote of the residents under Measure Y.

For many years the residents have been asking the City to develop a vision of what the future of Costa Mesa will be. It is understood that this takes time and expertise, but it will never happen unless it gets started. This is the perfect opportunity to do that. Jennifer Le, the City’s Director of Economic and Development Services, stated that looking at Form-Based Code will be a part of a major update to our Planning Code. I encourage the City to adopt Form-Based Code, because it will encourage predictable growth that is compatible with existing neighborhoods, while encouraging financial solvency through mixed-use development.

As for the document itself, it is well organized, and I thank Staff and the consultant for the time and care that was taken. I suggest the following modifications/additions:

1. In the Community Profile (Chapter 2), it would be helpful to see:
a. Population Growth: What has been the historical growth of Newport Beach and Irvine as compared to Costa Mesa? Did Costa Mesa grow more over the past decade or less than these cities? This will tell us if this is a trend or a pattern. It should also be noted that Costa Mesa, unlike Newport Beach and Irvine, is nearly built out and has very little space in which to add housing without repurposing commercial/industrial properties. Also, the fact that high cost of land contributes to the lack of affordability and growth of housing should be included. b. Age Characteristics: How does Costa Mesa compare to California? The US? Is the increase in people over 65 living in Costa Mesa unique or is this because people in the US are living longer overall?

2. Chapter 4, Housing Plan, includes programs where developers are identified and encouraged to work with the City on senior housing and mixed-use projects within the Urban Plan areas. I encourage the City to include that same action in Program 2B, Affordable Housing Development.

3. Appendix B, Candidate Sites Analysis and Overview:
a. A major corridor, Newport Boulevard has been ignored. This area has many aging properties that could be repurposed for housing; however, careful consideration needs to be given to how those projects would impact the adjoining neighborhoods. Since Newport Boulevard is one-way on either side of the freeway, walkability, bikeability and mixed-use developments must be prioritized. b. Most of the parcels have been assigned a future density that we typically see as multi-family rental housing when built out. The City already is upside-down in the ratio of homeownership to rental housing compared to other cities in Orange County. How will the City remedy this situation?

4. It would be very helpful if hyperlinks/cross-references could be added to the document so readers could more easily find definitions and use of terms in various sections. For example, I tried to find “high resource neighborhoods” that were referenced in the joint Study Session and had a difficult time finding it (used twice in Chapter 3, but not defined).

Thank you for your consideration.

Cynthia McDonald
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.

ARIOS, JUSTIN
From: fred solter <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 4:27 PM
To: Housing Element
Subject: Please enter these comments into the public record regarding the Housing element draft proposal presented September 13, 2021.

Absurd levels of Density are Not Acceptable
State Mandates Violate - 'Local Governance' principals
also:

1. Many people walk to Smart & Final and El Metate Market to get their groceries. I request that to deny the proposal to tear both of these down and put hundreds of high-density units in their place. Where will the residents buy their food? Do not tear down the grocery store and replace it with 'affordable' high-density housing on 19th Street.

2. So many units proposed for 19th Street will not fix the homeless problem, and adding high density development in the soup kitchen neighborhood smacks of instability over a multi-year period. Do not force higher density in here. It is a recipe for a slum and overcrowding. Currently, there is a shortage of parking on the residential streets that will be overrun if this plan moves forward.

3. Use the golf course practice area/driving range which is raw land next to the 2 (two) 18 hole golf courses. These 100 acres will easily hold the 4000 affordable homes state law requires to be planned for. This will give certainty that the required 4000 affordable homes will be built at all. All 100 acres don't need to be taken, and the 2 18 hole courses are totally separate from the practice area. Another benefit to utilizing the golf course is the reduction in land that needs watering which would reduce the overall water demand on the city.

4. Another potential location for these proposed units would be the Fairview Development Center.

Utilizing the land that the practice area or Development Center provides will impact the community in the least possible way.

5. Stop the affordable unit tax on developers and they will build better market rate projects that build neighborhood value.

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.

ARIOS, JUSTIN
From: Louis <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 10:25 AM
To: Housing Element
Cc: ASHABI, MINOO
Subject: ADU comments and Questions
Dear Housing Element,
Meeting:

I was on the Thursday September 2nd evening community meeting .

Want to thank your staff for the professionalism, the number of staff showing up for the meeting. As well as the different categories of topics that were included.

Used a cell phone and did not use zoom. Was limited on being able to raise my hand or make comments. Also was not able to move from main room to other rooms. I would recommend on future invites to the meeting to go into detail on best ways to attend the meeting and protocols.

There was a large amount of information provided before the meeting which was excellent. Even after reading the information felt largely not prepared for the meeting. Not sure how to resolve this disconnect. But wanted to make your staff aware of this as if I felt a disconnect maybe others in the meeting felt the same way.

Maybe if the agenda is more clear before the meeting and a contact person for an inquiry before the meeting may help the meeting to go more smoothly.

I realize that state, county and city requirements for ADU are still being defined. With this in mind I am making the following comments. Also not an expert with all the rules and regulations proposed and have been made into law. As a home owner making the following comments. Want to thank the City for making public comments available for shaping ADU’s in the City of Costa Mesa.

My comments below is for R1 zoning only.

Comments:

A. FORMAL NAMES OF AREAS WITH THE CITY
The city has identified different areas within the city limits. Can we have formal names for these areas and city boundaries? Can these formal names be used in the reporting processes? B. FEATURES AND BENEFITS
On the information that was provided before the meeting. Was not able to find information on Cottages, Duplex and Triplexes.

But the information was on larger apartment complexes.

As a home owner we are interested in features and benefits. Not so much technical details about the city requirements for densities, tax credits to the city and other city related technical details.

I am pleased to find a glossary of terms that is helpful. But it is easy to get over whelmed with all the technical details that are involved with a ADU both from a State and the City requirements. Within the calendar last year, the ADU process is much easier.

Want to thank the city for making it much easier in the planning process.

C. PERMITIING PROCESSES
It seems to me we submit our proposal for an ADU and it is reviewed within the guidelines. To me if the guidelines are more clear it would be an easier process. My thinking is if it the criteria broken down down into categories and posted on the city website it would be easier prior to submitting the application for approval. Would it be possible to break up the ADU’s permitting process in the City in the following categories:

R1 Zoning:

A. Garage conversion
B. Single Free standing
C. Existing Single Family Home conversion D. Duplexes C. Triplexes E. Cottage Clusters F. Number of ADU’s on a lot permitted.

Some ideas would be a flow chart of the permitting processes to include allowed, not allowed, in process of change. Then into sub categories.

These different categories have different requirements. Maybe even a spreed sheet table that has check boxes on the requirements would be helpful. Any more color on this subject would be helpful. Ways to make it easier as a home owner to understand the ADU processes.

From my understanding, I can be wrong. But Duplexes, Triplexes and Cottage Clusters are not allowed under R1 zoning.

Can this be changed? Is this a State or City mandate?
On Duplexes, Triplexes, and Cottage clusters to have consideration to allow under R1 Zoning under the definition of use for a ADU with the criteria of California and City codes.

During the meeting the process of planning and permitting of ADU seems to be capped for the number of ADU.

I am not clear on the # of ADU permitted per year. Any color on this subject would be helpful.

D. YEARLY REPORTING OF ADU’s
To produce a yearly report that would have these details:

Under R1 Zoning, ADU permitted to include Garage Conversion, Single Free Standing, Existing Single Family Home Conversion, Duplexes, Triplexes, and Cottage Clusters.

1. #1 Parking Spaces allocated

2. SQ Feet of ADU

3. Set Back requirements

4. 1 Story or two story, or multi story

5. The intended use of the ADU (Family, Income, Guest House) 6. The length of time for planning process, Permitting and build completion 7. Estimated Costs of permits, and build costs.

8. Building Materials used (high, medium, low cost) 9. The area formal location name within the city Please consider my comments for future planning.

Best Regards,
Mr. Louis Shapiro
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.

ARIOS, JUSTIN
From: Yesenia Markle <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 9:09 AM
To: Housing Element
Subject: Housing Proposal
To whom it may concern. I am writing to share my concerns on the proposed Housing element draft presented on September 13, 2021.

I oppose this proposal for the following reasons:

1. Smart & Final and El Metate are very conveniently located within our neighborhood. Many people walk to these stores for their groceries. If both of these are torn down, where will the residents buy their food? Many residents do not have the luxury of a vehicle to drive for groceries. Do not tear down the grocery stores to build "affordable housing".

2. Adding low-income housing will not solve the problem of homelessness, it will only add to overcrowding and the parking shortage for residents in the area. This is a recipe for slum and overcrowding.

3. I suggest using the golf course area/driving range which is raw land. This area will easily accommodate all the affordable housing the state law is requiring.

4. Another potential location for these proposed units would be the Fairview Development Center.

Utilizing the land that the practice area or Development Center provides will impact the community in the least possible way.

5. Stop the affordable unit tax on developers and they will build better market rate projects that build neighborhood value.

Thank you for your time,
Yesenia Markle
Costa Mesa Resident
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.

ARIOS, JUSTIN
From: Richard Walker <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 12:35 AM
To: ASHABI, MINOO
Cc: Housing Element
Subject: Comment Letter re Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Attachments: Costa Mesa Comment Letter to the City - 09.15.21.pdf Please find attached Public Law Center’s Comment Letter regarding Costa Mesa’s Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element. Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions or concerns.

Regards,
Richard Walker (he, him, his)
Senior Staff Attorney
Housing and Homelessness Prevention
Public Law Center
601 Civic Center Drive W.

Santa Ana, CA 92701
714.541.1010 Ext. 292
[email protected]
Confidentiality Notice: This message is intended solely for the person(s) to whom it is addressed and it may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. This message may contain material that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work-product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited by law. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender at (714) 541-1010 ext. 292 and delete this message and destroy all copies thereof.

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.
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 September 15, 2021
Minoo Ashabi
Principal Planner
Developmental Services Department
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive,
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
[email protected]
[email protected]
RE: City of Costa Mesa Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
Dear Ms. Ashabi and City Staff,
Public Law Center (“PLC”) is a 501(c)(3) legal services organization that provides free civil legal services to low-income individuals and families across Orange County. Our services are provided across a range of substantive areas of law, including consumer, family, immigration, housing, and health law. Additionally, PLC provides legal assistance to community organizations. Further, the mission of our Housing and Homelessness Prevention Unit includes preserving and expanding affordable housing. Thus, we write on behalf of individuals in need of affordable housing in Orange County to comment on the City of Costa Mesa (“the City”) Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element.

Government Code Section 65583 requires that a housing element consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing.1 Additionally, the housing element shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters, and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community.2 We commend the City on its efforts to engage its residents in the housing element update process and in its attempts to identify and address the housing needs of its residents. However, the City’s Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element fails to meet all of the requirements of State law and fails to contain strong commitments to implement meaningful programs and actions that will address the housing needs of its residents.

Extremely Low-Income Households
Local agencies shall calculate the subset of very-low-income households allotted that qualify as extremely-low-income households.3 To make this calculation, the local agency may

1 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.
2 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.
3 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(1).

RE: City of Costa Mesa Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 15, 2021
p. 2
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 either use available census data or presume that 50% of the very-low-income households qualify as extremely-low-income households.4
In describing its RHNA, the City lists a need for 2,919 very low-income units but does not explain how many of these households are considered extremely-low-income.5 The City states that there are approximately 6,610 extremely-low-income households within the jurisdiction, but does not utilize this information to calculate the need for extremely-low-income units within the jurisdiction.6 The City must describe its need for extremely-low-income households and very-low-income households, which shall equal the jurisdiction’s allocation of very-low-income households.7
Emergency Shelters
The housing element shall include the identification of a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit.8 Additionally, each local government shall identify a zone or zones that can accommodate at least one year-round emergency shelter.9
Although it appears that the City has existing ordinances that satisfy these requirements, the City has not clearly described these ordinances, policies, and standards because it provides conflicting information.10 First, the City’s table describing housing types permitted across various zoning districts does not state that emergency shelters are permitted within any zone.11 The City later states that emergency shelters are permitted in the MP Industrial Zone.12 Then in its review of past performance, the City states that the City adopted an ordinance to permit emergency shelters by-right within the Planned Development Industrial Zone.13 The City must clarify where emergency shelters are permitted without a conditional use or other discretionary permit and specify whether these zones can accommodate at least one year-round emergency shelter.

Emergency Shelter Need
Further, the identified zone or zones shall include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter.14 The need for emergency shelter shall be assessed based on the capacity necessary to accommodate the most recent homeless point-in-time count conducted before the start of the planning period, the need for emergency shelter based on number of beds available on a year-round and seasonal basis, the number of shelter beds that go unused on an

4 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(1).
5 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 1-4, 3-76, 3-77, 4-22, B-2 (August 2021). 6 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 2-11 (August 2021). 7 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(1).
8 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A).
9 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A).
10 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(4)(D).
11 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-17 (August 2021). 12 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-20 (August 2021). 13 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, A-8 (August 2021). 14 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A).

RE: City of Costa Mesa Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 15, 2021
p. 3
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 average monthly basis within a one-year period, and the percentage of those in emergency shelters that move to permanent housing solutions.15
First, the City identifies 193 persons experiencing homelessness within the jurisdiction: 6 sheltered and 187 unsheltered.16 Second, the City’s emergency Bridge Shelter has opened its permanent location with 72 beds available.17 However, the City’s website states that the City of Newport Beach “entered into a partnership with the city,” contributed a total of $1.6 million toward the construction and furnishing of the shelter, and will continue to “provide $1 million annually for 20 set-aside beds.”18 This means only 55 of the Bridge Shelter beds are available to accommodate the City’s homeless population, requiring that the City still zone for sufficient emergency shelter capacity to accommodate 132 unsheltered individuals within its jurisdiction.

Third, the City does not specify whether the Shelter has any unused beds on an average monthly basis or what percentage of those in emergency shelters move on to permanent housing. The City must provide this information to accurately assess its emergency shelter need and determine whether its identified zones can accommodate this need.

Emergency Shelter Standards
The local government shall also demonstrate that existing or proposed permit processing, development, and management standards are objective and encourage and facilitate the development of, or conversion to, emergency shelters. 19 However, because the Bridge Shelter currently has 72 beds, the City must clarify whether it still requires that each emergency shelter have a maximum of 30 beds.20 This information is important to determine how many shelters the City would need to accommodate its 132 unsheltered homeless individuals.

Special Housing Needs
The housing element must analyze special housing needs, such as those of the elderly; persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability;21 large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter.22

15 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(7).
16 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 2-27 (August 2021). 17 City of Costa Mesa, Costa Mesa Bridge Shelter, https://www.costamesaca.gov/hot-topics/costa-mesa-bridgeshelter (last visited Sep. 13, 2021). 18 City of Costa Mesa, Costa Mesa Bridge Shelter, https://www.costamesaca.gov/hot-topics/costa-mesa-bridgeshelter (last visited Sep. 13, 2021). 19 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A).
20 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-20 (August 2021). 21 “‘Developmental disability’ means a disability that originates before an individual attains 18 years of age, continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual. As defined by the Director of Developmental Services, in consultation with the Superintendent of Public Instruction, this term shall include intellectual disability, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. This term shall also include disabling conditions found to be closely related to intellectual disability or to require treatment similar to that required for individuals with an intellectual disability, but shall not include other handicapping conditions that are solely physical in nature.” Cal. Welfare and Institutions Code Section 4512. 22 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(7).

RE: City of Costa Mesa Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 15, 2021
p. 4
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 Seniors
The City explains that “seniors have a high likelihood of limited and fixed incomes, higher health care costs, greater mobility challenges and self-care limitations, transit dependency, and commonly live alone,” resulting in a need for affordable housing, supportive housing, coliving, multi-generational living options, and alternative housing options with service components.23 The City then touches on overpayment issues and disabilities seniors often face.24 This analysis of senior housing needs is shallow and should be more detailed. The City should include a description of the financial challenges that seniors may face, the number of lowerincome seniors living within the jurisdiction, and an analysis of challenges specific to lowerincome seniors.

To address senior housing issues, the City identified Program 2D, which requires the City to “identify opportunities for Senior Housing developments within Costa Mesa, including working with developers who specialize in the development of Senior Housing.”25 However, “identifying opportunities” is extremely vague and does not actually commit the City to taking any action to help seniors address their special housing needs. Further, the City does not address any of the other challenges seniors face that contribute to the difficulty in finding appropriate, affordable housing. The City does not attempt to assist lower income seniors to find affordable housing and does not claim it will attempt to create this type of housing. The City must revise this program and include others that actually address senior housing needs and that commit the City to take specific actions.

Persons With Disabilities
The City first discusses the housing challenges that persons with physical and developmental disabilities may face, such as limited income, restricted mobility, reduced ability for self-care, and disabilities that require a supportive or institutional setting.26 Further, housing with modifications for persons with disabilities can be costly and should be located near transit, medical services, and retail.27
This brief listing of challenges does not constitute a thorough analysis of the special housing needs of this group. Although the City states that “no current comparisons of disability with income, household size, or race/ethnicity are available,” the City should conduct its own analysis of this demographic.28 Such an analysis is important to understanding how these factors exacerbate housing challenges and will enable the City to create specific programs that meet the needs of as many residents with disabilities as possible.

To address these needs, the City states that “incorporating ‘barrier-free’ design in all new, multi-family housing . . . is especially important to provide the widest range of choices for residents with disabilities” and that “special consideration should also be given to the

23 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 2-19 (August 2021). 24 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 2-19 (August 2021). 25 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 4-6 (August 2021). 26 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 2-19 (August 2021). 27 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 2-20 (August 2021). 28 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 2-19 (August 2021).

RE: City of Costa Mesa Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 15, 2021
p. 5
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 affordability of housing as people with disabilities may be living on a fixed income.”29 However, the City merely lists several housing types and assistance programs that can help meet these special housing needs and does not reference any City programs that incorporate barrier-free designs or prioritize low-income residents with disabilities. 30 Instead, Program 2F: Persons with Physical and Developmental Disabilities states that “the City will continue to take actions to accommodate ADA retrofit efforts, ADA compliance and/or other measures where appropriate through the implementation of Title 24 as well as reviewing and amending its procedures to comply with State law as necessary.”31 Similar to Program 2D for seniors, this program does not commit the City to taking meaningful actions to address these special housing needs, even though the City identified meaningful actions in its analysis that would help meet these needs, such as incorporating “barrier-free” designs in housing. Since Program 2F is insufficient, the City must either revise this program or create a new program that accounts for the special needs of persons with physical or developmental disabilities.
32 Large Households
The City states that “a limited supply of adequately sized and affordable housing units,” causes lower-income large households to face overcrowding in smaller units with less bedrooms.33 Lower-income renters are particularly vulnerable to this because rental units with more than three bedrooms are rare and more expensive.34 Again, this analysis is lacking important details, such as the existing number of four-bedroom or larger units in the City and their level of affordability, the number of large households that are lower income or cost burdened, and other pertinent factors, all of which would influence the programs the City should create to meet these needs. The City should take additional steps to study this group further and provide analysis that is more detailed.

Program 2E: Encourage Development of Housing Options for Large-Family Households is another vague program that merely states that “the City will work with applicants who propose for-rent residential projects to encourage 4-bedroom units as part of proposed developments” and will “review development standards to determine if any pose an impediment to the development of large units.”35 If the City finds any impediments, the program only requires that the City “consider amendments to the Zoning code to alleviate those impediments.”36 The program does not commit the City to taking any specific actions that will actually assist large households. The City should revise the program to be more descriptive by including specific incentives or actions that will be taken to encourage the development of four-bedroom or larger units and by including a specific timetable for the review of development standards that might impeded the

29 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 2-21 to 2-22 (August 2021). 30 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 2-21 (August 2021). 31 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 4-7 (August 2021). 32 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(7).
33 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 2-22 (August 2021). 34 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 2-22 (August 2021). 35 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 4-7 (August 2021). 36 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 4-7 (August 2021).

RE: City of Costa Mesa Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 15, 2021
p. 6
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 development of larger units. If any impediments are encountered, the City should commit to take actual steps toward revising the standards to mitigate this constraint. As the City does additional analysis, it should also revise its program to address the needs of large households who are at lower-income levels. The City should also revise the program to not just encourage fourbedroom units, but four-bedroom and larger units to accommodate different sizes of large households, such that it addresses the overcrowding issue.37 Single-Parent Households
The City’s extremely brief description of single-parent households states that these residents have a “greater need for affordable and accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services,” and that “many female-headed households with children are susceptible to having lower incomes than similar two-parent households.”38 Despite this acknowledgement, the City provides no additional discussion of these challenges, nor does it specify a program that addresses these needs. For example, the City notes that 27.4% of its single-parent households are living in poverty, but makes no attempt to address this issue.39 The City must further discuss the special needs of single-parent and female-headed households and describe the City’s resources and unmet needs for such groups.40 The City must identify programs that specifically assist single-parent and female-headed households.

Farmworkers
In attempting to analyze the special housing needs of farmworkers, the City explains who farmworkers are and simply states that farmworkers “earn lower incomes than many other workers and move throughout the year from one harvest location to the next.”41 This statement is not an analysis of farmworkers’ special housing needs. Additionally, Program 2H is not sufficient to meet the needs of this group because it merely brings the City’s zoning code into compliance with state law.42 With 2,669 farmworkers living within the jurisdiction, the City must identify unique factors that affect their ability to obtain housing, their specific housing needs, and create programs to address these needs.43
No Net Loss Requirements
Government Code Section 65863 requires that jurisdictions maintain adequate sites to accommodate its remaining unmet RHNA in each income category throughout the entire planning period. If there is a shortfall of sites to accommodate its RHNA, the jurisdiction must either amend its site inventory to include sites that were previously unidentified or rezone sites to

37 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(7).
38 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 2-23 (August 2021). 39 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 2-23 (August 2021). 40Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(7).
41 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 2-23 (August 2021). 42 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 4-8 (August 2021). 43 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 2-18 (August 2021).

RE: City of Costa Mesa Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 15, 2021
p. 7
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 meet the need.44 Failure to do so would constitute a violation of the No Net Loss law and Housing Element law.45
To ensure a jurisdiction can accommodate its entire RHNA throughout the planning period and avoid these violations, HCD recommends that jurisdictions include a buffer in the housing element inventory of at least 15 to 30 percent more capacity than required, especially for lower incomes.46 Alternatively, jurisdictions may create a buffer by projecting capacity less than what is allowed from the maximum density in anticipation of reductions in density, or rezoning additional sites above what is needed to accommodate the RHNA.47 Through its site inventory, rezoned sites, and ADUs, the City has created a 34 percent buffer, with only a five percent buffer for lower income units.48 Because lower income units are the most difficult to construct, the City should increase the lower income buffer to avoid violating the No Net Loss and other Housing Element laws.

Constraints
Governmental Constraints
The housing element must contain an analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in Section 65583(c)(1),49 and for persons with disabilities,50 including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, local processing and permit procedures, and any locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development.51
The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the RHNA and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters.52

44 HCD, Memorandum regarding No Net Loss Law, 4 (Oct. 2, 2019). 45 HCD, Memorandum regarding No Net Loss Law, 4 (Oct. 2, 2019). 46 HCD, Memorandum regarding No Net Loss Law, 5 (Oct. 2, 2019). 47 HCD, Memorandum regarding No Net Loss Law, 5 (Oct. 2, 2019). 48 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-77 (August 2021). 49 “Housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing.” Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(1). 50 “‘Developmental disability’ means a disability that originates before an individual attains 18 years of age, continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual. As defined by the Director of Developmental Services, in consultation with the Superintendent of Public Instruction, this term shall include intellectual disability, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. This term shall also include disabling conditions found to be closely related to intellectual disability or to require treatment similar to that required for individuals with an intellectual disability, but shall not include other handicapping conditions that are solely physical in nature.” Cal. Welfare and Institutions Code Section 4512; Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(7). 51 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(5).
52 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(5).

RE: City of Costa Mesa Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 15, 2021
p. 8
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 The Draft provides an analysis of the City’s current “1. Land Use Controls”, but fails to mention how, if at all, these land use controls are constraints to housing development.53 If the City determines land use controls constrains housing development, and if so, a program should be included to prevent such constraints. The element exhibits the same issue in the “4. Variety of Housing Types Permitted” and “5. Planned Development” section of Governmental Constraints to affordable housing development.54 On pages 3-6 to 3-8, the element provides a description of zoning codes and regulations, but does not conclude how, or if, these codes are a constraint on housing development.55 The element should mention if these restrictions are constraints to housing developments, and if so provide a program to eliminate or mitigate such constraints.56 Measure Y is a slow growth program, “An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects”.57 Program 3G discusses actions the City will take to address Measure Y in the context of the Housing Element.58 Program 3G asserts it must determine “a path forward” in consideration of Measure Y to be able to adopt changes necessary to implement the City’s housing element to meet the City’s state mandated RHNA allocation.59 Essentially, Program 3G is a plan to deal with a housing constraint and gives the City a 3 year time frame to “deal” with the issue, but provides no concrete steps.
60 The City should provide more concrete
steps on how it plans to address Measure Y as a constraint and alternative options in the event that voter approval does not pass, to ensure the City is compliant with Housing Element Laws.

Nongovernmental Constraints
The housing element must also analyze potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, the requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis required by Section 65583.2(c), and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the RHNA.61
The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove nongovernmental constraints that create a gap between the locality’s planning for the development of housing for all income levels and the construction of that housing.62

53 City of Costa Mesa, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element 3-6 to 3-8 (August 2021). 54 City of Costa Mesa, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element 3-16 to 3-23 (August 2021). 55 City of Costa Mesa, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element 3-6 to 3-8 (August 2021). 56 HCD, Building Blocks: A Comprehensive Housing-Element Guide, Constraints, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/constraints/nongovernmentconstraints.shtml#requisite (last visited September 1, 2021). 57 City of Costa Mesa, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element 3-23 to 3-24 (August 2021). 58 City of Costa Mesa, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element 3-23 to 3-24 (August 2021). 59 City of Costa Mesa, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element 4-11 to 4-12 (August 2021). 60 City of Costa Mesa, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element 4-11 to 4-12 (August 2021). 61 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(6).
62 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(6).

RE: City of Costa Mesa Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 15, 2021
p. 9
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 The element asserts construction costs are a major portion of development costs, but is not a constraint to housing development since construction costs are “consistent with the region”.63 Just because the City’s construction costs are consistent within the region does not mean they are not a constraint to development. For example, the element mentions the cost of land is consistent with the region, but that the“[the cost of land] may create a constraint to the development of housing, specifically affordable housing.”64 The City contradicts its own logic in the housing element. For this reason, the City should analyze development costs as an actual constraint on the development of housing and create a program to mitigate constraints on affordable housing development caused by the construction costs.

The element identifies “Cost of Land” as a constraint to housing development and mentions Chapter 4 to accommodate these constraints.65 The element should identify exactly which program(s) within Chapter 4 address and mitigate the high cost of land. Additionally, the element claims “Available Financing” is not a constraint to the provision and maintenance of housing in the City.66 On the same page, the element asserts that White applicants were more likely to be approved for a loan than their non-White counterparts. 67 The City should implement
a program to ensure equal opportunities to all loan applicants as inconsistent lending practices is a constraint to fair and affordable housing.

The element identifies Program 2A to “consider” an inclusionary housing ordinance within two years of implementing the sixth cycle housing element.68 Program 2B explains the City will “analyze potential development incentives” to encourage affordable housing development.69 Program 2A and 2B embody noncommittal, vague language with no quantified goal. “Analyzing” incentives will not lower barriers to the development and maintenance of affordable housing. Program 2E exhibits the same issue, as the City will “consider” removing impediments in the City’s zoning ordinance for developments to accommodate underserved large families.70 Program 2I exists to promote state bonus density incentives.71 According to the element, such incentives “may take the form of additional residential units permitted beyond the density allowed in the base zoning...”72 The language of Programs 2A, 2B, 2E and 2I is vague, non-committal and observes no quantified objective.73 The City should amend these programs to create concrete steps that will result in beneficial outcomes during the planning period and incorporate a quantified goal to assess if these programs are making progress.

63 City of Costa Mesa, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element 3-2 to 3-3 (August 2021). 64 City of Costa Mesa, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element 3-2 to 3-3 (August 2021). 65 City of Costa Mesa, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element 3-2 to 3-3 (August 2021). 66 City of Costa Mesa, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element 3-3 to 3-4 (August 2021). 67 City of Costa Mesa, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element 3-3 to 3-4 (August 2021). 68 City of Costa Mesa, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element 4-5 (August 2021). 69 City of Costa Mesa, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element 4-5 to 4-6 (August 2021). 70 City of Costa Mesa, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element 4-6 to 4-7 (August 2021). 71 City of Costa Mesa, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element 4-8 (August 2021). 72 City of Costa Mesa, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element 4-8 (August 2021). 73 City of Costa Mesa, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element 4-5 to 4-7 (August 2021).

RE: City of Costa Mesa Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 15, 2021
p. 10
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 Similar to the issues listed above in Program 2, Program 3A adopts language that is vague, noncommittal and unquantified74, so it is unclear how this program will loosen constraints on affordable housing development. For example, Program 3A claims “The City will consider and promote various incentives to encourage development of housing, live/work, and mixed-use development in its Urban Plan and Specific Plan areas.”75 Programs 3B, 3E, 3F, 3H, 3I, 3J, 3O, 4A, 4C and 4D display the same deficiencies.76 The City should amend this program to adopt mandatory language with a time sensitive, quantified goal to encourage the development of affordable housing.

The element assesses 5th cycle policy progress within Appendix A: Review of Performance.77 In this section, the City fails to provide a quantified analysis of fifth cycle progress, which makes it difficult to determine the effectiveness of the policy and whether it should remain in the sixth cycle housing element. For example, the City dedicated Policy HOU1.5 to maintaining and upgrading “deteriorating” neighborhoods to encourage private development,
78 however the element fails to determine if this policy was effective in encouraging housing development in the fifth cycle. The element maintains Policy HOU-1.5 in the sixth cycle “to ensure it is resourceful and useful in efforts to promote and encourage the development of housing”.79 With lack of data or measured progress, it is unclear if Policy HOU-1.5 was effective in the past and whether it should remain in the sixth cycle element. Policy HOU-1.7, HOU-2.1, HOU-2.3, HOU-2.4, HOU-3.1, HOU-3.2, HOU-3.4, HOU-4.1, HOU-4.2, HOU-4.4 and HOU5.1 exhibit the same issues.80 The element is void of information necessary to form an assessment on Policy progress. The element should provide policy data of past performance success or failure to determine if a policy should remain in the sixth cycle housing element.

Site Inventory
The housing element must include an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level.81 A jurisdiction may identify sites by a variety of methods, such as redesignating property to a more intense land use category, increasing the density allowed within one or more categories, and identifying sites for accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”).82

74 City of Costa Mesa, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element 4-9 (August 2021). 75 City of Costa Mesa, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element 4-9 (August 2021). 76 City of Costa Mesa, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element 4-9 to 4-17 (August 2021). 77 City of Costa Mesa, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix A, A-2 (August 2021). 78 City of Costa Mesa, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element A-4 (August 2021). 79 City of Costa Mesa, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element A-4 (August 2021). 80 City of Costa Mesa, Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element A-5 to A-13 (August 2021). 81 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(a)(3); Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(a). 82 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.1(a).

RE: City of Costa Mesa Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 15, 2021
p. 11
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 The site inventory must provide for a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing.83
Determining Site Capacity
Based on the information provided in the site inventory, a city or county shall determine whether each site in the inventory can accommodate the development of some portion of its share of the regional housing need by income level during the planning period.84 To determine the number of housing units that can be accommodated on each site when the jurisdiction does not adopt a law or regulation requiring the development of a site at a minimum density, the jurisdiction shall demonstrate how the number of units determined for that site will be accommodated.85
The number of units that can be accommodated on each site shall be adjusted as necessary based on the potential and actual governmental constraints upon maintenance, improvement, or development of housing, including land use controls and site improvements; the realistic development capacity for the site; typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction; and the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities.86 Here, the City does not describe a methodology that considers these factors. Further, although the City assumes “that sites identified within [the City’s site inventory] will redevelop with . . . 30% of units available to residents in the low and very low-income categories,” the City has not justified this assumption.87 In fact, Program 2A: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance does not actually require developers to set aside any units for affordable housing, but merely states that the City will continue to analyze the impacts of inclusionary ordinances and “consider adoption of an inclusionary housing ordinance.”88 The City must reanalyze its site capacities in light of this unsupported assumption.

Lower Income Sites Size
If a site is smaller than half an acre or larger than ten acres, it cannot be deemed adequate to accommodate lower income housing unless the locality can demonstrate that sites of an equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units as projected for the site.89 Alternatively, the locality may provide other evidence to HCD that the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing.90

83 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(1).
84 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(c).
85 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(c)(1).
86 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(c)(2).
87 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, B-12 (August 2021). 88 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 4-5 (August 2021). 89 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(c)(2).
90 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(c)(2).

RE: City of Costa Mesa Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 15, 2021
p. 12
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 The City has identified numerous sites for lower-income housing that are either smaller than half an acre or larger than ten acres. Because the City has not demonstrated that sites of equivalent sizes have been successfully developed in the previous cycle for an equivalent number of lower-income units, the City has attempted to provide other evidence that these sites are adequate for lowing income housing.

Regarding sites smaller than half an acre, the City has merely stated that it only identified these sites that “show the likelihood of redeveloping in conjunction with other parcels which collectively meet the half acre requirement.”91 The City based these identifications on common ownership and assumed willingness to consolidate parcels.92 However, these assumptions are not evidence that these sites can actually be developed for lower-income housing or that they will be consolidated. The City must provide more evidence or remove these sites from its inventory.

In addressing sites larger than ten acres, the City again could not demonstrate that sites of equivalent size have been successfully developed in the previous cycle for an equivalent number of lower income units. Instead, the City attempts to provide evidence for each site. However, the Fairview Developmental Center was identified in the 5th Cycle but was not developed and its development potential is based on a City ad hoc committee’s meetings and reports.93 The City does not claim that the State is actually interested in developing lower-income housing here.

Further, for Sakioka Lot 2, Home Ranch, South Coast Plaza, and Pacific Arts Plaza, the City describes the properties and states for each one that “the City has had continued discussions with the property owners who have indicated that there is potential for future housing development on the site in strategic areas.”94 This vague statement and lack of evidence to support an assumption for future development is not sufficient to deem these properties adequate for lower-income housing. The City must provide more evidence or remove these sites from its inventory.

Nonvacant Sites Owned by the City
If a nonvacant site is owned by the city or county, the description shall include whether there are any plans to dispose of the property during the planning period and how the city or county will comply with the Surplus Lands Act.95
Site 424-211-01 is owned by the City, but it is unclear whether it is nonvacant. The City must clarify this. If it is nonvacant, the City must provide the requisite information or remove the site from its inventory.

Nonvacant Sites for 50% or More of Housing Need
If the jurisdiction is relying on nonvacant sites to accommodate 50% or more of its housing need for lower-income households, the methodology used to determine additional

91 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, B-10 (August 2021). 92 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, B-11 (August 2021). 93 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, B-10 (August 2021). 94 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, B-10 to B-11 (August 2021). 95 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(b)(3).

RE: City of Costa Mesa Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 15, 2021
p. 13
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 development potential shall demonstrate that the existing use identified does not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the planning period.96 Here, only four sites have been identified as vacant. Therefore, the City must revise its stated methodology for nonvacant sites to describe how it will address existing uses impeding additional residential development.

Sites with Current or Past Residential Uses
For sites that currently have residential uses; have had a residential use within the past five years that have been vacated or demolished; are or were subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to very-low- or low-income residents; are subject to any other form of rent or price control through the public entity’s valid exercise of its police power; or are currently occupied by very-low- or low-income residents shall be subject to a policy requiring the replacement of all those units affordable to the same or lower income level as a condition of any development on the site.97
Site 425-431-02 is a hotel and Site 422-193-24 is a motel. If either of these sites have current residential uses or are currently occupied by very-low- and low-income residents, the City must create a program that requires developers to replace these units at the same or lower income level.

Presumption of Impeding Additional Residential Development An existing use shall be presumed to impede additional residential development, absent findings based on substantial evidence that the use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.98
Although the City has claimed that many of its sites are likely to be redeveloped within the planning period and provides examples of development on nonvacant sites for residential uses, it has not provided actual, individualized evidence that any of these uses will be discontinued.99 Therefore, none of these sites can overcome the presumption that their existing uses will impede additional residential development.

Accessory Dwelling Units
A jurisdiction may count an ADU for purposes of identifying adequate sites for housing.100 The number of ADUs identified is based on the number of ADUs developed in the prior housing element planning period, whether or not the units are permitted by right; the need for these units in the community; the resources or incentives available for their development; and any other relevant factors determined by HCD.101 To estimate the number of ADUs that will be developed in the planning period, a jurisdiction must generally use a three-part approach

96 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(g)(2).
97 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(g)(3).
98 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.2(g)(2).
99 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, B-7 (August 2021). 100 Cal. Gov. Code § 65852.2(m); Cal. Gov. Code § 65583.1(a). 101 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583.1(a).

RE: City of Costa Mesa Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 15, 2021
p. 14
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 addressing (1) development trends, (2) anticipated affordability, and (3) resources and incentives.102
When assessing development trends, a jurisdiction must consider the number of ADUs developed in the prior housing element planning period, whether or not the units are permitted by right;103 the need for these units in the community;104 the availability of ADUs and JADUs that will be part of the rental stock, rather than used as offices or guest houses;105 and more recent trends.106 However, HCD Staff has stated that the following two approaches would be accepted without further analysis or incentives: (1) average ADU applications from the beginning of the 5 th Cycle to 2017, multiplied by five; or (2) average ADU applications from 2018, multiplied by eight. If jurisdictions anticipate a higher ADU production, HCD will require more analysis and incentives to show the higher production can be met.

The City has determined its ADU production estimate “based on past performance and the SCAG/HCD approved methodology” to claim 858 ADUs for the planning period.107 The City has permitted 4 ADUs in 2018, 6 in 2019, 19 in 2020, and 12 so far in 2021.108 Utilizing the second “HCD approved methodology,” the City should have only claimed 88 ADUs over the planning period. To justify the additional 770 ADUs, the City must demonstrate that its offered incentives can achieve the higher production. The City states that Program 3E will do so.109 Program 3E states that “the City will evaluate potential programs with the intent of promoting the development of accessory dwelling units,” which may include the following:
● Coordinating with the County on implementation of a permit-ready ADU program; ● Post a user-friendly FAQ on the City’s website to assist the public; ● Waiving certain permitting fees to make ADU development more feasible; ● Creating an expedited plan check review process to ease the process for homeowners; and
● Explore potential State and Regional funding sources for affordable ADUs.

However, Program 3E does not thoroughly describe these incentives, does not analyze how these incentives will boost ADU production, and does not commit the City to implement any of these incentives. Even if all of these incentives were implemented, none of them promotes

102 HCD, ADU Handbook, 19 (December 2020).
103 Cal. Gov. Code § 65583.1(a); HCD, ADU Handbook, 19 (December 2020). 104 Cal. Gov. Code § 65583.1(a).
105 HCD, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs), Requisite Analysis, https://hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/site-inventory-analysis/accessory-dwelling-units.shtml (last visited March 21, 2021).
106 HCD, ADU Handbook, 19 (December 2020).
107 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-84 (August 2021). 108 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-84 (August 2021). 109 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-84 (August 2021).

RE: City of Costa Mesa Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 15, 2021
p. 15
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 the creation of ADUs that can offer affordable rents for very-low-, low-, or moderate-income households.110
The City must reduce its ADU production estimate to a more realistic number, revise Program 3E to include the information stated above, and include more incentives such as:
● Prototype plans;111
● Reduce or eliminate building permit/development fees;112 ● Affordability monitoring programs;113
● Incentives for affordability;114
● Financing – construction & preservation;115
● Outreach, promotion, and educational materials;116 and ● Amnesty programs (SB 13).

Programs
The housing element must include programs that allow the jurisdiction to achieve its stated housing goals and objectives. Programs must set forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation.117 The jurisdiction may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element.118 The jurisdiction may do so through the administration of land use and development controls, the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when available, and the utilization of moneys in a low- and moderate-income housing fund of an agency if the locality has established a redevelopment project area pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law.119 To make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, the programs shall address housing issues such as inadequate site inventories, meeting lower income housing needs, removing constraints, maintaining affordable housing, promoting affirmatively furthering fair housing, preserving assisted housing developments, encouraging accessory dwelling units, and facilitating public participation. To make these programs most effective, HCD recommends jurisdictions include the following: definite time frames for implementation; an identification of agencies and officials responsible for

110 HCD, ADU Handbook, 19 (December 2020); Cal. Gov. Code § 65583.1(a); Cal. Health and Safety Code § 50504.5.
111 HCD, ADU Handbook, 19 (December 2020).
112 SCAG, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), SCAG Housing Element Digital Workshop, 6 (August 27, 2020). 113 HCD, ADU Handbook, 19 (December 2020).
114 SCAG, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), SCAG Housing Element Digital Workshop, 6 (August 27, 2020). 115 SCAG, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), SCAG Housing Element Digital Workshop, 6 (August 27, 2020). 116 SCAG, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), SCAG Housing Element Digital Workshop, 6 (August 27, 2020). 117 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c).
118 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c).
119 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c).

RE: City of Costa Mesa Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 15, 2021
p. 16
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 implementation; a description of the local government’s specific role in program implementation; a description of the specific action steps to implement the program; proposed measurable outcomes; demonstration of a firm commitment to implement the program; and an identification of specific funding sources, where appropriate.120 As has been stated throughout our comment letter, the City’s programs lack the detail and specificity recommend by HCD. Most goals are simply “ongoing” without definite timeframes or specific action steps. Also, most of the City’s programs are noncommittal only planning to “promote,” “encourage,” or “evaluate.”
121 The City should revise its programs generally to
include more firm commitments, definite time frames, and specific action steps.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
California law requires that public agencies administer all “programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing, and take no action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.”122 To affirmatively further fair housing, a public agency must do the following:
[Take] meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.123
Meaningful action means taking significant action that is designed and reasonably expected to achieve a material positive change that affirmatively furthers fair housing.124 Housing elements must incorporate the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing in the following aspects: (1) outreach, (2) assessment of fair housing, (3) site inventory, (4)

120 HCD, Building Blocks: A Comprehensive Housing-Element Guide, Program Overview and Quantified Objectives, https://hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/program-requirements/programoverview.shtml (last visited April 4, 2021). 121 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, Chapter 4 (August 2021). 122 Cal. Gov. Code Section 8899.50(b).
123 Cal. Gov. Code Section 8899.50(a)(1).
124 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 66 (April 2021); Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, 80 Fed. Reg. at 42354. Although the Department of Housing and Urban Development does not enforce this federal AFFH rule, California law has adopted the federal rule. This means that the federal AFFH rule can inform how to interpret the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing in California law.

RE: City of Costa Mesa Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 15, 2021
p. 17
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 identification and prioritization of contributing factors, and (5) goals, policies, and actions. Each section is addressed below.125
Outreach
Beyond preexisting outreach requirements, jurisdictions must include a summary of their fair housing outreach capacity.126 Jurisdictions “must describe meaningful, frequent, and ongoing public participation with key stakeholders.”127 Moreover, jurisdictions must summarize “issues that contributed to lack of participation in the housing element process by all economic segments, particularly people with protected characteristics, if that proves to be the case.”128 The City must further describe its outreach efforts or make additional outreach efforts related to fair housing. While the City describes its multiple efforts to engage residents in the housing element update process,129 none of the described efforts seem to relate to fair housing.

The topics discussed at the meetings referenced by the City seem to focus on general housing element requirements and specifically housing development and site identification. None of the stakeholders referenced generally seem to indicate stakeholders connected with fair housing expertise and insights. While the City’s online survey had one question under the category “Fair Housing,” the question seems to be more related to special housing needs in the community and not necessarily to issues of fair housing. They City’s fair housing assessment does describe some outreach related to fair housing specifically, but that outreach was conducted prior to 2019 and in conjunction with the Impediments Analysis for the entire County and not specific outreach for the City.130 Additionally, the City has not established that it engages in “frequent” and “ongoing” public participation with key fair housing stakeholders. City does not identify key stakeholders that were invited to engage with the City regarding fair housing issues and fails to summarize issues that contributed to lack of participation. The City should describe, or encourage, additional key stakeholder participation, especially as it relates to fair housing, and address lack of participation by any key stakeholders or demographics.

Assessment of Fair Housing
A fair housing assessment needs to have a summary of fair housing enforcement and capacity.131 In addition, the assessment must analyze these five areas: (1) fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity; (2) integration and segregation patterns and trends related to people with protected characteristics; (3) racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs) or racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs); (4) disparities in access to opportunity for people with protected characteristics, including persons with disabilities; and (5)

125 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 21 (April 2021).
126 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(i).
127 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 21 (April 2021).
128 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 22 (April 2021).
129 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, Appendix C (August 2021). 130 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-45 (August 2021). 131 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 62 (April 2021).

RE: City of Costa Mesa Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 15, 2021
p. 18
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 disproportionate housing needs within the jurisdiction, including displacement risk.132 Furthermore, each of these analyses must include local and regional patterns and trends, local data and knowledge, and other relevant factors.133 The analyses should each arrive at conclusions and have a summary of fair housing issues.134
Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity. The City references utilizing and contracting with Fair Housing Council of Orange County and Fair Housing Foundation for fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity.135 However, the City only describes the missions and work of these organizations and largely identifies efforts to educate residents and housing providers, without any description of actual enforcement activities or a description of the actual outreach capacity. The City should include details describing actual enforcement and outreach capacity.

Segregation and Integration. “At minimum, the analysis must discuss levels of segregation and integration for race and ethnicity, income, familial status, persons with disabilities, and identify the groups that experience the highest levels of segregation.”136 The City must bolster its discussion of segregation and integration. While the City analyzes some data regarding other protected classes, as it relates specifically to segregation the City largely focuses its analysis on race and ethnicity and to some extent income, the City should consider these segregations trends over timer and consider whether there are patterns of segregation for other protected classes including familial status and persons with disabilities.137 While the City does some comparisons between the City, State, and County data, the City does not actually analyze regional segregation and integration trends other than occasionally mentioning trends along its borders. If protected classes are being segregated into other locations in the region and isolated from Costa Mesa, the City should be consider what factors are contributing to those trends. For example, the percentage of family households in Costa Mesa is significantly less than the County and the State.138 Additionally, the City references some local factors and knowledge, such as the number of fair housing complaints from residents, it does not do much analysis of this local data or knowledge or consider other local data and knowledge. 139
To strengthen its analysis, the City should analyze integration and segregation patterns and trends based on income, familial status, and disability status currently and over time and provide additional analysis of ethnic and racial segregation over time. The analysis should be at a local and regional level for all protected classes. Furthermore, the City should utilize local data and

132 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 27– 28, 62 (April 2021).
133 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 62 (April 2021).
134 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 62 (April 2021).
135 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-48, 3-67 (August 2021). 136 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 31 (April 2021).
137 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-49 to 3-57 (August 2021). 138 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-62 (August 2021). 139 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-67 (August 2021).

RE: City of Costa Mesa Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 15, 2021
p. 19
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 knowledge and other relevant factors “beyond data that identifies and compares concentrations of groups with protected characteristics.”140
R/ECAPs and RCAAs. Jurisdictions must identify R/ECAPs and RCAAs.141 “The analysis must be conducted at a regional and a local level where the incidence of concentrated areas of poverty is discussed relative to the region and within the locality. Importantly, this regional comparison should discuss the incidence of racial concentrations in areas of affluence.”142 While the City does an analysis of R/ECAPs,
143 the City does not even mention RCAAs,
local data, local knowledge, or other relevant factors. We recommend that the City present and analyze all relevant regional and local data about R/ECAPs and RCAAs. The City should also employ local data and knowledge, and other relevant factors.

Disparities in Access to Opportunity. The City’s discussion of disparities in access to opportunity is inadequate. HCD’s Guidance Memo presents questions that the City “should, at minimum” answer.144 These questions cover disparities in educational, transportation, economic, and environmental opportunities, and disparities in other factors.145 While the City utilizes some data sources regarding these factors and does an analysis of the factors, the City fails to connect the factors to data related to protected classes and whether there are disparities related to members of protected classes and access to opportunities.

Disproportionate Housing Needs, Including Displacement. Jurisdictions must analyze both disproportionate housing needs and displacement.146 “[C]ategories of housing need are based on such factors as cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions.”147
The City touches on cost burden, severe cost burden, and overcrowding, but only does a comparison of this date between the City, County, and the State.148 There is no discussion as to whether members of protected classes living in the City are experiencing these housing needs at greater rates than other residents and what factors are contributing to those disproportionate housing needs among protected classes. Substandard housing seems to only be addressed as the

140 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 25 (April 2021).
141 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 32–34 (April 2021).
142 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 32 (April 2021).
143 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-50 to 3-52 (August 2021). 144 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 35 (April 2021).
145 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 35–36 (April 2021).
146 Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(10)(ii).
147 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 39 (April 2021).
148 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-61 to 3-65 (August 2021), RE: City of Costa Mesa Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 15, 2021
p. 20
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 age of housing units.149 The City should do more analysis of issues regarding substandard housing in the City, particularly as it impacts protected classes. There is no analysis of homelessness as it relates to fair housing and impacts on protected classes, which the City must consider. We recommend following HCD’s Guidance Memo and analyzing the aforementioned disproportionate housing needs, especially as they relate to protected classes.

Additionally, the City only touches on displacement and seems to indicate that there is no affordable housing complexes at risk of conversion to market rate and therefore no displacement risk to consider. The City should revise this section for two major reasons. First, the City has a significant and recent history of displacement concerns as was raised in multiple public meetings which has resulted in the City eliminating or seeking to eliminate certain housing policies that caused displacement and to change how it identifies sites in those areas. The City needs to analyze and address these displacement concerns, even if the City thinks it has already resolved the issue. Second, the City goes through great lengths to distribute more of its affordable units in its site inventory in areas that have lower concentrations of ethnic and racial minorities and lowincome households. However, the City still identifies many housing sites in these areas, just predominately for market rate. An influx of market rate units into low-income and segregated communities creates the risk of indirect displacement and the City should analyze and address this potential.

Conclusion and Summary of Fair Housing Issues. None of the City’s sections conclude and summarize fair housing issues, likely because the City does not actually connect the analysis of the various factors to fair housing issues and the impacts on protected classes. The City should revise its assessment of fair housing and provide conclusions and summaries of the fair housing issues experienced by its residents.

Site Inventory
A jurisdiction’s site inventory must be consistent with the jurisdiction’s obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.150 “Sites must be identified and evaluated relative to the full scope of the assessment of fair housing.”151 The jurisdiction should consider the following during its site inventory analysis:
● how identified sites better integrate the community;
● how identified sites exacerbate segregation;
● whether the jurisdiction concentrated the RHNA by income group in certain areas of the community;
● whether local data and knowledge uncover patterns of segregation and integration; and
● how other relevant factors can contribute to the analysis.152

149 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-64 to 3-65 (August 2021). 150 Cal. Gov. Code § 65583.2(a); HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 45 (April 2021).
151 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 3, 45 (April 2021).
152 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 45–46 (April 2021).

RE: City of Costa Mesa Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 15, 2021
p. 21
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 The identified sites must attempt to improve conditions related to integration and segregation patterns and trends related to people with protected characteristics; racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty or affluence; disparities in access to opportunity for people with protected characteristics, including persons with disabilities; and disproportionate housing needs within the jurisdiction, including displacement risk.153 Moreover, the jurisdiction must map the number of units at identified sites and include the sites’ assumed affordability.154 The jurisdiction should also address whether it groups sites near areas of concentrated affluence or areas of concentrated poverty.155
The City provides several maps of its site inventory in relation to concentrations of ethnic and racial minorities and lower-income residents.
156 While these maps do not identify the sites
by assumed affordability, the City does provide an analysis of the affordability levels as it relates to the different categories and demographics contained in the maps. It is clear from the City’s analysis that it went to great lengths to distribute more of the affordable units in areas of higher income residents and higher concentrations of White residents in an attempt to affirmatively further fair housing. While this is commendable, it is still concerning that, for example, there are no sites in any of the areas in the City with less than 40% non-White residents.157 So while the City made an attempted to further fair housing among the sites identified, it does not seem that the City made an effort to affirmatively further fair housing in the actual selection of the sites.

The City should make a greater effort to identify sites throughout the community, including in areas of the City with less than 40% non-White residents and the City should further analyze whether the identification of the majority of its sites in lower-income communities with higher concentrations of racial and ethnic minorities actually furthers fair housing or will only result in continued trends of segregation.

Identification and Prioritization of Contributing Factors As a result of a jurisdiction’s assessment of fair housing, the jurisdiction must identify and prioritize significant contributing factors to fair housing issues.158 The jurisdiction must explain how it prioritized contributing factors.159 “A fair housing contributing factor means a factor that creates, contributes to, perpetuates, or increases the severity of one or more fair housing issues.”160 The jurisdiction must follow these steps:

153 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 46, 63 (April 2021); Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(ii). 154 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 46, 63 (April 2021).
155 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 48 (April 2021).
156 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-68 to 3-74 (August 2021). 157 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-72 (August 2021). 158 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 49 (April 2021); Cal. Gov. Code Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(iii). 159 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 51 (April 2021).
160
HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 49 (April 2021).

RE: City of Costa Mesa Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 15, 2021
p. 22
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 (1) identify fair housing issues and significant contributing factors; (2) prioritize contributing factors, giving highest priority to those factors that (a) deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity or (b) negatively impact fair housing or civil rights compliance; and (3) discuss strategic approaches to inform and strongly connect these contributing factors to goals and actions.161
The City seems to only adopt the same four factors identified for the City in the countywide Analysis of Impediments,162 which likely is due to the fact that the City fails to fully assess fair housing and just provides data in attempt to satisfy the State requirements.

Additionally, the City does not prioritize contributing factors. The City must do so to comply with State law. We suggest the City consult HCD’s Guidance Memo for further details.

Goals, Policies, and Actions
Jurisdictions must provide goals, policies, and a schedule of actions during the planning period to affirmatively further fair housing.163 These goals, policies and actions must be based on the jurisdiction’s identification and prioritization of contributing factors.164 The jurisdiction’s actions may address, but are not limited to, the following areas:
● mobility enhancement,
● new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, ● place-based strategies for preservation and revitalization, ● displacement protection, and
● other program areas.165
The jurisdiction’s actions must be meaningful and sufficient to overcome identified patterns of segregation and to affirmatively further fair housing.166 Accordingly, actions must commit to specific deliverables, measurable metrics, or specific objectives.167 Actions must also have definitive deadlines, dates, or benchmarks for implementation.168 In contrast, “programs that ‘explore’ or ‘consider’ on an ‘ongoing’ basis are inadequate . . . .”169 Moreover, adequate

161 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 49 (April 2021).
162 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 3-46, 3-67 to 3-68 (August 2021). 163 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 51 (April 2021).; Cal. Gov. Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(iv)–(v). 164 Cal. Gov. Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(iv)–(v); AFFH Guidance Memo 63 (April 2021). 165 Cal. Gov. Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(iv)–(v); AFFH Guidance Memo 63 (April 2021). 166 Cal. Gov. Section 8899.50(a)(1), (b); AFFH Guidance Memo 51–53 (April 2021). 167 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 52 (April 2021).
168 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 52 (April 2021).
169 HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 52 (April 2021).

RE: City of Costa Mesa Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 15, 2021
p. 23
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 actions must be “in addition to combatting discrimination” and “well beyond a continuation of past actions.”170
The City’s goals, policies, and actions fall below California law’s standard. Many of the City’s goals, policies, and actions do nothing more than make information available on its website claiming that “an educated community is an empowered community.” 171 The City
assumes that by providing information on its website, information likely already available on the internet, somehow housing discrimination will end, the community will become integrated, and all individuals will have equal access to housing opportunities. The City should consider goals that will actually result in beneficial impacts to the community beyond just making information available online. Also, the City has other goals, policies, and actions that only commit the City to continuing current programs. For instance, the City will continue to contract with the Fair Housing Foundation or continue to participate in the Orange County Housing Authority’s Housing Choice Voucher program.”172 But the City already provided these services, which means that they cannot count as satisfactory affirmatively furthering fair housing goals.

Additionally, these goals are vague and it is unclear how the City actually engages with these entities and what services and programs the City’s residents gain by these programs. For example, it is unclear what City action actually makes any difference in or has any influence on the provision of Housing Choice Vouchers to City residents. While the City provides other goals that are beyond providing information or continuing past actions, many of the City’s goals, policies, and actions are noncommittal and generally the City’s fair housing goals lack measurable objectives and specific timelines for implementation, as has been discussed throughout our comment letter. The Program 2A: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance could go a long way toward combatting patterns of segregation and encouraging affordable housing throughout the community, but the City states that it will only “consider” adoption of such an ordinance.173 Other goals state the City will simply “analyze potential development incentives for affordable housing,” “pursue opportunities,” “encourage development,” “consider amendments” and “continue to evaluate.” These exemplify the City’s failure to include measurable objectives and concrete action steps or firm commitments to address the housing needs of its residents.
174 For most of its goals, the City designates the timeframes as “ongoing”— a feature that renders goals inadequate.175 Because many of the City’s goals, policies, and actions lack measurable objectives and timelines for implementation, this section cannot withstand HCD’s scrutiny. We suggest picking actions that go beyond providing information and beyond continuing past actions. We also recommend that the City add specific metrics and milestones to its goals. We again refer the City to HCD’s Guidance Memo.

170 Cal. Gov. Code Section 8899.50(a); HCD, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, 52 (April 2021).
171 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 4-15 to 4-18 (August 2021). 172 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 4-16 to 4-17 (August 2021). 173 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 4-5 (August 2021). 174 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 4-5 to 4-7, 4-15 to 4-18 (August 2021). 175 City of Costa Mesa, 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft, 4-5 to 4-7, 4-15 to 4-18 (August 2021).

RE: City of Costa Mesa Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
September 15, 2021
p. 24
601 Civic Center Drive West ∙ Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 ∙ (714) 541-1010 ∙ Fax (714) 541-5157 Conclusion
The housing element process is an opportunity for jurisdictions to meet the needs of California’s residents, including needs for housing that is accessible to seniors, families, and workers and the needs of extremely-low-, very-low-, and low-income families for affordable housing. We commend the efforts the City is making to identify and address the housing needs of all of its residents and we hope that the City will take advantage of this opportunity to adopt meaningful programs that actually commit the City to take actions during the planning period to address the housing needs of its most vulnerable residents and to affirmatively further fair housing. We look forward to continuing to work with the City through this process and encourage the City to reach out to us with any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,
THE PUBLIC LAW CENTER, BY:

Richard Walker, Housing and Homelessness Prevention Unit, Senior Staff Attorney Alexis Mondares, Housing and Homelessness Prevention Unit, Legal Fellow Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
2400 Marconi Ave. T (916) 338-9460 ccapp.us
Sacramento, CA 95821 F (916) 338-9468
September 15, 2021
Lori Ann Farrell Harrison
City Manager
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Dr.,
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Re: Objection to Housing Element.

Dear Ms. Harrison:

On behalf of the California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals (CCAPP) - the largest statewide consortium of community-based for profit and non-profit recovery residences – we respectfully object to Costa Mesa’s housing element because it contains discriminatory clauses against people in recovery in blatant violation of fair housing.

Several items1in Costa Mesa’s municipal code (see detailed list attached) echo practices already proven discriminatory per the outcome of Encinitas and Pacific Shores et. Al. v. City of Newport Beach. They specifically target recovery residences and are discriminatory at every level because they ask people of a disabled class to adhere to regulation that people who are not disabled are not required to conform to. Employment checks, 24- hour supervision of adults in recovery, and distance requirements are glaringly not “reasonable accommodations,” in any sense of the definition.

On March 25, 2021, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) sent the City of Encinitas a letter declaring their ordinance to be discriminatory and contrary to both state and federal law (see attached).

This led to an immediate response from the city and this ordinance has since then been repealed. Subsequently, on May 3, 2021, the City of Anaheim was sent a letter of technical assistance regarding its discriminatory ordinance that is very similar to the Encinitas notice of violation. CCAPP has notified HCD of all known ordinances of similar nature including yours so that the same enforcement action can be taken.

In Pacific Shores et. al. v. City of Newport Beach, the City of Newport Beach settled with the plaintiffs, agreeing to pay $5.25 million to a group of recovery residences. Given the settlement and both outside and in-house counsel, this case cost the City of Newport Beach well over $10 million over the seven year course of trying to defend its actions. This outcome was prior to the attached 10-page notice of violation sent to the City of Encinitas which reads, in part:

1 Title 9, Chapter II, Article 23 of the Municipal Code, Chapters XV and XVI of Title 13 (Zoning), and Article 23 of Title 9 (Licenses and Business Regulations)
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
“On December 16, 2020, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2020-16, amending the Municipal Code to regulate Group Homes and, as a subset of Group Homes, Sober Living Facilities. Described in greater detail below, HCD finds that the City’s ordinance is in violation of statutory prohibitions on discrimination in land use (Gov. Code, § 65008) by imposing separate requirements on housing for a protected class (based on familial status and disability), limiting the use and enjoyment of their home, and jeopardizing the financial feasibility of group and sober living homes. The City must take immediate steps to repeal Ordinance No. 2020-16.”
The notice of violation is a clear and unmistakable declaration that these ordinances are in violation of state housing laws. It also makes clear that HCD will take action, up to and including, the assistance of the California Office of the Attorney General.

And it is for these reasons that we object to your housing element as proposed.

Sincerely,
Pete Nielsen
President and Chief Executive Officer
Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
Specific Considerations Objectionable in the Municipal Code

1. Municipal Code Title 9, Chapter II, Article 23. Group Homes, 9-374. Requirements for issuance of operator’s permit.
(a) The owner/operator shall submit an application to the director that provides the following information:
(7) relapse policy
Municipal Code Title 13, Chapter XV, 13-311. Special use permit required. (a) A group home that may otherwise be considered an unpermitted use may locate in an R1 zone with a special use permit provided:
(1) An application for a group home is submitted to the director by the owner/operator of the group home. The application shall provide the following:
(vii). The relapse policy;
These provisions target persons with disability. Other homes within the jurisdiction are not required to report to the city when a person relapses or what preparations are made for such an occurrence.

2. Municipal Code Title 9, Chapter II, Article 23. Group Homes, 9-374. Requirements for issuance of operator’s permit.
(b) Requirements for operation of group homes.
(1) The group home has a house manager who resides at the group home or any multiple of persons acting as a house manager who are present at the group home on a twenty-four (24) hour basis and who are responsible for the day-to-day operation of the group home.

Municipal Code Title 13, Chapter XV, 13-311. Special use permit required. (a) A group home that may otherwise be considered an unpermitted use may locate in an R1 zone with a special use permit provided:
(4) The group home has a house manager who resides at the group home or any multiple of persons acting as a house manager who are present at the group home on a twenty-four (24) hour basis and who are responsible for the day-to-day operation of the group home.

Recovery residences are homes, not facilities. There are no “day-to-day operations” which require 24 hour supervision. This requirement, particularly for smaller homes will make it economically unfeasible to exist. Recovery residences cannot simply require 24-hour supervision without paying the persons responsible for providing this service. Typical, house managers, senior residents, or mentors are paid a small stipend of their contributions to the leadership they provide. To change this model to 24-hour supervision would make this type of housing unaffordable. Three 8-hours shifts at $15 per hour would increase the cost of the unit to $2,520 per week, or $10,080 per month. If it is the city’s intention to expel this housing from the jurisdiction via onerous financial requirements, the resulting homelessness increase should be taken into consideration.

Persons in this stage of recovery are not in need of supervision as determined by the American Society of Addiction Medicine:

Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
Although persons in recovery are afforded protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the disability concerned does not imply that persons in recovery are in need of physical assistance (dressing, feeding) or in need of supervision. In fact, the American Society of Addiction Medicine Placement criteria for addictions patients, originally published in 1991 and now in its third edition (2013), directly contradicts the notion that persons in recovery residences are being supervised, in a clinical sense. Use of this criteria is a decades old industry standard and is now required for all programs licensed or certified by the Department of Health Care Services. By definition, persons living in a recovery residence do not require supervision. Applying ASAM criteria, persons in a supportive living environment would, at most, be classified as level 1.0, although many in long term recovery may not even be assessed as needing any treatment:
“At ASAM Level 1 placement/Recovery Environment, it is clear that medical experts do not consider supervision to be necessary. Likening this level to a mental health scenario, one could compare this level to a patient who has received a higher level of care, inpatient or otherwise, and is now perhaps receiving medication and attending weekly therapy.”

3. Municipal Code Title 9, Chapter II, Article 23. Group Homes, 9-374. Requirements for issuance of operator’s permit.
(b) Requirements for operation of group homes.
(11) In addition to the regulations listed above, the following shall also apply to sober living homes:
i. All occupants, other than the house manager, must be actively participating in legitimate recovery programs including but not limited to Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous and the sober living home must maintain current records of meeting attendance. Under the sober living home’s rule and regulations, refusal to actively participate in such a program shall be cause for eviction. ii. The sober living home’s rules and regulations must prohibit the use of any alcohol or any non-prescription drugs at the sober living home or by any recovering addict either on or off site. The sober living home must also have a written policy regarding the possession, use and storage of prescription medications. The facility cannot dispense medications but must make them available to the residents. The possession or use of prescription medications is prohibited except for the person to whom they are prescribed, and in the amounts/dosages prescribed. These rules and regulations shall be posted on site in a common area inside the dwelling unit. Any violation of this rule must be cause for eviction under the sober living home’s rules for residency and the violator cannot be re-admitted for at least ninety (90) days. Any second violation of this rule shall result in permanent eviction. Alternatively, the sober living home must have provisions in place to remove the violator from contact with the other residents until the violation is resolved.
(e) In addition to denying an application for failing to comply, or failing to agree to comply, with subsections (a) and/or (b) of this section, an operator’s permit shall also be denied, and if already issued shall be revoked upon a hearing by the director, under any of the following circumstances:

Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
(6) An operator’s permit for a sober living home shall also be denied, and if already issued shall be revoked upon a hearing by the director, under any of the following additional circumstances:
i. The owner/operator of a sober living home fails to immediately take measures to remove any resident who uses alcohol or illegally uses prescription or non-prescription drugs, or who is not actively participating in a legitimate recovery program from contact with all other sober residents.

Municipal Code Title 13, Chapter XV, 13-311. Special use permit required. (a) A group home that may otherwise be considered an unpermitted use may locate in an R1 zone with a special use permit provided:
(14) In addition to the regulations outlined above, the following shall also apply to sober living homes:
ii. All occupants, other than the house manager, must be actively participating in legitimate recovery programs, including, but not limited to, Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous and the sober living home must maintain current records of meeting attendance. Under the sober living home’s rules and regulations, refusal to actively participate in such a program shall be cause for eviction. iii. The sober living home’s rules and regulations must prohibit the use of any alcohol or any non-prescription drugs at the sober living home or by any recovering addict either on or off site. The sober living home must also have a written policy regarding the possession, use and storage of prescription medications. The facility cannot dispense medications but must make them available to the residents. The possession or use of prescription medications is prohibited except for the person to whom they are prescribed, and in the amounts/dosages prescribed. These rules and regulations shall be posted on site in a common area inside the dwelling unit. Any violation of this rule must be cause for eviction under the sober living home’s rules for residency and the violator cannot be re-admitted for at least ninety (90) days. Any second violation of this rule shall result in permanent eviction. Alternatively, the sober living home must have provisions in place to remove the violator from contact with the other residents until the violation is resolved. (b) The special use permit shall be issued by the director as a ministerial matter if the applicant is in compliance or has agreed to comply with subsections (a)(1) through (a)(14) of this section. At least ten (10) days prior to issuing a special use permit, the director shall cause written notice to be mailed to the owner of record and occupants of all properties within five hundred (500) feet of the location of the group home. Prior to issuance of the special use permit, the director shall hold a public hearing for the purpose of receiving information regarding compliance with the applicable provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of this section. The issuance of the special use permit shall be denied upon a determination, and if already issued shall be denied or revoked upon a hearing, by the director that any of the following circumstances exist:
(6) A special use permit for a sober living home shall also be denied upon a determination, and if already issued, any transfer shall be denied or revoked, upon a hearing, by the director that any of the following additional circumstances exist:

Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
(ii) The owner/operator of a sober living home fails to immediately take measures to remove any resident who uses alcohol or illegally uses prescription or non-prescription drugs, or who is not actively participating in a legitimate recovery program from contact with all other sober residents.

The ordinances asks for “immediate removal” of persons not “actively participating” in a “legitimate recovery program” and to ban communication with other residents should relapse occur.

Substance use disorder is prone to relapse. A person should not become homeless for relapse.

Substance use disorder is a medical issue. Anyone relapsing may be in physical danger and in need of detoxification or treatment. In fact, “immediate removal” of a client in a licensed treatment program is prohibited by regulation due to safety concerns for the relapsing client. It takes time to contact family, arrange for detoxification, and find an open treatment bed, immediate removal is unrealistic and dangerous.

As for “legitimate recovery programs” as define in the ordinances, many persons in long term recovery do not necessarily attend meetings or have a need for outpatient services. For some hiking in the wilderness, working, or reuniting with family constitutes all the recovery services that they need.

You cannot force people to attend a religious group or seek medical attention that they no longer need and do not desire to participate in. It is their right, this right was made clear when the City of Dana Point successfully sued a recovery residence for requiring that outside services be attended as a violation of state licensing law for alcohol drug treatment facilities. People in recovery are mature adults with civil rights which include the right to pursue personal recovery activities as they choose.

How can city staff, with no knowledge of recovery define what is “legitimate?” And what constitutes “active participation?” Who decides how much attendance is necessary for each person? To prove any program attendance, requires violating the disabled persons' privacy (particularly if the attendance involves outpatient treatment, a medical service, as opposed to mutual aid meetings). Maintaining records regarding medical and spiritual attendance for an individual is a violation of privacy, and in the case of outpatient treatment, a violation of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Asking city staff to review the personal health and spiritual activities of any of its citizens is a violation of privacy on every level.

4. Municipal Code Title 9, Chapter II, Article 23. Group Homes, 9-374. Requirements for issuance of operator’s permit.
(e) In addition to denying an application for failing to comply, or failing to agree to comply, with subsections (a) and/or (b) of this section, an operator’s permit shall also be denied, and if already issued shall be revoked upon a hearing by the director, under any of the following circumstances:
(1) Any owner/operator or staff person has provided materially false or misleading information on the application or omitted any pertinent information. (2) Any owner/operator or staff person has an employment history in which he or she was terminated during the past two (2) years because of physical assault, sexual harassment, embezzlement or theft; falsifying a drug test; and selling or furnishing illegal drugs or alcohol. (3) Any owner/operator or staff person has been convicted of or pleaded nolo contendere, within the last seven (7) to ten (10) years, to any of the following offenses:
i. Any sex offense for which the person is required to register as a sex offender under California Penal Code section 290 (last ten (10) years); Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
ii. Arson offenses—Violations of Penal Code Sections 451—455 (last seven (7) years); or
iii. Violent felonies, as defined in Penal Code section 667.5, which involve doing bodily harm to another person (last ten (10) years).
iv. The unlawful sale or furnishing of any controlled substances (last seven (7) years). (4) Any owner/operator or staff person is on parole or formal probation supervision on the date of the submittal of the application or at any time thereafter.

Municipal Code Title 13, Chapter XV, 13-311. Special use permit required. (b) The special use permit shall be issued by the director as a ministerial matter if the applicant is in compliance or has agreed to comply with subsections (a)(1) through (a)(14) of this section. At least ten (10) days prior to issuing a special use permit, the director shall cause written notice to be mailed to the owner of record and occupants of all properties within five hundred (500) feet of the location of the group home. Prior to issuance of the special use permit, the director shall hold a public hearing for the purpose of receiving information regarding compliance with the applicable provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of this section. The issuance of the special use permit shall be denied upon a determination, and if already issued shall be denied or revoked upon a hearing, by the director that any of the following circumstances exist:
(1) Any owner/operator or staff person has provided materially false or misleading information on the application or omitted any pertinent information; (2) Any owner/operator or staff person has an employment history in which he or she was terminated during the past two (2) years because of physical assault, sexual harassment, embezzlement or theft; falsifying a drug test; and selling or furnishing illegal drugs or alcohol. (3) Any owner/operator or staff person has been convicted of or pleaded nolo contendere, within the last seven (7) to ten (10) years, to any of the following offenses:
i. Any sex offense for which the person is required to register as a sex offender under California Penal Code section 290 (last ten (10) years); ii. Arson offenses—Violations of Penal Code Sections 451—455 (last seven (7) years); or iii. Violent felonies, as defined in Penal Code section 667.5, which involve doing bodily harm to another person (last ten (10) years).
iv. The unlawful sale or furnishing of any controlled substances (last seven (7) years). (4) Any owner/operator or staff person is on parole or formal probation supervision on the date of the submittal of the application or at any time thereafter. (5) The owner/operator accepts residents, other than a house manager, who are not handicapped as defined by the FHAA and FEHA.
(6) A special use permit for a sober living home shall also be denied upon a determination, and if already issued, any transfer shall be denied or revoked, upon a hearing, by the director that any of the following additional circumstances exist:
i. Any owner/operator or staff person of a sober living home is a recovering drug or alcohol abuser and upon the date of application or employment has had less than one (1) full year of sobriety.

Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
As per California statute, employers are prohibited from denying employment based upon disability.

A one year sobriety requirement clearly violates employment laws.

Many people with substance use disorder lose employment for reasons stated in the ordinances.

House managers live at the residence. Denial of housing based on employment history is beyond reasonable. Realizing that people in early recovery often have legal issues connected to previous drug use, denial of housing based on criminal history, including simple possession of cannabis, is discriminatory and specifically designed to limit this type of housing. Are other renters in the jurisdiction denied housing for this broad array of criminal acts? Are other renters denied housing based on employment loss? Are other businesses who provide housing held to this standard?

5. Municipal Code Title 9, Chapter II, Article 23. Group Homes, 9-374. Requirements for issuance of operator’s permit.
(b) Requirements for operation of group homes.
(11) In addition to the regulations outlined above, the following shall also apply to sober living homes:
v. The sober living home shall have a good neighbor policy that shall direct occupants to be considerate of neighbors, including refraining from engaging in excessively loud, profane or obnoxious behavior that would unduly interfere with a neighbor’s use and enjoyment of their dwelling unit. The good neighbor policy shall establish a written protocol for the house manager/operator to follow when a neighbor complaint is received.

Municipal Code Title 13, Chapter XV, 13-311. Special use permit required. (a) A group home that may otherwise be considered an unpermitted use may locate in an R1 zone with a special use permit provided:
(14) In addition to the regulations outlined above, the following shall also apply to sober living homes:
vi. The sober living home shall have a good neighbor policy that shall direct occupants to be considerate of neighbors, including refraining from engaging in excessively loud, profane or obnoxious behavior that would unduly interfere with a neighbor’s use and enjoyment of their dwelling unit. The good neighbor policy shall establish a written protocol for the house manager/operator to follow when a neighbor complaint is received.

Are other citizens prohibited from profanity or being "obnoxious?" Are other families required to respond to neighbor's complaints? Who decides what "unduly interfering" means? There are code compliance mechanisms in place to handle such complaints for other persons in the jurisdiction. Why is this disabled class being subjected to different criteria with consequences that can lead to removal of housing for them? Should all citizens in the jurisdiction who violate noise codes or use their First Amendment rights to express themselves in poor taste be subject to loss of residency and homelessness? Is an arbitrary “be good” clause a reasonable accommodation?

6. Municipal Code Title 9, Chapter II, Article 23. Group Homes, 9-374. Requirements for issuance of operator’s permit.

Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
(b) Requirements for operation of group homes.
(2) All garage and driveway spaces associated with the dwelling unit shall, at all times, be available for the parking of vehicles. Residents and the house manager may each only store or park a single vehicle at the dwelling unit or on any street within five hundred (500) feet of the dwelling unit. The vehicle must be operable and currently used as a primary form of transportation for a resident of the group home.

Municipal Code Title 13, Chapter XV, 13-311. Special use permit required. (a) A group home that may otherwise be considered an unpermitted use may locate in an R1 zone with a special use permit provided:
(5) All garage and driveway spaces associated with the dwelling unit shall, at all times, be available for the parking of vehicles. Residents and the house manager may each only store or park a single vehicle at the dwelling unit or on any street within five hundred (500) feet of the dwelling unit. The vehicle must be operable and currently used as a primary form of transportation for a resident of the group home.

There exist parking regulation that governs where individuals can park. These parking requirements go beyond existing regulations and subject a disabled class of individuals to separate and discriminatory rules. Individuals without disability are not told they can only park one car in a 500 feet distance from their home.

7. Municipal Code Title 13, Chapter XV, 13-311. Special use permit required. (a) A group home that may otherwise be considered an unpermitted use may locate in an R1 zone with a special use permit provided:
(14) In addition to the regulations outlined above, the following shall also apply to sober living homes:
i. The sober living home is not located within six hundred fifty (650) feet, as measured from the closest property lines, of any other sober living home or a state licensed alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility.
(b) The special use permit shall be issued by the director as a ministerial matter if the applicant is in compliance or has agreed to comply with subsections (a)(1) through (a)(14) of this section. At least ten (10) days prior to issuing a special use permit, the director shall cause written notice to be mailed to the owner of record and occupants of all properties within five hundred (500) feet of the location of the group home. Prior to issuance of the special use permit, the director shall hold a public hearing for the purpose of receiving information regarding compliance with the applicable provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of this section. The issuance of the special use permit shall be denied upon a determination, and if already issued shall be denied or revoked upon a hearing, by the director that any of the following circumstances exist:
(6) A special use permit for a sober living home shall also be denied upon a determination, and if already issued, any transfer shall be denied or revoked, upon a hearing, by the director that any of the following additional circumstances exist:
iii. The sober living home, as measured by the closest property lines, is located within six hundred fifty (650) feet of any other sober living home or state licensed alcoholism Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility. If a state-licensed alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility moves within six hundred fifty (650) feet of an existing sober living home this shall not cause the revocation of the sober living home’s permit or be grounds for denying a transfer of such permit.

Municipal Code Title 13, Chapter XVI, 13-322. Group homes in the R2-MD, R2-HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR-LD, PDR-MD, PDR-HD, PDR-NCM, PDC, and PDI (planned development zones) zones with six (6) or fewer occupants.
(a) A special use permit shall be required for and may be granted to permit the operation of a group home including a sober living home with six (6) or fewer occupants in the R2-MD, R2-HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR-LD, PDR-MD, PDR-HD, PDR-NCM, PDC, and PDI (planned development zones) zones subject to the following requirements:
(3) The group home or sober living home is at least six hundred fifty (650) feet from any other property, as defined in section 13-321, that contains a group home, sober living home or statelicensed drug and alcohol treatment facility, as measured from the property line.

Municipal Code Title 13, Chapter XVI, 13-223. Conditional use permit required for group homes, residential care facilities and drug and alcohol treatment facilities in the R2-MD, R2-HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR-LD, PDR-MD, PDR-HD, PDR-NCM, PDC, and PDI (planned development zones) w
A conditional use permit shall be required for and may be granted to allow the operation of a group home, state-licensed residential care facility or state-licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility with seven (7) or more occupants in the R2-MD, R2-HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR-LD, PDR-MD, PDR-HD, PDR-NCM, PDC, and PDI (planned development zones) zones subject to the following conditions:
(b) The group home, residential care facility or state-licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility is at least six-hundred fifty (650) feet from any property, as defined in section 13-321, that contains a group home, sober living home or state-licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility, as measured from the property line, unless the reviewing authority determines that such location will not result in an over-concentration of similar uses.

The types of facilities where distance requirements may be imposed is set by state statute. These ordinances are contrary to this statute. State statute applies to licensed facilities only and the arbiter who decides whether “overconcentration” exists is the Department of Health Care Services:
“1520.5. (b) The Legislature hereby declares it to be the policy of the state to prevent overconcentrations of residential facilities that impair the integrity of residential neighborhoods. Therefore, the department shall deny an application for a new residential facility license if the department determines that the location is in a proximity to an existing residential facility that would result in overconcentration.” The distance requirements set forth in the aforementioned ordinances more than double the distance requirements set by state statute. It is excessive and discriminates against a disabled class of people as it excludes what is in essence a normal residence from many spaces that other residents without this disability would not have to adhere to.

Furthermore, if say a group of birdwatchers wanted to move into a residence they would not be expected to notify every neighbor within 500 ft of their property that they are moving in. They would Inspiring Excellence, Promoting Change
also not be required to hold a hearing to make a case as to why they should be permitted to move in to that space. These practices are discriminatory and clearly meant to exclude sober living homes.

8. Municipal Code Title 13, Chapter XVI, 13-320. Purpose.

This chapter is intended to preserve the residential character the City of Costa Mesa’s residential neighborhoods and to further the purposes of the FEHA, the FHAA and the Lanterman Act by, among other things:
(b) Limiting the secondary impacts of group homes by reducing noise and traffic, preserving safety and providing adequate off-street parking;
This is discriminatory on face value. Would a concentration of birdwatchers living together degrade a neighborhood? Would a concentration of LGBTQ individuals degrade a neighborhood? There are no services in a recovery residence; they are not institutions. As for “secondary impacts” of group homes we ask that the city produce concrete evidence of such impacts.

9. Municipal Code Title 13, Chapter XVI, 13-322. Group homes in the R2-MD, R2-HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR-LD, PDR-MD, PDR-HD, PDR-NCM, PDC, and PDI (planned development zones) zones with six (6) or fewer occupants.
(a) A special use permit shall be required for and may be granted to permit the operation of a group home including a sober living home with six (6) or fewer occupants in the R2-MD, R2-HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR-LD, PDR-MD, PDR-HD, PDR-NCM, PDC, and PDI (planned development zones) zones subject to the following requirements:
(2) The application includes a live scan of the house manager and/or operator of the group home.

House managers typically live with residents and are a part of the family in much the same way a parent would act as a mentor, leader, and a person who encourages that rules are followed, chores are completed, and disputes are amicably resolved. Requiring a live scan is excessive and discriminatory. As per California employment statute, employers are prohibited from sharing background information about their employees.

ARIOS, JUSTIN
From: Darryl Shinder <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 4:26 PM
To: Housing Element; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Comment re Chapter 3 of City of Costa Mesa’s Draft Housing Element, 2021-2029 Attachments: Ordinance 14-13.pdf; Ordinance 13-05.pdf
Hello,
I submit the following comment in response to Chapter 3 of the City of Costa Mesa’s Public Review Draft (August 2021):

At pages 3-29 and 3-30 the Public Review Draft (August 2021) discusses the City’s definition of Single Housekeeping Unit. The City’s presentation of that definition is misleading to the public and HCD.

Since 2013, the City has amended its definition of Single Housekeeping Unit twice for the express purpose of excluding Group Homes for persons with disabilities from qualifying as a Single Housekeeping Unit in order to subject housing for persons with disabilities to the City’s discriminatory zoning regulations.

First, in December 2013, the City enacted Ordinance 13-05. As explained at the time by City staff, Ordinance 13-05 amended the definition of Single Housekeeping Unit for the express purpose of excluding Group Homes from its coverage to enable the City to subject Group Homes to discriminatory zoning regulations. A copy of the relevant City report regarding Ordinance 13-05 is attached to this email.

Next, in October 2014, the City again amended the definition of Single Housekeeping Unit as part of Ordinance 14-13, which simultaneously enacted discriminatory zoning regulations that applied solely to Group Homes for persons with disabilities. Ordinance 14-13 also added a definition for Group Home (formerly defined as Residential Service Facilities), which its discriminatory zoning regulations – enacted in the very same ordinance -- targeted with laser-like efficiency:

Group home. A facility that is being used as a supportive living environment for persons who are considered handicapped under state or federal law. A group home operated by a single operator or service provider (whether licensed or unlicensed) constitutes a single facility, whether the facility occupies one (1) or more dwelling units. Group homes shall not include the following: (1) residential care facilities; (2) any group home that operates as a single housekeeping unit.

Sober living home means a group home for persons who are recovering from a drug and/or alcohol addiction and who are considered handicapped under state or federal law. Sober living homes shall not include the following: (1) residential care facilities; (2) any sober living home that operates as a single housekeeping unit.

Ordinance 14-13 simultaneously and retroactively prohibited any existing use defined as a Group Homes, including Sober Living Homes, from the City’s R-1 zoning district unless the Group Home obtained a Special Use Permit (SUP). The City then denied SUPs to most existing R-1 Group Homes and cited and ordered them to close, ousting their disabled residents from their housing. In 2015, the City extended similar zoning regulation to its Multifamily Zoning Districts.

Since enactment of Ordinance 14-13’s definition of Single Housekeeping Unit, there is no public record reflecting any determination by the City that supportive housing of persons with disabilities constitutes a Single Housekeeping Unit.

Thanks for your attention in this matter,
Darryl Shinder
SoCal Recovery
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.

ORDINANCE NO. 14-13

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA AMENDING SECTION 13-6 (DEFINITIONS) OF ARTICLE 2 (DEFINITIONS) OF

CHAPTER I (GENERAL), ADDING CHAPTER XV (GROUP HOMES), AND REPEALING AND REPLACING ARTICLE 15 (REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS) OF CHAPTER IX (SPECIAL LAND USE REGULATIONS), OF TITLE 13 (ZONING

CODE) AND AMENDING THE CITY OF COSTA MESA LAND USE MATRIX -TABLE NO. 13-30 OF CHAPTER IV. (CITYWIDE LAND USE MATRIX) OF THE COSTA MESA

MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO GROUP HOMES

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE ADOPTION OF THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE:

WHEREAS, under the California Constitution, Article XI, Section 7, the City has been granted broad police powers to preserve the single-family characteristics of its single-family neighborhoods, which powers have been recognized by both the California Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court, the latter of which has stated that, "It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled"; and
WHEREAS, both the California Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court have held that cities have the right to regulate both the number of people who may reside in a single family home and the manner in which the single family is used as long as such regulations do not unfairly discriminate or impair an individual's rights of privacy and association; and
WHEREAS, individuals and families often purchase homes in single-family neighborhoods for the relative tranquility and safety that often accompanies such neighborhoods and with the expectation of establishing close and long-standing ties with their neighbors; and
WHEREAS, with these expectations, individuals and families commit to making what will be, for most of them, the single largest financial investment of their lives, as well as one of the most significant emotional investments; and WHEREAS, the Federal Fair Housing Act Amendments ("FHAA") and the California Fair Employment Housing Act ("FEHA") prohibit enforcement of zoning ordinances which would on their face or have the effect of discriminating against equal housing opportunities for the handicapped; and
WHEREAS, a core purpose of the FHAA, FEHA and California's Lanterman Act is to provide a broader range of housing opportunities to the handicapped; to free the handicapped, to the extent possible, from institutional style living; and to ensure that handicapped persons have the opportunity to live in normal residential surroundings and 1 use and enjoy a dwelling in a manner similar to the way a dwelling is enjoyed by the nonhandicapped; and WHEREAS, to fulfill this purpose the FHAA and FEHA also require that the City provide reasonable accommodation to its zoning ordinances if such accommodation is necessary to afford a handicapped person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; and
WHEREAS, the Lanterman Act fulfills this purpose in part by requiring cities to treat state licensed residential care facilities serving six or fewer as a residential use; and WHEREAS, in enacting this Ordinance the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa is attempting to strike a balance between the City's and residents' interests of preserving the single family characteristics of single-family neighborhoods and to provide opportunities for the handicapped to reside in single-family R 1 zones that are enjoyed by the non-handicapped; and
WHEREAS, over the past several years the City, County and State have seen a significant increase in the number of single-family homes being utilized as alcohol and drug recovery facilities for large numbers of individuals (hereafter, "sober living homes"); and
WHEREAS, the increase appears to be driven in part by the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (hereafter, "the Act") adopted by California voters which provides that specified first-time drug and alcohol offenders are to be afforded the opportunity to receive substance abuse treatment rather than incarceration; and WHEREAS, the Affordable Care Act has significantly expanded the availability of health care coverage for substance abuse treatment; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has seen a sharp increase of sober living homes, which has generated community outcry and complaints including, but not limited to overcrowding, inordinate amounts of second-hand smoke, and noise; and the clustering of sober living facilities in close proximity to each other creating near neighborhoods of sober living homes; and
WHEREAS, this significant increase in sober living homes has become an rising concern for cities statewide as local officials are in some cases being bombarded with complaints from residents about the proliferation of sober living homes; conferences drawing local officials from around the state are being held discussing what to do about the problems associated with sober living homes; it has been the topic of several League of California Cities meetings; there have been numerous city-sponsored attempts at legislative fixes that have failed in committee; and litigation is spreading across the state as cities attempt to address the problem; and
Ordinance No. 14-13 Page 2 of 19
WHEREAS, as of the date of adoption of this Ordinance, it is estimated that the City of Costa Mesa is home to 1,214 alcohol and drug recovery beds, divided as follows:
40 licensed residential facilities/certified alcohol and drug programs in residential zones, providing 398 beds; 94 unlicensed sober living homes in residential zones, providing 740 beds; and 1 sober living home on two separate parcels, providing 76 beds in a nonresidential zone; and 28 nonresidential services facilities, providing support services such as administrative offices, therapy etc.; and
WHEREAS, the number of sober living homes in the City of Costa Mesa is rapidly increasing, leading to an overconcentration of sober living homes in the City's R1 neighborhoods, which is both deleterious to the single-family character of the R1 neighborhoods and may also lead to the institutionalization of such neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the purpose of sober living homes is to provide a comfortable living environment for persons with drug or alcohol addictions in which they remain clean and sober and can participate in a recovery program in a residential, community environment, and so that they have the opportunity to reside in the single family neighborhood of their choice; and
WHEREAS, recovering alcoholics and drug addicts, who are not currently using alcohol or drugs, are considered handicapped under both the FHAA and FEHA; and WHEREAS, concentrations of sober living homes and/or the placement of inordinately large numbers of recovering addicts in a single dwelling can undermine the benefits of home ownership in single-family neighborhoods for those residing nearby and undermine the single-family characteristics of neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, in some cases, operators of sober living homes have attempted to house inordinately large numbers of recovering addicts in a single-family dwelling in Costa Mesa; for example, in one case an operator has placed 15 beds in a single-family home; and there has been a tendency for sober living homes to congregate in close proximity (for example, five sober living homes are located next to each other on one street in a R1 zone); and
WHEREAS, the City has experienced situations in which single-family homes are remodeled to convert common areas such as family rooms, dressing rooms, and garages into bedrooms (in one case a patio was converted to a room where 6 beds were found) or to add multiple bedrooms for the sole purpose of housing large numbers of recovering addicts in a single dwelling; and
WHEREAS, it has been the City's experience that most, if not all, operators of sober living homes have taken the stance that the FHAA and FEHA prohibit the City from regulating them in any fashion, that they are free to house as many recovering addicts in a single home as they desire, and that they are not required to make any showing to obtain an accommodation from the City's zoning ordinances, which allow a sober living home to house up to six recovering addicts as a matter of right; and Ordinance No. 14-13 Page 3 of 19
WHEREAS, based on the City's experience it has become clear that at least some operators of sober living homes are driven more by a motivation to profit rather than to provide a comfortable living environment in which recovering addicts have a realistic potential of recovery, or to provide a living environment which remotely resembles the manner in which the non-disabled use and enjoy a dwelling; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance and the balance of the City's zoning scheme have built in an accommodation for group homes to locate in the R1 neighborhoods as long as they are serving six or fewer tenants, whereas a similarly situated and functioning home with non-handicapped tenants would be defined as a boarding house and only be allowed three residents; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance will provide a mechanism for a group home to seek additional accommodation above the six residents upon making a showing, as required by state and federal law, that such additional accommodation is reasonably necessary to afford the handicapped the right to use and enjoy a dwelling in a manner similar to that enjoyed by the non-handicapped; and
WHEREAS, permitting six or fewer residents in a sober living home and establishing distance requirements is reasonable and non-discriminatory and not only helps preserve the single family characteristic of single family neighborhoods, but also furthers the purpose for which sober living homes are established: (1) the State legislature in establishing licensed residential care facilities as a residential use, including group homes serving recovering addicts, found that six residents was a sufficient number to provide the supportive living environment that experts agree is beneficial to recovery; (2) Group Homes serving six or fewer have existed and flourished in the State for decades and there has been no significant efforts or suggestions to increase the number; (3) the City has received expert testimony stating that six is a reasonable number for a sober living facility and is sufficient to provide the supportive living environment that is beneficial to recovery and that larger numbers can actually reduce the chances of recovery; (4) a 2005 UCLA study found that 65-70% of recovering addicts do not finish the recovery programs into which they are placed and a comfortable living environment is a factor in whether recovering addicts will finish their programs; (5) drug and alcohol addiction is known to affect all income levels and there is no evidence in the record that individuals residing in sober living homes are financially unable to pay market rate rents and certainly the experience in the City of Newport Beach, where rents and property are among the most expensive in Orange County, is evidence that such addiction has a profound effect on the wealthy; (6) in any event, receiving rent from up to six individuals will provide sufficient income for operators of sober living homes and result in revenue which is well above market rate rents; (7) the evidence in the record indicates that in general operators of sober living homes do not incur significant costs over and above what landlords of other similarly-situated homes may incur; and (8) limiting the number of recovering addicts that can be placed in a single-family home enhances the potential for their recovery; and WHEREAS, sober living homes do not function as a single-family unit nor do they fit the City's zoning definition of a single-family for the following reasons: (1) they house Ordinance No. 14-13 Page 4 of 19
extremely transient populations (programs are generally about 90 days and as noted, the 2005 UCLA study found that 65-70% of recovering addicts don't finish their recovery programs); (2) the residents generally have no established ties to each other when they move in and typically do not mingle with other neighbors; (3) neighbors generally do not know who or who does not reside in the home; (4) the residents have little to no say about who lives or doesn't live in the home; (5) the residents do not generally share expenses; (6) the residents are often responsible for their own food, laundry and phone; (7) when residents disobey house rules they are often just kicked out of the house; (8) the residents generally do not share the same acquaintances; and (9) residents often pay significantly above-market rate rents; and
WHEREAS, the size and makeup of the households in sober living homes, even those allowed as a matter of right under the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, is dissimilar and larger than the norm, creating impacts on water, sewer, roads, parking and other City services that are far greater than the average household, in that the average number of persons per California household is 2.90 (2.74 in Costa Mesa's R1 zones according to the City's General Plan), while a sober living facility allowed as a matter of right would house six, which is in the top 5% of households in Orange County according to the most recent U.S. federal census data; and
WHEREAS, all of six individuals residing in a sober living facility are generally over the age of 18, while the average household has just 2.2 individuals over the age of 18 according to the most recent federal census data; and
WHEREAS, the City utilizes federal census data and other information relating to the characteristics of single-family neighborhoods for among other things: (1) determining the design of residential homes, residential neighborhoods, park systems, library systems, transportation systems; (2) determining parking and garage requirements of single-family homes; (3) developing its General Plan and zoning ordinances; (4) determining police and fire staffing; (5) determining impacts to water, sewer and other services; and (5) in establishing impacts fees that fairly and proportionally fund facilities for traffic, parks, libraries, police and fire; and
WHEREAS, because of their extremely transient populations, above-normal numbers of individuals/adults residing in a single home and the lack of regulations, sober living facilities present problems not typically associated with more traditional singlefamily uses, including: the housing of large numbers of unrelated adult who may or may not be supervised; disproportionate numbers of cars associated with a single-family home which causes disproportionate traffic and utilization of on-street parking; excessive noise and outdoor smoking, which interferes with the use and enjoyment of neighbors' use of their property; neighbors who have little to no idea who does and does not reside in the home; little to no interaction with the neighborhood; a history of opening facilities in complete disregard of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code and with little disregard for impacts to the neighborhood; disproportional impacts from the average dwelling unit to nearly all City services including sewer, water, parks, libraries, transportation infrastructure, fire and Ordinance No. 14-13 Page 5 of 19
police; a history of congregating in the same general area; and the potential influx of individuals with a criminal record; and
WHEREAS, a 650-foot distance requirement provides a reasonable market for the purchase and operation of a sober living home within the City and still results in preferential treatment for sober living homes in that non-handicapped individuals in a similar living situation (i.e., in boardinghouse-style residences) cannot reside in the R1 zone;and
WHEREAS, housing inordinately large numbers of unrelated adults in a singlefamily home or congregating sober living homes in close proximity to each other does not provide the handicapped with an opportunity to "live in normal residential surroundings," but rather places them into living environments bearing more in common with the types of institutional/campus/dormitory living that the FEHA and FHAA were designed to provide relief from for the handicapped, and which no reasonable person could contend provides a life in a normal residential surrounding; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding the above, the City Council recognizes that while not in character with a single-family neighborhood, that when operated responsibly, a group homes, including sober living homes, provide a societal benefit by providing the handicapped the opportunity to live in single-family neighborhoods, as well as providing recovery programs for individuals attempting to overcome their drug and alcohol addictions, and that therefore providing greater access to R1 zones to group homes, including sober living homes, than to boardinghouses provides a benefit to the City and its residents; and
WHEREAS, without some regulation there is no way of ensuring that the individuals entering into a group home are handicapped individuals and entitled to reasonable accommodation under local and state law; that a group home is operated professionally to minimize impacts to the surrounding neighborhood; and that the secondary impacts from over concentration of both group homes in a neighborhood and large numbers of unrelated adults residing in a single facility in a single home are lessened; and
WHEREAS, in addition to group homes locating in single-family neighborhoods other state-licensed residential care facilities for six or fewer persons who are mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped or supervised, are also taking up residence in single-family neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of group homes for the handicapped is to provide the handicapped an equal opportunity to comfortably reside in the single family neighborhood of their choice; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures, and has been found to be exempt pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) (General Ordinance No. 14-13 Page 6 of 19
Rule) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the City Council hereby finds that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the passage of this Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: The following definitions in Section 13-6 (Definitions) of Article 2 (Definitions) of Chapter I (General) of Title 13 (Planning, Zoning and Development) are hereby repealed, amended or added as follows:

Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility means adult alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities that are licensed pursuant to Section 11834.01 of the California Health & Safety Code. Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities are a subset of residential care facilities.

Boardinghouse A residence or dwelling, other than a hotel, wherein rooms are rented under three or more separate written or oral rental agreements, leases or subleases or combination thereof, whether or not the owner, agent or rental manager resides within the residence. Boardinghouse, small means two or fewer rooms being rented.

Boardinghouse, large means three or more rooms being rented.

Development Services Deparlment means the Development Services Department of the City of Costa Mesa.

Disabled shall have the same meaning as handicapped.

Fair housing laws means the Federal Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, as each statute may be amended from time to time, and each statute's implementing regulations.

Group home. A facility that is being used as a supportive living environment for persons who are considered handicapped under state or federal law. A group home operated by a single operator or service provider (whether licensed or unlicensed) constitutes a single facility, whether the facility occupies one or more dwelling units. Group homes shall not include the following: (1) residential care facilities; (2) any group home that operates as a single housekeeping unit.

Handicapped. As more specifically defined under the fair housing laws, a person who has a physical or mental impairment that limits one or more major life activities, a person who is regarded as having that type of impairment, or a person who has a record of that type of impairment, not including current, illegal use of a controlled substance.

Household includes all the people occupying a dwelling unit, and includes people who live in different units governed by the same operator.

Ordinance No. 14-13 Page 7 of 19
Integral facilities. Any combination of two or more group homes which may or may not be located on the same or contiguous parcels of land, that are under the control and management of the same owner, operator, management company or licensee or any affiliate of any of them, and are integrated components of one operation shall be referred to as Integral Facilities and shall be considered one facility for purposes of applying federal, state and local laws to its operation. Examples of such Integral Facilities include, but are not limited to, the provision of housing in one facility and recovery programming, treatment, meals, or any other service or services to program participants in another facility or facilities or by assigning staff or a consultant or consultants to provide services to the same program participants in more than one licensed or unlicensed facility.

Integral uses. Any two or more residential care programs commonly administered by the same owner, operator, management company or licensee, or any affiliate of any of them, in a manner in which participants in two or more care programs participate simultaneously in any care or recovery activity or activities so commonly administered. Any such integral use shall be considered one use for purposes of applying federal, state and local laws to its operation.

Operator means a company, business or individual who provides residential services, i.e., the placement of individuals in a residence, setting of house rules, and governing behavior of the residents as residents. Operator does not include a property owner or property manager that exclusively handles real estate contracting, property management and leasing of the property and that does not otherwise meet the definition of operator.

Planning division. The planning division of the Development Services Department of the City of Costa Mesa.

Referral facility. A residential care facility or a group home where one ( 1) or more person's residency in the facility is pursuant to a court order or directive from an agency in the criminal justice system.

Residential care facility. A residential facility licensed by the state where care, services, or treatment is provided to persons living in a supportive community residential setting.

Residential care facilities include but may not be limited to the following: intermediate care facilities for the developmentally disabled (Health & Saf. Code §§ 1267.8, 1267.9); community care facilities (Health & Saf. Code§§ 1500 et seq.); residential care facilities for the elderly (Health & Saf. Code §§ 1569 et seq.); residential care facilities for the chronically ill (22 C.C.R. § 87801 (a)(5); Health & Saf. § 1568.02); alcoholism and drug abuse facilities (Health & Saf. Code §§ 11834.02-11834.30); pediatric day health and respite care facilities (Health & Saf. Code §§ 1760 et seq.); residential health care facilities, including congregate living health facilities (Health & Saf. Code §§ 1265 - 1271.1, 1250(i), 1250(e), (h)); family care home, foster home, group home for the mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped persons or dependent and neglected children (Wei. & Inst. Code §§ 5115-5120).
[Residential services facilities is hereby deleted.]
Ordinance No. 14-13 Page 8 of 19
Single housekeeping unit means that the occupants of a dwelling unit have established ties and familiarity with each other, jointly use common areas, interact with each other, share meals, household activities, and expenses and responsibilities; membership in the single housekeeping unit is fairly stable as opposed to transient, members have some control over who becomes a member of the household, and the residential activities of the household are conducted on a nonprofit basis. There is a rebuttable presumption that integral facilities do not constitute single housekeeping units. Additional indicia that a household is not operating as a single housekeeping unit include but are not limited to:
the occupants do not share a lease agreement or ownership of the property; members of the household have separate, private entrances from other members; members of the household have locks on their bedroom doors; members of the household have separate food storage facilities, such as separate refrigerators.

Sober living home means a group home for persons who are recovering from a drug and/or alcohol addiction and who are considered handicapped under state or federal law.

Sober living homes shall not include the following: (1) residential care facilities; (2) any sober living home that operates as a single housekeeping unit.

Section 2: Chapter XV (Group Homes) of Title 13 (Planning, Zoning and Development) is hereby added as follows:

Chapter XV: Group homes.
13-310 Purpose.

This chapter is intended to preserve the residential character of single-family residential neighborhoods and to further the purposes of the FEHA, the FHAA and the Lanterman Act by, among other things: (1) ensuring that group homes are actually entitled to the special accommodation and/or additional accommodation provided under the Costa Mesa Municipal Code and not simply skirting the City's boarding house regulations; (2) limiting the secondary impacts of group homes by reducing noise and traffic, preserving safety and providing adequate on street parking; (3) providing an accommodation for the handicapped that is reasonable and actually bears some resemblance to the opportunities afforded non-handicapped individuals to use and enjoy a dwelling unit in a single-family neighborhood; and (4) to provide comfortable living environments that will enhance the opportunity for the handicapped and for recovering addicts to be successful in their programs.
13-311 Special use permit required.
(a) A group home that may otheiwise be considered an unpermitted use may locate in an R1 zone with a special use permit provided:

Ordinance No. 14-13 Page 9 of 19

1. An application for a group home is submitted to the director by the owner/operator of the group home. The application shall provide the following: (1) the name, address, phone number and driver's license number of the owner/operator; (2) the name, address, phone number and driver's license number of the house manager; (3) a copy of the group home rules and regulations; (4) written intake procedures; (5) the relapse policy; (6) an affirmation by the owner/operator that only residents ( other than the house manager) who are handicapped as defined by state and federal law shall reside at the group home; (7) blank copies of all forms that all residents and potential residents are required to complete; and (8) a fee for the cost of processing of the application as set by Resolution of the City Council. No person shall open a group home or begin employment with a group home until this information has been provided and such persons shall be responsible for updating any of this information to keep it current.

2. The group home has six (6) or fewer occupants, not counting a house manager, but in no event shall have more than seven occupants. If the dwelling unit has a secondary accessory unit, occupants of both units will be combined to determine whether or not the limit of six (6) occupants has been exceeded.

3. The group home shall not be located in an accessory secondary unit unless the primary dwelling unit is used for the same purpose.

4. The group home has a house manager who resides at the group home or any multiple of persons acting as a house manager who are present at the group home on a 24-hour basis and who are responsible for the day-to-day operation of the group home.

5. All garage and driveway spaces associated with the dwelling unit shall, at all times, be available for the parking of vehicles. Residents and the house manager may each only store or park a single vehicle at the dwelling unit or on any street within 500 feet of the dwelling unit. The vehicle must be operable and currently used as a primary form of transportation for a resident of the group home.

6. Occupants must not require and operators must not provide "care and supervision" as those terms are defined by Health and Safety Code Section 1503.5 and Section 80001 (c)(3) of title 22, California Code of Regulations.

7. Integral group home facilities are not permitted. Applicants shall declare, under penalty of perjury, that the group home does not operate as an integral use/facility.

8. If the group home operator is not the property owner, written approval from the property owner to operate a group home at the property.

Ordinance No. 14-13 Page 10 of 19

9. The property must be fully in compliance with all building codes, municipal code and zoning code
1 O. In addition to the regulations outlined above, the following shall also apply to sober living homes:
i. The sober living home is not located within 650 feet, as measured from the closest property lines, of any other sober living home or a state licensed alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility.
ii. All occupants, other than the house manager, must be actively participating in legitimate recovery programs, including, but not limited to, Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous and the sober living home must maintain current records of meeting attendance. Under the sober living home's rules and regulations, refusal to actively participate in such a program shall be cause for eviction.
iii. The sober living home's rules and regulations must prohibit the use of any alcohol or any non-prescription drugs at the sober living home or by any recovering addict either on or off site. The sober living home must also have a written policy regarding the possession, use and storage of prescription medications. The facility cannot dispense medications but must make them available to the residents. The possession or use of prescription medications is prohibited except for the person to whom they are prescribed, and in the
amounts/dosages prescribed. These rules and regulations shall be posted on site in a common area inside the dwelling unit. Any violation of this rule must be cause for eviction under the sober living home's rules for residency and the violator cannot be re-admitted for at least 90 days. Any second violation of this rule shall result in permanent eviction. Alternatively, the sober living home must have provisions in place to remove the violator from contact with the other residents until the violation is resolved.
iv. The number of occupants subject to the sex offender registration requirements of Penal Code Section 290 does not exceed the limit set forth in Penal Code Section 3003.5 and does not violate the distance provisions set forth in Penal Code Section 3003. v. The sober living home shall have a written visitation policy that shall preclude any visitors who are under the influence of any drug or alcohol.

Ordinance No. 14-13 Page 11 of 19
vi. The sober living home shall have a good neighbor policy that shall direct occupants to be considerate of neighbors, including refraining from engaging in excessively loud, profane or obnoxious behavior that would unduly interfere with a neighbor's use and enjoyment of their dwelling unit. The good neighbor policy shall establish a written protocol for the house manager/operator to follow when a neighbor complaint is received.
vii. The sober living home shall not provide any of the following services as they are defined by Section 10501 (a)(6) of Title 9, California Code of Regulations: detoxification; educational counseling; individual or group counseling sessions; and treatment or recovery planning.

11. An applicant may seek relief from the strict application of this Section by submitting an application to the director setting forth specific reasons as to why accommodation over and above this section is necessary under state and federal laws, pursuant to Section 13-200.62.
(b) The special use permit shall be issued by the director as a ministerial matter if the applicant is in compliance or has agreed to comply with subsections (a)(1) through (a)(9) above. The special use permit shall be denied, and if already issued, any transfer shall be denied or revoked, upon a hearing by the director under any of the following circumstances:

1. Any owner/operator or staff person has provided materially false or misleading information on the application or omitted any pertinent information;

2. Any owner/operator or staff person has an employment history in which he or she was terminated during the past two years because of physical assault, sexual harassment, embezzlement or theft; falsifying a drug test; and selling or furnishing illegal drugs or alcohol.

3. Any owner/operator or staff person has been convicted of or pleaded nolo contendere, within the last seven to ten years, to any of the following offenses:
i. Any sex offense for which the person is required to register as a sex offender under California Penal Code Section 290 (last 1 0 years); ii. Arson offenses - violations of Penal Code Sections 451-455 (last seven years); or
iii. Violent felonies, as defined in Penal Code Section 667.5, which involve doing bodily harm to another person (last 10 years). iv. The unlawful sale or furnishing of any controlled substances (last seven years).

Ordinance No. 14-13 Page 12 of 19
13-312

4. Any owner/operator or staff person is on parole or formal probation supervision on the date of the submittal of the application or at any time thereafter.

5. The owner/operator accepts residents, other than a house manager, who are not handicapped as defined by the FHAA and FEHA.

6. A special use permit for a sober living home shall also be denied, and if already issued, any transfer shall be denied or revoked, upon a hearing by the director under any of the following additional circumstances:
i. Any owner/operator or staff person of a sober living home is a recovering drug or alcohol abuser and upon the date of application or employment has had less than one full year of sobriety. ii. The owner/operator of a sober living home fails to immediately take measures to remove any resident who uses alcohol or illegally uses prescription or non-prescription drugs, or who is not actively participating in a legitimate recovery program from contact with all other sober residents.
iii. The sober living home, as measured by the closest property lines, is located within 650 feet of any other sober living home or state licensed alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility. If a state licensed 1:tlcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility moves within 650 feet of an existing sober living home this shall not cause the revocation of the sober living home's permit or be grounds for denying a transfer of such permit.

7. For any other significant and/or repeated violations of this Section and/or any other applicable laws and/or regulations.

8. Revocation shall not apply to any group home, which otherwise would cause it to be in violation of this Ordinance, that has obtained a reasonable accommodation pursuant to Section 13-200.62.

Compliance.
(a) Existing group homes must apply for a special use permit within 90 days of the effective date of this ordinance.
(b) Group homes that are in existence upon the effective date of this ordinance shall have one (1) year from the effective date of this ordinance to comply with its provisions, provided that any existing group home, which is serving more than six residents, must first comply with the six resident maximum.

Ordinance No. 14-13 Page 13 of 19
(c) Existing group homes obligated by a written lease exceeding one year from the effective date of the ordinance, or whose activity involves investment of money in leasehold or improvements such that a longer period is necessary to prevent undue financial hardship, are eligible for up to one additional years grace period pursuant to planning division approval.
13-313 Severability.

Should any section, subsection, clause, or provision of this Ordinance for any reason be held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; it being hereby expressly declared that this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase hereof would have been prepared, proposed, approved and ratified irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. This Ordinance shall be prospective in application from its effective date.
13-314-13-350 [Reserved.]
Section 3: Article 15 (Reasonable Accommodations) of Chapter IX (Special Land Use Regulations) of Title 13 (Planning, Zoning and Development) is hereby repealed and replaced with the following:
13-200.60 Purpose.

It is the city's policy to provide reasonable accommodation in accordance with federal and state fair housing laws (42 USC§ 3600 et seq. and Government Code§ 12900 et seq.) for persons with disabilities seeking fair access to housing in the application of the city's zoning laws. The term "disability" as used in this article shall have the same meaning as the terms "disability" and "handicapped" as defined in the federal and state fair housing laws. The purpose of this article is to establish the procedure by which a person may request reasonable accommodation, and how the request is to be processed. 13-200.61 Applicability.

Any person seeking approval to construct and/or modify residential housing for person(s) with disabilities, and/or operate a residential care facility, group home, or referral facility, which will substantially serve persons with disabilities may apply for a reasonable accommodation to obtain relief from a Zoning Code provision, regulation, policy, or condition which causes a barrier to equal opportunity for housing. 13-200.62 Reasonable accommodations - procedure.
(a) Application required. An application for a reasonable accommodation shall be filed and processed with the Planning Division. The application shall include the Ordinance No. 14-13 Page 14 of 19
following information and be subject to the determinant factors required by this section.
(b) Submittal requirements. The application shall be made in writing, and shall include the following information:

1. The zoning code provision, regulation, policy, or condition from which accommodation is being requested;

2. The basis for the claim that the individuals are considered disabled under state or federal law, and why the accommodation is necessary to provide equal opportunity for housing and to make the specific housing available to the individuals;

3. Any other information that the director reasonably determines is necessary for evaluating the request for reasonable accommodation;

4. Documentation that the applicant is: (a) an individual with a disability; (b) applying on behalf of one or more individuals with a disability; or (c) a developer or provider of housing for one or more individuals with a disability;

5. The specific exception or modification to the Zoning Code provision, policy, or practices requested by the applicant;

6. Documentation that the specific exception or modification requested by the applicant is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the residence;

7. Any other information that the Hearing Officer reasonably concludes is necessary to determine whether the findings required by Section (e) can be made, so long as any request for information regarding the disability of the individuals benefited complies with fair housing law protections and the privacy rights of the individuals affected;
(c) Fees. No application fee is required.
(d) Director action. Within 60 days of receipt of a completed application, the director shall issue a written determination to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation, and the modification or revocation thereof in compliance with this chapter. Any appeal to reasonable accommodation request denial or conditional approval shall be heard with, and subject to, the notice, review, approval, and appeal procedures prescribed for any other discretionary permit provided that, notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, the standard of review on appeal shall not be de nova and the planning commission shall determine whether the findings made by the director are supported by substantial evidence presented during the evidentiary hearing. The planning Ordinance No. 14-13 Page 15 of 19
commIssIon, acting as the appellate body, may sustain, reverse or modify the decision of the director or remand the matter for further consideration, which remand shall include specific issues to be considered or a direction for a de nova hearing.
(e) Grounds for reasonable accommodation. The following factors shall be considered (f)
in determining whether to grant a reasonable accommodation:

1. Special needs created by the disability;

2. Potential benefit that can be accomplished by the requested modification;

3. Potential impact on properties within the vicinity;

4. Physical attributes of the property and structures;

5. Alternative accommodations that may provide an equivalent level of benefit;

6. In the case of a determination involving a single family dwelling, whether the residents would constitute a single housekeeping unit;

7. Whether the requested accommodation would impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City;

8. Whether the requested accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program;

9. Whether granting the request would be consistent with the City's General Plan;and,

10. The property will be used by an individual with disability protected under fair housing laws.

Findings. The written decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation shall be based on the following findings, all of which are required for approval. In making these findings, the director may approve alternative reasonable accommodations which provide an equivalent level of benefit to the applicant.

1. The requested accommodation is requested by or on the behalf of one or more individuals with a disability protected under the fair housing laws.

2. The requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

Ordinance No. 14-13 Page 16 of 19

3. The requested accommodation will not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city, as "undue financial or administrative burden" is defined in fair housing laws and interpretive case law.

4. The requested accommodation is consistent with the whether or not the residents would constitute a single housekeeping unit.

5. The requested accommodation will not, under the specific facts of the case, result in a dire.ct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or substantial physical damage to the property of others.

6. Whether the requested accommodation is necessary to make facilities of a similar nature or operation economically viable in light of the particularities of the relevant market and market participants.

7. Whether the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature and operation in the community is sufficient to provide individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting.

8. The requested accommodation will not result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program.
(g) The City may consider, but is not limited to, the following factors in determining whether the requested accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program.

1. Whether the requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood.

2. Whether the accommodation would result in a substantial increase in traffic or insufficient parking.

3. Whether granting the requested accommodation would substantially undermine any express purpose of either the city's General Plan or an applicable Specific Plan.

4. Whether the requested accommodation would create an institutionalized environment due to the number of and distance between facilities that are similar in nature or operation.

5. Any other factors that would cause a fundamental alteration in the City's zoning program, as may be defined in the Fair Housing Law.

Ordinance No. 14-13 Page 17 of 19
13-200.63 Severability.

Should any section, subsection, clause, or provision of this Ordinance for any reason be held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; it being hereby expressly declared that this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase hereof would have been prepared, proposed, approved and ratified irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. This Ordinance shall be prospective in application from its effective date.
13-200.64-13.200.69 [Reserved.]
Section 4. Inconsistencies. Any provision of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect the provisions of this Ordinance.

Section 5. Severability. If any chapter, article, section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance, or the application thereof to any person, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or its application to other persons. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each chapter, article, section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of the application thereof to any person, be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

No portion of this Ordinance shall supersede any local, state, or federal law, regulation, or codes dealing with life safety factors.

Section 6. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days from and after the passage thereof, and prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days from its passage shall be published once in the ORANGE COAST DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa or, in the alternative, the City Clerk may cause to be published a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk five (5) days prior to the date of adoption of this Ordinance, and within fifteen (15) days after adoption, the City Clerk shall cause to be published the aforementioned summary and shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of this Ordinance together with the names and member of the City Council voting for and against the same.

Ordinance No. 14-13 Page 18 of 19
this 21 st day of October, 2014.

Ja . Righeimer
yor, City of Costa Mesa
ATTEST:
~~i~ City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss

CITY OF COSTA MESA)
I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Ordinance Number 14-13 was introduced at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 7th day of October, 2014, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the 21 st day of October, 2014, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Genis, Mensinger, Monahan, Righeimer NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Leece
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 22nd day of October, 2014.

Ordinance No. 14-13 Page 19 of 19

PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 14, 2013 ITEM NUMBER: PH 3
SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT C0-12-02: AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 13, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE 2, OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL

FACILITIES
DATE: OCTOBER 3, 2013
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNER
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP (714) 754-5611 [email protected]

DESCRIPTION
Code Amendment CO-12-02 is related to the Zoning Code regulations for residential facilities. More specifically, the amendment is proposed to the following Code Section in Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code:
• Chapter 1, Article 2, Section 13-6, Definitions, as it pertains to the definition of "single housekeeping unit".

RECOMMENDATION
Recommend that City Council approve and give first reading to the ordinance.

ANALYSIS
The proposed Code amendment involves changing the current zoning code definition of "single housekeeping unit" which is currently defined as follows:

Single housekeeping unit. The functional equivalent of a traditional family, whose members are a nontransient interactive group of persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit, including the joint use of common areas and sharing household activities and responsibilities such as meals, chores, and expenses.

Per State law, the City is required to treat residential facilities serving six or fewer persons ( defined in the Zoning Code above as residential care and residential service facilities), as a single-family residential use in the R1 zone. In 2011, in response to a complaint received by the City's Code Enforcement Division, the City attempted to enforce the six or fewer requirement against a single-family residence on Van Buren Avenue. During the inspection, the Code Officer observed 11 beds and 13 residents in the home. The case was referred to the City Attorney's Office for action, and the operator took the City to civil court for the action. The Court ruled in favor of the operator, and held the City liable for financial damages incurred by the operator. It was determined that the current code definition for "single housekeeping unit" was legally indefensible. The proposed code amendment would revise the current code definition of single housekeeping unit as follows:

Single housekeeping unit means that the occupants of a dwelling unit have established ties and familiarity with each other, jointly use common areas, interact with each other, share meals, household activities, lease agreement or ownership of the property, expenses and responsibilities; membership in the single housekeeping unit is fairly stable as opposed to transient, and members have some control over who becomes a member of the single housekeeping unit.

The revised definition will allow the City to more effectively enforce the maximum limit of six persons per residential care or residential service facility in an R 1 zone and withstand legal scrutiny.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures, and has been found to be exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (General Rule) of CEQA because there is no possibility that the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code will have a significant effect on the environment.

LEGAL REVIEW
The draft ordinance has been reviewed by the City Attorney's office.

ALTERNATIVES
The City could continue to apply "single house keeping unit" as currently defined in Code; however, this has not stood up to legal challenge when residential care or residential service facilities are found to have occupants of R1 zoned dwellings that exceed six persons. 1-._

CONCLUSION
As noted earlier, the revised definition will allow the City to more effectively enforce the maximum limit of six persons per residential care or residential service facilities in an R1 zone and withstand legal scrutiny. If the Commission recommends that City Council approve and give first reading to the ordinance, it will be tentatively scheduled for the November 5, 2013, City Council meeting.

MEL LEE, AICP
Senior Planner

TRO G,AICP
Economi and Development Se
Director
Distribution: Director of Economic & Development/Deputy CEO Assistant Development Services Director
Senior Deputy City Attorney
Public Services Director
City Engineer
Transportation Services Manager
Fire Protection Analyst
Staff (4)
File (2)
Attachment: 1. Draft Ordinance
3 ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO. 13-
. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF COSTA MESA,
CALIFORNIA ADOPTING ZONING CODE AMENDMENT CO-12-
02 RELATED TO ZONING CODE REGULATIONS FOR
RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES. THE AMENDMENT IS PROPOSED
TO THE FOLLOWING CODE SECTION IN TITLE 13 OF THE
COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE: CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE 2,
SECTION 13-6, DEFINITIONS, AS IT PERTAINS TO THE
DEFINITION OF "SINGLE HOUSEKEEPING UNI1"

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: CODE AMENDMENT. Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code is hereby amended to include the following definition - Chapter 1, Article 2, Section 13-6, Definitions, as it pertains to the definition of "single housekeeping unit":

Single housekeeping unit means that the occupants of a dwelling unit have established ties and familiarity with each other, jointly use common areas, interact with each other, share meals, household activities, lease agreement or ownership of the property, expenses and responsibilities; membership in the single housekeeping unit is fairly stable as opposed to transient, and members have some control over who becomes a member of the single housekeeping unit.

SECTION 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION. The code amendment has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures, and has been found to be exempt pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) (General Rule) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the City Council hereby finds that :t can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the passage of this ordinance amending the zoning code will have a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 3: INCONSISTENCIES. Any provision of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and or further, is hereby repealed or modified to the extent necessary to affect the provisions of this ordinance.

SECTION 4: SEVERABILITY. If any provision or clause of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or clauses or applications of this ordinance which can be implemented without the invalid provision, clause or application; and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable.

SECTION 5: PUBLICATION. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days from and after the passage thereof, and prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days from its passage shall be published once in the ORANGE COAST DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa or, in the alternative, the City Clerk may cause to be published a summary of this Ordinance and a 4 certified copy of the text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk five (5) days prior to the date of adoption of this Ordinance, and within fifteen (15) days after adoption, the City Clerk shall cause to be published the aforementioned summary and shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of this Ordinance together with the names and member of the City Council voting for and against the same.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this __ day of ______ 2013.

Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa City Attorney
s

ARIOS, JUSTIN
From: David Alexander <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 5:53 PM
To: Housing Element; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Pete Nielsen; [email protected] Subject: Subject: Comment re Chapter 3 of City of Costa Mesa’s Draft Housing Element, 2021-2029 Attachments: Table 1 - CM discriminatory zoning regulations.pdf; Table 2.pdf; Table 1-1 CM CityCode 1-72.pdf Dear Gentleperson:

I submit the following comment in response to Chapter 3 of the City of Costa Mesa’s Public Review Draft (August 2021):

Starting at page 3-45, the Public Review Draft (August 2021) addresses Affirmative Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). This section of the City’s Housing Element fails to address the requirements set forth in Government Code § 650583 and disregards the City’s own discriminatory housing practice reflected in its Zoning Code and its treatment of Supportive Housing for disabled persons (defined as Group Homes by City.)

1. The City’s Draft Housing Element utilizes standards that have been expressly rejected by the State of California.

At page 3-46, the Public Review Draft indicates that it is guided by “the HUD Fair Housing Planning Guide” and limits the scope of its analysis to the 2019-2024 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI) that covered 16 cities in Orange County, including Costa Mesa. The City’s entire reliance on the Regional 2019-2014 AI not only applies the incorrect legal standards, but also fails to focus on the activities of Costa Mesa (as opposed to the region or 15 other cities). First, the AI is insufficient for purposes of state law. Under Government Code 8899.50, the applicable standard in California is:
the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Final Rule and accompanying commentary published by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development contained in Volume 80 of the Federal Register, Number 136, pages 42272 to 42371, inclusive, dated July 16, 2015. Subsequent amendment, suspension, or revocation of this Final Rule or its accompanying commentary by the federal government shall not impact the interpretation of this section. Government Code 8899.50(c).

While the City’s Regional AI, published on May 5, 2020, may have comported with the standards mandated by the Trump Administration, those standards were a deliberate rollback of the standards expressly adopted by reference in Government Code 8899.50(c).

Moreover, the City’s reliance on an undefined “HUD Planning Guide” throughout Chapter 3E is bewildering since the applicable guide, entirely ignored by the City, is HCD’s Affirmatively CityCode 1
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements (April 2021 Update), published months before the Public Review Draft was issued in August 2021.

2. The City’s Draft Housing Element fails to consider its own zoning regulations and practices, which are the principal source of housing discrimination in Costa Mesa.

Instead of conducting the mandated assessment, the City relies exclusively on the wholly inapplicable and inadequate 2020 AI in addressing its Section 3E4: Assessment of Contributing factors to Fair Housing in Costa Mesa. As a result, this portion of the City Housing Element is wholly inadequate, disregarding that:
 The City has enacted explicitly discriminatory zoning regulations that target Supportive Housing for Disabled Persons for exclusion and expulsion from Costa Mesa’s residential zoning districts. (See attached Table 1; see CityCode for text of City’s zoning code cited in Table 1.)
 The City has engaged in discriminatory code enforcement; specifically, it has targeted its code enforcement activities at Group Homes. (See attached Table 2.)  The City has gone so far as to sue Supportive Housing Providers (defined as Group Homes) in state court, seeking to have them declared as a public nuisance solely because they operate with a SUP or CUP pursuant to Zoning Code Chapters XV and XVI, and not because of any nuisance behaviors. As a result of the City’s state court actions against Supportive Housing/Group Homes, the City has forced Group Homes to shutter and required that operators evict disabled residents during the height of Covid-19 in the Winter of 2020.  Of the 26 Supportive Housing/Group Homes that applied for CUP under the City Zoning Chapter XVI (CMMC 13-323), each applicant was an existing Group Home that predated the adoption of Chapter XVI. Of the 26 CUP applications submitted, the City granted only two. It ordered that the other 24 to shutter and to force their disabled residents from their homes. See Table 3 attached.
 While the City professes to support fair housing in the Public Review of its Housing Element, it is presently actively engaged in trying to cover up the discriminatory provisions in its own Zoning Code. Since 2014, the City has tried to justify its discrimination against Group Homes/Supportive Housing by arguing that it treats Boardinghouse worse.  But that is obviously inaccurate on the face of the City’s own zoning code: As reflected in Table 1, the City gives preferential treatment to Boardinghouses – and all residential uses except for Group Homes (Supportive Housing for disabled persons).  To cover up the most glaring disparities between the City’s regulation of Group Homes and Boardinghouses, the City is presently in the process of amending the definition of Boardinghouse as part of Code Amendment CO-2020-02, which will modify the definition of Boardinghouse.

CityCode 2
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
The City’s zoning code and its enforcement of that code are the most significant sources of housing discrimination and fair housing violations in Costa Mesa. But the City’s draft Housing Element fails to review any of its own zoning procedure and practices, preferring to hide behind its wholly inadequate 2020 Regional AI.

Without this fulsome evaluation, the City cannot meet the requirements of the State’s Housing Element laws.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter, --
Dave Alexander
Founder
RAW Recovery
(949) 214-9307
[email protected]
www.rawrecovery.com
581 Blumont, Laguna Beach, CA 92651
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain material protected by HIPAA legislation (45 CFR, Parts 160 & 164). If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering this email to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete the email from your computer.

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.

CityCode 3
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
2155492.3
1 Zoning regulations for unlicensed1 residential uses in Costa Mesa’s multi-family zoning districts CMMC Regulations Governing Residential
Uses in City’s Multifamily Districts
Sober Living
Home2
Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Small < 3 rental
rooms4
Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Use Definitions
Use defined based on disability status of
residents, CMMC 13-06
Yes, CC 96 Yes, CC 5 No, CC 3 No, CC 3 No CC 4
1 Licensed uses are subject to state-mandated zoning entitlements and restrictions. The Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMMC) defines these uses as “Residential care facilities. A residential facility licensed by the state where care, services, or treatment is provided to persons living in a supportive community residential setting. Residential care facilities include, but may not be limited to, the following: intermediate care facilities for the developmentally disabled (Health & Safety Code §§ 1267.8, 1267.9);community care facilities (Health & Safety Code § 1500 et seq.); residential care facilities for the elderly (Health &Safety Code § 1569 et seq.); residential care facilities for the chronically ill (22 C.C.R. § 87801(a)(5); Health & Safety Code § 1568.02); alcoholism and drug abuse facilities (Health & Safety Code §§ 11834.02—11834.30); pediatric day health and respite care facilities (Health & Safety Code § 1760 et seq.); residential health care facilities, including congregate living health facilities (Health & Safety Code §§ 1265—1271.1, 1250(i), 1250(e), (h)); family care home, foster home, group home for the mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped persons or dependent and neglected children (Wel. & Inst. Code §§ 5115—5120).” CMMC 13-06. 2 “Sober living home means a group home for persons who are recovering from a drug and/or alcohol addiction and who are considered handicapped under state or federal law. Sober living homes shall not include the following: (1) residential care facilities; (2) any sober living home that operates as a single housekeeping unit.” CMMC 13-06. 3
“Group home. A facility that is being used as a supportive living environment for persons who are considered handicapped under state or federal law. A group home operated by a single operator or service provider (whether licensed or unlicensed) constitutes a single facility, whether the facility occupies one (1) or more dwelling units. Group homes shall not include the following: (1) residential care facilities; (2) any group home that operates as a single housekeeping unit.” CMMC 13-06. 4
“Boardinghouse. A residence or dwelling, other than a hotel, wherein rooms are rented under two (2) or more separate written or oral rental agreements, leases or subleases or combination thereof, whether or not the owner, agent or rental manager resides within the residence. Boardinghouse, small means two (2) or fewer rooms being rented. Boardinghouse, large means three (3) to six (6) rooms being rented. Boardinghouses renting more than six (6) rooms are prohibited.” CMMC 13-06. 5
“Dwelling, multi-family “Dwelling, multi-family” or “multi-family dwelling” is a building or buildings of permanent character placed on one (1) lot which is designed or used for residential occupancy by two (2) or more families.” CMMC 13-06. 6 “CC #” refers to page numbers in the excerpt of the current Costa Mesa Municipal Code [as of 05/09/2021], attached to this Table for reference.

CityCode 4
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
2155492.3
2 CMMC Regulations Governing Residential
Uses in City’s Multifamily Districts
Sober Living
Home2
Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Small < 3 rental
rooms4
Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Use defined based on nature of the
disability of dwelling’s residents, CMMC
13-06
Yes, CC 9 No, CC 5 No, CC 3 No, CC 3 No CC 4
Permitted Zoning District
Permitted in Residential Zoning District,
CMMC 13-30, 13-204
No, CC 31 No, CC 31 Yes, CC 31 Yes, if preexisting, CC 54; No, if new, CC 31
Yes, CC 31
Permitted in Multifamily Zoning Districts
(R2-MD, R2-HD, R3), CMMC 13-30
No, CC 31 No, CC 31 Yes, CC 31 Yes, if preexisting, CC 54; No, if new, CC 31
Yes, CC 31
Permitted in Planned Development
Residential Districts (PDR-LD, PDR-MD,
PDR-HD, PRD-NCM, PDC, PDI), CMMC 13-
30, 13-204
No, CC 31 No, CC 31 Yes, CC 31 Yes, if preexisting, CC 54; No, if new, CC 31
Yes, CC 31
Permitted in Institutional & Recreational
(I&R) Zoning District [intended for
“recreation, open space, health, public
services,” 13-20(i), CC 17]
Yes, CC 31 Yes, CC 31 No, CC 31 No, CC 31 No, CC 31
Specially or Conditionally Permitted in
Institutional & Recreational (I&R) Zoning
District [intended for “recreation, open
space, health, public services,” 13-20(i), CC
17]
NA, CC 31 NA, CC 31 No, CC 31 No, CC 31 No, CC 31
Nonconforming Use Status
Existing uses required to apply for
Special or Conditional Use Permit to
continue existing use, 13-324, 13-
207.1 versus 13-204, 13-30
Yes, CC 67, 59 Yes, CC 67, 59 No, CC 54 No, CC 54 NA, CC 31 CityCode 5
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
2155492.3
3 CMMC Regulations Governing Residential
Uses in City’s Multifamily Districts
Sober Living
Home2
Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Small < 3 rental
rooms4
Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Separation Requirement
Separation requirement imposed on
existing uses, 13-322, 13-323, 13-324
versus 13-30, 13-204, 13-207.1
Yes: At least 650
feet between
dwelling and any
group home,
sober living home
or state-licensed
drug and alcohol
treatment
facility. CC 66-67
Yes: At least 650
feet between
dwelling and any
group home,
sober living home
or state-licensed
drug and alcohol
treatment
facility. CC 66-67
No, CC 54 No, CC 54 NA, 13-30
Separation requirement imposed on new
uses, 13-322, 13-323, 13-324 versus 13-30
fn 7
Yes: At least 650
feet between
dwelling and any
group home,
sober living
home, or statelicensed drug and
alcohol
treatment
facility. CC 66-67
Yes: At least 650
feet between
dwelling and any
group home,
sober living
home, or statelicensed drug and
alcohol
treatment
facility. CC 66-67
Yes: Small
boardinghouses
shall locate at
least six hundred
fifty (650) feet
from any other
small
boardinghouse.

CC 49
Yes: Large
boardinghouses
shall be located
at least one
thousand (1,000)
feet away from
any other
boardinghouse.

CC 49
NA, 13-30
Dwelling Operator’s Permit Required
Owner or operator of dwelling must
obtain an “Operator’s Permit,” CMMC 13-
323, 9-372, or meet same conditions for
Operator’s Permit under SUP
requirements, 13-322, 13-311
Yes, CC 67, 69
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
Yes, CC 67, 69
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
No No No
CityCode 6
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
2155492.3
4 CMMC Regulations Governing Residential
Uses in City’s Multifamily Districts
Sober Living
Home2
Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Small < 3 rental
rooms4
Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Owner or operator of dwelling must
obtain an “operator’s permit” as a
condition to qualify for a conditional use
permit, CMMC 13-323, 9-372, or meet
same conditions for Operator’s Permit to
qualify for SUP, 13-322, 13-311
Yes, CC 67, 69
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
Yes, CC 67, 69
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
No No No
Permit Application Requirements
Permit Application: Required to list
applicant/operator’s every general partner
and every owner with controlling interest
in corporation. CMMC 13-311(a) + 9-
374(a) versus CMMC 13-29(a) + City Form
09/2019
Yes, CC 61, 69;
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
Yes, CC 61, 69;
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
No, CC 22 No, CC 22 No, CC 22
Permit Application: Required to provide
permit history or operation of similar use
at any time anywhere in the United States.

CMMC 13-311(a) + 9-374(a) versus CMMC
13-29(a) + City Form 09/2019
Yes, CC 61, 69;
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
Yes, CC 61, 69;
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
No, CC 22 No, CC 22 No, CC 22
Permit Application: Required to provide
copy of rules governing conduct of
residents occupying dwelling. CMMC 13-
311(a) + 9-374(a) versus CMMC 13-29(a) +
City Form 09/2019
Yes, CC 61, 69;
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
Yes, CC 61, 69;
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
No, CC 22 No, CC 22 No, CC 22
Permit Application: Required to identify
the name, address, telephone, CDL of
onsite dwelling manager. CMMC 13-
311(a) + 9-374(a) versus CMMC 13-29(a) +
City Form 09/2019
Yes, CC 61, 69;
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
Yes, CC 61, 69;
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
No, CC 22 No, CC 22 No, CC 22
CityCode 7
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
2155492.3
5 CMMC Regulations Governing Residential
Uses in City’s Multifamily Districts
Sober Living
Home2
Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Small < 3 rental
rooms4
Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Permit Application: Required to provide
document reflecting criteria for
acceptance of resident in dwelling. CMMC
13-311(a) + 9-374(a) versus CMMC 13-
29(a) + City Form 09/2019
Yes, CC 61, 69;
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
Yes, CC 61, 69;
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
No, CC 22 No, CC 22 No, CC 22
Permit Application: Required to provide
blank copies of all forms that residents of
dwelling are required to complete. CMMC
13-311(a) + 9-374(a) versus CMMC 13-
29(a) + City Form 09/2019
Yes, CC 61, 69;
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
Yes, CC 61, 69;
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
No, CC 22 No, CC 22 No, CC 22
Permit Notice Requirements, July 2017
(17-05) - October 2018 (18-06) time
period
Public notice of hearing on application for
special use permit, CMMC 13-311(b)
versus CMMC 13-29(c) [07/2017-09/2018]
Notice to be
mailed to the
owner of record
and occupants of
all properties
within five
hundred
(500) feet of the
location of the
group home.

Notice to be
mailed to the
owner of record
and occupants of
all properties
within five
hundred
(500) feet of the
location of the
group home.

Notices of the
hearing shall be
mailed to all
property owners
within a five
hundred-foot
radius of the
project site
Notices of the
hearing shall be
mailed to all
property owners
within a five
hundred-foot
radius of the
project site
Notices of the
hearing shall be
mailed to all
property owners
within a five
hundred-foot
radius of the
project site
Occupancy limit on number of
residents per dwelling
Occupancy limitation City Housing
Element
City Housing
Element
State Housing
Law/UHC
State Housing
Law/UHC
State Housing
Law/UHC
On-Site Manager Requirements
CityCode 8
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
2155492.3
6 CMMC Regulations Governing Residential
Uses in City’s Multifamily Districts
Sober Living
Home2
Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Small < 3 rental
rooms4
Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Dwelling must have a 24/7 onsite
manager. CMMC 13-311(a)(4) + CMMC 9-
274(b)(1) versus State Housing Law
Yes, CC 62, 70 Yes, CC 62, 70 No, State Housing
Law
No, State Housing
Law
No, State Housing
Law
Vehicle Restrictions
Each dwelling resident limited to one
vehicle that must be used as resident’s
primary form of transportation, 13-
311(a)(5) + CMMC 9-274(b)(2)
Yes, CC 62, 70 Yes, CC 62, 70 No No No
Resident Parking Restrictions
Each dwelling resident must park her
vehicle on dwelling premises or within 500
feet of dwelling, 13-311(a)(5) + CMMC 9-
274(b)(2) versus CMMC Title 10, Ch X
(Stopping, Standing and Parking)
Yes, CC 62, 70 Yes, CC 62, 70 No No No
Eviction requirements
Landlord/operator must notify resident’s
emergency contact, OCHA OC Links
Referral Line, and Costa Mesa’s Network
for Homeless Solutions before an evicting
resident, CMMC 13-311(a)(10) + 9-
374(b)(6)
Yes, CC 62, 70 Yes, CC 62, 70 No No No
Landlord/operator must provide
transportation to alternative housing to
any resident evicted from dwelling, CMMC
13-311(a)(11) + 9-374(b)(7)
Yes, CC 62, 70 Yes, CC 62, 70 No No No
Landlord/operator must maintain eviction
records for one year resident’s eviction
from dwelling, CMMC 13-311(a)(12) + 9-
374(b)(8)
Yes, CC 62, 70 Yes, CC 62, 70 No No No
CityCode 9
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
2155492.3
7 CMMC Regulations Governing Residential
Uses in City’s Multifamily Districts
Sober Living
Home2
Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Small < 3 rental
rooms4
Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Regulation of Residents within
Dwelling
Each resident of dwelling must actively
participate in a legitimate selfimprovement program (e.g., 12-step program), CMMC 13-311(a)(14)(i) + 9-
374(b)(10)(i)
Yes, CC 63, 71 No No No No
Landlord/operator must maintain records
showing that resident is actively
participating in a legitimate selfimprovement program (e.g., 12-step program), CMMC 13-311(a)(14)(i) + 9-
374(b)(10)(i)
Yes, CC 63, 71 No No No No
Landlord/operator must promulgate a rule
warning that if a resident refuse to
actively participating in a legitimate selfimprovement program (e.g., 12-step program), then the resident may be
evicted. CMMC 13-311(a)(14)(i) + 9-
374(b)(10)(i)
Yes, CC 63, 71 No No No No
Landlord/Operator must prohibit
residents from use of any non-prescription
drugs. CMMC 13-311(a)(14)(ii) + 9-
374(b)(10)(ii)
Yes, CC 63, 71 No No No No
Landlord/operator must evict any resident
caught using any non-prescription drug.

CMMC 13-311(a)(14)(ii) + 9-374(b)(10)(ii)
Yes, CC 63, 71 No No No No
CityCode 10
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
2155492.3
8 CMMC Regulations Governing Residential
Uses in City’s Multifamily Districts
Sober Living
Home2
Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Small < 3 rental
rooms4
Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Landlord/operator must promulgate a
good neighbor policy directing residents
“to be considerate of neighbors, including
refraining from engaging in excessively
loud, profane or obnoxious behavior that
would unduly interfere with a neighbor’s
use and enjoyment of their dwelling unit.”
CMMC 13-311(a)(14)(vi) + 9-374(b)(10)(v)
Yes, CC 63, 71 No No No No
Landlord/operator must promulgate
written protocol for onsite manager to
follow in response to a neighbor’s
complaint. CMMC protocol for 13-
311(a)(14)(vi) + 9-374(b)(10)(v)
Yes, CC 63, 71 No No No No
Owner, Landlord, Operator, and
Employee Qualification Requirements
Owner, landlord, or operator of a dwelling
is barred from obtaining a Special or
Condition Use Permit for that dwelling if
she was terminated from a job for sexual
harassment, embezzlement, or illegally
furnishing alcohol within two years of
applying to the City for that zoning permit.

CMMC 13-311(b)(2), 9-374(e)(2) versus
13-29(g)(2)
Yes, CC 63, 71 Yes, CC 63, 71 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 CityCode 11
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
2155492.3
9 CMMC Regulations Governing Residential
Uses in City’s Multifamily Districts
Sober Living
Home2
Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Small < 3 rental
rooms4
Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Owner, landlord, or operator of a dwelling
is barred from obtaining a Special or
Condition Use Permit for that dwelling if
she employs any person who was
terminated from a job alcohol for sexual
harassment, embezzlement, or illegally
furnishing alcohol within two years of
applying to the City for that zoning permit.

CMMC 13-311(b)(2), 9-374(e)(2) versus
13-29(g)(2)
Yes, CC 63, 71 Yes, CC 63, 71 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 Owner, landlord, or operator of a dwelling
is barred from obtaining a Special or
Condition Use Permit for that dwelling if
she was convicted or pleaded nolo
contendere to any PC 290 sex offense or
PC 667.5 felony within 10 years of
applying to the City for that zoning permit.

CMMC 13-311(b)(2), 9-374(e)(2) versus
13-29(g)(2)
Yes, CC 63-64, 71-
72 Yes, CC 63-64, 71-
72 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 No, CC 25
Owner, landlord, or operator of a dwelling
barred from obtaining a Special or
Condition Use Permit for that dwelling if
she employs any person who was
convicted or pleaded nolo contendere to
any PC 290 sex offense or PC 667.5 felony
within 10 years of applying to the City for
that zoning permit. CMMC 13-311(b)(2),
9-374(e)(2) versus 13-29(g)(2)
Yes, CC 63-64, 71-
72 Yes, CC 63-64, 71-
72 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 No, CC 25
CityCode 12
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
2155492.3
10 CMMC Regulations Governing Residential
Uses in City’s Multifamily Districts
Sober Living
Home2
Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Small < 3 rental
rooms4
Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Owner, landlord, or operator of a dwelling
barred from obtaining a Special or
Condition Use Permit for that dwelling if
he was convicted or pleaded nolo
contendere to any PC 290 sex offense or
PC 667.5 felony within 10 years of
applying to the City for that zoning permit.

CMMC 13-311(b)(2), 9-374(e)(2) versus
13-29(g)(2)
Yes, CC 63-64, 71-
72 Yes, CC 63-64, 71-
72 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 No, CC 25
Owner, landlord, or operator of a dwelling
barred from obtaining a Special or
Condition Use Permit for that dwelling if
she employs any person who was
convicted or pleaded nolo contrendere to
any PC 451 arson offense or furnishing any
controlled substance within 7 years of
applying to the City for that zoning permit.

CMMC 13-311(b)(2), 9-374(e)(2) versus
13-29(g)(2)
Yes, CC 63-64, 71-
72 Yes, CC 63-64, 71-
72 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 No, CC 25
Owner, landlord, or operator of a dwelling
barred from obtaining a Special or
Condition Use Permit for that dwelling if
she is in recovery from abuse of drugs or
alcohol and has been abstained for less
than one year before applying to the City
for that zoning permit. CMMC 13-
311(b)(6), 9-374(e)(2) versus 13-29(g)(2)
Yes, CC 64, 72 No No, CC 25 No, CC 25 No, CC 25
CityCode 13
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 CHAPTER I. IN GENERAL
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 1/15
Costa Mesa Municipal Code
Up Previous Next Main Collapse Search Print No Frames
TITLE 13 PLANNING, ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER I. IN GENERAL
ARTICLE 1. TITLE AND AUTHORITY
13-1. Title.

This title shall be known as the “City of Costa Mesa Planning, Zoning and Development Code,” hereafter referred to as the “Zoning Code.” (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97)
13-2. Purpose.

The purpose of this Zoning Code is to promote the public health, safety, general welfare and preserve and enhance the aesthetic quality of the city by providing regulations to ensure that an appropriate mix of land uses occur in an orderly manner. In furtherance of this purpose the city desires to achieve a pattern and distribution of land uses which generally:
(a) Establish and maintain a balance of land uses throughout the community to preserve the residential character of the city at a level no greater than can be supported by the infrastructure. (b) Ensure the long-term productivity and viability of the community’s economic base. (c) Promote land use patterns and development which contribute to community and neighborhood identity. (d) Ensure correlation between buildout of the general plan land use map and master plan of highways. (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97)
13-3. Authority and general plan consistency.
(a) This Zoning Code is a tool for implementing the goals, objectives and policies of the Costa Mesa General Plan, pursuant to the mandated provisions of the State Planning and Zoning Law (State Government Code section 65000 et seq.). All development within the incorporated area of the city shall be consistent with the general plan. (b) The subdivision provisions of this Zoning Code are intended to supplement and implement the Subdivision Map Act, and serve as the subdivision ordinance of the city. If the provisions of this Zoning Code conflict with any provision of the Subdivision Map Act, the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act shall prevail. (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97)
13-4. References to other laws.

In some portions of this Zoning Code it is necessary to reference other applicable laws, for example the State Government Code, and in some instances specific code sections are given. These references are accurate as of the adoption of this Zoning Code, and these references may be amended from time to time. (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97) ARTICLE 2. DEFINITIONS
13-5. Purpose.

The intent of this article is to define certain words and phrases which are used in this Zoning Code. Additional definitions may also be given in conjunction with the special regulations contained in Chapter IX, Special Land Use Regulations, and Chapter XII, Special Fee Assessments. (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97) 13-6. Definitions.

Abutting. Sharing a common boundary, of at least one (1) point.

CityCode 14
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 CHAPTER I. IN GENERAL
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 2/15
Accessory building. A building or part of a building which is subordinate to, and the use of which is incidental to that of the main building or use on the same lot.

Accessory dwelling unit (ADU). See section 13-35.

Accessory use. A use incidental and subordinate to, and devoted exclusively to the main use of the land or building thereon.

Adjacent. Same as abutting, but also includes properties which are separated by a public right-of-way, not exceeding one hundred twenty (120) feet in width.

Administrative adjustment. A discretionary entitlement, usually granted by the zoning administrator, which permits limited deviation from the strict application of the development standards contained in this Zoning Code, based on specified findings.

Adult business. See Chapter IX, Special Land Use Regulations, Article 1, Adult Businesses, for specific definitions and terms.

Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility means adult alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities that are licensed pursuant to section 11834.01 of the California Health & Safety Code. Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities are a subset of residential care facilities.

Alteration (structure). Any construction, addition or physical change in the internal arrangement of rooms or the supporting members of a structure, or change in the appearance of any structure, except paint.

Ambient noise level. The all-encompassing noise level associated with a given environment, being a composite of sounds from all sources, excluding the alleged offensive noise, at the location and approximate time at which a comparison with the alleged offensive noise is to be made.

Antenna. Any structure, including, but not limited to, a monopole, tower, parabolic and/or disk shaped device in single or multiple combinations of either solid or mesh construction, intended for the purpose of receiving or transmitting communication to or from another antenna, device or orbiting satellite, as well as supporting equipment necessary to install or mount the antenna.

Antenna, amateur radio. An antenna array and its associated support structure, such as a mast or tower, that is used for the purpose of transmitting and receiving radio signals in conjunction with an amateur radio station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission.

Antenna, communication. All types of receiving and transmitting antennas, except satellite dish antennas and amateur radio antennas. Communication antenna includes, but is not limited to, cable television antennas, cellular radiotelephone cell antennas, FM digital communication antennas, microwave telephone communication antennas, and shortwave communication and other similar antennas.

Antenna height. The distance from the property’s grade to the highest point of the antenna and its associated support structure when fully extended.

Antenna, satellite dish. An antenna intended for the purpose of receiving or transmitting communication to or from an orbiting satellite.

Antenna, whip. An antenna and its support structure consisting of a single, slender, rod-like element which is supported only at or near its base.

Apartment. A rental or lease dwelling having kitchen facilities in a structure designed or used to house at least one (1) family, as the term “family” is defined in this Zoning Code.

Assembly use. A use conducted in a structure or portion of a structure for the purpose of a civic, education, political, religious, or social function or for the consumption or receipt of food and/or beverages. Assembly use includes, but is not limited to, churches and other places of religious assembly, mortuaries, primary and secondary schools, trade and vocational schools, colleges, amusement centers, billiards parlors, bowling centers, establishments where food or beverages are served, motion picture theaters, physical fitness facilities, skating rinks, and dance, martial arts, and music studios. Assembly use does not include sexually oriented businesses.

CityCode 15
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 CHAPTER I. IN GENERAL
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 3/15
Association (homeowners’). The organization of persons who own a lot, parcel, area, airspace, or right of exclusive occupancy in a common interest development and who have interests in the control of common areas of such project.

Attached (structure). Any structure that has a wall or roof in common with another structure.

Attic. Any non-habitable area immediately below the roof and wholly or partly within the roof framing.

Awning. A roof-like cover that projects from the wall of a building for the purpose of shielding the sun or providing an architectural accent.

Basement. A space wholly or partially underground and having more than one-half (½) of its height, measuring from floor to ceiling, below the average grade. If the finished floor level directly above the basement is more than four (4) feet above grade at any point, the basement shall be considered a story.

Boardinghouse. A residence or dwelling, other than a hotel, wherein rooms are rented under two (2) or more separate written or oral rental agreements, leases or subleases or combination thereof, whether or not the owner, agent or rental manager resides within the residence. Boardinghouse, small means two (2) or fewer rooms being rented. Boardinghouse, large means three (3) to six (6) rooms being rented. Boardinghouses renting more than six (6) rooms are prohibited.

Building. Any structure having roof and walls and requiring permanent location on the ground, built and maintained for the support, shelter or enclosure of persons, animals, chattels or property of any kind.

Building height. The distance from the grade to the highest point on the roof, including roof-top mechanical equipment and screening.

Building, main. The building or buildings within which the principal use permitted on the lot is conducted.

Carport. A permanent, roofed structure, not completely enclosed which is used for vehicle parking.

Central administrative office. An establishment primarily engaged in management and general administrative functions performed centrally for other establishments of the same company.

Churches and other places of religious assembly. A type of assembly use which has the principal purpose of religious worship and for which the primary space is a sanctuary. Religious activities and services held in the sanctuary are conducted at scheduled times. The use may also include accessory facilities in the same or separate building that includes classrooms, assembly rooms, restrooms, kitchen, and a library. Other uses such as, but not limited to, day care facilities, nursery schools, schools, retail sales, and services to businesses, are not considered a primary function of churches and other places of religious assembly.

Cigar bar. See Smoking lounge.

City. City of Costa Mesa.

Common area. Those portions of a project area which are designed, intended or used in common and not under the exclusive control or possession of owners or occupants of individual units in planned development projects or common interest developments.

Common interest development. A development as defined in State Civil Code section 1350, containing two (2) or more common interest units, as defined in Civil Code section 783; a community apartment project, as defined in State Business and Professional Code section 11004, containing two (2) or more rights of exclusive occupancy; and a stock cooperative, as defined in Business and Professional Code section 11003.2, containing two (2) or more rights of exclusive occupancy.

Conditional use permit. A discretionary approval usually granted by the planning commission which allows a use or activity not allowed as a matter of right, based on specified findings.

Convenience stores, mini-markets. A retail store, generally less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet in area, that sells a variety of convenience foods, beverages and non-food items. Fresh dairy products, produce and/or meat may be offered on a limited basis.

County. County of Orange.

Covered parking space. A garage, carport or parking space which is completely covered by a roof.

Density bonus. A minimum increase of twenty-five (25) percent over the allowable residential dwelling unit density as specified by the zoning classification.

Development. The division of land into two (2) or more lots; the construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration, relocation, or enlargement of any structure; any mining, excavation, landfill, or land disturbance; and any use or extension of the use of land.

CityCode 16
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 CHAPTER I. IN GENERAL
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 4/15
Development review. The processing of a development plan when authority for approval is vested in the planning division.

Development services department means the Development Services Department of the City of Costa Mesa.

Development services director. The director of development services of the City of Costa Mesa, or his/her designee.

Disabled shall have the same meaning as handicapped.

Dormer. A vertical window in a projection built out from a sloping roof.

Driveway, common. A paved area for vehicle circulation and parking purposes which features joint use between two or more parties.

Driveway, individual. The paved area strictly leading to the garage/carport of a residence. This paved area serves vehicle parking purposes and does not extend beyond the garage/carport unless a curvilinear design is necessary for the turning radius.

Dwelling, single-family. “Dwelling, single-family” or “single-family dwelling” is a building of permanent character placed in a permanent location which is designed or used for residential occupancy by one (1) family. A single mobilehome on a foundation system on a single lot is a single-family dwelling. (See Manufactured housing).

Dwelling, multi-family. “Dwelling, multi-family” or “multi-family dwelling” is a building or buildings of permanent character placed on one (1) lot which is designed or used for residential occupancy by two (2) or more families.

Dwelling unit. One (1) or more rooms in any building designed for occupancy by one (1) family, and containing one (1) kitchen unit, including manufactured housing. (See Manufactured housing).

Easement. A grant of one (1) or more property rights by the owner for use by the public, a corporation or another person or entity.

Electronic cigarette. An electronic and/or battery-operated device used to provide an inhalable dose of nicotine by delivering a vaporized solution. The term includes any such device manufactured, distributed, marketed, or sold as an electronic cigarette, an electronic cigar, an electronic cigarillo, an electronic pipe, an electronic hookah, or any other product name or descriptor. The term does not include any medical inhaler prescribed by a licensed doctor.

Electronic game machine. Any electronic or mechanical device which upon insertion of a coin, slug, or token in any slot or receptacle attached to the device or connected therewith, operates, or which may be operated for use as a game, contest, or amusement through the exercise of skill or chance.

Emergency shelters. A facility that provides immediate and short-term housing for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less. Supplemental services may include counseling and access to social programs. No individual or household may be denied to emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.

Entertainment (live). Any act, play, revue, pantomime scene, dance act, musical performance, or any combination thereof, performed by one (1) or more persons whether or not they are compensated for the performance.

Establishment where food or beverages are served. Any commercial use that sells prepared food and/or beverages for consumption on-site or off-site, either solely or in conjunction with an ancillary or complementary use. Excluded from this definition are grocery stores, convenience stores, movie theaters, and other such uses, as determined by the development services director, where the sale of food or beverages is clearly incidental to the primary use. All establishments selling alcoholic beverages for consumption on-site are included within this definition Fair housing laws means the Federal Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, as each statute may be amended from time to time, and each statute’s implementing regulations.

Family. One (1) or more persons occupying one (1) dwelling unit and living together as a single housekeeping unit.

Family day care home, large. A home which provides family day care to seven (7) to fourteen (14) children as defined in section 1596.78 of the State Health and Safety Code.

Family day care home, small. A home which provides family day care to eight (8) or fewer children as defined in section 1596.78 of the State Health and Safety Code.

Floor area ratio. The gross floor area of a building or project divided by the project lot area upon which it is located.

Garage. An accessory or attached enclosed building with doors, designed and/or used for vehicle parking.

CityCode 17
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 CHAPTER I. IN GENERAL
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 5/15
Garage sale. An event for the purpose of selling or trading personal property. Garage sale includes yard sale.

General plan. The City of Costa Mesa General Plan as adopted or amended from time to time by the city council.

Grade. The lowest point of the finished surface elevation of either the ground, paving or sidewalk within the area between the building and the property line, or when the property line is more than five (5) feet from the building, between the building and a line five (5) feet from the building.

Gross acreage. The total area within the lot lines of a lot of land before public streets, easements or other areas to be dedicated or reserved for public use are deducted from such lot, and not including adjacent lands already dedicated for such purposes.

Gross floor area. The area of all floors within the walls of a structure except elevator and other vertical shafts (including stairwells) and elevator equipment areas.

Gross leasable area. The total floor area designed for tenant occupancy and exclusive use, including both owned and leased areas.

Group home. A facility that is being used as a supportive living environment for persons who are considered handicapped under state or federal law. A group home operated by a single operator or service provider (whether licensed or unlicensed) constitutes a single facility, whether the facility occupies one (1) or more dwelling units. Group homes shall not include the following: (1) residential care facilities; (2) any group home that operates as a single housekeeping unit.

Guestroom. A room occupied or intended, arranged, or designed for occupancy by one (1) or more guests.

Handicapped. As more specifically defined under the fair housing laws, a person who has a physical or mental impairment that limits one (1) or more major life activities, a person who is regarded as having that type of impairment, or a person who has a record of that type of impairment, not including current, illegal use of a controlled substance.

Hazardous materials. Any material of quantity, concentration, physical or chemical characteristics, that poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the work place or environment; or any material requiring a Material Safety Data Sheet according to Title 8, section 339 of the State Code of Regulation.

Height. See Building height and Antenna height.

Home occupation. Any business or commercial use conducted within a dwelling unit.

Hookah lounge. See Smoking lounge.

Hotel. Any building or combination of buildings generally three (3) or more stories in height containing six (6) or more guest rooms offering transient lodging accommodations to the general public and providing incidental guest services such as food and beverage service, recreation facilities, retail services and banquet, reception and meeting rooms. Typically, room access is provided through a main or central lobby.

Household includes all the people occupying a dwelling unit, and includes people who live in different units governed by the same operator.

Integral facilities. Any combination of two (2) or more group homes which may or may not be located on the same or contiguous parcels of land, that are under the control and management of the same owner, operator, management company or licensee or any affiliate of any of them, and are integrated components of one (1) operation shall be referred to as integral facilities and shall be considered one (1) facility for purposes of applying federal, state and local laws to its operation. Examples of such integral facilities include, but are not limited to, the provision of housing in one (1) facility and recovery programming, treatment, meals, or any other service or services to program participants in another facility or facilities or by assigning staff or a consultant or consultants to provide services to the same program participants in more than one (1) licensed or unlicensed facility.

Integral uses. Any two (2) or more residential care programs commonly administered by the same owner, operator, management company or licensee, or any affiliate of any of them, in a manner in which participants in two (2) or more care programs participate simultaneously in any care or recovery activity or activities so commonly administered. Any such integral use shall be considered one (1) use for purposes of applying federal, state and local laws to its operation.

Intersection. The general area where two (2) or more roadways join or cross.

Kitchen. Any room, all or part of which is designed and/or used for storage, refrigeration, cooking and preparation of food.

CityCode 18
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 CHAPTER I. IN GENERAL
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 6/15
Landscaping. Plant materials such as lawn, groundcover, trees and shrubs.

Loft. An intermediate floor placed within a room, where the clear height above and below the loft is not less than seven (7) feet, and where the aggregate area of the loft does not exceed one third (1/3) of the area of the room in which it is located.

Lot.
(a) A parcel of real property when shown as a delineated parcel of land with a number or designation on a subdivision map or parcel map recorded in the office of the county recorder, and created in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act and applicable local ordinances.
(b) A parcel of real property when shown on a record of survey map or deed filed in the office of the county recorder, when such map or deed was filed as the result of and was made a condition of a lot division approved under the authority of prior ordinances.

Lot area. The total land area of a project after all required dedications or reservations for public improvements including but not limited to streets, parks, schools, and flood control channels. This phrase does not apply in the planned development zones where the phrase “site area,” as defined in Chapter V, Development Standards, is used.

Lot, corner. A lot abutting on and at the intersection of two (2) or more streets which intersect at an angle that is equal to or less than one hundred thirty-five (135) degrees.

Lot, depth. The average of the horizontal distance between the front and the rear lot lines.

Lot, development. The master lot or project site upon which a development will be constructed.

Lot, individual dwelling unit. An individual building site or lot within a development intended for construction of a single attached or detached dwelling unit.

Lot, interior. A lot abutting only one (1) street, or a lot abutting two (2) streets which intersect at an angle greater than one hundred thirty-five (135) degrees.

Lot, width. The horizontal distance between the side lot lines measured at right angles to the lot depth at the front building setback line.

Manufactured housing. Detached housing that is built to the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, including structures known as manufactured homes and mobile homes. For the purpose of this Zoning Code, a factory-built single-family structure that is manufactured under the authority of 42 U.S.C. section 5401, the National Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Act, transportable in one (1) or more sections, built on a permanent chassis and used as a place of human habitation, shall be considered a single-family home and shall be reviewed under the same standards as a site-built structure.

Marijuana. Has the same definition as that set forth in California Health & Safety Code section 11018.

Marijuana cultivation and/or medical marijuana cultivation. The planting, growing, harvesting, drying or processing of marijuana plants or any part thereof for any purpose, including medical marijuana, and shall include both indoor and outdoor cultivation.

Master plan. The overall development plan for a parcel or parcels which is depicted in both a written and graphic format.

Master plan of highways. The graphic representation of the city’s ultimate circulation system contained in the general plan. It illustrates the alignment of the major, primary, secondary and collector highways.

Median. A paved or planted area separating a parking area, street, or highway, into two (2) or more lanes or directions of travel.

Medical marijuana. Marijuana used for medical purposes in accordance with California Health and Safety Code section 11362.5.

Medical marijuana dispensary. A facility or location where medical marijuana is cultivated or by any other means made available to and/or distributed by or to three (3) or more of the following: a primary caregiver, a qualified patient, or a person with an identification card in strict accordance with State Health and Safety Code Sections 11362.5 et seq., and 11362.7 et seq., which shall include, but not be limited to, any facility or location engaging in the retail sale, dispensation, or distribution of marijuana for medical purposes that does not have an active role in the cultivation of the marijuana product that it sells, dispenses, or distributes, or when its cultivation of the marijuana product is off-site from the facility or location for retail sale, dispensation, or distribution.

CityCode 19
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 CHAPTER I. IN GENERAL
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 7/15
Minor conditional use permit. A discretionary approval granted by the zoning administrator which allows a use or activity not allowed as a matter of right, based on specified findings.

Minor modification. A discretionary entitlement granted by the planning division, which permits limited deviation from the strict application of the development standards contained in this Zoning Code, based on specified findings.

Mixed use development. The development of lot(s) or structure(s) with two (2) or more different land uses such as, but not limited to a combination of residential, office, manufacturing, retail, public, or entertainment in a single or physically integrated group of structures.

Mobile home. See Manufactured housing.

Mobile home park. Any area or tract of land where two (2) or more mobile home lots are rented or leased, held out for lease or rent, or were formerly held out for rent or lease and later converted to a subdivision, cooperative, condominium, or other form of resident ownership, to accommodate manufactured homes or mobile homes. A mobile home park also means a mobile home development constructed according to the requirements of Part 2.1 (commencing with section 18200) of Division 13 of the State Health and Safety Code, and intended for use and sale as a mobile home condominium or cooperative park, or as a mobile home planned unit development.

Motel. Any building or combination of buildings of one (1) to three (3) stories in height having six (6) or more guest rooms with parking located convenient to the guest rooms and providing temporary lodging for automobile tourists and transient visitors. Typically, guest rooms have direct access to available parking without passing through a common lobby area. Motels also include auto courts, tourist courts, motor lodges, motor inns and motor hotels.

Municipal Code. City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code.

Open space. An area that is intended to provide light and air, and is designed for either environmental, scenic or recreational purposes. Open space may include, but is not limited to, lawns, decorative planting, walkways, active and passive recreational areas, playgrounds, fountains, swimming pools, wooded areas; first floor decks; unenclosed patios with solid or lattice roofs; water courses; and surfaces covered by not more than five (5) feet in depth by projections which are at least eight (8) feet above grade.

Open space shall not include the following: driveways; parking lots; other surfaces designed or intended for vehicular travel; and upper floor decks, balconies or areas under projections which are less than eight (8) feet above grade.

Open space, common. An area of land reserved primarily for the leisure and recreational use of all residents of a planned development or common interest development and owned in common by them, generally through a homeowners’ association.

Open space, private. An area of land located adjacent to an individual dwelling unit, owned or leased and maintained by its residents, and reserved exclusively for their use.

Operator means a company, business or individual who provides residential services, i.e., the placement of individuals in a residence, setting of house rules, and governing behavior of the residents as residents. Operator does not include a property owner or property manager that exclusively handles real estate contracting, property management and leasing of the property and that does not otherwise meet the definition of operator.

Organizational documents. The declaration of restrictions, articles of incorporation, bylaws, and any contracts for the maintenance, management or operation of all or any part of a project.

Parcel. Same as Lot.

Parkway. The area of a public street that lies between the curb and the adjacent property line or physical boundary definition, which is used for landscaping and/or passive recreational purposes.

Paved area. Ground surface covered with cobblestone, clay-fired bricks, concrete precast paver units, poured concrete with or without decorative surface materials, or asphaltic or rubber mixture which may include sand, stone, or gravel as an ingredient to create a hard surface. A graded natural surface or one covered with rolled stone or overlaid with loose gravel is not considered paved area.

Peak hour. The hour during the AM peak period (typically 7:00 a.m.—9:00 a.m.) or the PM peak period (typically 3:00 p.m.—6:00 p.m.) in which the greatest number of vehicle trips are generated by a given land use or are traveling on a given roadway.

Permitted use. Any use allowed in a land use zoning district without requiring a discretionary approval, and subject to the provisions applicable to that district.

CityCode 20
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 CHAPTER I. IN GENERAL
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 8/15
Planned development. A land area which is developed as an integrated unit under single ownership or control and having planned development zoning designation.

Planning application. A broad term for any development project or land use which requires the discretionary review and approval of either the planning division, zoning administrator, planning commission, redevelopment agency or city council. Planning applications include administrative adjustments, conditional use permits, development reviews, variances, redevelopment actions, etc.

Planning division. The planning division of the development services department of the City of Costa Mesa.

Project. See Development.

Property line. A line of record bounding a lot which divides one lot from another lot or from a public or private street or any other public space.

Property line, front. The narrowest property line of a lot abutting a public or private street. If two (2) or more equal property lines are narrowest, the front shall be that property line across which the development takes its primary access (if the primary access is determined to be equal, there shall be two (2) front property lines). However, for non-residentially zoned property, any property line abutting a public street designated as a secondary, primary or major street on the master plan of highways shall be deemed a front property line. A non-residentially zoned property shall have more than one (1) front property line when it abuts more than one street designated as secondary, primary, or major on the master plan of highways.

For R-1 zoned property located on corner lots, the front property line may be the property line towards which the front of the dwelling unit is oriented.

Property line, rear. The property line opposite the front property line. A corner lot with more than one (1) front property line shall have more than one (1) rear property line. Irregularly shaped lots may also have more than one (1) rear property line.

Property line, side. Any property line which is not a front or rear property line.

Property line, ultimate. The boundary of a lot after the dedication of land for use as public right(s)-of-way.

Public area. Establishments where food or beverages are served. That portion of an establishment reserved for the exclusive use of the public for the receipt or consumption of food and/or beverages. For the purpose of this Zoning Code, public area shall not include restrooms, kitchens, hallways or other areas restricted to employees only.

Public hearing. A public proceeding conducted for the purpose of acquiring information or evidence which may be considered in evaluating a proposed action, and which affords to any affected person or persons the opportunity to present their views, opinions, and information on such proposed applications. “Mandatory hearings” are those required to be held by law, and “discretionary hearings” are those which may be held within the sole discretion of the hearing body.

Public right-of-way. A strip of land acquired by reservation, dedication, prescription or condemnation and intended to be occupied by a road, trail, water line, sanitary sewer and/or other public uses.

Recyclable materials. Reusable materials including but not limited to metals, glass, plastic and paper which are intended for reuse, remanufacture or reconstruction. Recyclable materials do not include refuse, hazardous materials or hazardous waste.

Recycling. The process by which waste products are reduced to raw materials and transformed into new products.

Recycling and collection facility. A building or enclosed space used for the collection and processing of recyclable materials for preparation for shipment, or to an end user’s specifications, by such means as baling, briquetting, compacting, flattening, grinding, crushing, mechanical sorting, shredding, cleaning or remanufacturing.

Redevelopment action. A discretionary review conducted by the redevelopment agency for applications for development in the redevelopment project area, based on the adopted redevelopment plan and specified findings.

Referral facility. A residential care facility or a group home where one (1) or more person’s residency in the facility is pursuant to a court order or directive from an agency in the criminal justice system.

Residential care facility. A residential facility licensed by the state where care, services, or treatment is provided to persons living in a supportive community residential setting. Residential care facilities include, but may not be limited to, the following: intermediate care facilities for the developmentally disabled (Health & Safety Code §§ 1267.8, 1267.9); community care facilities (Health & Safety Code § 1500 et seq.); residential care facilities for the elderly (Health & Safety Code § 1569 et seq.); residential care facilities for the chronically ill (22 C.C.R. § 87801(a)(5); Health & Safety CityCode 21
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 CHAPTER I. IN GENERAL
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 9/15
Code § 1568.02); alcoholism and drug abuse facilities (Health & Safety Code §§ 11834.02—11834.30); pediatric day health and respite care facilities (Health & Safety Code § 1760 et seq.); residential health care facilities, including congregate living health facilities (Health & Safety Code §§ 1265—1271.1, 1250(i), 1250(e), (h)); family care home, foster home, group home for the mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped persons or dependent and neglected children (Wel. & Inst. Code §§ 5115—5120).

Residential, multi-family. Apartments, common interest developments, townhouses and similar multiple-family residential developments, including detached single-family homes where there is more than one (1) primary dwelling unit on a lot.

Residential, single-family. Detached single-family home where there is no more than one (1) primary dwelling unit on a lot.

Room, bedroom. A fully-enclosed room designed or intended to be used for sleeping purposes within a residence. Within a single-family detached residence, a room meeting the definition of a home office shall not be included in the bedroom count.

Room, home office. A room designed and intended to be used for a household office or small business related activity within a residence. Within a single-family detached residence, this room is strictly not intended for sleeping purposes, and lacks direct access to a bathroom. The home office may also be referred to as a studio, den, study or library.

Senior congregate care facility. A structure(s) providing residence for thirteen (13) or more senior citizens with kitchen, dining, recreational, etc. facilities with separate bedrooms and/or living quarters.

Setback. The required distance that a building, structure, parking or other designated item must be located from a property line or lot line.

Single housekeeping unit means that the occupants of a dwelling unit have established ties and familiarity with each other, jointly use common areas, interact with each other, share meals, household activities, and expenses and responsibilities; membership in the single housekeeping unit is fairly stable as opposed to transient, members have some control over who becomes a member of the household, and the residential activities of the household are conducted on a nonprofit basis.

There is a rebuttable presumption that integral facilities do not constitute single housekeeping units. Additional indicia that a household is not operating as a single housekeeping unit include but are not limited to: the occupants do not share a lease agreement or ownership of the property; members of the household have separate, private entrances from other members; members of the household have locks on their bedroom doors; members of the household have separate food storage facilities, such as separate refrigerators.

Single room occupancy residential hotel. A residential hotel, allowed in certain commercial zones, that contains units designed for long-term occupancy by a single person, although double occupancy may be permitted.

Slope. The degree of deviation of a surface from the horizontal plane, usually expressed in percent or degrees.

Small lot subdivision. A residential development containing a maximum of 15 detached or townhome style units with no common walls where each unit is independently constructed on an individual parcel and the land is subdivided into fee simple parcels containing each unit. Each individual lot is provided with either a direct access to public street/alley or an easement access through a recorded subdivision map.

Smoking lounge. Any facility or location whose business operation, whether as a primary use or an ancillary use, is characterized by the sale, offering, and/or preparation of smoking of tobacco, cigars, hookah, electronic cigarettes, or similar products, including but not limited to establishments known variously as hookah parlors, vaping lounges, or cigar bars.

Smoking/vaping retailer. A smoke shop, electronic cigarette retailer, vapor cigarette retailer, or any other retail business that sells tobacco, electronic cigarettes, and related products primarily for off-site consumption. Smoking/vaping retailers shall not include food or beverage service, outdoor seating, or an indoor seating area greater than one hundred (100) square feet in area.

Sober living home means a group home for persons who are recovering from a drug and/or alcohol addiction and who are considered handicapped under state or federal law. Sober living homes shall not include the following: (1) residential care facilities; (2) any sober living home that operates as a single housekeeping unit.

Specific plan. A plan consisting of text, maps, and other documents and exhibits regulating development within a defined area of the city, consistent with the general plan and the provisions of State Government Code section 65450 et seq.

State. State of California.

CityCode 22
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 CHAPTER I. IN GENERAL
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 10/15
Story. For purposes related to zoning regulations, a story is that portion of a building included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor next above it. If there is no floor above it, then the space between such floor and the ceiling next above it shall constitute a story. An attic shall not be considered a story. A basement or cellar shall not be considered a story, if the finished floor level directly above the basement or cellar is less than four (4) feet above finish grade at all locations. Any uncovered deck or activity area above the first story shall be considered a story.

Street. A public or private thoroughfare that provides primary access to adjacent land and local traffic movements. Streets do not include driveways which only provide access to parking areas.

Structure. Anything, including a building, located on the ground in a permanent location or attached to something having a permanent location on the ground.

Supportive housing. Housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population, and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community. Supportive housing that is provided in single family dwelling, multi-family dwelling units, residential care facilities, or boarding house uses, shall be permitted, conditionally permitted or prohibited in the same manner as the other single family dwelling, multi-family dwelling units, residential care facilities, or boarding house uses under this Code.

Tandem parking. An arrangement of parking spaces one behind the other, such that a parking space must be driven across in order to access another space. Tandem garage parking signified the placement of standard parking spaces one behind the other within the enclosed area of a garage.

Townhouse. A single-family attached dwelling unit located on an individual dwelling unit lot, and is part of a row of units that contains three (3) or more dwelling units.

Transitional housing. A development with buildings configured as rental housing developments, but operated under program requirements that call for the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at some predetermined future point in time, which shall be no less than six (6) months. Transitional housing that is provided in single family dwelling, multi-family dwelling units, residential care facilities, or boarding house uses, shall be permitted, conditionally permitted or prohibited in the same manner as the other single family dwelling, multi-family dwelling units, residential care facilities, or boarding house uses under this Code.

Trip (vehicle). A one-way vehicular journey either to or from a site, or totally within the site i.e. internal trip. Each trip has two (2) trip ends, one at the beginning and the other at the destination.

Trip rate (vehicular). The anticipated number of vehicle trips to be generated by a specific land use type or land use classification. The trip rate is expressed as a given number of vehicle trips for a given unit of development intensity (i.e., trip per unit, trip per one thousand (1,000) square feet, etc.).

Uncontrolled environment. A location where there is the exposure (to radiofrequency radiation) of individuals who have no knowledge or control of their exposure. The exposures may occur in living quarters or work places where there are no expectations that the exposure levels may exceed the exposure and induced current levels permitted for the general public.

Underroof. All of the area within the walls of the building that a roof covers. Areas under porches, roof overhangs, garage protrusions, breezeways and other similar architectural design features are not considered as underroof.

Unit. A particular building or structure, or portion thereof, that is designed, intended or used for exclusive occupancy, possession or control of individual owners or occupiers, whether or not they have interests in common areas of the project.

Use. The purpose (type and extent) for which land or a building is arranged, designed, or intended, or for which either land or a structure is occupied or maintained.

Warehouse, mini. A structure or group of structures for the dead storage of customer’s goods and wares where individual stalls or lockers are rented out to different tenants for storage and where at least one of the stalls or lockers has less than five hundred (500) square feet of floor area.

Warehouse, public. A structure or group of structures for the dead storage of customer’s goods and wares where individual stalls or lockers are rented out to different tenants for storage and where all the stalls or lockers have more than five hundred (500) square feet of floor area.

Vacancy rate (common lot development conversion). The ratio of vacant apartments being offered for rent or lease in the City of Costa Mesa, shown as a percentage of the total number of apartments in the city.

CityCode 23
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 CHAPTER I. IN GENERAL
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 11/15
Vape lounge. See Smoking lounge.

Vape shop. See Smoking/vaping retailer.

Variance. A discretionary entitlement, usually granted by the planning commission, which permits departure from the strict application of the development standards contained in this Zoning Code, based on specified findings.

Yard. Any open space on a lot unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground upward, except an inside court.

Yard, front. The yard between the front line of a building and the front line of the lot upon which the building is located.

Yard, rear. The yard extending from the extreme rear line of the main building to the rear lot line on which the building is situated.

Yard, side. The yard extending from the front yard, or from the front lot line where no front yard is required, to the rear yard or rear lot line, between the side lot line and the nearest wall of the main building or any accessory structure attached thereto.

Zero lot line. The location of a structure on a lot in such a manner that one (1) or more of the structure’s sides rest directly on a lot line. (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97; Ord. No. 98-5, § 4, 3-2-98; Ord. No. 00-5, § 1(a), 3-20-00; Ord. No. 01-16, § 1a., 6-18-01; Ord. No. 05-11, § 2a., 7-19-05; Ord. No. 06-18, § 1, 9-5-06; Ord. No. 09-3, §§ 1a., b., 5-19-09; Ord. No. 09- 4, § 1a., 5-5-09; Ord. No. 10-13, § 1, 10-19-10; Ord. No. 10-14, § 1, 11-16-10; Ord. No. 11-10, § 1, 9-20-11; Ord. No. 13- 1, § 2A., 3-19-13; Ord. No. 13-05, § 1, 12-3-13; Ord. No. 14-04, § 2A., 4-1-14; Ord. No. 14-13, § 1, 10-21-14; Ord. No. 15-10, § 2A, 9-15-15; Ord. No. 15-11, § 1, 11-17-15; Ord. No. 16-01, § 1, 1-19-16; Ord. No. 18-03, § 2, 1-16-18; Ord.

No. 21-03, § 3, 3-2-21)
ARTICLE 3. REVIEW AUTHORITIES
13-7. Purpose.

The purpose of this article is to establish the project review authority of the city council, the redevelopment agency, the planning commission, the zoning administrator and the planning division. (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97) 13-8. City council.

The city council shall have final decision authority for appeals, final maps, specific plans, master plans in the town center and planned development districts, rezones, general plan amendments, density bonuses with financial incentives, Zoning Code amendments, improvement and development agreements, annexations and any action specified in this Zoning Code.

The city council shall also be responsible for the acceptance of lands and/or improvements as may be proposed for dedication to the city, except deeds of dedication and parcel maps of four (4) or fewer lots with no development agreements. The city council may impose conditions of approval. (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97) 13-9. Redevelopment agency.
(a) Declaration of need of agency. It is hereby found and declared, pursuant to State Health and Safety Code section 33101, that there is a need for a redevelopment agency in the city, as such agency was created by section 33100, to function in the city, and the agency is hereby authorized to transact business and exercise all of the powers granted to it under the Community Redevelopment Law.
(b) Council declared agency. The five (5) members of the city council are hereby declared to be the members of the redevelopment agency and are empowered to exercise all the rights, powers, duties, privileges and immunities vested by the Community Redevelopment Law in an agency. (c) Term of agency members. Membership shall be for the period each councilmember serves in office, and shall automatically terminate at the time any councilmember no longer holds the office of councilmember. Any vacancy existing on the redevelopment agency shall be filled only by a duly elected sworn and acting city councilmember. (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97)
13-10. Planning commission.

CityCode 24
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 CHAPTER I. IN GENERAL
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 12/15
(a) Commission. Pursuant to the provisions of section 65101 of the Planning and Zoning Law of the California Government Code, there is hereby created a planning commission, which shall consist of seven (7) members. There shall be one (1) member from each electoral district of the city and one (1) at-large member. (b) Appointment and removal of commissioners. Each council member elected by district shall nominate the planning commission member for his or her district, subject to approval by a majority vote of the entire city council.

The mayor shall nominate the at-large planning commission member, subject to approval by a majority vote of the entire city council. Planning commission members serve at the pleasure of the city council. A member may be removed prior to the expiration of his or her term by a majority vote of the entire city council. Additional details for the appointment procedures and member qualifications, terms and compensation may be set by city council policy. (c) Residency in districts. Except for the at-large member, each member of the planning commission must be a resident of the electoral district from which the member is nominated at the time the member is nominated and appointed. If any member of the planning commission ceases to be a resident of the district from which the member was appointed, for any reason other than a change in district boundary lines required following the decennial census, that member’s appointment will automatically terminate. The at-large member must be a resident of the city. If the at-large member ceases to be a resident of the city, that member’s appointment will automatically terminate. The secretary of the planning commission shall immediately inform the city council of any such termination. (d) Term. The term of each planning commission member shall expire on the date on which the second regular meeting in January is held immediately following expiration of the term of the council member or mayor who appointed that member, or until he or she is reappointed or replaced. (e) Ex-officio member of commission. The director of development services and city attorney or designee shall attend the meetings of the planning commission and assist the commission in an advisory capacity as needed. (f) Absence from commission meetings without cause. If a planning commission member is absent from three (3) consecutive regular meetings of the commission, without cause, the office of the member shall be deemed to be vacant and the term of such member terminated. The secretary of the planning commission shall immediately inform the city council of such termination.
(g) Absence from commission meetings for cause. An absence due to illness or an unavoidable absence from the city and written notice thereof given to the secretary of the planning commission on or before the day of any regular meeting of the commission shall be deemed absence for cause. (h) Councilmember ineligibility. No member of the city council shall be eligible for membership on the planning commission.
(i) Authority of the planning commission.
(1) The planning commission shall have the power, except as otherwise provided by law, to act on plans for the regulation of the future growth, development and beautification of the city, in respect to:
a. Public and private buildings and works, streets, parks, grounds and vacant lots. b. The future growth and development of the city in order to secure sanitation, proper service of all public utilities, shipping and transportation facilities. c. The location of any proposed buildings, structures, or works. (2) The planning commission is authorized to act upon the following discretionary actions:
a. Recommend to the city council approval, conditional approval or denial of general plan amendments, specific plans, rezones, Zoning Code amendments, development agreements, density bonuses with public financial incentives, preliminary and final master plans, and any other action specified in this Zoning Code.
b. Recommend to the successor agency to the former redevelopment agency approval, conditional approval or denial of redevelopment actions, or adoption and/or amendments to a redevelopment plan. c. Approve, conditionally approve or deny applications for conditional use permits, variances, tentative tract and parcel maps, density bonuses without public financial incentives, and any other action specified in this Zoning Code.

CityCode 25
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 CHAPTER I. IN GENERAL
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 13/15
d. Perform other duties necessary to carry out the provisions reserved to the planning commission in Title 13 of the Municipal Code, the provisions of this Zoning Code and the provisions of the Planning, Zoning and Development Law of the State Government Code. (j) Commission bylaws authorized. The planning commission shall have the power, except as otherwise provided by law, to adopt such bylaws as it may deem necessary to provide for:
(1) The time and place of meeting.
(2) The time and method of electing officers.
(3) Such other matters relative to the organization of the planning commission and methods of administration of its duties which are not otherwise provided for by statute or ordinance. (k) Regular meeting of commission defined. A regular meeting as provided by law or by rule of the planning commission or any regularly advertised public hearing shall be deemed a regular meeting. (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5- 97; Ord. No. 01-12, § 1, 3-5-01; Ord. No. 02-4, § 1a, 3-18-02; Ord. No. 03-2, § 3, 3-3-03; Ord. No. 04-17, § 3, 1-3- 05; Ord. No. 19-05, § 1, 4-2-19)
13-11. Zoning administrator.
(a) The development services director or designee is authorized to act as the zoning administrator according to procedures set forth in the State Government Code.
(b) The zoning administrator is authorized to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the following discretionary planning applications. The zoning administrator may forward any action to the planning commission for review. (1) Administrative adjustment;
(2) Minor conditional use permit;
(3) Lot line adjustment;
(4) Wireless telecommunications use permit (see section 19-15); and (5) Any action specified in this Zoning Code. (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97; Ord. No. 20-03, § 2, 3-3-20) 13-12. Planning division.

The development services director or designees constitute the planning division. The planning division is authorized to act on and grant approvals of development reviews and minor modifications as described in Chapter III, Planning Applications, Wireless Telecommunications Use Permit (see section 19-15), and other duties as designated by the development services director, planning commission, city council and this Zoning Code. (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97; Ord. No. 20-03, § 2, 3-3-20)
ARTICLE 4. ENFORCEMENT
13-13. Purpose.

The purpose of this article is to establish the parameters for the enforcement of this Zoning Code. (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5- 5-97)
13-14. Enforcement officer designated.

The development services director or duly authorized representative is hereby empowered and it shall be his/her duty to enforce all provisions of this Zoning Code. (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97) 13-15. Duties.

All departments, officials and public employees of the city invested with the duty or authority to issue permits or licenses shall conform to the provisions of this Zoning Code and shall issue no permit or license for uses, buildings or purposes in CityCode 26
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 CHAPTER I. IN GENERAL
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 14/15
conflict with the provisions of this Code; and any such permit or licenses issued in conflict with the provisions of this Zoning Code shall be null and void. It shall be the duty of the development services director to enforce the provisions of this Zoning Code pertaining to the creation, construction, reconstruction, moving, conversion, alteration or addition to any building or structure. (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97)
13-16. Enforcement.
(a) Criminal prosecution. Any person, whether as principal, agent, or employee, violating the terms of this zoning code may be prosecuted as provided in section 1-33 of this Municipal Code. (b) Criminal citation. For the purposes of this zoning code, a violation of the terms of this zoning code may be cited as either an infraction or misdemeanor pursuant to State Government Code sections 36900 and 36901 and as provided in section 1-33 of this Municipal Code.
(c) Civil action. As an alternative to prosecution or citation, or as an additional action, the city attorney may, at the request of the development services director, institute an action in any court of competent jurisdiction to restrain, enjoin, or abate the condition(s) or activity(ies) found to be in violation of the provisions of this zoning code. (d) No criminal prosecution, citation or penalty. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of this section, no person shall be criminally prosecuted or cited, or suffer any criminal penalty, for any violation of the provisions of section 13-30, table 13-30, rows 31a and/or 31b relating to the prohibition of medical marijuana dispensaries or medical marijuana cultivation within the city, or for a violation of the provisions of Chapter IX, Article 20 related to the prohibition against medical marijuana cultivation. (e) Nuisance. Any use, structure, or property that is altered, enlarged, erected, established, maintained, moved, or operated contrary to the provisions of this title or any condition of approval, is hereby declared to be unlawful and a public nuisance and may be abated by the city through civil proceedings by means of a restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunction, or in any other manner provided by law for the abatement of such nuisances. (Ord. No. 97- 11, § 2, 5-5-97; Ord. No. 10-13, § 2, 10-19-10; Ord. No. 10-14, § 2, 11-16-10; Ord. No. 16-01, § 2, 1-19-16) 13-17. Public nuisance defined; procedure.

Any building or structure set up, constructed, erected, enlarged, converted, moved or maintained contrary to the provisions of this Zoning Code, and any use of land, building or premises established, conducted or maintained contrary to the provisions of this Municipal Code or other applicable laws, may, by the city council, after public hearing, be declared to be unlawful and a public nuisance as established in this section. No conditions described in this section may be declared a public nuisance until the following steps have been taken:
(a) There shall be an inspection and investigation of the premises by whatever department heads or their authorized designees within the city as are affected by the condition of the premises, including but not limited to, the development services director, planning division, police department, and county health officer. (b) The responsible owner, lienholder or occupier of the premises shall be given notice setting forth the violations, corrections which must be made, and a specific reasonable time within which to make such corrections. The notice shall be given either in person or by registered or certified mail to the responsible property owner, lienholder or occupier and by a posting on the property.
(c) In the event the responsible owner, lienholder or occupier does not comply with the demand for correction as set forth in subsection (b) within the specific time stated therein, the city council shall set the matter for formal hearing and shall post the property at least ten (10) days prior to the time of the hearing and shall serve the responsible owner, lienholder or occupier of the property a copy of the notice of the formal hearing, either in person or by registered or certified mail.
(d) At the hearing as set forth in subsection (c) the city council shall take oral or written testimony as evidence to substantiate their findings with respect to the violation. Evidence may be presented by investigative officers on behalf of the city, while the owner, lienholder or occupier may present evidence in his or her own behalf. At the close of the hearing, the city council shall find and determine, based upon the evidence presented, that a public nuisance does or does not exist.

CityCode 27
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 CHAPTER I. IN GENERAL
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 15/15
(e) Upon finding that a public nuisance exists as provided for in subsection (d), the city council shall give the responsible property owner, lienholder or occupier notice in writing that the condition must be corrected, prevented, restrained or abated within a thirty-day period.
(f) If at the end of the thirty (30) day period granted for compliance the responsible owner, lienholder or occupier has not complied with the mandate of the city council, the city attorney shall commence appropriate legal proceedings either civil, criminal or both, as the circumstances warrant. (g) In the event the city council determines by a four-fifths (4/5) vote that any conditions described above cause an emergency situation threatening serious bodily harm or imminent, substantial property damage, the foregoing procedures and time limits may be waived and upon reasonable notice under the circumstances to the responsible property owner, lienholder or occupier, the city council may at a public hearing find and determine such conditions a nuisance and order immediate abatement.
(h) The city’s cost of abatement proceedings shall constitute a special assessment upon the lot involved and payable and collectible as set forth in State Government Code sections 38773.1 and 38773.5 and other applicable laws. (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97)
13-18. Remedies cumulative.

The remedies provided in this article shall be cumulative and not exclusive. (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97) View the mobile version.

CityCode 28
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 CHAPTER II. ZONING DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 1/3
Costa Mesa Municipal Code
Up Previous Next Main Collapse Search Print No Frames
TITLE 13 PLANNING, ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER II. ZONING DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED
13-19. Purpose.

The intent of this chapter is to establish and state the purpose of the various zoning districts, as well as to describe their boundaries on the official zoning map. (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97) 13-20. Zoning districts.

In order to classify, regulate, restrict and separate the uses of land and buildings, regulate the height and bulk of buildings and the area of yards and other open spaces about buildings, and regulate population density, the following classes of zones are established:
(a) R1 Single-Family Residential District. This district is intended to promote the development of single-family detached units located on lots with a minimum lot size of six thousand (6,000) square feet, and a maximum density of 7.26 dwelling units per gross acre.
(b) R2-MD Multiple-Family Residential District, Medium Density. This district is intended to promote the development of multi-family rental as well as ownership properties on lots with a minimum size of twelve thousand (12,000) square feet. The maximum density allowed is three thousand six hundred thirty (3,630) square feet per dwelling unit, which equals twelve (12) dwelling units per gross acre. Legal lots existing as of March 16, 1992 with a minimum lot area of six thousand (6,000) square feet up to seven thousand two hundred sixty (7,260) square feet are allowed two (2) dwelling units.
(c) R2-HD Multiple-Family Residential District, High Density. This district is intended to promote the development of multi-family rental as well as ownership dwelling units on lots with a minimum size of twelve thousand (12,000) square feet. The maximum density allowed is three thousand (3,000) square feet per dwelling unit, which equals 14.52 dwelling units per gross acre. (d) R3 Multiple-Family Residential District. Like the R2-MD and R2-HD districts, this district is intended to promote the development of multi-family rental as well as ownership dwelling units. The required minimum lot size is twelve thousand (12,000) square feet. The maximum density allowed is two thousand one hundred seventy-eight (2,178) square feet per dwelling unit, which equals twenty (20) dwelling units per gross acre. (e) AP Administrative and Professional District. This district is intended to establish areas within which public administrative, professional and business offices may be located. It is the further purpose of this district to limit the intensity of use within the district to be compatible with the types of activities generally associated with office developments.
(f) CL Commercial Limited District. This district is intended for unique areas of land which, due to the proximity of residential development or the potential for traffic circulation hazards, require special precautions to be taken to assure appropriate development. The district is also intended for industrial areas where commercial uses must be considered according to their compatibility with existing or permitted industrial uses. (g) C1 Local Business District. This district is intended to meet the local business needs of the community by providing a wide range of goods and services in a variety of locations throughout the city. The permitted and conditional uses as well as development standards are aimed toward reducing impacts on surrounding properties especially in those areas where residential uses are in the vicinity. (h) C2 General Business District. This district is intended to provide for those uses which offer a wide range of goods and services which are generally less compatible with more sensitive land uses of a residential or institutional nature.
(i) C1-S Shopping Center District. This district is intended for large commercial lots constructed as a unified and integrated development. It is the further purpose to provide a wide range of goods and services on a community and regional scale.

CityCode 29
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 CHAPTER II. ZONING DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 2/3
(j) TC Town Center District. This district is intended to allow intensely developed mixed commercial and residential uses within a very limited geographical area bounded by Sunflower Avenue to the north, 1-405 to the south, Bristol Street to the west, and Avenue of the Arts to the east. Developments within this designation can range from one- and two-story office and retail buildings to mid- and high-rise buildings. (k) P Off-Street Parking District. This district is intended to allow parking lots, and buildings incidental to the operation of the parking lot.
(l) I & R Institutional and Recreational District. This district is intended to allow land uses which provide recreation, open space, health and public service uses. Development in this designation may occur on either public or private property.
(m) I & R-S Institutional and Recreational School District. This district is intended to allow public and private educational facilities on either public or private property. (n) MG General Industrial. This district is intended for a variety of industrial areas which contain a wide range of light and general industrial activities. Development standards and the approval of conditional uses shall be aimed toward eliminating possible hazards to adjoining properties, especially in those areas where residential uses are in the vicinity.
(o) MP Industrial Park. This district is intended for large, concentrated industrial areas where the aim of development is to create a spacious environment in a park-like setting. (p) PDR-LD Planned Development Residential—Low Density (up to 8 dwelling units per acre); PDR-MD Planned Development Residential—Medium Density (up to twelve (12) dwelling units per acre); PDR-HD Planned Development Residential—High Density (up to twenty (20) dwelling units per acre or higher pursuant to an adopted specific plan); PDR-NCM Planned Development Residential—North Costa Mesa (twenty-five (25) to thirty-five (35) dwelling units per acre). These districts are intended to provide for excellence in the design of residential projects.

Within the low-density zone typical designs include small-lot, single-family detached residential developments including clustered development, zero lot line development and conventional development.

Within the medium density, high density, and north Costa Mesa zones, site design could include single-and multiplefamily residential developments containing any type or mixture of housing units, either attached or detached, including but not limited to clustered development, townhouses, patio houses, detached houses, duplexes, garden apartments, high rise apartments or common interest developments. Complementary non-residential uses could also be included in the planned development.
(q) PDC Planned Development Commercial. This district is intended for retail shops, offices and service establishments, including but not limited to, hotels, restaurants, theaters, museums, financial institutions, and health clubs. These uses are intended to serve adjacent residential areas, as well as the entire community and region.

Complementary residential uses could also be included in the planned development. (r) PDI Planned Development Industrial. This district is intended for large, concentrated industrial areas where the aim of development is to create a spacious environment in a park-like setting. (s) MU Mixed-Use Overlay. This district may overlay the R2-MD, R2-HD, R3, CL, C1, C2, MG, PDR-HD, PDRMD, or I&R districts, and it is intended to allow development of residential and nonresidential uses as mixed, integrated projects. This overlay district shall only be applied to the zoning map in conjunction with the adoption of an urban plan for the designated area. The urban plan is a regulating plan that shall define the unique characteristics of the overlay area, include a matrix of permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited uses and provide development standards. The provisions of the mixed-use overlay shall be activated by adoption of a master plan. (t) Institutional and Recreational Multi-Use District. This district is intended to allow the integration of a variety of land uses and intensities. This zoning district category includes uses which are low to moderate in density and intensity and urban in character. The multi-use center designation is applicable only to the Fairview Development Center property at 2501 Harbor Boulevard. (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97; Ord. No. 05-3, § 1a., 2-7-05; Ord. No. 06- 9, § 1a., 4-18-06; Ord. No. 07-2, § 1a.—c. 2-6-07; Ord. No. 16-09, § 2, 10-4-16) 13-21. Overlay districts.

Overlay zoning districts may also be created in conjunction with special regulations. (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97) CityCode 30
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 CHAPTER II. ZONING DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 3/3
13-22. Zoning district boundaries.

The zoning districts listed in section 13-20, zoning districts, and the boundaries of each, are shown on the official zoning map, filed in the planning division. (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97) 13-23. Division of official zoning map.

The official zoning map may be subdivided into district maps, and such district maps may be separately used for amending the zoning map or for any official reference to the zoning map. (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97) 13-24. Changes in boundaries.

All changes shall be made by ordinance adopting an amended zoning map, or part of the zoning map or district map. (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97)
13-25. Uncertainty of boundaries.

Where uncertainty exists as to the boundaries of any zone shown on the zoning map, or any district map, the following rules shall apply:
(a) When boundaries of zones are approximately following street, alley or lot lines, such lines shall be construed as the boundaries.
(b) In the case of undivided properties, or property not yet subdivided, and a zone boundary divides the lot, the location of the zone boundary, unless indicated by dimensions, shall be determined by the use of the scale appearing on the zoning map. (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97)
13-26. Limitation of land use.

No new building shall be erected, nor shall any building or land be used for any purpose except as provided and allowed for in this Zoning Code. (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97)
View the mobile version.

CityCode 31
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 CHAPTER III. PLANNING APPLICATIONS
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 1/11
Costa Mesa Municipal Code
Up Previous Next Main Collapse Search Print No Frames
TITLE 13 PLANNING, ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER III. PLANNING APPLICATIONS
13-27. Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to establish the parameters for the numerous types of discretionary planning applications and to identify processing procedures. (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97) 13-28. Types.
(a) Administrative adjustment. Any deviation from an adopted development standard in this Zoning Code that meets the criteria listed in Table 13-28(a).

TABLE 13-28(a)

ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENTS
Standard Deviation Range
Decrease in required front yard depth; provided that in residential zones, the garage is set back a minimum of 19 feet from the front property line.

More than 20% but no more than 40%
Decrease in required rear yard depth. More than 20% but no more than 40% Decrease in required side yard width. More than 20% but no more than 40% Increase in maximum fence/wall height. More than 33 1/3 % but no more than 50% Increase in depth of permitted projections into required yards. More than 20% but no more than 40%
Deviation in sign area, height, setbacks, separation and other sign specifications More than 10% but no more than 20% Decrease in required distance between main structures More than 20% but no more than 40% Decrease in required distance between accessory and
main structures More than 20% but no more than 40%
(b) Conditional use permit. Any use specified in this Zoning Code as requiring a conditional use permit. (1) Common interest development conversion. For residential projects, a proposal to convert an occupied or previously occupied apartment complex to a residential common interest development project. To request a conversion for a newly constructed project, the apartment complex shall have received final building approval for occupancy. For non-residential projects, a proposal to convert an occupied or previously occupied nonresidential complex to a non-residential common interest development. Non-residential includes industrial, commercial, office, and/or mixed-use project.
(c) Density bonus or incentive. Any request for incentives to produce lower income and senior housing per State Government Code section 65915.
(d) Design review. Any construction that results in three (3) or more dwelling units on a development lot in any residential zone, except planned development, shall be subject to design review. (e) Development review. The following shall be subject to development review:

CityCode 32
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 CHAPTER III. PLANNING APPLICATIONS
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 2/11
(1) Single-story residential construction: In the R2-MD, R2-HD, and R3 zones, any single-story construction of two (2) or fewer new single-story dwelling units. Exception: New single-story accessory buildings, such as garages or carports, single-story room additions, and other minor construction that comply with all applicable development standards shall not be subject to development review but shall be reviewed by the planning division.
(2) Two-story residential construction: In the R2-MD, R2-HD, and R3 zones, any two-story construction on a lot where there are two (2) or fewer dwelling units or any second-story addition on a lot with more than two (2) dwelling units that complies with any residential design guidelines adopted by city council. (3) Construction of new buildings or additions to existing buildings in the AP, CL, C1, C2, C1-S, MG, or MP zones. However, building additions that do not exceed two thousand (2,000) square feet or fifty (50) percent of the existing building area, whichever is less, and comply with all applicable development standards shall not be subject to development review.
(4) Lot line adjustment; and
(5) Any other use specified in this Zoning Code as requiring development review. (f) Lot line adjustment. Any adjustment to an existing lot line between two lots, where the land taken from one lot is added to an abutting lot and/or where a greater number of lots than originally existed is not created. A lot line adjustment may be used to combine no more than four abutting lots. (g) Master plan. Prior to development in the planned development (PD), town center (TC), shopping center (C1- S), mixed-use overlay (MU), and all types of institutional and recreational (I&R, I&R-S, and I&R-MLT) zoning districts, a master plan is required. Preliminary master plans are required in the TC and I&R-MLT zone, are optional in PD and MU zones, and are not required in C1-S, I&R-S, and I&R zones. (1) Minor changes: Minor changes in the location, siting or character of buildings and structures may be authorized by the planning division if required by the final engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the master plan was approved. No change authorized under this section may cause any of the following:
a. A change in the use or character of the development; b. An increase in the overall density or floor area ratio of the development; c. An increase in overall coverage of structures;
d. A reduction or change in character of approved open space; e. A reduction of required off-street parking;
f. A detrimental alteration to the pedestrian, vehicular and bicycle circulation and utility networks; or g. A reduction in required street pavement widths.
h. An increase of more than six (6) inches in building height. i. A decrease in building setback greater than can be approved by a minor modification by the development services director.
(2) Major amendments. Substantial amendments to the master plan encompassing one or more of the minor changes listed in subparagraphs (1)a. through (1)i., or any proposed change determined by the development services director as a major amendment, shall be subject to review and approval by the zoning administrator.

Furthermore, if the major amendment results in an overall building square footage that exceeds the maximum density or building square footage allowed by the approved master plan, the zoning administrator must find that the major amendment is consistent with the density, floor area ratio, and trip budget standards established by the general plan, as applicable.
(3) Minor amendments.
a. Minor amendments to existing master plans in planned development zones are subject to section 13- 56, master plan required.
b. Minor amendments to existing master plans in the TC, C1-S, MU, I&R, I&R-S, and I&R-MLT zones may be approved by development review if the planning division finds that the proposed construction does not materially affect required open space, floor area ratio, and parking requirements CityCode 33
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 CHAPTER III. PLANNING APPLICATIONS
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 3/11
specified in the approved master plan. Furthermore, if the minor amendment results in an overall building square footage that exceeds the maximum building square footage allowed by the approved master plan, the planning division must find that the minor amendment is consistent with the floor area ratio and trip budget standards established by the general plan, as applicable. (4) Mixed-use development plan screening application. Applicants for residential or mixed-use development projects in a mixed-use overlay district shall submit a screening application for consideration by city council at a public meeting. No other concurrent application for development may be submitted for processing until city council comments have been received. The purpose of the screening application is to receive city council comments on the merits and appropriateness of the proposed development. No other action on the screening application will be taken by city council. The submittal requirements for the screening review are specified on the city’s planning application form, and the city council’s review comments on the proposed project for processing shall not set precedent for approval of the master plan. (h) Minor conditional use permit. Any use or deviation from development standards specified in this Zoning Code as requiring a minor conditional use permit.
(i) Minor design review. The following shall be subject to minor design review:
(1) Two-story residential construction that does not comply with any residential design guidelines adopted by the city council in the following zones:
a. R1 zone: Any two-story construction or second-floor addition; and b. R2-MD, R2-HD, and R3 zones: Any two-story construction on a lot that results in two (2) or fewer dwelling units or any second-story addition on a lot with more than two (2) dwelling units. (2) Reserved for future use.
(3) Any deviation from development standards specified in this Zoning Code as requiring a minor design review.
(j) Minor modification. Any deviation from an adopted development standard in this Zoning Code that meets the criteria listed in Table 13-28(j)(1).

TABLE 13-28(j)(1)

MINOR MODIFICATION
Standard Deviation Range
Decrease in required front yard depth; provided that in residential zones, the garage is set back a minimum of nineteen (19) feet from the front property line 20% or less Decrease in required rear yard depth 20% or less
Decrease in required side yard width 20% or less
Increase in maximum fence/wall height 33 1/3 % or less
Decrease in five-foot setback on street side for fences/walls in excess of thirty-six (36) inches on corner lots in multi-family residential zones 100% or less
Increase in depth of permitted projections into required yards 20% or less Decrease in minimum driveway width for two (2) or more dwelling units to not less than 10 feet Deviation in sign area, height, setbacks, separation and other sign specifications 10% or less Decrease in required distance between main structures 20% or less Decrease in required distance between accessory and main structures 20% or less (2) Minor building additions that encroach into required setbacks no further than the existing main structure, excluding architectural features. However, no nonconforming setback width or depth may be decreased further, and the building addition shall comply with all other applicable sections of this Zoning Code and other codes.
(3) Fabric awnings that project no more than five (5) feet from the building face.

CityCode 34
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 CHAPTER III. PLANNING APPLICATIONS
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 4/11
(4) Any deviation from development standards specified in this Zoning Code as requiring a minor modification.
(k) Mobile home park conversion. Any conversion of an existing mobile home park to any other use permitted or conditionally permitted in the applicable zoning district. (l) Planned signing program. A voluntary, optional alternative to the general sign regulations, except in the C1-S zone where it is required.
(m) Redevelopment action. Any development or use proposed within the redevelopment project area as specified by the redevelopment plan or by policy of the redevelopment agency as requiring redevelopment agency approval. (n) Reserved.
(o) Rezone. Any proposed change to the official zoning map. (p) Specific plan conformity review. Any proposed action or land use which is required by the applicable specific plan to be reviewed for conformity with the purpose and intent of the plan. (q) Tentative tract or parcel map (including vesting). Any proposed subdivision of land which is required by a provision of the Subdivision Map Act or this Zoning Code to file a tentative tract or parcel map. (r) Variance. Any deviation from a development standard in this Zoning Code that is not specified as a minor modification or administrative adjustment, or a deviation that is not allowed by approval of conditional use permit, minor conditional use permit, or specific plan conformity procedure. (s) Landmarks and historic districts located within the city. A person may request placement of a significant historic structure on the local Register of Historic Places subject to the criteria and procedures established in Chapter IX, Article 14, Historic Preservation.
(t) Certificate of appropriateness. A certificate issued by the planning commission (or other commission/committee designated by the city council), approving plans, specifications, or statements of work for any proposed alteration, restoration, or rehabilitation, construction, relocation, or demolition, in whole or in part, of a “designated cultural resource” listed on the city’s local Register of Historic Places. (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97; Ord. No. 99-17, § 3, 11-15-99; Ord. No. 01-10, §§ 1a., 1b., 3-5-01; Ord. No. 01-16, § 1b., 6-18-01; Ord. No. 02-4, § 1m, 3-18-02; Ord. No. 03-4, § 1(a), 6-2-03; Ord. No. 03-8, §§ 1, 2, 9-2-03; Ord. No. 05-3, § 1b., 2-7-05; Ord. No. 05-2, § 1a.—c., 2-22-05; Ord. No. 06-9, § 1b., 4-18-06; Ord. No. 07-17, § 1a., b., 10-2-07; Ord. No. 11-10, § 1, 9- 20-11; Ord. No. 16-09, § 3, 10-4-16)
13-29. Planning application review process.
(a) Application.
(1) Application for any planning application shall be made to the planning division on the forms provided.

Plans and information reasonably needed to analyze the application may be required. A list of required plans and information shall be available from the planning division. (2) All applications shall be signed by the record owner of the real property to be affected. This requirement may be waived upon presentation of evidence substantiating the right of another person to file the application. (b) Fees. The application shall be accompanied by all applicable processing fees as established by resolution of the city council.
(c) Public hearing. Upon receipt of a complete application for a planning application, the planning division shall fix a time and place of the public hearing if one is required pursuant to Table 13-29(c). For planning applications which require review by both the planning commission and city council or redevelopment agency, pursuant to Table 13-29(c), the final review authority shall hold a public hearing no more than forty-five (45) days from the receipt of the planning commission’s recommendation.

TABLE 13-29(c)

PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS
CityCode 35
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 CHAPTER III. PLANNING APPLICATIONS
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 5/11
Planning Applications
Public Notice
Required
Public Hearing
Required
Recommending
Authority
Final Review
Authority
Notice of
Decision
Development Review
Minor Modification
No No None Planning Division No
Lot Line Adjustment No No None Planning Division No
Administrative Adjustment
Minor Conditional Use Permit
Minor Design Review
Planned Signing Program
Yes No None
Zoning
Administrator
Yes
Design Review
Mobile Home Park Conversion
Common Interest Development Conversion
(Residential or Nonresidential)
Specific Plan Conformity Review
Tentative Parcel Map
Tentative Tract Map
Variance
Yes Yes Planning Division
Planning
Commission
Yes
Conditional Use Permit
Density Bonus
Master Plan
Master Plan—Preliminary
Yes Yes Planning Division
Planning
Commission
(excepted where
noted otherwise in
this zoning code)
Yes
Redevelopment Action Yes Yes
Planning
Commission
Redevelopment
Agency
Yes
Rezone Yes Yes
Planning
Commission; and, if
located in a
redevelopment
project area, the
Redevelopment
Agency
City Council No
Local Register of Historic Places No No
Planning
Commission or
other commission/
committee as
designated by the
City Council
City Council Yes
Certificate of Appropriateness No No
Planning
Commission or
other commission/
committee as
designated by the
City Council
Planning
Commission or
other commission/
committee as
designated by the
City Council
No
(d) Public notice. When required pursuant to Table 13-29(c), public notice shall be given as described in the following subsections. Public notices shall contain a general explanation of the proposed planning application and CityCode 36
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 CHAPTER III. PLANNING APPLICATIONS
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 6/11
any other information reasonably needed to give adequate notice of the matter to be considered. (1) Mailed notice required. Notices of the hearing shall be mailed to all property owners and occupants within a five hundred (500) foot radius of the project site, except for applications for the construction of a building(s) one hundred fifty (150) feet or more in height; these applications shall require a greater notice radius:

Building Height in Feet Notice Requirement
More than 150 and less than or equal to 225 700-foot radius More than 225 and less than or equal to 300 900-foot radius More than 300 1,100-foot radius
The required notice radius shall be measured from the external boundaries of the property described in the application. The notice shall be mailed no less than ten (10) days prior to the hearing or determination on the application. The planning division shall require mailing labels from the project applicant for this purpose. The mailing labels shall reflect the last known name and address of owner(s) as shown on the last equalized county assessment roll or by a more current listing.
(2) On-site posting required. Additional notice shall be provided by posting a notice on each street frontage of the project site, no less than ten (10) days prior to the date set for the hearing or determination on the application.
(3) Newspaper publication. When a public hearing is required, notice shall also be published once in the city in a newspaper of general circulation, no less than ten (10) days prior to the date set for the public hearing. (e) Review criteria. Review criteria for all planning applications shall consist of the following:
(1) Compatible and harmonious relationship between the proposed building and site development, and use(s), and the building and site developments, and uses that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood.
(2) Safety and compatibility of the design of buildings, parking area, landscaping, luminaries and other site features which may include functional aspects of the site development such as automobile and pedestrian circulation.
(3) Compliance with any performance standards as prescribed elsewhere in this Zoning Code. (4) Consistency with the general plan and any applicable specific plan. (5) The planning application is for a project-specific case and is not to be construed to be setting a precedent for future development.
(6) When more than one (1) planning application is proposed for a single development, the cumulative effect of all the planning applications shall be considered.
(7) For residential developments, consistency with any applicable design guidelines adopted by city council resolution.
(8) For affordable multi-family housing developments which include a minimum of sixteen (16) affordable dwelling units at no less than twenty (20) dwelling units per acre, the maximum density standards of the general plan shall be applied, and the maximum density shall be permitted by right and not subject to discretionary review during the design review or master plan application process. (f) Conditions. The final review authority pursuant to Table 13-29(c), may impose reasonable conditions to assure compliance with the applicable provisions of this Zoning Code, and to assure compatibility with surrounding properties and uses and to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. The final review authority may also CityCode 37
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 CHAPTER III. PLANNING APPLICATIONS
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 7/11
require such written guarantees, cash deposits, recorded land use restrictions, etc., as may be necessary to assure compliance with the conditions.
(g) Findings. When granting an application for any of the planning applications specified below, the final review authority shall find that the evidence presented in the administrative record substantially meets any required conditions listed below. Other findings may also be required pursuant to other provisions of this Zoning Code. (1) Administrative adjustment and variance findings:
a. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of development standards deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity under identical zoning classifications.
b. The deviation granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the deviation authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. c. The granting of the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation and any applicable specific plan for the property. (2) Conditional use permit and minor conditional use permit findings:
a. The proposed development or use is substantially compatible with developments in the same general area and would not be materially detrimental to other properties within the area. b. Granting the conditional use permit or minor conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public or otherwise injurious to property or improvements within the immediate neighborhood.
c. Granting the conditional use permit or minor conditional use permit will not allow a use, density or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation and any applicable specific plan for the property.
(3) Density bonus and concession or incentive findings:
a. The request is consistent with State Government Code section 65915 et. seq. regarding density bonuses and other incentives, the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and Chapter IX special regulations, Article 4 density bonuses and other incentives. b. The requested density bonus and incentive or concession constitute the minimum amount necessary to provide housing at the target rents or sale prices and/or a child care facility. c. The granting of the incentive or concession is required in order to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Health and Safety Code section 50052.5 or for rents for the targeted units. d. The granting of the incentive or concession and/or the waiver or reduction of development standards does not have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Government Code section 65589.5 upon health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. e. The granting of the incentive or concession and/or the waiver or reduction of development standards does not have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources.
(4) Lot line adjustment findings: The lot line adjustment and improvements are consistent with the general plan, any applicable specific plan and this Zoning Code. (5) Master plan findings:
a. The master plan meets the broader goals of the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and the Zoning Code by exhibiting excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures and protection of the integrity of neighboring development. b. Master plan findings for mixed-use development projects in the mixed-use overlay district are identified in Chapter V, Article 11, mixed-use overlay district.

CityCode 38
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 CHAPTER III. PLANNING APPLICATIONS
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 8/11
c. As applicable to affordable multi-family housing developments, the project complies with the maximum density standards allowed pursuant to the general plan and provides affordable housing to low or very-low income households, as defined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The project includes long-term affordability covenants in compliance with state law. (6) Minor modification findings:
a. The improvement will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood.
b. The improvement is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. This includes the site planning, land coverage, landscaping, appearance, scale of structures, open space and any other applicable features relative to a compatible and attractive development.
(7) Mobile home park conversion findings:
a. The impacts of the conversion on the residents of the mobile home park have been duly considered as required by the State Government Code.
b. The proposed conversion project is consistent with the general plan, any applicable specific plan and this Zoning Code.
(8) Planned signing program findings:
a. The proposed signing is consistent with the intent of Chapter VIII, Signs, and the General Plan. b. The proposed signs are consistent with each other in design and construction taking into account sign style and shape, materials, letter style, colors and illumination. c. The proposed signs are compatible with the buildings and developments they identify taking into account materials, colors and design motif.
d. Approval does not constitute a grant of special privilege or allow substantially greater overall visibility than the standard sign provisions would allow. (9) Redevelopment action findings: The proposed use and/or development is consistent with the guidelines of the redevelopment plan.
(10) Common interest development conversion findings:
a. The applicant has submitted an adequate and legally binding plan which addresses the displacement of long-term residents, particularly senior citizens and low- and moderate-income families and families with school-age children; and
b. The proposed common interest development conversion project conforms to adopted general plan policies and any applicable specific plan or urban plan, and if applicable, increases the supply of lower cost housing in the city and/or that the proposed conversion project fulfills other stated public goals. c. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding neighborhood, nor will the project be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the city.
d. The overall design and physical condition of the common interest development conversion project achieves a high standard of appearance, quality, and safety. e. The proposed common interest development conversion project conforms to the Costa Mesa Zoning Code requirements.
f. For a proposed common interest development conversion project that does not conform to the zoning code requirements, the project due to its proportions and scale, design elements, and relationship to the surrounding neighborhood, is of continued value to the community and it contributes to defining and improving the community as a whole. Deviations from zoning code requirements are acceptable because it would be impracticable or physically impossible without compromising the integrity of the overall project to implement features that could result in conformance with current code requirements.

CityCode 39
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 CHAPTER III. PLANNING APPLICATIONS
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 9/11
g. For a proposed common interest development conversion project located in an urban plan area, the proposed conversion is consistent with the applicable mixed-use overlay zoning district. Specifically, the proposed non-residential conversion project supports a mixed-use development or a similar land use that is not allowed in the base zoning district, or the proposed conversion project is a residential common interest development that is permitted by either the base or overlay zoning district. (11) Rezone findings: The proposed rezone is consistent with the Zoning Code and the general plan and any applicable specific plan.
(12) Specific plan conformity review findings: Refer to the applicable specific plan text. (13) Tentative parcel or tract map findings:
a. The creation of the subdivision and related improvements is consistent with the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and this Zoning Code.
b. The proposed use of the subdivision is compatible with the general plan. c. The subject property is physically suitable to accommodate the subdivision in terms of type, design and density of development, and will not result in substantial environmental damage nor public health problems, based on compliance with the Zoning Code and general plan, and consideration of appropriate environmental information.
d. The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities in the subdivision, as required by State Government Code section 66473.1. e. The division and development will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of the public entity and/or public utility rights-of-way and/or easements within the tract. f. The discharge of sewage from this land division into the public sewer system will not violate the requirements of the State Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with State Water Code section 13000).
(14) Design review and minor design review findings:
a. The project complies with the City of Costa Mesa Zoning Code and meets the purpose and intent of the residential design guidelines, which are intended to promote design excellence in new residential construction, with consideration being given to compatibility with the established residential community.

This design review includes site planning, preservation of overall open space, landscaping, appearance, mass and scale of structures, location of windows, varied roof forms and roof plane breaks, and any other applicable design features.
b. The visual prominence associated with the construction of a two-story house or addition in a predominantly single-story neighborhood has been reduced through appropriate transitions between the first and second floors and the provision of second floor offsets to avoid unrelieved two-story walls. c. As applicable to affordable multi-family housing developments, the project complies with the maximum density standards allowed pursuant to the general plan and provides affordable housing to low or very-low income households, as defined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The project includes long-term affordability covenants in compliance with state law. (h) Decision.
(1) After the public hearing, if required, the final review authority may approve, conditionally approve or deny any application for the planning application based upon the standards and intent set forth in the applicable provisions of this Zoning Code. In the case of a denial, the applicant shall be notified of the circumstances of the denial.
(2) For planning applications which require the planning commission to make a recommendation to the final review authority, the authority shall not approve any major change or additions in any proposed planning application until the proposed change or addition has been referred to the planning commission for a report, unless the change or addition was previously considered by the planning commission. It shall not be necessary for the planning commission to hold a public hearing to review the referral. Failure of the planning commission to report to the final review authority within forty (40) days after the referral shall be deemed approval of the proposed change or addition.

CityCode 40
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 CHAPTER III. PLANNING APPLICATIONS
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 10/11
(i) Notice of decision.
(1) Notice of the zoning administrator’s decision shall be given within five (5) days of the decision to the city council, planning commission and to any affected party requesting the notice. Any member of the planning commission or city council may request review of a zoning administrator’s decision within seven (7) days of the notice of the decision. No fee shall be charged for such review. (2) Notice of the planning commission’s and/or redevelopment agency’s decision shall be given within five (5) days to the city council and to any affected party requesting the notice. Any member of the city council may request review of the decision within seven (7) days of the notice of the decision. No fee shall be charged for such review.
(j) Appeals. Appeals of the final review authority shall be filed within seven (7) days of the public hearing or the date of the notice of decision according to the procedures set forth in Title 2, Chapter IX, Appeal, Rehearing and Review Procedure.
(k) Time limits and extensions.
(1) Planning applications shall run with the land until revoked, except as provided in this section or in a condition imposed at the time of granting the planning application. (2) a. Unless otherwise specified by condition of approval, any permit or approval not exercised within twentyfour (24) months from the actual date of review authority approval shall expire and become void, unless an extension of time is approved in compliance with paragraph (4) of this subsection; b. The permit shall not be deemed “exercised” until at least one of the following has first occurred:

1. A building permit has been issued and construction has commenced, and has continued to maintain a valid building permit by making satisfactory progress as determined by the building official.

2. A certificate of occupancy has been issued.

3. The use is established and a business license has been issued.

4. A time extension has been granted in compliance with paragraph (3) of this subsection. (3) The time limits specified in paragraph (2) of this subsection shall not apply to preliminary master plans, except that the first phase of the final master plan must be approved within twenty-four (24) months of the approved preliminary master plan. Time limits regarding the construction of improvements authorized by the approved final master plan for each phase of the project shall comply with the time limits established in paragraph (2).
(4) Extension of time.
a. Filing and review of request. No less than thirty (30) days or more than sixty (60) days before the expiration date of the permit, the applicant shall file a written request for an extension of time with the department, together with the filing fee established by resolution of the city council. b. For extension requests not to exceed one hundred eighty (180) days: The director of development services may extend the time for an approved permit or approval to be exercised. Only one request for an extension of one hundred eighty (180) days may be approved by the director. Any subsequent extension requests shall be considered by the original approval authority. c. For extensions requests of more than one hundred eighty (180) days: The review authority for the original project shall consider the request to extend the time for an approved permit or approval to be exercised. A public hearing shall only be held if it was required on the original application. If notice was required for the original application, notice of the public hearing shall be given according to the procedures set forth in this chapter.
(5) Fees for extensions of time for planning applications may be established by resolution of the city council. (6) Action on extension request. A permit or approval may be extended beyond the expiration of the original approval provided the director or the review authority finds that there have been no changes in the conditions or circumstances of the site, such as Zoning Code or General Plan amendment or other local and statewide regulations affecting the approved development standards, or project so that there would have been ground for CityCode 41
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 CHAPTER III. PLANNING APPLICATIONS
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 11/11
denial of the original project or any changes to the General Plan and/or Zoning Code that would preclude approval of the same project at the time of the requested extension. (7) Effect of expiration. After the expiration of the permit or approval, no further work shall be done on the site and no further use of the site shall occur until a new permit or approval, or other city permits or approvals are first obtained. Fees for extensions of time for planning applications may be established by resolution of the city council.
(l) Building permits/authority to proceed. No building permit or authority to proceed shall be granted until all required review and approval has been obtained and all applicable appeal periods have expired. (m) Compliance. Final occupancy shall not be granted unless the site development conforms to the approved set of building plans, applicable conditions of approval and code requirements. (n) Reapplication. Upon final denial of any planning application, a new application for substantially the same planning application may not be filed within six (6) months of the date of the denial. The development services director shall determine whether the new application is for a planning application which is substantially the same as a previously denied application. No decision of the development services director shall be effective until a period of seven (7) days has elapsed following the written notice of a decision; an appeal of the decision shall be filed according to the procedures set forth in Title 2, Chapter IX, Appeal, Rehearing and Review Procedure. (o) Enforcement authority.
(1) The planning commission may require the modification or revocation of any planning application and/or pursue other legal remedies as may be deemed appropriate by the city attorney, if the planning commission finds that the use as operated or maintained:
a. Constitutes a public nuisance as defined in State Civil Code Sections 3479 and 3480; or b. Does not comply with the conditions of approval.
(2) The modification or revocation of any permit by the planning commission under this subsection shall comply with the notice and public hearing requirements set forth in subsections (c) and (d). The development services director may require notice for a development review or minor modification, if deemed appropriate. (p) Amendment to a planning application. Any approved planning application may be amended by following the same procedure and fee schedule as required for the initial approval, with the exception of the following two (2) instances:
(1) Minor amendments to conditional use permits shall be processed as minor conditional use permits; and (2) Amendments to master plans which comply with section 13-28(f)(1) may be authorized by the planning division.
(q) Concurrent processing. Unless otherwise stated in this Zoning Code, applications for proposed projects which require two or more planning application approvals may be processed concurrently. Final project approval shall not be granted until all necessary approvals have been obtained. (Ord. No. 97-11, § 2, 5-5-97; Ord. No. 98-5, § 5—7, 3- 2-98; Ord. No. 99-17, § 4, 11-15-99; Ord. No. 01-11, § 1a., 3-5-01; Ord. No. 01-16, §§ 1c.—e., 6-18-01; Ord. No. 03-8, § 3, 9-2-03; Ord. No. 05-2, § 1d., e., 2-22-05; Ord. No. 06-7, § 1a., 4-18-06; Ord. No. 06-9, § 1c., 4-18-06; Ord. No. 07-17, § 1c., d., 10-2-07; Ord. No. 09-13, § 1, 11-17-09; Ord. No. 17-12, § 1, 9-19-17; Ord. No. 18-06, § 1, 9-4-18)
View the mobile version.

CityCode 42
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 13-30. Purpose.
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 1/20
Costa Mesa Municipal Code
Up Previous Next Main Search Print No Frames
TITLE 13 PLANNING, ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER IV. CITYWIDE LAND USE MATRIX
13-30. Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a comprehensive list of uses which are permitted, conditionally permitted, or prohibited in the various zoning districts, as represented by Table 13-30, Land Use Matrix. In evaluating a proposed use, the following criteria shall also be considered:
(a) Uses determined as permitted may be subject to a discretionary review when construction is proposed, pursuant to Chapter III, Planning Applications.
(b) Uses proposed in the planned development zones are subject to verification of consistency with the master plan adopted for planned development zones. A proposed use not expressly allowed by the adopted master plan may require additional discretionary review pursuant to Table 13-30, Land Use Matrix. (c) All listed uses in the matrix are subject to verification of compliance with density and floor area ratio limits, parking requirements and performance standards which may, in certain cases, prevent the establishment of the use. (d) Any proposed use not listed in the Land Use Matrix shall be reviewed by the development services director to determine its similarity to another listed use. If no substantial similarity exists, the proposed use shall require approval of a conditional use permit prior to establishment of the use. (e) For the purpose of Table 13-30, Land Use Matrix, the various zoning districts are labeled as follows:

Residential zones: R1, R2-MD, R2-HD, and R3
Commercial zones: AP, CL, C1, C2, C1-S, and TC
Industrial zones: MG and MP
Planned Development Residential zones: PDR-LD, PDR-MD, PDR-HD, and PDR-NCM Planned Development Commercial zone: PDC
Planned Development Industrial zone: PDI
The Parking zone: P
Institutional and Recreational zones: I & R, I & R-S, and I & R-MLT (f) For zoning districts located in a specific plan area, please refer to the appropriate specific plan text to determine if any additional regulations related to land uses are applicable. (g) For the mixed-use overlay district located in an urban plan area, please refer to the appropriate urban plan text for additional regulations related to development standards and allowable land uses as applicable.

TABLE 13-30

CITY OF COSTA MESA LAND USE MATRIX
ZONES
LAND USES R1
R2-
MD
R2-
HD R3 AP CL C1 C2 C1-S1 TC1 MG MP
PDRLD1PDRMD1PDRHD1PDRNCM1 PDC1 PDI1
I&R1
I&RS
1 I&RM
LT
1 P

RESIDENTIAL USES

1. Single-family
dwellings (single
housekeeping
units)
P
4 P P P • • • • • • • • P P P P P P • • P •
CityCode 43
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 13-30. Purpose.
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 2/20
ZONES
LAND USES R1
R2-
MD
R2-
HD R3 AP CL C1 C2 C1-S1 TC1 MG MP
PDRLD1PDRMD1PDRHD1PDRNCM1 PDC1 PDI1
I&R1
I&RS
1 I&RM
LT
1 P

2. Multi-family
dwellings
• P P P • • • • • P • • P P P P P P • • P •

2.1 Common
interest
developments,
residential
• P P P • • • • • P • • P P P P P P • • P •

2.2 Small lot
subdivisions,
residential
• P P P • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

3. Mobile home
parks
• C C C • • • • • • • • C C C C C C • • • •

4. Boardinghouse, small7
• P P P • • • • • • • • P P P P P P • • • •

5. Boardinghouse, large7
• C C C • • • • • • • • • C C C C C • • • •

6. Residential
care facility, six
(6) or fewer
persons (State
licensed)
P P P P • • • • • • • • P P P P P P P • P •

7. Group homes,
six (6) or fewer
S S
6 S6 S6
• • • • • • • • S
6 S6 S6 S6 S6 S6 P • P •

7.1 Sober living
homes, six (6) or
fewer
S
5 S6 S6 S6
• • • • • • • • S
6 S6 S6 S6 S6 S6 P • • •

8. Residential
care facility,
seven (7) or more
• C
6 C6 C6
• • • • • • • • • C
6 C6 C6 C6 C6 P • • •

9. Group homes,
seven (7) or more
• C
6 C6 C6
• • • • • • • • • C
6 C6 C6 C6 C6 P • • •

9.1 Sober living
homes, seven (7)
or more
• C
6 C6 C6
• • • • • • • • • C
6 C6 C6 C6 C6 P • • •

10. Referral
facility (Subject
to the
requirements of
section 13-32.2,
referral facility).
• C
2 C2 C
2 • • • C
2 • • • • • C
2 C2
• • • • • • •
CityCode 44
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 13-30. Purpose.
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 3/20
ZONES
LAND USES R1
R2-
MD
R2-
HD R3 AP CL C1 C2 C1-S1 TC1 MG MP
PDRLD1PDRMD1PDRHD1PDRNCM1 PDC1 PDI1
I&R1
I&RS
1 I&RM
LT
1 P

11. Single room
occupancy
residential hotel
(subject to City
Council Policy
500-5)
• • • • • • C
2 C2
• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

ACCESSORY USES

12. Reserved for
future use.

13. Animals,
keeping of
SEE TITLE 3, ANIMALS AND FOWL

14. Antennas:

Amateur radio,
Satellite dish,
Communication
SEE
CHAPTER IX, ARTICLE 2, ANTENNAS

15. Reserved for
future use

15.1 Incidental
residential use
that includes a
toilet in
combination with
a bathtub or
shower. This
applies to an
accessory use
contained in a
detached
structure, or
contained within
the main structure
with no interior
connection
between the main
and incidental
use. Land use
restriction
required.

P P P P • • • • • • • • P P P P P P • • • •

16. Day care
facilities (15
children or more)
(see also Nursery
schools)
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C P P •
CityCode 45
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 13-30. Purpose.
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 4/20
ZONES
LAND USES R1
R2-
MD
R2-
HD R3 AP CL C1 C2 C1-S1 TC1 MG MP
PDRLD1PDRMD1PDRHD1PDRNCM1 PDC1 PDI1
I&R1
I&RS
1 I&RM
LT
1 P

17. Family day
care—Large (7 to
14 children)
(subject to the
requirements of
section 13-37,
large family day
care homes)
P
2 P2 P2 P2
• • • • • • • • P
2 P2 P2 P2 P2,3 P2,3 P • P2
•

18. Family day
care—Small (up
to 8 children)
P P P P • • • • • • • • P P P P P
3 P3 P • P3
•

19. Garage/yard
sales—No more
than 2 events
permitted a year,
not to exceed 3
consecutive days
P P P P • • • • • • • • P P P P P
3 P3
• • P
3 •

20. Reserved for
future use.

21. Home
occupations
(subject to the
requirements of
chapter IX,
article 6, home
occupations)
P
2 P2 P2 P2 P2,3 P2,3 P2,3 P2,3 P2,3 P2,3 P2,3 P2,3 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2,3 P2,3 P2 • P
2 •

22. Home
occupations that
generate traffic
and do not
involve more
than 1 customer/
client at a time or
more than 8
customers/clients
per day (subject
to the
requirements of
ch. IX, article 6,
home
occupations)
MC2 MC2 MC2 MC2 MC2,3 MC2,3 MC2,3 MC2,3 MC2,3 MC2,3 MC2,3 MC2,3 MC2 MC2 MC2 MC2 MC2,3 MC2,3 MC2,3 • MC2,3 • CityCode 46
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 13-30. Purpose.
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 5/20
ZONES
LAND USES R1
R2-
MD
R2-
HD R3 AP CL C1 C2 C1-S1 TC1 MG MP
PDRLD1PDRMD1PDRHD1PDRNCM1 PDC1 PDI1
I&R1
I&RS
1 I&RM
LT
1 P

22.1 Nonresidential
accessory uses in
a residential
development not
otherwise
specified in this
table
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

22.2 Accessory
dwelling unit
(subject to the
requirements of
ch. V, section 13-
35, accessory
dwelling units)
P
2 P2 P2 P2
• • • • • P
2 • • P
2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
• • P
2 •

22.3 Junior
accessory
dwelling unit
(subject to the
requirements of
ch. V, section 13-
35, accessory
dwelling units)
P
2 P2 P2 P
2 • • • • • • • • P
2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
• • P
2 •

22.4 Temporary
real estate and
construction
offices (subject to
the requirements
of ch. IX, art. 10,
temporary
trailers)
P
2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 ZONES
LAND USES R1
R2-
MD
R2-
HD R3 AP CL C1 C2 C1-S1 TC1 MG MP
PDRLD1PDRMD1PDRHD1PDRNCM1 PDC1 PDI1
I&R1
I&RS
1 I&RM
LT1 P

INSTITUTIONAL AND RECREATIONAL USES

23. Cemeteries • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • C • • • CityCode 47
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 13-30. Purpose.
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 6/20
ZONES
LAND USES R1
R2-
MD
R2-
HD R3 AP CL C1 C2 C1-S1 TC1 MG MP
PDRLD1PDRMD1PDRHD1PDRNCM1 PDC1 PDI1
I&R1
I&RS
1 I&RM
LT
1 P

24. Churches and
other places of
religious
assembly
(Subject to the
requirements of
article 4.5,
development
standards for
churches and
other places of
religious
assembly)
C
2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 P2 P2 C2 C2 P2 P2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 P2 C2 C2 •

25. Civic and
community clubs
C C C C C C P P P P C C C C C C C C C • P •
ZONES
LAND USES R1
R2-
MD
R2-
HD R3 AP CL C1 C2 C1-S1 TC1 MG MP
PDRLD1PDRMD1PDRHD1PDRNCM1 PDC1 PDI1
I&R1
I&RS
1 I&RM
LT1 P

26. Convalescent
hospitals; nursing
homes
• C C C C C C C • • • • • • • • • • P • • •

27. Country clubs;
golf courses
C C C C • • • • • • • • C C C C • • P C • •

28. Crematories
(See also
Mortuary services)
• • • • • • • C • • C C • • • • • • C • • •

29. Fairgrounds;
outdoor festival
(permanent)
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • C • • •

30. Hospitals,
general
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • P • P •

31. Libraries,
privately-operated
C C C C • • C C C C C C C C C C C C P C • •
31a. Medical
marijuana
dispensary
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
31b. Marijuana
and/or medical
marijuana
cultivation
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
31c. Cannabis
and/or marijuana
distributer
• • • • • • • • • • • C
9 • • • • • C
9 • • •
CityCode 48
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 13-30. Purpose.
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 7/20
ZONES
LAND USES R1
R2-
MD
R2-
HD R3 AP CL C1 C2 C1-S1 TC1 MG MP
PDRLD1PDRMD1PDRHD1PDRNCM1 PDC1 PDI1
I&R1
I&RS
1 I&RM
LT
1 P
31d. Cannabis
and/or marijuana
manufacturer or
processor
• • • • • • • • • • • C
9 • • • • • C
9 • • •
31e. Cannabis
and/or marijuana
retail sales
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
31f. Cannabis
and/or marijuana
research and
development
and/or testing
laboratories
• • • • • • • • • • • C
9 • • • • • C
9 • • •

32. Mortuary
services without
crematories
• • • • C C C C C • C C • • • • • • C • • •
32a. Needle
exchange program
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
ZONES
LAND USES R1
R2-
MD
R2-
HD R3 AP CL C1 C2 C1-S1 TC1 MG MP
PDRLD1PDRMD1PDRHD1PDRNCM1 PDC1 PDI1
I&R1
I&RS
1 I&RM
LT
1 P

33. Nursery
schools—See also
Day care facilities
for 15 or more
children
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C P C •

34. Parks and
playgrounds
C C C C • • • • • C • • C C C C C C P P P •

35. Public offices
and facilities, such
as city halls, courthouses, police/ fire
stations, etc.

C C C C C C P P P P C C C C C C C C P • • •

36. Schools:
primary,
secondary and
colleges
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C P P •

37. Schools: trade
and vocational
• • • • • MC P P P P MC MC • • • • P MC P P • •

38. Senior
congregate care
facility
• C C C C C C C C C • • • C C C C • C • • •

39. Swap meets • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • C C • • CityCode 49
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 13-30. Purpose.
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 8/20
ZONES
LAND USES R1
R2-
MD
R2-
HD R3 AP CL C1 C2 C1-S1 TC1 MG MP
PDRLD1PDRMD1PDRHD1PDRNCM1 PDC1 PDI1
I&R1
I&RS
1 I&RM
LT
1 P
39a. Emergency
shelters
• • • • • • • • • • • C
10 • • • • • P10 • • • •

SPECIAL SEASONAL EVENTS

40. Reserved.

41. Christmas tree
lots; pump-kin
patches; fireworks
stands; produce
stands (subject to
the requirements
of title 9, chapter
II, regulation of
certain businesses)
• • • • P
2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
• • • • P
2 P2 P2 P2
• •

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES

42. Acupressure;
massage (subject to
the
requirements of
title 9, chapter II,
article 22, Massage
establishments and
practitioners)
• • • • P
2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
• • • • • • P
2 • • • • •

43. Adult
businesses (See
Sexually-oriented
businesses)
ZONES
LAND USES R1 R2-MD
R2-
HD R3 AP CL C1 C2
C1-
S
1 TC1 MG MP
PDRLD1PDRMD1PDRHD1PDRNCM1 PDC1 PDI1
I&R1
I&RS
1 I&RM
LT
1 P

44. Aggregate
batch plants; Rock
or asphalt crushing;
Sand blasting
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

45. Ambulance
services
• • • • MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC • • • • MC MC • • • •

46. Amusement
centers (subject to
the requirements of
chapter IX, article
5, electronic game
machines)
• • • • • • C
2 C2 C2 C2
• • • C
2 C2 C2 C2
• • • • •

47. Animal
hospitals;
veterinary services
• • • • • C C P P C C C • • • • P • • • • •
CityCode 50
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 13-30. Purpose.
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 9/20
(kenneling only
when incidental to
principal hospital
use)

48. Animal shelters,
pounds, kennels,
training schools
• • • • • • • C • • C C • • • • • • C • • •
48a. Antique malls • • • • • • P P P • MC MC • • • • P MC • • • •

49. Artists,
sculptors studios
• • • • P P P P P P P P • • • • P P • • • •

50. Auction houses • • • • • • C C C C C C • • • • C C • • • •

51. Automobile
(See Motor vehicle)

52. Banks; savings
and loans; and
other financial
institutions
• • • • P P P P P P • • • P P P P P • • • •

53. Bars; nightclubs
(See
Establishments
where food or
beverages are
served)

54. Barber and
beauty shops
• • • • • P P P P P • • • P P P P P • • • •

55. Billiards parlors • • • • • • C C C C C C • C C C C C • • • •

56. Botanical
gardens; Zoos
• • • • • • C C C C • • • • • • • • C • • •

57. Bowling centers • • • • • • C C C C • • • • • C C • • • • •

58. Breweries;
Distilleries
• • • • • • • • • • C C • • • • • • • • • •

59. Reserved

60. Building
supplies; Hardware
stores (retail)
• • • • • • P P P • • • • P P P P • • • • •

61. Business
services—See
Offices

62. Car washes • • • • • • C C C C C C • C C C C C • • • • ZONES
LAND USES R1 R2-MD
R2-
HD R3 AP CL C1 C2
C1-
S
1 TC1 MG MP
PDRLD1PDRMD1PDRHD1PDRNCM1 PDC1 PDI1
I&R1
I&RS
1 I&RM
LT
1 P

63. Carts—Outdoor
retail sales in
conjunction with an
• • • • • MC MC MC MC MC MC MC • MC MC MC MC MC MC • • • CityCode 51
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 13-30. Purpose.
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 10/20
established
business

64. Catering • • • • • MC P P P • P P • • • • P P • • • •

65. Coffee roasting • • • • • • • • • • MC MC • • • • • • • • • •

66. Coffee roasting
(in conjunction
with establishments
where food or
beverages are
served)
• • • • • • MC MC MC MC MC MC • MC MC MC MC MC • • • •

67. Commercial art;
Graphic design
• • • • P P P P P P P P • • • • P P • • • •

68. Commercial
testing laboratories
• • • • • • • • • • P P • • • • • P • • • •

69. Computer and
data processing
• • • • P P P P P P P P • • • • P P • • • •

70. Contracting:
general contractors;
operative builders
• • • • • C C P C • P P • • • • • P • • • •

71. Convenience
stores; minimarkets (subject to
the requirements of
chapter IX, article
16, liquor stores,
convenience stores,
and mini-markets)
• • • • • • C
2 C2 C2 C2
• • • • C
2 C2 C2
• • • • •

72. Department
stores (retail)
• • • • • • P P P P • • • • • • P • • • • •

73. Electronic game
machines (four (4)
or more), incidental
to the primary use,
(subject to the
requirements of
chapter IX, article
5, electronic game
machines)—
Excluding
amusement centers
listed separately
• • • • • MC2 MC2 MC2 MC2 MC2 MC2 MC2• MC2 MC2 MC2 MC2 MC2 • • • •

74. Engineering;
architectural; and
surveying services
—See Offices
ZONES
LAND USES R1 R2-MD
R2-
HD R3 AP CL C1 C2
C1-
S
1 TC1 MG MP
PDRLD1PDRMD1PDRHD1PDRNCM1 PDC1 PDI1
I&R1
I&RS
1 I&RM
LT
1 P
CityCode 52
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 13-30. Purpose.
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 11/20

75. Entertain-ment,
live or public
• • • • • SEE TITLE 9, ARTICLE 11, REGULATORY

PERMITS FOR PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT
• SEE TITLE 9, ARTICLE 11, REGULATORY

PERMITS FOR PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT
• •

76. Establish-ments
where food or
beverages are
served
• • • • •
SEE
CHAPTER V, ARTICLE 4, ESTABLISHMENTS

WHERE FOOD OR BEVERAGES ARE SERVED
•
SEE
CHAPTER V, ARTICLE 4,

ESTABLISHMENTS WHERE FOOD

OR BEVERAGES ARE SERVED
• • • •

77. Exhibition of
products produced
on premises or
available for
wholesale
distribution
• • • • • P P P P P P P • • • • P P • • • •

78. Flower stands
—See also Carts
• • • • • MC MC MC MC MC MC MC • MC MC MC MC MC MC • • •

79. Furniture repair
and refinishing with
incidental sales
• • • • • • P P P • P P • • • • • P • • • •

80. Grocery stores
—See also
Supermarkets;
excluding
convenience stores;
and liquor stores
listed separately
• • • • • • P P P P • • • MC MC MC MC • • • • •

81. Hazardous
waste facilities, offsite (subject to
chapter IX article 9,
off-site hazardous
waste facilities)
• • • • • • C
2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2
• • • • C
2 C2 C2
• • •

82. Heliports;
Helistops
• • • • • • • • C C C C • • • • C C C C • •

83. Hotels—
Excluding motels
listed separately
• • • • • • C C C P • • • C C C P • • • • •

84. Landscape
services
(installation and
maintenance)
• • • • • MC MC P P • P P • • • • • P • • • •

85. Laundry,
cleaning and
garment services,
including plants
• • • • • P P P P P P P • P P P P P • • • •

86. Leather tanning
and finishing
• • • • • • • • • • C C • • • • • C • • • •

87. Limousine
services
• • • • • C C C C C C C • • • • C C • • • •

88. Liquor stores • • • • • • C
2 C2 C2 C2 • • • • • • C2 • • • • •
CityCode 53
[05/09/2021]
Sum 547
5/9/2021 13-30. Purpose.
qcode.us/codes/costamesa/?view=desktop 12/20
(subject to the
requirements of
chapter IX, article
16, liquor stores,
convenience stores,
and mini-markets)