Agenda packet — Costa Mesa City Council, November 15, 2022 (part 3 of 8)

705
File #: 22-952 Meeting Date: 11/15/2022
respective account or fund.

ANALYSIS:

Reporting requirements under California Government Code 66006 specify that the City must prepare annual reports of Development Impact Fees within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year.

The reports must describe the fee, the amount of the fees collected, interest earned, and identification of any expenditures from those funds. The code also specifies that reports must be reviewed by the City Council at a regularly scheduled meeting not less than 15 days following release to the public. The FY2021-22 Development Impact Fee Annual Report was released for public review on November 1, 2022.

The Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee and staff met on October 20, 2022 to review the program. Recently completed projects, project cost escalation and available traffic impact fee balance were accounted in the review. While this resulted in calculation of new traffic impact fee of $232 per ADT, the Ad Hoc Committee recommended continuation of current fees as it is within the overall range of $176 per ADT to $476 per ADT. A detailed report documenting the analysis is included in Attachment 3.

The FY2021-22 Development Impact Fee Annual Report is attached for City Council's review and approval (Attachment 1). A summary of the fees collected and expenditures incurred in FY 2021-22 are included in the Financial Summary Report section.

Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file this Annual Report. Staff also requests the adoption of the attached resolution, continuing the citywide traffic impact fee for new development in the City. The resolution incorporates the recommendations from the Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee and staff.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council may choose to reject all or part of the Annual Report as presented. California Government Code Section 66006 requires that the report be reviewed at a public meeting.

FISCAL REVIEW:

There is no fiscal impact by the recommended action as this report is not requesting that City Council adopt new development impact fees, but is reporting development impact fee activity for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2022 and traffic impact fee analysis.

LEGAL REVIEW:

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

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This item is administrative in nature.

Page 2 of 3 ends

706
File #: 22-952 Meeting Date: 11/15/2022
CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council receive and file the Development Impact Fees Annual Report for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2022.

Page 3 of 3 ends

707
1 NOVEMBER 15, 2022

CITY OF COSTA MESA
77 FAIR DRIVE
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
City of Costa
Mesa
FY2021-22
Development
Impact Fee
Report
Attachment 1
708

2 Table of Contents

City Council Directory ................................................................................................... 3

City Officials Directory .................................................................................................. 4

Introduction
Legal Requirements for Development Impact Fee Reporting ...................................... 5 Description of Development Impact Fees with corresponding Fee Schedules ............. 7

Development Impact Fee Report
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Summary ....... 9

Financial Summary Report and Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Park Development Fees ............................................................................................. 10 Drainage Fees ........................................................................................................... 12 Traffic Impact Fees .................................................................................................... 13 Fire System Development Fees ................................................................................. 14

Development Impact Project Identification
Park Development Projects ........................................................................................ 16 Drainage Projects ...................................................................................................... 17 Traffic Impact Projects ............................................................................................... 17 Fire System Development Projects ............................................................................ 17

City Council Action and Studies
Review of the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Program .................................................. 19 Update to the Park Impact Fees ................................................................................ 35

709

3 City Leadership

710

4 City Official Directory

City Manager’s Office
City Manager .............................................................. Lori Ann Farrell Harrison

Department Directors
City Attorney’s Office ............................................................... Kimberly Barlow Community Development Services .................................................. Jennifer Le Finance .......................................................................................... Carol Molina Information Technology ...................................................................... Steve Ely Parks and Community Services .................................................... Jason Minter Public Services ...................................................................... Raja Sethuraman

Public Safety
Fire and Rescue ................................................................. Dan Stefano Police ............................................................................... Ron Lawrence

711

5 Legal Requirements for Development Impact Fee Reporting

Legal Requirements for Development Impact Fee Reporting

California Government Code Section 66006 (b)

California Government Code Section 66006 (b) defines the specific reporting requirements for local agencies that impose AB 1600 DIFs on new development. Annually, for each separate fund established for the collection and expenditure of DIFs, the local agency shall, within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year, make available to the public the information shown below for the most recent fiscal year.

a) A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund. b) The amount of the fee.
c) The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund. d) The amount of the fees collected and interest earned. e) An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees. f) An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement, as identified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 66001, and the public improvement remains incomplete.
g) A description of each inter -fund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended, and, in the case of an inter-fund loan, the date on which the loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest that the account or fund will receive on the loan. h) The amount of refunds made pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 66001 and any allocations pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 66001.

California Government Code Section 66001

For all funds established for the collection and expenditure of DIFs, California Government Code Section 66001 (d) has additional requirements. For the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the fund and every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the following findings with respect to that portion of the fund remaining unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted:

a) Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put.
b) Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and purpose for which it is charged.
c) Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete improvements identified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a). d) Designate the approximate dates on which the funding referred to in subparagraph (c) is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.

712

6 California Government Code Section 66002

The State of California Government Code Section 66002 states that:

a) Any local agency, which levies a fee subject to Section 66001, may adopt a capital improvement plan, which shall indicate the approximate location, size, time of availability, and estimates of cost for all facilities or improvements to be financed with the fees.

b) The capital improvement plan shall be adopted by, and shall be annually updated by, a resolution of the governing body of the local agency adopted at a noticed public hearing.

Notice of the hearing shall be given pursuant to Section 65090. In addition, mailed notice shall be given to any city or county, which may be significantly affected by the capital improvement plan. This notice shall be given no later than the date the local agency notices the public hearing pursuant to Section 65090. The information in the notice shall be not less than the information contained in the notice of public hearing and shall be given by first-class mail or personal delivery.

c) "Facility" or "improvement," as used in this section, means any of the following:

1. Public buildings, including schools and related facilities; provided that school facilities shall not be included if Senate Bill 97 of the 1987- 88 Regular Session is enacted and becomes effective on or before January 1, 1988.

2. Facilities for the storage, treatment, and distribution of nonagricultural water.

3. Facilities for the collection, treatment, reclamation, and disposal of sewage.

4. Facilities for the collection and disposal of storm waters and for flood control purposes.

5. Facilities for the generation of electricity and the distribution of gas and electricity.

6. Transportation and transit facilities, including but not limited to streets and supporting improvements, roads, overpasses, bridges, harbors, ports, airports, and related facilities.

7. Parks and recreation facilities.

8. Any other capital project identified in the capital facilities plan adopted.

713

7 Description of Development Impact Fees with Corresponding Fee Schedule

Park Development Impact Fees (Quimby Act Fees)

Fee Description: This fee provides funding for additional or improved park and/or recreation facility improvements for which the need is generated by new development within the City.

Fee Schedule: The table below indicates the applicable park development fee per unit that will be applied to new residential projects based on the net increase in residential units.

Development Fee per Unit
Single-family Dwelling Unit $13,572.00
Multi-family Dwelling Unit $13,829.00
Apartment Dwelling Unit $5,000.00

Drainage Impact Fees

Fee Description: This fee provides funding for additional construction and maintenance of the City's drainage system for which the need is generated by new development or redevelopment within the City.

Fee Schedule: The table below indicates the applicable drainage impact fee per acre that will be applied to new or redeveloped projects.

Development Type Fee per Acre
Low Density Residential Use $6,283.00
Medium Density Residential Use $7,539.00
High Density Residential Use $10,052.00
Commercial / Industrial Density Residential Use $11,309.00

Traffic Impact Fees

Fee Description: This fee provides funding for additional or improved traffic signal, operation, and infrastructure improvements for which the need is generated by new or expanding development within the City.

Fee Schedule: The citywide Traffic Impact Fee is assessed on the increased number of average daily trips generated by the proposed project. The City Council adopted a fee of $235 per daily trip on November 13, 2018. On December 17, 2020, the City Council voted to continue the Traffic Impact fees at $235 per daily trip.

714

8 Fire System Development Fees

Fee Description: This fee provides funding for additional fire protection facilities, equipment, and paramedic support for which the need is generated by future development within the North Costa Mesa area. This fee is only levied against five identified developments: Home Ranch, South Coast Plaza Town Center, South Coast Metro Center, and Sakioka Farms' Lots 1 and 2.

Fee Schedule: The fee is $0.285 per square foot of new commercial, industrial or residential development.

715

9 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance

A summary of activities in each type of development impact fee for fiscal year ended June 30, 2022 is shown below:

Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022*
Development Impact Fees

Description
Park
Development
Fees
Drainage
Fees
Traffic Impact
Fees
Fire System
Development
Fees
Revenue
Fees 1,278,941 348,736 437,943
Investment Earnings (100,792) (57,057) (143,170) (15,857) Other
Revenue Total 1,178,149 291,679 294,773 15,857
Expense
Expenditures 2,214,169 145,850 127,222
Other
Transfers Out
Expense Total 2,214,169 145,850 127,222 0

Rev Over(Under) Exp (1,036,020) 145,829 167,552 (15,857) Begin Fund Balance 4,651,456 2,096,392 5,490,214 651,541 End Fund Balance 3,615,436 2,242,221 5,657,766 635,685
*Unaudited actuals

716

10 Financial Summary Reporting and CIP

State law requires an identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of expenditures on each improvement, including the total percentage of the costs of the public improvement that was funded with fees. A summary of improvements for each Development Impact Fee is provided.

PARK DEVELOPMENT FEES (QUIMBY ACT FEES)

Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Last Five Years:

For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30
Description 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022*
Revenue
Fees 1,541,038 4,657,896 2,299,373 1,049,018 766,372 1,278,941 Investment Earnings 47,040 (8,310) 254,347 223,901 8,022 (100,792) Other 106,966
Revenue Total 1,588,078 4,649,586 2,553,720 1,272,919 881,359 1,178,149 Expense
Expenditures 13,612 2,558,466 1,899,528 1,589,954 1,753,155 2,214,169 Other 11,879 10,810 9,735
Transfers Out 3,842
Expense Total 25,491 2,569,276 1,913,105 1,589,954 1,753,155 2,214,169

Rev Over(Under) Exp 1,562,587 2,080,310 640,615 (317,035) (871,796) (1,036,020) Begin Fund Balance 1,556,775 3,119,361 5,199,672 5,840,286 5,523,251 4,651,456 End Fund Balance 3,119,361 5,199,672 5,840,286 5,523,251 4,651,456 3,615,436 *Unaudited actuals

Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) for the Last Five Years:

For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30
Capital Project 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
208 - Park Development Fees
Tenagr Pk Plygrd Equip Repl 96,786
Wilson TeWinkle Prk Bridg 18,630
Fairview Park Improvements 13,456 3,455 198,810
Pk Security Lighting Repl 156 11 86,983
Jack Hammett Field Upgrade 55,000 63,634 3,300 8,796 1,532,681 Fairview Pk Mstr Plan 54,854
Fairview Park Bluffs 151,406
Fairview Pk Fence Sign Trail 5,136
Jordan Pk Playgrnd Equip 96,384
TeWinkle Park Lakes Repairs 31,830
NCC - Library Development 2,500,000 1,430,824 1,282,483 1,427,452 225,904 208 - Park Development Fees
Fund Total 13,612 2,558,466 1,899,528 1,285,783 1,523,232 2,007,351

717

11 Funds held past the fifth year and first deposit
Not applicable at this time. All funds were expended within the five-year timeframe to fund park improvements and/or recreation facility improvements.

Construction Commencement Date for Incomplete Improvements Not applicable at this time.

Inter-fund Transfers and Loans
No loans were disbursed during this period.

Amount of Refunds
No refunds of any of these funds were made or required in during this period.

718

12 DRAINAGE FEES

Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Last Five Years:

For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30
Description 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022*
Revenue
Fees 549,871 113,610 268,800 898,498 433,328 348,736
Investment Earnings 18,965 9,519 57,202 78,484 2,100 (57,057) Other 117,373
Revenue Total 686,210 123,130 326,002 976,982 435,428 291,679 Expense
Expenditures 66,950 1,101,378 56,980 194,127 593,405 145,850 Expense Total 66,950 1,101,378 56,980 194,127 593,405 145,850

Rev Over(Under) Exp 619,259 (978,248) 269,022 782,855 (157,977) 145,829 Begin Fund Balance 1,561,480 2,180,739 1,202,491 1,471,513 2,254,368 2,096,392 End Fund Balance 2,180,739 1,202,491 1,471,513 2,254,368 2,096,392 2,242,221 *Unaudited actuals

Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) for the Last Five Years:

For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30
Capital Project 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
209 - Drainage Fees Fund
Catch Basin Inserts-Various 10,886 9,966 169,750 26,727 Citywide Storm Drain Impr 66,950 740,492 56,980 184,161 332,976 108,752 Westside Storm Drain Impr 10,370
NCC - Library Development 350,000 90,679
209 - Drainage Fees Fund Total 66,950 1,101,378 56,980 194,127 593,405 145,850

Funds held past the fifth year and first deposit
Not applicable at this time. All funds were expended within the five-year timeframe to fund storm drain improvements.

Construction Commencement Date for Incomplete Improvements Not applicable at this time.

Inter-fund Transfers and Loans
No loans were disbursed during this period.

Amount of Refunds
No refunds of any of these funds were made or required in during this period.

719

13 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES

Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Last Five Years:

For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30
Description 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022*
Revenue
Fees 99,419 878,865 182,166 259,298 1,212,500 437,943
Investment Earnings 30,967 4,203 177,173 174,806 (9,496) (143,170) Other 1,855
Revenue Total 130,383 883,068 359,339 434,104 1,204,859 294,773 Expense
Expenditures 62,148 1,227 67,090 220,544 404,704 127,222 Other 75,000
Expense Total 52,148 1,227 67,090 295,544 404,704 127,222

Rev Over(Under) Exp 68,236 881,841 292,249 138,560 800,155 167,552 Begin Fund Balance 3,309,173 3,377,409 4,259,250 4,551,499 4,690,059 5,490,214 End Fund Balance 3,377,409 4,259,250 4,551,499 4,690,059 5,490,214 5,657,766 *Unaudited actuals

Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) for the Last Five Years:

For the Fiscal Year Ended
Capital Projects 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
214 - Traffic Impact Fees Fund
Fairview Road/Wilson St Impr 2,726
Bicycle Racks Citywide 35,032 8,299
Hyland/MacArthur Intersct Impr 58,148 23,224
Adams at Pinecreek Imp 3,831
East 17th St. Landscape Enhanc 52,211 (2,611)
Fairview Traffic Signal Sync 10,457 174,575
Baker/Placntia/19th/Victr TSSP 15,373
Sunflower Traff Signal Sync 93,407
W 17th Design Newport Westside 7,211 1,227 5,842 48,992 Newport Blvd Wide 19th to 17th 3,100 43,751 5,731 31,491 Class II and III Bicycle Proj 712 1,805 12,052
Merrimac Way Bicycle Facility 181,847 16,837
Adams Av Bicycle Facility Proj 5,715 6,832
Randolph Prkg & Pedestrin Impr 25,792
West 18th & Wilson Crosswalks 9,325
214 - Traffic Impact Fees Fund
Total 62,148 1,227 67,090 220,544 404,704 127,222

720

14 Funds held past the fifth year and first deposit
Traffic Impact Fee funds are being held passed the fifth year and first deposit. These funds are intended to fund additional or improved traffic signal, operation, and infrastructure improvements for which the need is generated by new or expanding development within the City.

Construction Commencement Date for Incomplete Improvements Not applicable at this time.

Inter-fund Transfers and Loans
No loans were disbursed during this period.

Amount of Refunds
No refunds of any of these funds were made or required in during this period.

721

15 FIRE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEES

Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Last Five Years:

For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30
Description 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022*
Revenue
Fees 469,332
Investment Earnings 3,309 1,061 5,865 25,319 45 (15,857) Other
Revenue Total 3,309 1,061 5,865 494,651 45 (15,857)
Expense
Expenditures 82,735
Transfers Out 125,000
Expense Total 207,735

Rev Over(Under) Exp 3,309 (206,674) 5,865 494,651 45 (15,857) Begin Fund Balance 354,347 357,655 150,981 156,846 651,497 651,541 End Fund Balance 357,365 150,981 156,846 651,497 651,541 635,685 *Unaudited actuals

Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) for the Last Five Years:

For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30
Capital Projects 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
218 - Fire System Dev. Fees
Corp Yard Exhaust System 82,735
218 - Fire System Dev. Fees
Fund Total 82,735

Funds held past the fifth year and first deposit
Fire System Development Fee funds are being held past the fifth year and first deposit. These funds are intended to fund additional fire protection facilities, equipment, and paramedic support for which the need is generated by future development within Costa Mesa.

Construction Commencement Date for Incomplete Improvements Not applicable at this time.

Inter-fund Transfers and Loans
No loans were disbursed during this period.

Amount of Refunds
No refunds of any of these funds were made or required in during this period. 722

16 Development Impact Fee Project Identification

The City's current, Adopted Budget 2022-2023, which includes the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 2022/23 — 2026/27 can be found on the City's website at:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/51218/637877023662070000

Funding of Infrastructure
The FY 2022/23 — FY 2026/27 CIP identifies all funding sources and amounts for individual projects through FY 2026/27. The CIP is updated annually to reflect the current City's infrastructure needs. As a CIP is identified, the project is evaluated to determine the portion of the project that will service existing residents and businesses versus new development.

Once the determination of use is made, the percentage of use attributed to new development is then funded by the appropriate development fee based on the type of project. The percentage of use associated with existing residents or businesses are funded from other appropriate sources. Estimated construction start dates for projects are adjusted, as needed, to reflect the needs of the community.

ONGOING/NEW CAPTIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

Park Development Fees

Projects by Fund FY2022/23 - FY2026-27
208 - Park Development Fees Fund
700016 - Tenager Park Playground Equipment Replacement 51,739 700021 - Wilson TeWinkle Park Bridge Repairs 181,371 700027 - TeWinkle Skate Park Expansion 100,000 700029 - Fairview Park Improvements
700054 - Westside Park Development 250,000 700080 - Park Security Lighting/Replacement 164,500 700110 - Open Space Master Plan Update 75,000 700115 - Jack Hammett Sports Complex ADA Improvements 513,843 700125 - Fairview Park Master Plan Habitat Restoration Project 700129 - Shalimar Park Improvements 250,000 700131 - Fairview Park Bluffs
700133 - Canyon Park Inventory Mgmt Restoration 60,000 700134 - Fairview Park Fence Sign Trail 144,865 700135 - Fairview Park Master Plan Update 250,000 700136 - Jordan Park Playground Equipment Replacement 78,616 700137 - TeWinkle Park Lakes Repairs 100,645 700139 - Ketchum-Libolt Park Expansion 50,000 800015 - NCC - Library Development and Lions Park Projects 208 - Park Development Fees Fund Total 2,270,579 723

17 Drainage Fees

Projects by Fund FY2022/23 - FY2026/27
209 - Drainage Fees Fund
550008 - Citywide Catch Basin Inserts and Water Quality Improvement 55,883 550011 - Citywide Storm Drain Improvements 761,439
550022 - Westside Storm Drain Improvements 1,589,630
800015 - NCC - Library Development and Lions Park Projects 209 - Drainage Fees Fund Total 2,406,952

Traffic Impact Fees

Projects by Fund FY2022/23 - FY2026-27
214 - Traffic Impact Fees Fund
300129 - Harbor/Adams Intersection Improvements
300146 - Fairview Road/Wilson Street Improvements
300148 - Citywide Bicycle Rack Improvements 206,669 300160 - Hyland/MacArthur Intersection Improvements
300174 - Adams at Pinecreek Improvements 83,622 300181 - Fairview Road Improvement Project 250,000 350018 - East 17th Street Landscape Enhancements
370010 - Mesa del Mar Multi-Model Access 100,000 370034 - Fairview Traffic Signal Synchronization 5,377 370039 - Baker/Placentia/19th/Victoria Traffic Signal Synchronization 237,745 370047 - Sunflower Traffic Signal Synchronization
370050 - West 17th Design Newport Westside
370052 - Newport Blvd Improvements from 19th Street to 17th Street 290,927 370056 - Bear Street Traffic Signal Sync 31,000 450010 - Class II, III, and IV Bicycle Projects 985,433 450011 - Merrimac Way Bicycle Facility
450014 - Adams Avenue Bicycle Facility Project
450015 - Bicycle/Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements 350,000 450016 - Mesa/Santa Ana Bicycle Facility Improvements 100,000 450017 - MV/Peterson Place Class II Bicycle 100,000 470001 - Randolph Parking and Pedestrian Improvements
470002 - West 18th Street and Wilson Street Pedestrian Crossings 124,209 NEW - Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements 390,675 214 - Traffic Impact Fees Fund Total 3,255,657

Fire System Development Fees
No current projects to report.

724

18 City Council Action and Studies

The following attachments are Development Impact Fees related recent and prior Council Reviews (Traffic Impact Fees and Park Development Fees). 725
City of Costa Mesa
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 21-482 Meeting Date: 12/7/2021
TITLE:

ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE CITYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE PROGRAM DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT /TRANSPORTATION

SERVICES DIVISION
PRESENTED BY: RAJA SETHURAMAN, PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR CONTACT INFORMATION: JENNIFER ROSALES, TRANSPORTATION SERVICES MANAGER (714) 754-5343
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt the proposed resolution, continuing the citywide traffic impact fee for new development in the City of Costa Mesa and conducting the related annual review of the citywide traffic impact fee program and capital improvement plan for transportation improvements (Attachment 1). The resolution incorporates the recommendations from the Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee and staff, which include:

1. Continue a traffic impact fee of $235 per Average Daily Trip (ADT) based on the Capital Improvement Projects in Attachment 2 and Active Transportation projects in the adopted Active Transportation Plan (ATP);

2. Approve allocation of up to ten percent (10%) of traffic impact fees towards traffic signal synchronization projects;

3. Approve a five percent (5%) reduction in automobile trips as a result of ATP implementation and an additional five percent (5%) reduction in automobile trips for developments proposing to implement active transportation improvements beyond typical development requirements; and

4. Approve the annual accounting of the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Program.

BACKGROUND:

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66000, et seq. and the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, a traffic impact fee study is required by the City to establish a basis for the imposition of Citywide traffic impact fees on new and expanding developments within the City. The purpose of the fee is to fund the necessary transportation/circulation improvements, which are related directly to the incremental traffic impacts imposed on the City’s transportation system by the development of new

Page 1 of 5 ends

19 726
File #: 21-482 Meeting Date: 12/7/2021
incremental traffic impacts imposed on the City’s transportation system by the development of new and/or changing commercial, industrial, and residential uses as permitted by the General Plan. The fee also maintains compliance with the eligibility requirements of the Orange County Transportation Authority’s (OCTA) Renewed Measure “M2” Program (Measure “M2”).

The City Council has reviewed the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Program each year since the fee program was first adopted in 1993. The City Council, in July 1993, also approved the formation of an Ad Hoc Committee consisting of representatives from various stakeholder groups to work with staff on all aspects related to the revision and updating of traffic impact fees.

The City Council subsequently appointed an Ad Hoc Committee consisting of members representing large and small developers, the Chamber of Commerce, citizens-at-large, as well as members representing the City Council and the Planning Commission, to assist staff in the development and review of the traffic impact fee.

The current Ad Hoc Committee members and their representation are as follows:

Jason Kensey (Chair) At Large Representative
George Sakioka (Vice Chair) Major Developers’ Representative Steve Brahs Small Developers’ Representative
Matt Eimers At Large Representative
Carla Valenzuela Chamber of Commerce
City Council Liaisons:

Council Member Don Harper
Council Member Arlis Reynolds
Planning Commission Liaison:

Commissioner Jonathan Zich
The City Council, in June 2012, authorized a comprehensive review of the City’s General Plan, including the Land Use and Circulation Elements. The General Plan was completed and finalized in 2016.

The last major update of the Traffic Impact Fee Study was completed in November 2018. The update took into account the most recent land use and circulation information contained in the 2016 General Plan update. The proposed General Plan circulation improvements identified in the new transportation model form the basis for the traffic impact fee update. A revised traffic impact fee calculation was conducted taking into account the 2016 General Plan and updated traffic analysis model. The estimated costs for various improvements were reviewed and updated using the most recent construction cost data. The Ad Hoc Committee, together with staff, reviewed all conditions and analyzed different trip fee scenarios. Several variations of improvement options were considered, and it was determined that trip fees in the range of $176 per ADT through $476 per ADT could be justified.

On November 17, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20-60, approving a traffic impact fee of $235 per Average Daily Trip (ADT) to be continued with the inclusion of Active Transportation

Page 2 of 5 ends

20 727
File #: 21-482 Meeting Date: 12/7/2021
fee of $235 per Average Daily Trip (ADT) to be continued with the inclusion of Active Transportation projects, selecting a fee from the calculated range of between $176 and $476 per ADT. The City Council also approved up to ten percent (10%) of traffic impact fees being allocated toward traffic signal synchronization projects. In addition, City Council approved a five percent (5%) reduction in automobile trips as a result of ATP implementation and an additional five percent (5%) reduction in automobile trips for developments proposing to implement active transportation improvements beyond typical development requirements. A chronology of actions taken by the City Council on the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Program between the years of 1993 and 2020 is included in Attachment

3. ANALYSIS:

The Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee and staff met on October 27, 2021 to review the traffic impact fee program and calculation. Recently completed projects, consideration of active transportation projects, and the available traffic impact fee fund balance were accounted for in this review.

Attachment 2 provides the calculation of the traffic impact fee of $221 per ADT based on a revised list of capital improvement projects and the inclusion of Active Transportation projects. Following a review of the fee analysis and staff input, the Ad Hoc Committee recommended to continue the current traffic impact fee of $235 per Average Daily Trip (ADT) with the inclusion of Active Transportation projects in the Traffic Impact Fee program. In addition, the Ad Hoc Committee recommended to continue the allocation of up to ten percent (10%) of traffic impact fees towards traffic signal synchronization projects.

The Ad Hoc Committee also recommended to continue to provide a five percent (5%) reduction in automobile trips for development projects due to the implementation of the Active Transportation Plan (ATP) and an additional five (5) percent reduction in ADT if a development proposes to implement active transportation improvements beyond typical code requirements. The improvements have to be substantial such as addition of a multipurpose trail, conversion of lower-class active bicycle facility to a higher-class bicycle facility, or enhanced pedestrian improvements in the vicinity of the project.

Annual Accounting of the Traffic Impact Fee
:

California Government Code Section 66006(b) requires an annual review and accounting of the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Program. Section 66001(d) requires that the City make specified findings every five years relating to any portion of the traffic impact fees collected that remain unexpended in its account. The City has elected to conduct the review of traffic impact fees required by California Government Code Section 66001(d) on an annual basis in conjunction with its review of the capital improvement plan required by California Government Code Section 66002(b) and the annual accounting required by California Government Code Section 66006(b). Attachment 4 depicts the opening balance, the ending balance on June 30, 2021, interest earned, revenues, expenditures, and unexpended funds from the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Account. This attachment also shows that there are no funds unexpended or uncommitted in the account five (5) or more years after deposit and that no administrative costs have been charged to the fee account. The accounting was presented to the Committee at their meeting on October 27, 2021, and was approved.

As required by the Government Code, the updated Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is contained in

Page 3 of 5 ends

21 728
File #: 21-482 Meeting Date: 12/7/2021
As required by the Government Code, the updated Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is contained in the Fiscal Year 2021-22 adopted budget and remains valid for the current traffic impact fee review.

The traffic impact fee account information, including the interest earned, shown in Attachment 4, is available for public review.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council has the option to choose a traffic impact fee rate anywhere in the range of $176 per ADT to $476 per ADT, based on the most recent update of the traffic impact fee analysis. An additional alternative is to not have a Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Program at all. This alternative, however, would make the City ineligible to receive funds from any of the competitive grant programs processed through the Orange County Transportation Authority’s Combined Transportation Funding Programs. The City Council could also increase or decrease the percent of traffic impact fees for traffic signal synchronization. The City Council could also not approve the addition of active transportation projects to the traffic impact fee program.

FISCAL REVIEW:

Traffic impact fees fiscally support required capital transportation improvements outlined in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed the agenda report and resolution and approves them both as to form.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This item supports the following City Council Goals:
· Achieve long-term fiscal sustainability.
· Strengthen the public’s safety and improve the quality of life.

CONCLUSION:

The Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Program had the last major update in 2018 and the Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee reviewed the Traffic Impact Fee Program in October 2021 as part of the annual review. The Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee recommended that the current traffic impact fee of $235 per ADT be continued with the inclusion of Active Transportation projects. In addition, the Ad Hoc Committee recommended continuing allocation of up to ten percent (10%) of traffic impact fees toward traffic signal synchronization projects. The Ad Hoc Committee also recommended that the automobile trip generation for development projects continue to be reduced by five percent (5%) due to the inclusion of Active Transportation projects in the City’s General Plan and a further five percent (5%) reduction in ADT for developments that incorporate substantial Active Transportation improvements beyond those required by code.

Staff requests that the City Council adopt the proposed resolution, continuing the citywide traffic impact fee for new development in the City of Costa Mesa and conducting the related annual review

Page 4 of 5 ends

22 729
File #: 21-482 Meeting Date: 12/7/2021
impact fee for new development in the City of Costa Mesa and conducting the related annual review of the citywide traffic impact fee program and capital improvement plan for transportation improvements. The resolution incorporates the recommendations from the Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee and staff.

Page 5 of 5 ends

23 730
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2021-xx

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA,

CALIFORNIA, CONTINUING THE CITYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE FOR NEW

DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA AND CONDUCTING THE RELATED

ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE CITYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE PROGRAM AND

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, California Government Code section 66000 et seq. enables cities to charge fees for transportation facilities; and
WHEREAS, Section 13-274 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to, by resolution, establish a development impact fee program based on the capital improvement program; and
WHEREAS, in 1993, by Resolution No. 93-43, the City Council established a traffic impact fee program and the rate of the traffic impact fee based upon a Traffic Impact Fee Study; and
WHEREAS, each year since 1993, the City has continued the traffic impact fee program; and
WHEREAS, on November 17, 2020, the City Council established a traffic impact fee of Two Hundred Thirty-Five Dollars ($235.00) per Average Daily Trip (ADT) based upon a Traffic Impact Fee Study completed in 2018; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 66001(d) requires the City to make specified findings every five years with respect to any portion of the traffic impact fees collected that remain unexpended in its account, including (1) identifying the purpose to which the fee is to be put; (2) demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged; (3) identifying all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements; and (4) designating approximate dates on which the anticipated funding is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 66002(b) further requires a separate annual review and update of the City’s capital improvement plan for improvements to be paid for by traffic impact fees; and 24 731
2 WHEREAS, California Government Code section 66006(b) requires the City to make available to the public within 180 days of the last day of the fiscal year certain information, including but not limited to, a description of the type of fee, the amount of the fee, the amount of fees collected and the interest earned thereon, identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the City determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement, and the beginning and ending balance of the traffic impact fee account or fund for the previous fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the 2016 General Plan requires the City to maintain a traffic impact fee for improvements to the Master Plan of Streets and Highways and that the City review and update the fees on a regular basis; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the 2016 General Plan and the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, the City has elected to conduct the review of traffic impact fees required by California Government Code section 66001(d) on an annual basis in conjunction with its review of the capital improvement plan required by California Government Code section 66002(b) and the annual accounting required by California Government Code section 66006(b)(1); and
WHEREAS, the City reviewed and updated the capital improvement plan on June 15, 2021 in connection with its Measure M2 reporting; and WHEREAS, a primary purpose of this resolution is to continue the traffic impact fee based on the 2018 Traffic Impact Fee Study and to enable the City to continue the traffic impact fee; and
WHEREAS, the traffic impact fee is necessary because new development increases the need for transportation/circulation facilities in the City of Costa Mesa not only during peak periods, but throughout the day, and the City transportation/circulation system will be burdened by the demands of carrying vehicles of a larger number of persons and cargo due to new commercial, industrial, and residential uses; and WHEREAS, the 2015-2035 General Plan as well as Environmental Impact Report No. 1049 indicate that development of new commercial, industrial and residential uses is 25 732
3 expected to exceed current commercial, industrial and residential uses and, accordingly, the City transportation/circulation systems will need to be increased in capacity to carry the increase in the number of vehicles due to new commercial, industrial and residential uses; and
WHEREAS, the Public Services Department has conducted an audit of the accounts for the traffic impact fee program for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2021, which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code section 66006, the audit was available for public inspection and review at least fifteen (15) days prior to the City Council review of the audit on December 7, 2021 and notice was mailed to all interested parties on record at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing held on December 7, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on December 7, 2021, received testimony and evidence from interested parties in the City of Costa Mesa, and has evaluated justification for renewal of the traffic impact fee given economic and social factors, as well as average fees charged by surrounding cities.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council hereby finds that:
a. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.
b. The purpose of the traffic impact fee is to fund transportation/circulation improvements including active transportation improvements within the City of Costa Mesa which are directly related to the incremental traffic/vehicle burden imposed upon the City transportation/circulation system by the development of new commercial, industrial and residential uses. c. The fee will be used to fund transportation and circulation improvements within the City of Costa Mesa.
d. There is a reasonable relationship between the traffic impact fee’s use and the development projects on which the fee is imposed because the transportation/circulation facilities funded by the fee are needed to 26 733
4 accommodate the incremental new traffic/vehicle burdens generated by the development of new commercial, industrial and residential uses upon which the fee is imposed.
e. There is a reasonable relationship between the need for the transportation/circulation facilities and the development of new commercial, industrial and residential projects upon which the fee is imposed because the new development projects paying the fee will receive a direct benefit from the transportation/circulation facilities funded by the fee; the transportation/circulation facilities funded by the fee will increase traffic/vehicle circulation capacity on streets and highways directly burdened by the increase in traffic/vehicles generated by new development projects upon which the fee is charged; the cost of transportation/circulation facilities attributed to existing deficiencies, existing land uses and population, excess and reserve capacity, and regional transportation needs have been excluded from the fee calculation, and such costs are not included in the fee to be paid by the development.
f. There is no portion of the fees deposited into the traffic impact fee fund that remains unexpended.
g. The capital improvement plan is adequate to provide the facilities for which the traffic impact fee is charged and does not need to be amended. h. The audit by the Public Services Department set forth in Exhibit “A” accurately reflects the balance of the traffic impact fee account on the fees collected, the interest thereon, and other income and amount of expenditures and refunds of the traffic impact fee made by the City of Costa Mesa during the prior fiscal year.

Section 2. The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa hereby renews the traffic impact fee and establishes traffic impact fee regulations as follows:
a. The traffic impact fee shall be a fee of $235.00 per each new average daily vehicle trip end generated by all new commercial, industrial and residential developments. To encourage active transportation in Costa Mesa, staff shall provide a five percent (5%) reduction in ADT development trips for 27 734
5 active transportation project benefits and may provide an additional five percent (5%) reduction in ADT development trips for a development project which proposes to implement active transportation improvements beyond those which would ordinarily be required by the City as a condition of approval for such development project.
b. The traffic impact fee established pursuant to this resolution shall be collected and administered in accordance with all requirements of California Government Code section 66000 et seq., the Costa Mesa Municipal Code and prior resolutions of the City Council.
c. There shall be no limitation on the amount of traffic impact fees which may be allocated toward active transportation projects.
d. Staff may allocate up to ten percent (10%) of traffic impact fees towards traffic signal synchronization projects.

Section 3. The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa hereby approves the updated comprehensive transportation/circulation system capital improvement plan as identified at the June 15, 2021 City Council meeting pursuant to Government Code section 66002.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of December, 2021.
____________________________
John Stephens, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________ ____________________________ Brenda Green, City Clerk Kimberly Hall Barlow, City Attorney 28 735
6 THIS PAGE IS RESERVED FOR CITY CLERK’S OFFICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss

CITY OF COSTA MESA )
I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2021- __ and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 7th day of December, 2021, by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 7th day of December, 2021.
________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk
29 736
Local Regional Total Local Regional Total
22-23 Newport (19th to 17th) Widen SB from 3 lanes to 4 lanes $9,300,000 11,114 6,160 17,274 $5,983,571 $3,316,429 $9,300,000 Future 17th (Orange to Tustin) Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes Future 17th (Pomona to Bluff) Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes Future Baker (Bear to Red Hill) Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes $7,210,298 5,120 2,786 7,906 $4,669,457 $2,540,841 $7,210,298 Future Bear (I-405 Overcrossing) Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes Future Del Mar/University (Elden to Santa Ana) Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes Future Wilson (Fairview to College) Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes Future Wilson (Newport to Fairview) Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes Future Wilson (Harbor to Placentia) Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes $16,510,298 16,234 8,946 25,180 $10,653,028 $5,857,270 $16,510,298 Future 2. Harbor & Sunflower Add WBR and EBR $914,400 4,982 2,859 7,841 $580,990 $333,410 $914,400 Future 9. Bristol & Sunflower Add NBL $1,130,733 7,038 4,344 11,382 $699,183 $431,550 $1,130,733 Future 17. Hyland & South Coast/I-405 NB On-Ramp Add WBT $863,273 1,901 604 2,505 $655,123 $208,150 $863,273 Future 18. Harbor & South Coast Add EBR $1,669,800 7,830 3,157 10,987 $1,190,000 $479,800 $1,669,800 Future 30. Hyland & MacArthur Add NBL and NBR $261,938 2,003 1,797 3,800 $138,069 $123,869 $261,938 Future 42. Bristol & I-405 NB Ramps Add WBR $90,000 13,117 5,615 18,732 $63,022 $26,978 $90,000 Future 44. Harbor & Gisler Add SBR and EBL $4,895,070 9,893 4,259 14,152 $3,421,914 $1,473,156 $4,895,070 Future 49. Bristol & Paularino Add WBL $300,210 6,710 1,690 8,400 $239,811 $60,399 $300,210 Future 51. SR-55 SB Ramps & Paularino Add SBR $413,730 1,845 2,631 4,476 $170,539 $243,191 $413,730 Future 52. SR-55 NB Ramps & Paularino Add WBR $642,750 1,649 2,504 4,153 $255,212 $387,538 $642,750 Future 65. SR-55 SB Ramps & Baker Add SBR $625,350 3,477 2,446 5,923 $367,101 $258,249 $625,350 Future 66. SR-55 NB Ramps & Baker Add NBL and EBL $1,370,325 2,728 2,001 4,729 $790,494 $579,831 $1,370,325 Future 84. Harbor & Adams Add NBL and NBR $6,037,350 10,600 3,803 14,403 $4,443,235 $1,594,115 $6,037,350 Future 101. Newport NB & Del Mar Add WBR $131,475 2,934 2,406 5,340 $72,237 $59,238 $131,475 Future 129. Newport NB & 22nd Add WBT and NBL $15,000 3,332 2,625 5,957 $8,390 $6,610 $15,000 Future 134. Placentia & 19th Add SBR $386,280 6,409 1,423 7,832 $316,097 $70,183 $386,280 Future 140. Newport Boulevard & 19th Street Add NBT and free SBR Future 151. Superior & 17th Add WBL and NBR $662,865 7,133 2,160 9,293 $508,793 $154,072 $662,865 23-24 152. Newport & 17th Add NBR $444,675 10,202 5,079 15,281 $296,877 $147,798 $444,675 Future 156. Irvine & 17th Addd SBR and EBR $793,845 3,760 1,777 5,537 $539,075 $254,770 $793,845 $21,649,069 107,543 53,180 160,723 $14,756,161 $6,892,908 $21,649,069 $38,159,367 123,777 62,126 185,903 $25,409,189 $12,750,178 $38,159,367 Traffic Impact Fee Fund Balance $5,490,214
Home Ranch TIF Funds $1,698,450
Subtotal $3,791,764
Local Cost Allocation with above subtracted $21,617,425 Active Transportation Projects $21,140,500
Total Local Share Costs and Active Transportation Projects $42,757,925 227,767
$221
CIP FY
TOTAL
New Costa Mesa Trips Generated at General Plan Buildout Cost Allocation

ROADWAYS
Location Improvement
Estimated
Cost
New Daily Trip Ends
Sub-Total

INTERSECTIONS
Sub-Total
Citywide Fee with ATP projects and 15% reduction in ADT trips ATTACHMENT 2
30 737
Local Regional Total Local Regional TotalCIP FY
Cost Allocation
Location Improvement
Estimated
Cost
New Daily Trip Ends

ROADWAY AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS IN GENERAL PLAN AND EXCLUDED FROM TRIP FEE PROGRAM 17th (Orange to Tustin) Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes $15,380,115 17th (Pomona to Bluff) Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes $7,435,650 Bear (I-405 Overcrossing) Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes $5,408,220 Del Mar/University (Elden to Santa Ana) Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes $34,971,150 Wilson (Fairview to College) Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes $15,058,750 Wilson (Newport to Fairview) Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes $2,525,753 Wilson (Harbor to Placentia) Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes $25,555,350 140. Newport Boulevard & 19th Street Add NBT and free SBR $23,912,528 TOTAL $130,247,516
31 738

CITY OF COSTA MESA

CHRONOLOGY OF TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ACTIONS

Date Adopted Resolution
Number
Area of
Benefit
Applicable Fees
7-June-1993 93-43 Citywide $228 per daily trip end based on the exclusion of all freeway improvements 20-June-1994 94-59 Citywide $228 per daily trip end based on the exclusion of all freeway improvements 1-May-1995 95-35 Citywide $200 per daily trip end based on the inclusion of freeway improvements 17-June-1996 96-57 Citywide $200 per daily trip end based on the inclusion of freeway improvements 20-January-1997 97-15 Newport
Bl. Spec.

District 2
$195 per daily trip end (areas north of I-405 and SR-73 Freeways) and incentive program for the first 100 trips
$149 per daily trip end (areas south of I-405 and SR-73 Freeways) and incentive program for the first 100 trips
Fees based on inclusion of freeway improvements
15-April-2002 02-27 Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Study Update $177 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 6-October-2003 03-62 Citywide $177 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site

ATTACHMENT 3
32 739

CITY OF COSTA MESA

CHRONOLOGY OF TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ACTIONS
Date Adopted Resolution
Number
Area of
Benefit
Applicable Fees
4-October-2004 04-59 Citywide $177 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site Suspension of incentive program for Newport Boulevard Specific Plan Area 20-September-2005 05-70 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 17-October-2006 06-85 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 16-October-2007 07-77 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site Exemption of preschool and daycare facilities from traffic impact fee program (consider as part of exempt school facilities)
21-October-2008 08-81 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 20-October-2009 09-67 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 19-October-2010 10-70 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 18-October-2011 11-42 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 20-November-2012 12-73 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 11-November-2013 13-54 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 18-November-2014 14-73 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 1-December-2015 15-66 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 3-January-2017 17-02 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 21-November-2017 17-76 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 14-November-2018 18-79 Citywide $235 per daily trip end, up to 10% for signal synchronization projects, and up to 5% for active transportation projects. Terminate incentive program for new developments on an incremental basis for the first 100 trips.
17-December-2019 19-83 Citywide $235 per daily trip end, inclusion of ATP projects, up to 10% for signal synchronization projects, and no limitation on the amount of traffic impact fees allocated toward active transportation projects. Provide 5% reduction in ADT development trips for active transportation project benefits and may provide an additional 5% reduction in ADT development trips for a development project that proposes to implement active transportation improvements beyond those which would ordinarily be required by the City as a condition of approval for such development project.
17-November-2020 20-60 Citywide $235 per daily trip end, inclusion of ATP projects, up to 10% for signal synchronization projects. Provide 5% reduction in ADT development trips for active transportation project benefits and may provide an additional 5% reduction in ADT development trips for a development project that proposes to implement active transportation improvements beyond those which would ordinarily be required by the City as condition of approval. 33 740
FISCAL YEAR 2020-2021
Amount of Traffic Impact Fee Per Average Daily Trip $235 Beginning Fund Balance July 1, 2020 $4,690,059

1. Revenues
Traffic Impact Fees $1,212,500
Investment Earnings 64,666
(74,161)
Misc / Other Reimbursement $1,855
Revenue Subtotal $1,204,859

2. Expenditures $404,704
Percent of
project
funded by TIF
in FY 20-21
Newport Boulevard Improvements (19th to 17th) - Design $5,731 FY 20-21 1.0% Adams Avenue Bicycle Facility Project - Design $5,715 FY 20-21 4.3% Bicycle Racks Citywide $35,032 FY 20-21 23.4%
Class II and III Bicycle Projects $1,805 FY 20-21 0.6% Merrimac Way Active Transportation Improvements $181,847 FY 20-21 9.0% Fairview Traffic Signal Synchronization $174,575 FY 20-21 18.4%

3. Refunds $0
Amount of funds expended or
uncommitted after 5 years $0

4. Administrative Costs $0

5. Fund Balance as of June 30, 2021 $5,490,214

6. Projects Current and Future Appropriations $2,749,116 Newport Boulevard Improvements (19th to 17th)
West 17th Street/Active Transportation Improvements
Bicycle Racks Citywide
Class II and III Bicycle Projects
Adams at Pinecreek Intersection Improvements
Fairview Traffic Signal Synchronization
Bear Traffic Signal Synchronization
Merrimac Way Active Transportation Improvements
Mesa Del Mar Multimodal Access
Baker/ Placentia/ 19th/ Victoria TSSP
Adams Avenue Bicycle Facility Project - Design
Bicycle/ Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvement
Mesa Drive / Santa Ana Ave Bicycle Facility Improvement Mesa Verde Drive East/ Peterson Place Class II Bicycle Facility Randolph Ave Parking and Pedestrian Improvement
West 18th & Wilson Crosswalks

CITY OF COSTA MESA

CITYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE (TIF) ACCOUNT
Fund Balance as of June 30, 2021
GASB 31 Fair Market Value adjustment on Investment
34 741

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 4, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: PH-1
SUBJECT: PROPOSED 2015 UPDATE TO THE PARK IN-LIEU IMPACT FEES (PARK FEES) DATE: JULY 29, 2015
PRESENTATION BY: DANIEL INLOES, AICP, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DANIEL INLOES (714) 754-5088 [email protected]
RECOMMENDATIONS:

Adopt at
tached Ordinance and Resolution to:
1) Giv
e first reading to the Ordinance to institute new park fees for apartment projects (multi-family residences, renter);
2) Adopt resolution to update the City’s parkland impact fees for residential subdi
visions and apartments, including the corresponding formula. --OR--
1) Prov
ide direction to staff regarding the park fee update and continue the meeting to a future specified date.

Development Type Current
Fees
Fees Based
on Existing
Formula
Park Fee Alternative 1:

Park Expenditure Trends:

Based on 10-year
Historic Trends in
Park Expenditures
Park Fee Alternative 2:

Costa Mesa Housing
Trends:

Based on 10-year
Historic
Trends in Housing
Development
Single-Family
Residence $13,572 $29,713.50 $11,285 $18,006
Condominiums -
Multi-Family Residence,
Owner $13,829 $23,110.50 $8,777 $14,005
Apartments less than 50
units -
Multi-Family Residence,
Renter
No Fee No Fee $10,598 $14,005
Apartments 50 units or
more -
Multi-Family Residence,
Renter
No Fee No Fee $10,598 $5,057
BACKGROUND:
35 742

The proposal is an update to the City of Costa Mesa’s park i n-lieu impact fee, (“park fee”). California Government Code Section 66477, the Quimby Act, and section 66000 authorizes the legislative body of the City to allow the payment of park fees for recreation purposes for these specified residential projects. These new fees will ensure a fair fee assessment per development type while also reflecting the current cost of parkland acquisition and construction for:

• Single Family Residences;
• Multi-family Residences (Owner);
• A partments 50 units or less;
• Apartments 50 units or more.

Quimby Act of 1975

The municipal responsibility to set aside parkland and open space for its residents is additionally burdened by future development , and therefore Cities have been authorized since the passage of the 1975 Quimby Act to pass ordinances that require developers to set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park acquisition or improvements.

AB 1600 of 1987

This bill allowed f or development impact fees to defray all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to new development projects. Since apartment developments do not require a subdivision, new fees for apartments are not secured by Quimby ; however, apartments do place additional burdens on the City’s public open space. T he City has a General Plan goal of 4.26 acres of park space per 1,000 people; therefore, apartments may be assessed a fair and proportionate park fee through AB 1600. It is this additional fee and its methodology which requires an ordinance to be established.

Current Park Fees

The current park fees were adopted in May of 2005 and only apply to residential projects requiring a subdivision and do not apply to apartments.

The City Council approved the park fees for new residential subdivisions at $13,572 for single family homes per unit and $13,829 for multi -family homes per unit. The current park fee only applies to new subdivided residential projects and not apartments.

Single Family Residence per Unit $13,572
Multi-Family Residence per Unit $13,829
Existing 2015 Park Fees

Using the current park fees formula with the updated cost of land, people per household averages, and our general plan goal , the fees would be $29,713.50 for a single- family residence, $23,110.50 for a multi -family owner residence, and no fee for apartments since they are not subdivided. These fees would be thous ands of dollars over any other 36 743
park impact fee in the county and would hamper immediate development within the City.

Due to this alternative park fees and their associated methodology was investigated.

The Pl
anning Commission provided feedback on Park Fee Alternative #1. Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, staff further developed Park Fee Alternative #2 to address some issues that were raised at the meeting. (Attachment 4, PC staff report and minutes).

ANALYSIS:

Objec
tives of Updated Park Fee Program
Foll
owing are the objectives of the park fees update:
• To establish apartment categories. The park fees would apply to all major forms of residential development within the City including apartments. • To update the persons per household factor based on current demographic information.
• To update the per–unit-cost per development type.
• To update the parkland acquisition cost and construction cost based on histori c park funding trends, development trends within the City, and future park acquisition goals.

Types
of Residential Developments Subject to Park Fee
The updated f
ee program is intended to account for all types of new residential development, including apartments.

Residential Development Subject to Park Fees
Residential Projects subject To Park Impact Fees Residential Projects exempt from Park Impact Fees • New common-interest condominium
• New single-family “detached” subdivisions
• New townhouse “attached” subdivisions
• New condominiums in mixed-use
developments
• New condo conversions increasing units
• New apartments*
• Conversion of apartments to
condominiums without changing the unit
count.**
• Granny units and accessory apartments
• Single-family home remodels or additions
• Multi-family remodels or additions
*Note: A new category for Apartments is being proposed in the Updated Park Impact Fee Program. **Note: Additional units will be subject to a fee for new apartment conversions resulting in an increase in units.

Eligib
le Expenditures for the Park Fee
All
park fees for all types of residential development will meet the same Quimby Act requirement as to the eligible expenditures of park fee funds. The fees will be used only for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing neighborhood or community parks or potential school district properties based on a specified formula that meet the State Law requirements.

New M
ethodology to be Adopted
Stat
e law requires that new parkland impact fees be adopted and that the fee schedule be set pursuant to Council conducting a public hearing and approving an ordinance. A 37 744
general methodology for calculating park fees is described in the Quimby Act, but AB 1600 also allows Cities to adopt their own methodology granted that; the purpose and use of the fee is identified, there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development on which the fee is to be imposed, there is a reasonable relationship between the need of the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed, the fee is proportionate to the cost of the associated use. Within Article 5 of Chapter XI of Title 13 of the City’s Municipal Code the procedures for obtaining park land dedications or assessing and collecting park fees are established. Because t his section strictly applies to new residential subdivisions and not apartments, an ordinance is required to be adopted to allow application of park fees to rental projects and a resolution to institute all updated and established fees.

PROPOSED PARK FEES ALTERNATIVES

David Taussig & Associates, Inc. and Stanley R. Hoffman Associates were contracted by the City to assist in the park fee update process and assist in developing park impact fees that would meet AB 1600 benefit requirements. The following summary table provides park fee alternatives for Council to consider in the adoption of new park fees:

Development Type

Existing
Fees

Fees with
Updated
Rates but
same Quimby
Formula

Park Fee Alternative 1:

Park Expenditure Trends:

Based on 10-year
Historic Trends in
Park Expenditures

Park Fee Alternative 2:

Costa Mesa Housing
Trends:

Based on 10-year
Historic
Trends in Housing
Development

Single-Family
Residence

$13,572 $29,713.50 $11,285 $18,006
Condominiums -
Multi-Family Residence,
Owner

$13,829 $23,110.50 $8,777 $14,005
Apartments less than 50
units -
Multi-Family Residence,
Renter

No Fee No Fee $10,598 $14,005
Apartments 50 units or
more -
Multi-Family Residence,
Renter
No Fee No Fee $10,598 $5,057

PARK FEE ALTERNATIVE #1: Based on Historic Park Fee Expenditures

Park Fee Methodology
Based on Park Fee Expenditure Trends Over the past 10 years

38 745
949500 cost 4.26 acre 2.79 people
1 acre 1000 people 1 unit
Multi-Family Owner Residential
949500 cost 4.26 acre 2.17 people
1 acre 1000 people 1 unit
Apartments
949500 cost 4.26 acre 2.62 people
1 acre 1000 people 1 unit $10,597.56 per unit
Single-Family Residential
p
Cost per Acre = 390,000 + .2238(2,500,000) = 949,500
$11,285.19 per unit
$8,777.37 per unit

Methodology for Per Unit Cost

• Park land -to-population ratio established by 2000 General Plan . General Plan Policy OSR-1A. 1 establishes the park land-to-population ratio of 4.26 acres per 1,000 people. Any adjustment to this rate requires a General Plan amendment.

• Population density standard based on the US Census.

Since the last update, demographic trends resulted in changes in the average household size of the various types of residential units within the City. This data was gathered by Stanley Hoffman & Associates from the 2013 ACS 5- year estimates from the US Census.

Type of Dwelling Number of
Units
Number of
People
People Per
Household
Single Family 19,861 55,491 2.79
Multi-Family Owner 1,138 2,469 2.17
Multi-Family Renter 18,349 48,125 2.62
People Per Household by Dwelling Type

39 746
• Park land acquisition & construction costs based on 2014 study by David Taussig & Associates, Inc. For purposes of determining land costs an analysis of multiple park acquisitions and developments within our region were gathered and assessed to determine the fair market value of park land acquisition and construction. This methodology was utilized because there were few recent comparable land sales to analyze specifically in regards to infill parks which are the most likely park acquisitions the City can make moving forward.

David Taussig & Associates , Inc. reviewed land sales price data for eight (8) properties sold within the City since 2003. The weighted average sales price based on such review was $2,500,000.00 per acre, whereas the cost of construction or upgrades on existing park space is estimated at $390,000.00. The total cost of acquiring and constructing park space would be $2,890,000.00 per acre.

Park Fee Expenditures in the Past 10 (Years 2005 – 2015) Description Date
Adjusted For
Inflation
(2014 Dollars)
Total
Acres Construction Land
Acquisition
Fairview, stairs and signage 2010 $488,550 2.00 $488,549.73 Fairview, constructed wetlands 2013 $5,589,220 45.00 $5,589,220.33 Joann Street Bicycle Trail 2011 $1,262,934 2.00 $1,262,934.40 Wilson Park, picnic shelter 2014 $45,000 0.05 $45,000.00 Del Mesa Park, new picnic shelter 2014 $45,000 0.05 $45,000.00 Brentwood Park 2011 $3,262,581 1.20 $3,262,580.52
Brentwood Park Upgrades 2011 $315,734 1.20 $315,733.60
Volcom Skate Park Dev 2006 $1,761,429 1.25 $1,761,428.57 Angels Playground 2008 $1,869,232 2.00 $1,869,231.73
Lions Park/Davis Field Baseball 2011 $526,223 2.50 $526,222.66 Bark Park 2008 $208,914 2.00 $208,914.13
Shalimar Park, new playground 2014 $120,000 0.16 $120,000.00 Total $15,494,816 59.41 $12,232,235.15 $3,262,580.52
Due to the l
ack of land and priority to upgrading existing parks only 1.2 acres of land was acquired over the past ten years . This represents 22.38% of the 5.36 possible acres the City could have acquired. Therefore, having a cost per acre which includes the full cost of construction and only 22.38% of land acquisition is a reasonable approach. This comes out to $949,500.00 per acre. 40 747

PARK FEE ALTERNATIVE #2: Based on Historic Costa Mesa Housing Trends

Park Fee Methodology
Based on Historic Housing Development Trends Over the past 10 years Cost per Acre = 390,000 + .45 (2,500,000) = 1,515,000
1,515,000 cost 4.26 acre 2.79 people
1 acre 1,000 people 1 unit
1,515,000 cost 4.26 acre 2.17 people
1 acre 1,000 people 1 unit
Cost per Acre = 390,000 + .11 (2,500,000) = 669,750
669,750 cost 4.26 acre
1 acre 1,000 people
Single-Family Residential
*This average was calculated by finding average people per unit for various apartment sizes and calculating one rate by using the average proportions for various apartments sizes in a typical developmet with 50 units of more.

Uses an average people
per unit of 1.7723 for
large apartments.* $5,056.61
$14,005.96
$18,006.38
Large Apartment Projects
Multi-Family Owner Residential and Small Apartments

Previous park expenditures were hampered by only receiving funds from 40% of the overall units developed in the last 15 years and therefore limited the potential 41 748
projects that could be developed by this fund. This is shown in the infographic above. This graphic also confirms that if apartments are paying park fees in the future the potential fund overall will grow and perhaps will be sufficient for more opportunities for acquisition in the future. This alternative proposes to increase the weighting of the cost of acquisition to 45% for single family residences and multi-family projects . This provides further funding for park upgrades and acquisition but does not raise the fee much higher than the existing fees. So me of the high-end apartment projects (entitled or completed) are listed below.

Apartment Projects
Name Address Number of Units
Blue Sol (Occupied) 421 Bernard Street 113
Symphony Apartments 585 and 595 Anton Boulevard 393
Baker Street Apartments 125 Baker Street 240
Anton Midrise Residential 580 Anton Boulevard 250
Azulon (Occupied) 1500 Mesa Verde Drive 230
The t
hreshold of 50 units was taken from the Zoning Code as a starting point for discussion. The Zoning Code already recognizes 50 units as a threshold for large developments. To account for the common space amenities and the complexities of 42 749
person per household ratios within apartments the information below was used to create an apartment park fee, for developments with a significant number of units, of $5,056.61.

COMPARISON OF PARK FEES IN OTHER OC CITIES

The following table indicates park impact fees of other Orange County cities. Because cities vary in their approach to calculating park impact fees, and demographic and housing characteristics also differ from city to city, the following table is provided for reference purposes only and is not intended to be a direct comparison.

City Park Fee
(Per Unit)
City of Laguna Beach $4,580
City of Santa Ana Varies;
up to $4,823
City of Seal Beach $5,000 to $10,000
City of Anaheim $5,388 to $6,936
City of Garden Grove $5,500
City of Tustin $5,931 to $6,386
City of San Clemente $6,823
City of Newport Beach Varies; $6,894 to $26,125
City of Brea $6,945
City of Fountain Valley $7,421
City of Laguna Hills $7,700
City of Orange $8,894
City of Seal Beach $10,000
City of Huntington Beach No Subdivision:

Detached $11,540
Attached $8,576

Subdivision:

Detached $17,857
Attached $13,385

City of San Juan Capistrano $11,600
City of Irvine Fee varies based on acreage
value of land to be dedicated.

May be as low as $1,150 per acre
of land dedication.

City of Costa Mesa $13,572 to $13,879

Automatic Adjustment of Park Fee based on Consumer Price Index Every Year

The current park fees have not been adjusted for ten years. The consultants propose that the park fee be increased on July 1st of each year, starting July 1, 2016, based on the change to the Los Angeles – Riverside-Orange County Consumer Price Index in comparison to the previous calendar year. This would adjust for escalation and allow for the City to update the park fees in 5 years as opposed to biennially as stated in the code.

New Park Fees to be applied for Pending Entitlement Projects

State law requires that the new fees shall not go into effect until after 60 days of Council adoption of the resolution. Park fees may be applied to all pending projects, including 43 750
rental projects. Staff recommends that the new park impact fees shall apply to any live/work or residential development project which meets any of the following criteria:
(1) Any di
scretionary application for a live/work or residential development project which was approved by the final decision making body after the effective date of the resolution; OR
(2) Any pending ministerial application for a residential development project which was not subject to discretionary review and which was submitted into plan check after the effective date of the resolution; OR
(3) A ny previously-approved live/work or residential development project which has expired after the effective date of this resolution.

Note: If park fees are reduced, Council would need to direct staff to modify the resolution to reflect whether or not reduced fees will be applied retroactively to previously-approved projects.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The Ci
ty Attorney’s office has approved the attached resolution as to form.

ALTERNATIVES:

The Ci
ty Council may select one of the following actions with the Park Fees; • Exi
sting Fees: Keep current park fees; however, Council may wish to add new park fees for apartments as identified in Alt #1 or Alt #2. • Park
Fee Alternative #1: Adopt this alternative based on trends in park fee expenditures.
• Park
Fee Alternative #2: Adopt this alternative based on Costa Mesa housing trends.
• Conti
nue hearing: Provide direction to staff to research and identify other alternatives.

The resolution would be modified to include the selected alternative and park fees. 44 751
Development Type Existing
Fees
Fees with
Current Rates
but same
Quimby
Formula
Park Fee Alternative 1:

Park Expenditure Trends:

Based on 10-year
Historic Trends in
Park Expenditures
Park Fee Alternative 2:

Costa Mesa Housing
Trends:

The City’s park fees have not been updated for over ten years. Council may select a methodology for calculating park fees and adopt new park fees. Important note: Staff recommends that the park fees be updated automatically every year based on the consumer price index and that the new park fees be applied to pending/future development projects that have not received zoning entitlements to date. ________________________ __________________________

DANIEL INLOES, AICP GARY ARMSTRONG, AICP
Associate Planner Economic Development & Development
Services slkn;lknwe;lnw;elkfnweflkn;lkmnew;lknm Director / Deputy CEO Attachments: 1. Draft Council Ordinance

2.Draft Council Resolution

3.Redlined Version of Proposed Ordinance Changes

4.Minutes from Planning Commission Meeting

5.Justification Study by David Taussig & associates, Inc.

6.Letter of Support from BIA
Distr
ibution: Director of Economic & Development/Deputy CEO
Assistant Development Services Director
Sr. Deputy City Attorney
Public Services Director
City Engineer
Transportation Services Manager
Fire Protection Analyst
File (2)
45 752
46 753
47 754
48 755
49 756
50 757
51 758
52 759
53 760
54 761
55 762
56 763
57 764
58 765
59 766
60 767
61 768
62 769
63 770
64 771
65 772
66 773
67 774
68 775
69 776
70 777
71 778
72 779
73 780
74 781
75 782
76 783
77 784
78 785
79 786
80 787
81 788
82 789
83 790
84 791
85 792
86 793
87 794
88 795
89 796
90 797
91 798
92 799
93 800
94 801
95 802
96 803
97 804
98 805
99 806
100
807
101
808
102
809
103
810
104
811
105
812
106
813
107
814
108
815
109
816
110
817
111
818
112
819
113
820
114
821
115
822
116
823
117
824
118
825
119
826
120
827
121
828
122
829
123
830
ATTACHMENT 2
Resolution No. 2022-xx Page 1 of 7

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-xx

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA,

CALIFORNIA, CONTINUING THE CITYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE FOR NEW

DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA AND CONDUCTING THE RELATED

ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE CITYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE PROGRAM AND

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS

WHEREAS, California Government Code s ection 66000 et seq. enables cities to charge fees for transportation facilities; and
WHEREAS, Section 13-274 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to, by resolution, establish a development impact fee program based on the capital improvement program; and
WHEREAS, in 1993, by Resolution No. 93-43, the City Council established a traffic impact fee program and the rate of the traffic impact fee based upon a Traffic Impact Fee Study; and
WHEREAS, each year since 1993, the City has continued the traffic impact fee program; and
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2021, the City Council established a traffic impact fee of Two Hundred Thirty-Five Dollars ($235.00) per Average Daily Trip (ADT) based upon a Traffic Impact Fee Study completed in 2018; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code s ection 66001(d) requires the City to make specified findings every five years with respect to any portion of the traffic impact fees collected that remain unexpended in its account, including (1) identifying the purpose to which the fee is to be put; (2) demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged; (3) identifying all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements; and (4) designating approximate dates on which the anticipated funding is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code s ection 66002(b) further requires a separate annual review and update of the City’s capital improvement plan for improvements to be paid for by traffic impact fees; and 831
WHEREAS, California Government Code s ection 66006(b) requires the City to make available to the public within 180 days of the last day of the fiscal year certain information, including but not limited to, a description of the type of fee, the amount of the fee, the amount of fees collected and the interest earned thereon, identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the City determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement , and the beginning and ending balance of the traffic impact fee account or fund for the previous fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the 2016 General Plan requires the City to maintain a tra ffic impact fee for improvements to the Master Plan of Streets and Highways and that the City review and update the fees on a regular basis; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the 2016 General Plan and the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, the City has elected to conduct the review of traffic impact fees required by California Government Code section 66001(d) on an annual basis in conjunction with its review of the capital improvement plan required by California Government Code se ction 66002(b) and the annual accounting required by California Government Code s ection 66006(b)(1); and
WHEREAS, the City reviewed and updated the capital improvement plan on J
une 15, 2022 in connection with its Measure M2 repor ting; and WHEREAS, a primary purpose of this resolution is to continue the traffic impact fee based on the 2018 Traffic Impact Fee Study and to enable the City to continue the traffic impact fee; and
WHEREAS, the traffic impact fee is necessary because new development increases the need for transportation/circulation facilities in the City of Costa Mesa not only during peak periods, but throughout the day , and the City transportation/circulation system will be burdened by the demands of carrying vehicles of a larger number of persons and cargo due to new commercial, industrial, and residential uses; and WHEREAS, the 2015-2035 General Plan as well as Environmental Impact Report No. 1049 indicate that development of new commercial, industrial and residential uses is Resolution No. 2022-xx Page 2 of 7
832
Resolution No. 2022-xx Page 3 of 7
expected to exceed current commercial, industrial and residential uses and, accordingly, the City transportation/circulation systems will need to be increased in capacity to carry the increase in the number of vehicles due to new commercial, industrial and residential uses; and
WHEREAS, the Public Services Department has conducted an audit of the accounts for the traffic impact fee program for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022, which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code section 66006, the audit was available for public inspection and review at least fifteen (15) days prior to the City Council review of the audit on November 15, 2022 and notice was mailed to all interested parties on record at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing held on November 15, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on November 15, 2022 , received testimony and evidence from interested parties in the City of Costa Mesa, and has evaluated justification for renewal of the traffic impact fee given economic and social factors, as well as average fees charged by surrounding cities.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council hereby finds that:
a. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.
b. The purpose of the traffic impact fee is to fund transportation/circulation improvements including active transportation improvements within the City of Costa Mesa which are directly related to the incremental traffic/vehicle burden imposed upon the City transportation/circulation system by the development of new commercial, industrial and residential uses. c. The fee will be used to fund transportation and circulation improvements within the City of Costa Mesa.
d. There is a reasonable relationship between the traffic impact fee’s use and the development projects on which the fee is imposed because the transportation/circulation facilities funded by the fee are needed to 833
Resolution No. 2022-xx Page 4 of 7
accommodate the incremental new traffic/vehicle burdens generated by the development of new commercial, industrial and residential uses upon which the fee is imposed.
e. There is a reasonable relationship between the need for the transportation/circulation facilities and the development of new commercial, industrial and residential projects upon which the fee is imposed because the new development projects paying the fee will receive a direct benefit from the transportation/circulation facilities funded by the fee; the transportation/circulation facilities funded by the fee will increase traffic/vehicle circulation capacity on streets and highways directly burdened by the increase in traffic/vehicles generated by new development projects upon which the fee is charged; the cost of transportation/circulation facilities attributed to existing deficiencies, existing land uses and population, excess and reserve capacity, and regional transportation needs have been excluded from the fee calculation, and such costs are not included in the fee to be paid by the development.
f. There is no portion of the fees deposited into the traffic impact fee fund that remains unexpended.
g. T he capital improvement plan is adequate to provide the facilities for which the traffic impact fee is charged and does not need to be amended. h. The audit by the Public Services Department set forth in Exhibit “A” accurately reflects the balance of the traffic impact fee account on the fees collected, the interest thereon, and other income and amount of expenditures and refunds of the traffic impact fee made by the City of Costa Mesa during the prior fiscal year.

Section 2. T he City Council of the City of Costa Mesa hereby renew s the traffic impact fee and establishes traffic impact fee regulations as follows:
a. The traffic impact fee shall be a fee of $235.00 per each new average daily vehicle trip end generated by all new commercial, industrial and residential developments. To encourage active transportation in Costa Mesa, s taff shall provide a five percent (5%) reduction in ADT development trips for 834
Resolution No. 2022-xx Page 5 of 7
active transportation project benefits and may provide an additional five percent (5%) reduction in ADT development trips for a development project which proposes to implement active transportation improvements beyond those which would ordinarily be required by the City as a condition of approval for such development project.
b. The traffic impact fee established pursuant to this resolution shall be collected and administered in accordance with all requirements of California Government Code section 66000 et seq. , the Costa Mesa Municipal Code and prior resolutions of the City Council.
c. There shall be no limitation on the amount of traffic impact fees which may be allocated toward active transportation projects.
d. Staff may allocate up to ten percent (10%) of traffic impact fees towards traffic signal synchronization projects.

Section 3 . The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa hereby approves the updated comprehensive transportation/circulation system capital improvement plan as identified at the June 21, 2022 City Council meeting pursuant to Government Code section 66002.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of November, 2022.

____________________________
John Stephens, Mayor

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________ ____________________________ Brenda Green, City Clerk Kimberly Hall Barlow, City Attorney 835
ATTACHMENT 2
Resolution No. 2022-xx Page 6 of 7

THIS PAGE IS RESERVED FOR CITY CLERK’S OFFICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss

CITY OF COSTA MESA )

I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2022-xx and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council o f the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 15th day of November, 2022, by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and af fixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 15th day of November, 2022.

________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk

836
FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022
Amount of Traffic Impact Fee $235
Beginning Fund Balance July 1, 2021 $5,490,214

1. Revenues
Traffic Impact Fees $437,943
Investment Earnings 53,938
(197,108)
Revenue Subtotal $294,773

2. Expenditures $127,222
Percent of project
funded by TIF in
FY 21-22
Newport Boulevard Improvements (19th to 17th) $31,491 FY 21-22 6.7% Adams Avenue Bicycle Facility Project - Design $6,832 FY 21-22 5.2% Bicycle Racks Citywide $8,299 FY 21-22 4.0%
Class II and III Bicycle Projects $12,052 FY 21-22 1.2% Merrimac Way Active Transportation Improvements $16,837 FY 21-22 0.8% Adams at Pinecreek Intersection Improvements $3,831 FY 21-22 0.5% Baker/ Placentia/ 19th/ Victoria TSSP $15,373 FY 21-22 0.7% Randolph Ave Parking and Pedestrian Improvements $25,792 FY 21-22 17.4% West 18th & Wilson Crosswalks $9,325 FY 21-22 2.4%
East 17th St. Landscape Enhancement -$2,611 Adjustment

3. Refunds $0
Amount of funds expended or
uncommitted after 5 years $0

4. Administrative Costs $0

5. Fund Balance as of June 30, 2022 $5,657,766

6. Projects Current and Future Appropriations $3,255,657 Newport Boulevard Improvements (19th to 17th)
Bicycle Racks Citywide
Class II and III Bicycle Projects
Adams at Pinecreek Intersection Improvements
Fairview Traffic Signal Synchronization
Bear Traffic Signal Synchronization
Mesa Del Mar Multimodal Access
Baker/ Placentia/ 19th/ Victoria TSSP
Bicycle/ Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvement
Mesa Drive / Santa Ana Ave Bicycle Facility Improvement Mesa Verde Drive East/ Peterson Place Class II Bicycle Facility Randolph Ave Parking and Pedestrian Improvement
West 18th & Wilson Crosswalks
Fairview Road Improvement Project
GASB 31 Fair Market Value adjustment on Investment

CITY OF COSTA MESA

CITYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ACCOUNT
Fund Balance as of June 30, 2022
837

CITYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ANNUAL REVIEW - REPORT
Background
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66000, et seq. and the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, a traffic impact fee study is required by the City to establish a basis for the imposition of Citywide traffic impact fees on new and expanding developments within the City. The purpose of the fee is to fund the necessary transportation/circulation improvements, which are related directly to the incremental traffic impacts imposed on the City’s transportation system by the development of new and/or changing commercial, industrial, and residential uses as permitted by the General Plan. The fee also maintains compliance with the eligibility requirements of the Orange County Transportation Authority’s (OCTA) Renewed Measure “M2” Program (Measure “M2”).

The City Council subsequently appointed an Ad Hoc Committee consisting of members representing large and small developers, the Chamber of Commerce, cit izens-at-large, as well as members representing the City Council and the Planning Commission, to assist staff in the development and review of the traffic impact fee.

The current Ad Hoc Committee members and their representation are as follows:

City Council Liaisons:

Council Member Don Harper
Council Member Arlis Reynolds

Planning Commission Liaison:

Commissioner Jonathan Zich

The City Council, in June 2012, authorized a comprehensive review of the City’s General Plan, including the Land Use and Circulation Elements. The General Plan was completed and finalized in 2016.

ATTACHMENT 3
838
The last major update of the Traffic Impact Fee Study was completed in November 2018.

The update took into account the most recent land use and circulation information contained in the 2016 General Plan update. The proposed General Plan circulation improvements identified in the new transportation model form the basis for the traffic impact fee update. A revised traffic impact fee calculation was conducted taking into account the 2016 General Plan and updated traffic analysis model. The estimated costs for various improvements were reviewed and updated using the most recent construction cost data. The Ad Hoc Committee, together with staff, reviewed all conditions and analyzed different trip fee scenarios. Seve ral variations of improvement options were considered, and it was determined that trip fees in the range of $176 per ADT through $476 per ADT could be justified.

On December 7, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 21-48, approving a traffic impact fee of $235 per Average Daily Trip (ADT) to be continued with the inclusion of Active Transportation projects, selecting a fee from the calculated range of between $176 and $476 per ADT. The City Council also approved up to ten percent (10%) of traffic impact fees being allocated toward traffic signal synchronization projects. In addition, City Council approved a five percent (5%) reduction in automobile trips as a result of ATP implementation and an additional five percent (5%) reduction in automobile trips for developments proposing to implement active transportation improvements beyond typical development requirements.

A chronology of actions taken by the City Council on the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Program between the years of 1993 and 2020 is included in Appendix A.

Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee – Annual Review
The Traffic Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee and staff met on October 20, 2022 to review the traffic impact fee program and calculation. Recently completed projects, consideration of active transportation projects, and the available traffic impact fee fund balance were accounted for in this review.

Appendix B provides the calculation of the traffic impact fee of $232 per ADT based on a revised list of capital improvement projects and the inclusion of Active Transportation projects. Following a review of the fee analysis and staff input, the Ad Hoc Committee recommended to continue the current tra ffic impact fee of $235 per Average Daily Trip (ADT) with the inclusion of Active Transportation projects in the Traffic Impact Fee program. In addition, the Ad Hoc Committee recommended to continue the allocation of up to ten percent (10%) of traffic imp act fees towards traffic signal synchronization projects.

The Ad Hoc Committee also recommended to continue to provide a five percent (5%) reduction in automobile trips for development projects due to the implementation of the Active Transportation Plan (ATP) and an additional five percent (5%) reduction in ADT if a development proposes to implement active transportation improvements beyond typical code requirements. The improvements have to be substantial such as addition of a multipurpose trail, conversion of lower-class active bicycle facility to a higher-class bicycle facility, or enhanced pedestrian improvements in the vicinity of the project.

839
Annual Accounting of the Traffic Impact Fee:

California Government Code Section 66006(b) requires an annual review and accounting of the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Program. Section 66001(d) requires that the City make specified findings every five years relating to any portion of the traffic impact fees collected that remain unexpended in its account. The City has elected to conduct the review of traffic impact fees required by California Government Code Section 66 001(d) on an annual basis in conjunction with its review of the capital improvement plan required by California Government Code Section 66002(b) and the annual accounting required by California Government Code Section 66006(b). Appendix C depicts the opening balance, the ending balance on June 30, 2022, interest earned, revenues, expenditures, and unexpended funds from the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Account. This attachment also shows that there are no funds unexpended or uncommitted in the account five (5) or more years after deposit and that no administrative costs have been charged to the fee account.

The accounting was presented to the Committee at their meeting on October 20, 2022, and was approved.

As required by the Government Cod e, the updated Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is contained in the Fiscal Year 2022 -23 adopted budget and remains valid for the current traffic impact fee review. The traffic impact fee account information, including the interest earned, shown in Appendix C, is available for public review.

840

CITY OF COSTA MESA

CHRONOLOGY OF TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ACTIONS
Date Adopted Resolution
Number
Area of
Benefit
Applicable Fees
7-June-1993 93-43 Citywide $228 per daily trip end based on the exclusion of all freeway improvements 20-June-1994 94-59 Citywide $228 per daily trip end based on the exclusion of all freeway improvements 1-May-1995 95-35 Citywide $200 per daily trip end based on the inclusion of freeway improvements 17-June-1996 96-57 Citywide $200 per daily trip end based on the inclusion of freeway improvements 20-January-1997 97-15 Newport
Bl. Spec.

Plan Area
Incentive program for developments in Newport Boulevard Specific Plan Area Trip fees range from $33 to $108 per ADT based on project-related conditions. 16-June-1997 97-51 Citywide $150 per daily trip end based on the inclusion of freeway improvements 15-June-1998 98-64 Citywide $150 per daily trip end based on the inclusion of freeway improvements 4-January-1999 99-2 Citywide Incentive program for first 100 trips 0-2 5 ADT - $0
25-50 ADT - $50
50-75 ADT - $75
75-100 ADT - $100
>100 ADT - $150
7-June-1999 99-35 Citywide $149 per daily trip end based on inclusion of freeway improvements 7-June-1999 99-36 Citywide Incentive program for the first 100 trips 19-June-2000 00-52 District 1
D
istrict 2
$195 per daily trip end (areas north of I-405 and SR-73 Freeways) and incentive program for the first 100 trips
$149 per daily trip end (areas south of I-405 and SR-73 Freeways) and incentive program for the first 100 trips
Fees based on inclusion of freeway improvements
4-June-2001 01-34 District 1
D
istrict 2
$195 per daily trip end (areas north of I-405 and SR-73 Freeways) and incentive program for the first 100 trips
$149 per daily trip end (areas south of I-405 and SR-73 Freeways) and incentive program for the first 100 trips
Fees based on inclusion of freeway improvements
15-April-2002 02-27 Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Study Update $177 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 6-October-2003 03-62 Citywide $177 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 4-October-2004 04-59 Citywide $177 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site Suspension of incentive program for Newport Boulevard Specific Plan Area Attachment 4
841

CITY OF COSTA MESA

CHRONOLOGY OF TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ACTIONS
Date Adopted Resolution
Number
Area of
Benefit
Applicable Fees
20-September-2005 05-70 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 17-October-2006 06-85 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 16-October-2007 07-77 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site Exemption of preschool and daycare facilities from traffic impact fee program (consider as part of exempt school facilities)
21-October-2008 08-81 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 20-October-2009 09-67 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 19-October-2010 10-70 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 18-October-2011 11-42 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 20-November-2012 12-73 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 11-November-2013 13-54 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 18-November-2014 14-73 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 1-December-2015 15-66 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 3-January-2017 17-02 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 21-November-2017 17-76 Citywide $181 per daily trip end and incentive program for the first 100 trips of the entire site 14-November-2018 18-79 Citywide $235 per daily trip end, up to 10% for signal synchronization projects, and up to 5% for active transportation projects. Terminate incentive program for new developments on an incremental basis for the first 100 trips.
17-December-2019 19-83 Citywide $235 per daily trip end, inclusion of ATP projects, up to 10% for signal synchronization projects, and no limitation on the amount of traffic impact fees allocated toward active transportation projects. Provide 5% reduction in ADT development trips for active transportation project benefits and may provide an additional 5% reduction in ADT development trips for a development project that proposes to implement active transportation improvements beyond those which would ordinarily be required by the City as a condition of approval for such development project.
17-November-2020 20-60 Citywide $235 per daily trip end, inclusion of ATP projects, up to 10% for signal synchronization projects. Provide 5% reduction in ADT development trips for active transportation and may provide additional 5% reduction in ADT development trips for development implementing active transportation improvements beyond those required as condition of approval. 7-December-2021 21-48 Citywide $235 per daily trip end, inclusion of ATP projects, up to 10% for signal synchronization projects. Provide 5% reduction in ADT development trips for active transportation and may provide additional 5% reduction in ADT development trips for development implementing active transportation improvements beyond those required as condition of approval.

842
Costa Mesa Traffic Impact Fee Update
Roadway and Intersection Improvement Cost Allocation
Local Regional Total Local Regional Total
Future Newport (19th to 17th) Widen SB from 3 lanes to 4 lanes $10,230,000 11,114 6,160 17,274 $6,581,928 $3,648,072 $10,230,000 Future 17th (Orange to Tustin) Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes Future 17th (Pomona to Bluff) Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes Future Baker (Bear to Red Hill) Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes $7,931,328 5,120 2,786 7,906 $5,136,403 $2,794,925 $7,931,328 Future Bear (I-405 Overcrossing) Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes Future Del Mar/University (Elden to Santa Ana) Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes Future Wilson (Fairview to College) Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes Future Wilson (Newport to Fairview) Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes Future Wilson (Harbor to Placentia) Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes $18,161,328 16,234 8,946 25,180 $11,718,330 $6,442,998 $18,161,328 Future

2. Harbor & Sunflower
Add WBR and EBR $1,005,840 4,982 2,859 7,841 $639,089 $366,751 $1,005,840 Future 9. Bristol & Sunflower
Add NBL $1,243,806 7,038 4,344 11,382 $769,101 $474,705 $1,243,806 Future 17. Hyland & South Coast/I-405 NB On-Ramp
Add WBT $949,600 1,901 604 2,505 $720,635 $228,966 $949,600 Future 18. Harbor & South Coast
Add EBR $1,836,780 7,830 3,157 10,987 $1,309,000 $527,780 $1,836,780 Future 30. Hyland & MacArthur
Add NBL and NBR $288,132 2,003 1,797 3,800 $151,876 $136,256 $288,132 Future 42. Bristol & I-405 NB Ramps
Add WBR $990,009 13,117 5,615 18,732 $693,249 $296,760 $990,009 Future 44. Harbor & Gisler
Add SBR and EBL $5,384,577 9,893 4,259 14,152 $3,764,105 $1,620,472 $5,384,577 Future 49. Bristol & Paularino
Add WBL $330,231 6,710 1,690 8,400 $263,792 $66,439 $330,231 Future 51. SR-55 SB Ramps & Paularino
Add SBR $455,103 1,845 2,631 4,476 $187,593 $267,510 $455,103 Future 52. SR-55 NB Ramps & Paularino
Add WBR $707,025 1,649 2,504 4,153 $280,733 $426,292 $707,025 Future 65. SR-55 SB Ramps & Baker
Add SBR $687,885 3,477 2,446 5,923 $403,812 $284,073 $687,885 Future 66. SR-55 NB Ramps & Baker
Add NBL and EBL $1,507,358 2,728 2,001 4,729 $869,544 $637,814 $1,507,358 Future 84. Harbor & Adams
Add NBL and NBR $6,641,085 10,600 3,803 14,403 $4,887,558 $1,753,527 $6,641,085 Future 101. Newport NB & Del Mar
Add WBR $144,623 2,934 2,406 5,340 $79,461 $65,161 $144,623 Future 129. Newport NB & 22nd
Add WBT and NBL $16,500 3,332 2,625 5,957 $9,229 $7,271 $16,500 Future 134. Placentia & 19th
Add SBR $424,908 6,409 1,423 7,832 $347,706 $77,202 $424,908 Future 140. Newport Boulevard & 19th Street
Add NBT and free SBR
Future 151. Superior & 17th
Add WBL and NBR $729,152 7,133 2,160 9,293 $559,673 $169,479 $729,152 Future 152. Newport & 17th
Add NBR $489,143 10,202 5,079 15,281 $326,564 $162,578 $489,143 Future 156. Irvine & 17th
Addd SBR and EBR $873,230 3,760 1,777 5,537 $592,982 $280,247 $873,230 $24,704,985 107,543 53,180 160,723 $16,855,702 $7,849,282 $24,704,985 $42,866,313 123,777 62,126 185,903 $28,574,032 $14,292,280 $42,866,313 Traffic Impact Fee Fund Balance $5,657,766
Home Ranch TIF Funds $1,698,450
Subtotal $3,959,316
Local Cost Allocation with above subtracted $24,614,716 Active Transportation Projects $22,922,110
Total Local Share Costs and Active Transportation Projects $47,536,826 227,767
$232
CIP FY
TOTAL
New Costa Mesa Trips Generated at General Plan Buildout Cost Allocation

ROADWAYS
Location Improvement
Estimated
Cost
New Daily Trip Ends
Sub-Total

INTERSECTIONS
Sub-Total
Citywide Fee calculation including ATP projects and 10% reduction in ADT trips Attachment 5
843
Costa Mesa Traffic Impact Fee Update
Roadway and Intersection Improvement Cost Allocation
Local Regional Total Local Regional TotalCIP FY
Cost Allocation
Location Improvement
Estimated
Cost
New Daily Trip Ends

ROADWAY AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS IN GENERAL PLAN AND EXCLUDED FROM TRIP FEE PROGRAM 17th (Orange to Tustin) Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes $16,918,127 17th (Pomona to Bluff) Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes $8,179,215 Bear (I-405 Overcrossing) Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes $5,949,042 Del Mar/University (Elden to Santa Ana) Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes $38,468,265 Wilson (Fairview to College) Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes $16,564,625 Wilson (Newport to Fairview) Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes $2,778,328 Wilson (Harbor to Placentia) Widen from 2 lanes to 4 lanes $28,110,885 140. Newport Boulevard & 19th Street Add NBT and free SBR $26,303,781 TOTAL $143,272,268
844
FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022
Amount of Traffic Impact Fee $235
Beginning Fund Balance July 1, 2021 $5,490,214

1. Revenues
Traffic Impact Fees
$437,943
Investment Earnings 53,938
(197,108)
Revenue Subtotal $294,773

2. Expenditures
$127,222
Percent of project
funded by TIF in
FY 21-22
Newport Boulevard Improvements (19th to 17th) $31,491 FY 21-22 6.7% Adams Avenue Bicycle Facility Project - Design $6,832 FY 21-22 5.2% Bicycle Racks Citywide $8,299 FY 21-22 4.0%
Class II and III Bicycle Projects $12,052 FY 21-22 1.2% Merrimac Way Active Transportation Improvements $16,837 FY 21-22 0.8% Adams at Pinecreek Intersection Improvements $3,831 FY 21-22 0.5% Baker/ Placentia/ 19th/ Victoria TSSP $15,373 FY 21-22 0.7% Randolph Ave Parking and Pedestrian Improvements $25,792 FY 21-22 17.4% West 18th & Wilson Crosswalks $9,325 FY 21-22 2.4%
East 17th St. Landscape Enhancement -$2,611 Adjustment

3. Refunds $0
Amount of funds expended or
uncommitted after 5 years
$0

4. Administrative Costs
$0

5. Fund Balance as of June 30, 2022
$5,657,766

6. Projects Current and Future Appropriations
$3,255,657
Newport Boulevard Improvements (19th to 17th)
Bicycle Racks Citywide
Class II and III Bicycle Projects
Adams at Pinecreek Intersection Improvements
Fairview Traffic Signal Synchronization
Bear Traffic Signal Synchronization
Mesa Del Mar Multimodal Access
Baker/ Placentia/ 19th/ Victoria TSSP
Bicycle/ Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvement
Mesa Drive / Santa Ana Ave Bicycle Facility Improvement Mesa Verde Drive East/ Peterson Place Class II Bicycle Facility Randolph Ave Parking and Pedestrian Improvement
West 18th & Wilson Crosswalks
Fairview Road Improvement Project
GASB 31 Fair Market Value adjustment on Investment

CITY OF COSTA MESA

CITYWIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ACCOUNT
Fund Balance as of June 30, 2022
Attachment 6
845
City of Costa Mesa
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 22-918 Meeting Date: 11/15/2022
TITLE:

APPEAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION 21-07 FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OFF-SITE VALET PARKING ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1645 SUPERIOR AVENUE AND

FOR OUTDOOR SEATING FOR AN EXISTING RESTAURANT (TRENTA PIZZA & CUCINA) LOCATED AT 1661 SUPERIOR AVENUE, SUITE C & D AND ZONING APPLICATION 19-50 (ZA-17-16 A1) FOR A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND THE PREVIOUS

APPROVAL FOR THE RESTAURANT
DEPARTMENT: ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT /

PLANNING DIVISION
PRESENTED BY: JUSTIN ARIOS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
CONTACT INFORMATION: JUSTIN ARIOS, (714) 754-5667
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council uphold the Planning Commission’s decision and:

1. Find that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1), Existing Facilities.

2. Approve Planning Application 21-07 and Zoning Application 19-50 (ZA-17-16 A1), subject to conditions of approval.

APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT:

The applicant and authorized agent is Marco Palazzo (with Trenta Pizza & Cucina), representing the property owner, 126 Properties LLC.

BACKGROUND:

Project Site / Environs
The subject property is located along Superior Avenue, between West 16th Street and West 17th Street. The property is zoned MG (General Industrial), and has a General Plan land use designation of Light Industrial; the subject property is also located within the 19 West Urban Plan. Physical on- site improvements include an 8,446-square-foot single-story, multi-tenant building, with a 25-space parking lot, and two points of ingress/egress located on Superior Avenue. The project site is surrounded by properties with the same zoning designation of MG (General Industrial); however, there are two residential live/work communities (zoned MG, General Industrial) located to the north and west of the project site (“SuperiorPointe”and “WestsideGateway”).Superior Pointe (PA-13-22, 1667 and 1695 Superior Avenue) was developed pursuant to the 19 West Urban Plan and Westside

Page 1 of 8 ends

846
File #: 22-918 Meeting Date: 11/15/2022
1667 and 1695 Superior Avenue) was developed pursuant to the 19 West Urban Plan and Westside Gateway (PA-14-29, 671 West 17th Street) was developed pursuant to the Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan.

Prior Land Use Approvals
On June 22, 2017, the Zoning Administrator approved Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) ZA-17- 16, allowing a proposed restaurant (Superior Pie and Liquor, Suite D) with more than 300 square feet of public seating area to deviate from shared parking requirements applied to a multi-tenant center.

The deviation from shared parking requirements was approved based on offset hours of operation of the restaurant proposed at the time (described below) in relation to the existing hours of operation of the other businesses located on-site. The MCUP also approved a small (250 square foot) outdoor patio for the restaurant, in accordance with Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMMC) Section 13-47 and 13-48. The applicant (Trenta Pizza & Cucina) has since taken over the previously approved restaurant space and its entitlements.

The previously approved hours of operation for the restaurant use are:
· Monday through Friday, 8 AM to 12 PM and 4 PM to 11 PM (the business closed between 12 PM and 4 PM, Monday through Friday); and
· Saturday and Sunday, 8 AM to 11 PM
The staff report for the MCUP approval can be found at the link below:
<https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/26538/636490563866670000> Temporary Use Permit (TUP) for Outdoor Dining Approval
On June 2, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated State regulations limiting indoor activities for restaurants and other uses, the City Council approved Urgency Ordinance No. 2020-15, which temporarily suspended the permit requirements and development standards for outdoor activities, parking applicable to dining patios, places of religious assembly, and valet parking.

The ordinance authorized the issuance of “TemporaryUse Permits”to allow for such uses, subject to certain requirements. On November 1, 2022, the City Council extended the Urgency Ordinance, which will now expire on December 31, 2023.

On November 30, 2020, a Temporary Use Permit (TUP) for outdoor dining was approved for the subject restaurant, in accordance with Ordinance No. 2020-15. Similar to the currently proposed project, the TUP approval allowed for an additional 842 square feet of patio seating area utilizing a portion of the existing parking lot (this area is in addition to the previously approved 250 square foot patio seating). The TUP approval is provided as an attachment to the Planning Commission agenda report.

Page 2 of 8 ends

847
File #: 22-918 Meeting Date: 11/15/2022
Applicant Request
The applicant’s request included the following:

1. To allow the restaurant to occupy Suite C (575 square feet) in addition to the existing restaurant space located in Suite D (1,575 square feet)

2. To permanently allow the use of the temporary outdoor seating area (located on a portion of the site’s parking area) that was approved by the TUP;

3. To modify their previously approved hours of operation (including use of the outdoor seating area) to:
· Sunday - Thursday, 5 PM to 9 PM
· Friday and Saturday, 5 PM to 10 PM; and
· Saturday and Sunday, 11:30 AM to 2:30 PM

4. As a component of the proposal, the restaurant would use only the 250-square-foot outdoor patio previously approved under ZA-17-16, and would not utilize the 842-square-foot patio seating area in the parking lot during the weekend lunchtime hours. The applicant proposes to remove the outdoor seating area when not in use by the restaurant, making three of the existing parking spaces available for use by the other tenants on-site during non-restaurant hours of operation.

Staff evaluated the application submitted and determined that parking onsite was adequate to support the request, with the exception of during the proposed evening hours (after 5 PM). In response, during the evening hours, the applicant proposed valet off-site parking to increase the parking supply for the use during those times to satisfy the parking requirement. The off-site parking is proposed at 1645 Superior Avenue, which is occupied by “BeachCities Car Wash.” The car wash is located approximately 200 feet south of the restaurant location, developed with 39 parking spaces and the car wash operations conclude before 5 PM.

Planning Commission Approval
The application was heard by the Planning Commission at their September 12, 2022 meeting. During the hearing, the applicant requested to add weekday lunchtime hours (from 11:30 AM to 2:30 PM, Monday through Friday) to the proposed project (see the below for restaurant operation hours proposed by the applicant):
· Sunday - Thursday: 11:30 AM to 2:30 PM & 5 PM to 9 PM · Friday & Saturday: 11:30 AM to 2:30 PM & 5 PM to 10 PM Following presentations, public comments and Commission discussion, the Planning Commission deliberated and approved the project as presented at the meeting on a 6-1 vote. As part of Planning Commission’s approval, the Planning Commission added a condition of approval to allow the requested lunchtime operation hours on Mondays through Fridays, from 11:30 AM to 2:30 PM, conditioned upon the submittal of a Parking Management Plan, as approved by the Director of Economic and Development Services, and limiting the outdoor dining area to the originally approved 250-square-foot patio (specifically excluding use of the larger patio area) during those lunchtime hours.

Links to the staff report and meeting video for the September 12, 2022 Planning Commission hearing

Page 3 of 8 ends

848
File #: 22-918 Meeting Date: 11/15/2022
Links to the staff report and meeting video for the September 12, 2022 Planning Commission hearing are provided below:
· Staff Report & Attachments -
City of Costa Mesa - File #: 22-846 (legistar.com)
<https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5821812&GUID=685FE446-33FA- · Video -
PLANNING COMMISSION on 2022-09-12 6:00 PM (granicus.com) <https://costamesa.granicus.com/player/clip/3899?
Appeal of Planning Commission’s Approval
On September 19, 2022 an appeal of Planning Commission’s approval of the project was filed by a neighboring resident. In summary, the application for appeal noted the following topics/areas of concern:
· Parking Shortage;
· Safety Concerns;
· Community/Resident objection;
· Need for Traffic Study; and
· Evening Noise Impacts at the Car Wash Site.

The appeal application is provided as Attachment 2 to this report.

ANALYSIS:

The following analysis summarizes the pertinent topics raised in the September 19, 2022 appeal application. For a full analysis of the proposed project, please refer to the September 12th, 2022 Planning Commission staff report and attachments (previously linked).

Parking Shortage
As described in the appeal application, the appellant states that the Planning Commission “was concerned with safety and parking issues.”In addition, the appellant states that with the utilization of 25% of the existing parking and doubling the restaurant’sarea to over 2,000 SF, the parking shortage at the site would be exacerbated.

The restaurant is located in a multi-tenant industrial center. The applicant provided the current tenant list with hours of operation for the uses that exist on-site, provided below in Table 1 (this table also reflects the proposed hours of operation for Trenta Pizza, as revised at the September 12th Planning Commission meeting). At this time, the applicant has not submitted the required parking management plan for weekday lunchtime operations as conditioned; therefore, although indicated in Table 1, weekday lunchtime operations remain restricted until such a plan is approved by the City.

Page 4 of 8 ends

849
File #: 22-918 Meeting Date: 11/15/2022
Table 1
In accordance with CMMC Table 13-89, when a single-development, multiple-tenant site includes mixed uses that share the same parking spaces, the total requirement for parking is determined by the “City of Costa Mesa Procedure for Determining Shared Parking Requirements.” Based on this shared parking analysis, the total required peak parking demand for the restaurant use (including the enlarged outdoor seating and the additional suite area), and considering the other onsite businesses, is 38 parking spaces.

As indicated in the below Table 2, at peak parking demand (38 parking spaces), the restaurant would operate with 23 surplus parking spaces (including on-site and off-site valet parking); therefore, the proposal complies with City parking requirements. (Operations during weekday lunchtime hours are allowed only after City approval of a Parking Management Plan).

Table 2

Page 5 of 8 ends

850
File #: 22-918 Meeting Date: 11/15/2022
Safety Concerns
The City’sTransportation Division has reviewed the proposed site and valet operation plan and have indicated that the valet operations are anticipated to perform sufficiently, and without interruptions to the City’s local circulation system. Furthermore, the City’s Fire and Building Departments have reviewed the proposal and no safety issues are anticipated.

Community / Resident Objection
The appeal application states that “other residents objected to the proposed Beach Cities parking utilization as overflow car parking with or without valet assistance.” Community objection and/or support for a request is received by the City via written public comments and/or public testimony provided during the public hearing. At the September 12th Planning Commission meeting, the Commission was provided written comments from the public, and verbal public comments were also accepted during the meeting. A link to the previously submitted written comments are provided below under the Public Notice section of this report.

Traffic Study
The appellant indicates that a traffic study needs to be conducted for the project, given the danger presented to traffic on Superior Avenue and the proposed three ingress/egress movements per vehicle, proposed by the valet plan. The City’s Transportation Division has confirmed that the proposed modifications to the existing restaurant operations are anticipated to perform sufficiently, without interruptions to the City’slocal circulation system and does not necessitate a Traffic Study.

Pursuant to the CMMC, a traffic study is required when a project generates more than 100 peak daily trips; the proposed project generates 24 peak daily trips.

Evening Noise Impacts at the Car Wash Site
The appellant notes noise concerns from the proposed usage of the Beach Cities car wash site during evening hours for overflow parking. However, the Planning Commission considered and approved Resolution Condition No.16 which indicates that:
“Valet attendants when entering or leaving the offsite parking location shall not “rev”engines and shall turn-off vehicles as soon as parked. Vehicle radios shall remain off at all times when on the offsite parking property. Valet attendants will also keep their voices low in respect to the adjacent residential properties.”
Additionally, the valet operations are required to comply with the City’sNoise Ordinance provisions.

Lastly, the existing adjacent residential development is located in the industrial zone, and approved via the Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan. The approval for this residential project, as well as other residential projects approved in the Mesa West Bluffs or Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plans, included a standard condition of approval requiring a “Notice to Buyers”. The purpose of the notice is to disclose that the project is located within an area designated as Light Industry in the City’s General Plan and is subject to existing and potential annoyances or inconveniences associated with industrial land uses. In addition, the notice also states that the existing land use characteristics are

Page 6 of 8 ends

851
File #: 22-918 Meeting Date: 11/15/2022
subject to change in the event that new businesses move or existing businesses change ownership.

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. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 for Existing Facilities. This exemption allows for the permitting of uses involving negligible or no expansion of the use beyond what is existing. The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council has the following alternatives:

1. Approve the request. The City Council may adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Planning Commission’sdecision and approve the request as proposed. The Resolution reflects the Planning Commission decisions with two clarifications shown in underline/strikethrough format ;

2. Approve the request with modifications. The City Council may uphold the Planning Commission’s decision and approve the request with specific changes that are necessary to alleviate concerns;

3. Continue the item. The City Council may continue the item to a future meeting to allow for modifications or additional analysis; or

4. Deny the request. If the City Council believes that there are insufficient facts to support the findings for approval, the City Council may deny the request. A similar application could not be submitted for at least six months.

FISCAL REVIEW:

There are no fiscal impacts with this agenda item.

LEGAL REVIEW:

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

PUBLIC NOTICE:

Pursuant to Title 13, Section 13-29(d), of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, three types of public notification have been completed no less than 10 days prior to the date of the public hearing:

1. Mailed notice. A public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the project site. The required notice radius is measured from the external boundaries of the property. (See attached Notification Radius Map.)

2. On-site posting. A public notice was posted on each street frontage of the project site.

Page 7 of 8 ends

852
File #: 22-918 Meeting Date: 11/15/2022

3. Newspaper publication. A public notice was published once in the Daily Pilot newspaper.

As of this report, four written public comments have been received. Any public comments received prior to the November 15, 2022 City Council meeting will be provided separately.

Notice for the Planning Commission hearing was provided in the same manner as described above.

For the Planning Commission hearing, seven written public comments were received both in support and in opposition with the request, and can be found at the links below (the first link provides public comments received prior to the reports being published; the second link provides public comments received after publishing of the report and prior to the September 12th meeting):

Public Comments attached to report -
22-846 - 9. Public Comment (legistar.com) <https://costamesa.legistar.com/View.ashx? M=F&ID=11222065&GUID=D7330501-091E-4861-80B4-782B4084DA10> Public Comments received after publishing report -
View.ashx (legistar.com) <https://costamesa.legistar.com/View.ashx? M=E3&ID=922029&GUID=E44B3DAD-8712-4445-B48D-F06CC6EE4B4B> CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This item is administrative in nature.

CONCLUSION:

Approval of the request will permanently allow outdoor seating for the subject restaurant (Trenta Pizza & Cucina) as well as allow the operation of off-site valet parking at 1645 Superior Avenue for the use of the property at 1661 Superior Avenue. The proposed outdoor patio operations have existed since 2020 by approval of a Temporary Use Permit. Since that time, the outdoor patio was used more than anticipated for normal operations due to pandemic related restrictions on indoor activities; however, the indoor restrictions have been lifted which will allow less reliance on the restaurant’soutdoor dining areas. The project is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Code and 19 West Urban Plan, and with developments in the general neighborhood. In addition, approval of the project will improve parking and circulation conditions for the restaurant by providing professional valet services and increasing the parking supply for the restaurant during hours of operations. Lastly, the off-site valet parking area is available and the car wash is not operating during proposed restaurant offsite parking operations.

Staff recommends the City Council uphold the Planning Commission’s decision and:

1. Find that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1), Existing Facilities.

2. Approve Planning Application 21-07 and Zoning Application 19-50 (ZA 17-16 A1), subject to conditions of approval.

Page 8 of 8 ends

853

Resolution No. 2022-xx Page 1 of 10
ATTACHMENT 1

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COU NCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA,

CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION 21 -07 AND ZONING APPLICATION 19-50 (ZA-17-16 A1) FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO

ALLOW OFF-SITE VALET PARKING AND TO PERMANENTLY ALLOW TEMPORARY

OUTDOOR SEATING FOR AN EXISTING RESTAURANT (TRENTA PIZZA AND

CUCINA) AND A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL FOR THE RESTAURANT (ZA-17-16) IN THE MG ZONE FOR PROPERTY AT 1661 SUPERIOR AVENUE, SUITE C & D

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY FINDS AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, Planning Application 21 -07 and the first amendment to Zoning Application 17-16 was filed by Marco Palazzo (with Trenta Pizza) , authorized agent for the property owner, 126 Properties LLC, requesting approval of the following:

1. Planning Application (Conditional Use Permit) 21-07 to allow off-site parking at 1645 Superior Avenue for the use of the property at 1661 Superior Avenue and a request to permanently allow temporary outdoor seating for the restaurant, and

2. Zoning Application (Minor Condition al Use Permit) 19-50 (ZA -17-16 A1) to amend previously approved minor conditional use permit for the restaurant.

WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on September 12, 2022 with all persons having the opportunity to sp eak for and against the proposal, and the project was approved by the Commission on a 6-1 vote.

WHEREAS, a review of the Planning Commission’s approval of the project was filed on September 19, 2022.

WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on November 15, 2022 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is exempt from t he provisions of CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1), for Existing Facilities.
854

Resolution No. 2022-xx Page 2 of 10
WHEREAS, the CEQA categorical exemption for this project reflects the independent judgement of the City of Costa Mesa.

NOW, THEREFORE, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, and subject to the conditions of approval contained within Exhibit B, the City Council hereby denies the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision and APPROVES Planning Application 21-07 and Zoning Application 19-50 (ZA-17-16 A1).

BE IT RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa City Council does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon the activity as described in the staff report for Planning Application 21-07 and Zoning Application 19-50 (ZA-17-16 A1) and upon applicant’s compliance with each and all of the conditions in Exhibit B, and compliance of all applicable federal, state, and local laws. Any approval granted by this resolution shall be subject to review, modification or revocation if there is a material change that occurs in the operation, or if the applicant fails to comply with any of the conditions of approval.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution, or the document i n the record in support of this resolution, are for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of November, 2022.

_____________________________
John Stephens, Mayor

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

________________________ _____________________________ Brenda Green, City Clerk Kimberly Hall Barlow, City Attorney

855

Resolution No. 2022-xx Page 3 of 10

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss

CITY OF COSTA MESA )

I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2022-___ and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 15th day of November 2022, by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 16th day of November 2022.

_________________________________

BRENDA GREEN, CITY CLERK

856

Resolution No. 2022-xx Page 4 of 10

EXHIBIT A

FINDINGS

A. The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(2) because:

Finding: The proposed use is substantially compatible with developments in the same general area and would not be materially detrimental to other properties within the area.

Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed project includes the permanent approval of an existing temporary outdoor seating area that is currently operating without impacts to neighboring properties. The applicant proposes to remove the outdoor seating area when not in use by the resta urant, making all 25 on -site parking spaces available for use by the other tenants on -site. The proposed outdoor patio is currently operating without affecting other properties in the area and therefore the permanent approval of the outdoor seating is not anticipated to result in impacts to surrounding properties. Lastly, as proposed, the site will be in conformance with Code required parking requirements for the restaurant and maintain a surplus of customer parking.

Finding: Granting the 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.

Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed restaurant project would not generate adverse noise or traffic impacts that are unusual for this zoning designation. Condition of approval number six requires the operation to be conducted in a manner that would allow for the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. Furthermore, the project has been conditioned (Condition of Approval No. 7) so that if parking problems arise, the restaurant shall institute appropriate operational measures necessary to minimize or eliminate the problem. Compliance with the applicable Building, Fire Safety and Health Codes will also ensure that the project is not materially detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public or otherwise injurious to property or improvements within the immediate neighborhood.

Finding: Granting the 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.

Facts in Support of Finding: Granting the 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. In accordance with CMMC Section 13 -93(m) and Section 13 -96, off-site parking and valet parking may be authorized with approval of a conditional use permit and as proposed with 857

Resolution No. 2022-xx Page 5 of 10
the off -site and valet parking, the use would maintain a parking surplus. In addition, the existing restaurant is a complementary use to the area, including the adjacent residential uses, and as conditioned, the restaurant does not generate noise or parking impacts unusual for an industrially -zoned property, and the current operations (which are essentially the same as proposed) do not adversely impact the surrounding uses. Lastly, the proposed project is consistent with applicable policies and objectives of the 2015 -2035 General Plan as described below.

1. Policy LU-1.1: Provide for the development of a mix and balance of housing opportunities, commercial goods and services, and employment opportunities in consideration of the needs of the business and residential segments of the community.

Consistency: The proposed project upholds the balance of land uses satisfying the needs of the community as it pertains to commercial goods and services , and employment opportunities by providing for outdoor dining restaurant options.

2. Policy LU-6.7: Encourage new and retain existing businesses that provide local shopping and services.

Consistency: The proposed project would allow for the retention of an existing restaurant within the City, thus encouraging the long -term productivity and viability of the community’s economic base. The proposed project would expand an existing successful local land use, which contributes to the City’s tax base and ultimately preserves the City’s long- term fiscal health.

3. Policy LU-6.19: Provide flexibility and support for development of residential, office, small retail centers, and similar uses that would serve local residents and would also benefit from the high visibility along major corridors outside of significant commercial or industrial nodes.

Consistency: Approval of the project would provide permanent restaurant outdoor seating that is currently being conducted under an approved TUP.

In addition, the applicant proposes to remove the outdoor seating area when not in use by the restaurant, making the parking spaces (used to accommodate the outdoor dining area) available for use by the other tenants on-site. Lastly, the proposed restaurant satisfies Land Use Policy LU-1.1 because it provides an outdoor dining experience that signals economic vitality on one of the City’s commercial corridors.

B. Finding: The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of 858

Resolution No. 2022-xx Page 6 of 10
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301 for Existing Facilities. This exemption allows for the alteration and permitting involving negligible or no expansion of an existing use. The proposed project involves approval of a restaurant outdoor seating that is already operating under a temporary use permit and is in current operation and therefore complies with the CEQA Exemption. The project is also consistent with the applicable General Plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.

C. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3 Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code.

859

Resolution No. 2022-xx Page 7 of 10

EXHIBIT B

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Plng. 1. The use shall be limited to the type of operation described in this staff report: a restaurant use with offsite valet parking and an outdoor seating patio, and change in restaurant operation hours . Any change in the operational characteristics shall be subject to Planning Division review and may require an amendment to the conditional use permit, subject to either Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission approval, depending on the nature of the proposed change. The applicant is reminded that Code allows the Planning Commission to modify or revoke any planning application based on find ings related to public nuisance and/or noncompliance with conditions of approval [Title 13, Section 13-29(o)].

2. The conditions of approval, code requirements, and special district requirements of PA-21-07 & ZA-17-16 A1 shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package.

3. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers and employees from any claim, legal action, or proceeding (collectively referred to as "proceeding") brought against the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers and/or employees arising out of, or which are in any way related to, the applicant’s project, or any approvals granted by City related to the applicant’s project.

The indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorney's fees, and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the applicant, the City and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. This indemnity provision shall include the applicant's obligation to indemnify the City for all the City's costs, fees, and damages that the City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this section. City shall have the right to choose its own legal counsel to represent the City’s interests, and applicant shall indemnify City for all such costs incurred by the City.

4. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to arrange a Planning inspection of the site prior to the release of occupancy/utilities. This inspection is to confirm that the conditions of approval and code requirements have been satisfied.

5. A copy of the conditions of approval for the conditional use permit must be kept on premises and present ed to any authorized City official upon request. New business/property owners shall be notified of conditions of approval upon transfer of business or ownership of land.

6. The business shall be conducted, at all times, in a manner that will allow the quiet enjoyment o f the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant and/or business owner shall institute whatever security and operational measures that are necessary to comply with this requirement. 860

Resolution No. 2022-xx Page 8 of 10

7. If parking problems arise, the restaurant shall institute appropriate operational measures necessary to m inimize or eliminate the problem including, but not limited to, reducing the operating hours of the business and/or obtaining an entitlement for additional off-site or valet parking.

8. All dining areas shall observe State and local health guidelines for restaurants.

9. Any service of alcoholic beverages in outdoor seating areas is subject to approval by the ABC.

10. The p atio shall be posted with a contact phone number so any noise concerns can be reported to the business owner or her/his representative.

11. Any canopies or tents (with or without heaters) will require Fire and Building Department approval prior to installation.

12. The applicant shall maintain a parking agreement that secures offsite parking as described in the report. Should the agreement for off -site parking provided at 1645 Superior be terminated, the applicant must notify the Director of Economic and Development Services in writing at least 30 days prior to termination and modify operations appropriately (including but not limited to rem oval of outdoor seating), or secure other equivalent offsite parking to address parking requirements. Any changes to the off - site parking location or valet service may require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit.

13. The restaurant shall operate the valet service and provide the available parking as described in the report. A minimum of three valet attendants shall be utilized.

14. The restaurant hours of operation, including the outdoor seating area, are Sunday through Thursday, 5 PM to 9 PM and Frida y and Saturday, 5 PM to 10 PM. The restaurant may also be open during lunchtime hours (11:30 AM to 2:30 PM), seven days a week; however, during this time outdoor seating is limited to the 250 -square-foot outdoor seating patio area noted on the approved plans and shall not include use of the expanded outdoor seating area located within the parking lot. Weekday lunchtime hours of operation are also specifically limited pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 17.

15. When not in operation, the outdoor seating a rea shall be removed to provide for sufficient parking for the other onsite tenants, pursuant to the CMMC.

16. Valet attendants when entering or leaving the offsite parking location shall not “rev” engines and shall turn -off vehicles as soon as parked. Vehicle radios shall remain off at all times when on the offsite parking property.

Valet attendants will also keep their voices low in respect to the adjacent residential properties.

PC 17. Prior to implementation of weekday lunchtime hours (11:30 AM to 2:30 PM), a Parking Management Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Director of Economic and Development Services.

CODE REQUIREMENTS
861

Resolution No. 2022-xx Page 9 of 10

The following list of federal, state and local laws applicable to the project has been compiled by staff for the applicant’s reference. Any reference to “City” pertains to the City of Costa Mesa.

Plng. 1. Approval of the planning/zoning application is valid for two (2) years from the effective date of this approval and will expire at the end of that period unless applicant establishes the use by one of the following actions: 1) a building permit has been issued and construction has commenced, and a valid building permit has been maintained by making satisfactory progress as determined by the Building Official; 2) a certificate of occupancy has been issued; or 3) the use has been established and a business license has been issued. A time extension can be requested no less than thirty (30) days or more than sixty (60) days before the expiration date of the permit and submitted with the appropriate fee for review to the Planning Division.

The Director of Development Services may extend the time for an approved permit or approval to be exercised up to 180 days subject to specific findings listed in Title 13, Section 13-29 (k) (6). Only one request for an extension of 180 days may be approved by the Director. Any subsequent extension requests shall be considered by the original approval authority.

2. Permits shall be obtained for all signs according to the provisions of the Costa Mesa Sign Ordinance.

3. Development shall comply with all requirements of Articles 5 and 9, Chapter V, Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code relating to industrial development standards.

4. Parking stalls on both projects site locations (1661/1663 Superior Ave. & 1645 Superior Ave.) shall be double -striped in accordance with City standards.

5. Any mechanical equipment such as air -conditioning equipment and duct work shall be screened from view in a manner approved by the Planning Division.

Bldg. 6. Comply with the requirements of the following adopted codes: 2019 California Building Code, 2019 California Electrical Code, 2019 California Mechanical Code, 2019 California Plumbing Code, 2019 California Green Building Standards Code and 2019 California Energy Code (or the applicable adopted, California Building Code, California Electri cal Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Green Building Standards and California Energy Code at the time of plan submittal or permit issuance) and California Code of Regulations also known as the California Building Standards Code, as amended by the City of Costa Mesa. Requirements for accessibility to sites, facilities, buildings and elements by individuals with disability shall comply with chapter 11B of the 2019 California Building Code.

7. Prior to issuing the Building permit the conditions of approval shall be on the approved Architectural plans.
862

Resolution No. 2022-xx Page 10 of 10

8. A change of occupancy shall require compliance with the Disabled access requirements of chapter 11B of the 2019 California Building Code.

SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS

The requirements of the following special districts are hereby forwarded to the applicant:

AQMD 1. Prior to the Building Div. (AQMD) issuing a demolition permit contact South Coast Air Quality Management District located at:
21865 Copley Dr.

Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178
Tel: 909- 396-2000
Or
Visit their web site
http://www.costamesaca.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid =23381
The Building Div ision will not issue a demolition permit until an Identification number is provided by AQMD.

2. Applicants shall contact the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) at 1- (800) 288-7664 for potential additional conditions of development or for additional permits required by AQMD
County 3. Provide a plan to the County of Orange Health Department for review and approval.

863
ATTACHMENT 2
11 864
ATTACHMENT 3
12 865
13 866
14 867
15 868
16 869
17 870
18 871
19 872
20 873
21 874
1661 SUPERIOR AVENUE (PA-21-07 & ZA-17-16 A1)

EXISTING SITE PHOTOS
1 ATTACHMENT 4
22 875
1645 SUPERIOR AVENUE (PA-21-07 & ZA-17-16 A1)

EXISTING SITE PHOTOS
23 876

LOCATION OF VALET

STATION/ KEY CABINET
13'
TURN

CLEARANCE
ENTRY
EXIT
DROP
OFF
AREA
PICKUP
AREA
ATTACHMENT 5
24 877
Alpha professional corp
7850 Slater ave spc 110
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
(714) 679 0028
Valet
operation plan document
• Net increase in parking with valet implemented is 39 parking spaces • Loading area is located on the restaurant property west side of the parking lot. Valet is indicated with cones, sings and podium.
• Unloading area is located on the restaurant property south of the parking lot and additional unloading are located at 1645 Superior eve Costa Mesa, CA, 92627.
• Valet staffing is provided by Alpha Professional Corp. • Our team consists of three individuals for the weekdays and four for the weekend
• Luis A Espinoza
• Neftali Torres Falafan
• Luis Manuel Torres
• Juan Perez
• Hours of operation
• Monday – Sunday from 5:00pm – 10:00pm
25 878
1 ' I
I I
i
i
I1
I
i
I I
I

SHOP / WAREHOUSE
II It II
I
I
i i i ri TOILET BA, !
I I I 1
I I 1
I 11 1
II I

WORKROOM
II
j
II
II i
II i
I II
I, I
I II 11 I
I II
II I
I II
II I
IP I
I 11 II I
i I 11 I

P) ONE HOUR
OCCUPANCY It
itSEPARATION II 1
1 II a
ii
it II
itII
fl
li II 11
II II
11 I I _
OFFICE !. i f i

I II II
I it II
il i1 II
it II
II II
I it II
1 11
11 I 1, I1
I
I II 11
I II I1
I
II
OFFICE I I I !
I I
I 11

STORAGE
i
II
fl I 00 I
II I I
II
I I
II GAR WA5HING AREA
I II I
ol
F1

I II I I
I
I I
I I
II
II
ll
II
I II
1 s
I
I
Z

SHOP / WAREHOUSE
5-05 OCCUPANCY
iI
1I
I
II ! I
1I
11 I1
II
II
II
I
I , I
I 1

I , I , I , I ,
1 2 1
w ONE HOUR
1 I OGCUPANGY
1 SEPARATION

PROVIDE EXIT SIP

ABOVE EACH EXIT
11LiIIu

OFFICE EI EG OFFICE
II1111II
REFLA 1!

FRONT EL
CONTRACTOR. TOINSTALIi.i
PROVIDE EXIT 916N A" EACH EXIT
I
OFFIG! SPACE

B OOCUPANGY
tl 2

CONTRACTOR SHALL PROYEGT IN PLACE THE
EXISTING4 X 4 SUPPORTIfL%1 WITHCONT. 4 X 10—

HEADER ABOVE WHEN VING AND REPLACING
THE STOREFRONT WINDO .
19IIIIIIIIIIIIIi
e
IIIIII11IIII IIIIII
I II
PROVIDE EXIT 504
I I

ABOVE EACH EXIT I I OFFICE

REQUIRED EXIT DOOR I I

TO SWING OUTWARD
I1itIIIIu
I
D -I
I
i
J
OM
A2HECK
OIO-GO44

POINLANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION

BY OTHERS,

NEW CONCRETE PATHWAY TO ADA ( JJ
4 EXI5TTNGCONCRETECURBAND GUTTER
1 RAMP TO SUITE ENTRANCE. C!"

TO REMAIN,
I

WALKS AND SIDEWALKS SHALL HAVE
ExIsTTNG T'- 6" WIDE CONCRETE PUBLIC
LJL
5% MAX. SLOPE WITH A 2. 06% MAX..

RIGHT OF AWAY TO REMAIN.

II II
r

PROFERT' LINES - TYPICAL
I
a
w
I
If
PROVIDE A 56' WIDE CONTINUOUS O
Lnu

DETECTABLE WARNING AT THE
1L
OUNDRYAREABETWEENTHEWALKWAY.

WEN CONCRETE STEPS, LANDING AND
W
AULAR ju
ADA ACCESS RAMP TO NEW SUITE ENTRY.

DETECTABLE WARNING PRODUCTS
I
1 PROPOSED PLOOR. PLA45
PATIN 01/ 20/ 2004
WALE 1
I1II1
QM NO. 2009- 99
SNST
Awl
FSB
I
I4
AND IRRIGATION1 I
HAVINGAS1RFACETEXTUREOFRAISEDIL
GT4APING
I
D -I
I
i
J

DRIVEWAY APPROACH TO REMAIN
NEW 4'- 6' WIDE ACCESS AISLE FROM ADA

PARKINS AREA TO THE NEW ADA ENTRANCE
TO THE EXISTING SUILOIN6.

STRIPES SHALL BE 4° WIDE AND PAINTED
BLUE.
5 5
D- 1 v- 1
Q
I

PROVIDE A K EEELSTOP AT THIS LOCATION

TO PREVENT ENCROACHMENTINTO REQUIRED

ACCESSIBLE WALKWAY
I
ti
I o
TTOTAL PARKINS SPACES ( 96) ,
TOTALDISABLEDACCESSIBLESPACES (2)
fi' ROP06r= D r -LOO Z
iw
N.

RevlsloTa Bti
1I7 23 K OM
A2HECK
OIO-GO44Ri

NEW CONCRETE PATHWAYTO ADA ( JJ
4 W I e
RAMP TO SUITE ENTRANCE. C!"
II

WALKSAND SIDEWALKSSHALL HAVE
Lu O
LJL
5% MAX. SLOPE WITHA 2. 06% MAX..
r
GROSS SLOPE. ( OBC 11595: 1.15 AND
a
w
11595. 7.5)
PROVIDEA 56' WIDE CONTINUOUS O
Lnu

DETECTABLE WARNINGAT THE
1L
OUNDRYAREABETWEEN THE WALKWAY.
tlW
AULAR juDETECTABLE WARNING PRODUCTS
5HQ' Y nTLE °
PROPOSEDPLOOR. PLA45
PATIN 01/ 20/ 2004
WALE1

SHALL BE DSNAG APPROVED,
QM NO. 2009- 99
SNST
Awl
FSBaFqw

DETECTABLE WARNING SHALL CONSIST

OF A DURABLE SLIP- RESISANT MATERIAL
HAVINGAS1RFACETEXTUREOF RAISEDILTRUNCATED DOMES IN A 5TA66ERED PATTERNWITHOA' DIA. BASETAPERINGO0. 45' DIA. AT TOP WITH A 02" HST.

AND SPACED AT 2.55" O.G.
77TO
GBG
IPACE
5)
T
PROVIDE A IT" X 22' MIN. 516N POSTED AT

EACH ENTRANCE TO OFF- STREET PARKING
SEE. DETAIL 6A;' - I
lu
V

DRIVEWAY APPROACHTO REMAIN
NEW4'- 6' WIDE ACCESS AISLE FROM ADA

PARKINS AREATO THE NEW ADA ENTRANCE
TO THE EXISTING SUILOIN6.

STRIPESSHALL BE4° WIDEAND PAINTED
BLUE.
5 5
D- 1 v- 1
Q
I

PROVIDEA K EEELSTOPAT THIS LOCATION

TO PREVENT ENCROACHMENTINTO REQUIRED

ACCESSIBLE WALKWAY
I
ti
I o
TTOTAL PARKINS SPACES (96) ,
TOTAL DISABLED ACCESSIBLESPACES (2)
fi' ROP06r=D r - LOOZ
iw
N.

RevlsloTa Bti
1I7 23 K OM
A2HECK
OIO-GO44 Ri
5 4
F
N
J N
NN
CC oVQ
Lu
V k) FL
m flu
W wvgmti.

W ZQam0)
2 ZNNf
Q zmp rteQ06
Q ' d' Z b- T
S.

OO: tNOR, AlO M 1aCIV . VO
OL916N41NCOPPORAr® 1! N!• IN, N4 AN
is10"' a+ r oP sraT_ Icrw: vvx,
iK rxarean eP nA..® ewe
ATO lL, I
I
C
9 ran ANf onaa vla. ecr wrvour n2
wuraN wmoluzAnax oP wy fres
oaeueslrt n xorro Q omlame®
At0/ glllODlrl® IN ANY WAr, NOR
sNAu ANr mncatbnrnl cr rxn
oaa.+ ort st: roolrl® wTxart ne
rwoa wurteN caresxr a qu
Txls oattexxr xAs vleviavm ro
rexwx svorosm 16V rase, vaD
aOCS NOT1G 59 Lr FVPGtf1T
A} CLT OI[ N6 Cpmnldn. Tf!
D! l101E0. OOCOxaT wVWM/ 1, M ANY
YNY. 1N: ALONeAGY OP TW9 NMIIM
AnaN A10 ! SIIAI.L NOTGG pti MltllR!
rox ANr oncwAlrr selvlal rN s
ooew: Nr Axo G+YsnNa eoNemoxe.

W I e
II
Lu O
LJL
r
V
a
w
r
Lnu
tlW
V
5HQ'Y nTLE °
PROPOSED PLOOR. PLA45
PATIN 01/ 20/2004
WALE 1 1/6" • 1' -0 -
QM NO. 2009- 99
SNST
Awl
FSB aF qw
rZ-A- 05- 0012
FW ltf, ffltr& Kcw * 00v
A 4y
Q
tw
P,
t
26 879

ARIOS, JUSTIN
From: ARIOS, JUSTIN
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 8:20 AM
To: ARIOS, JUSTIN
Subject: FW: I support Trenta Expansion
From: Eric Eisenberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 11:41 AM
To: DRAPKIN, SCOTT <[email protected]>
Subject: I support Trenta Expansion
Hi Scott,
My name is Eric Eisenberg and I am an owner and investor in 17 West in Costa Mesa. My wife and I own three units in the project and we are in full support of Trenta expanding.

My neighbor reached out to me as he is leading an operation to block Trenta from parking at a car wash next to our community as he is citing potential crime? That seems like a pretty ridiculous case to make against a small business and neighborhood gem looking to expand.

Chris was a huge supporter of Trenta when it first opened and would constantly recommend it to me and others. There is something that happened personally between him and the owner that has caused him to want to hurt the owner's business. He has had issues with other residents at 17 West although I personally get along well with him.

I don't agree with letting personal vendettas come in the way of small businesses and feel as Costa Mesa should do anything we can as a community to support small businesses.

Thank you for taking the time to read.
--
Kind Regards,
Eric D. Eisenberg |
_______________________________________________________________________ Cell: 516.851.8997|
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.

ATTACHMENT 6
27 880
28 881
29 882
30 883
31 884
32 885
City of Costa Mesa
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 22-946 Meeting Date: 11/15/2022
TITLE:

APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 21-01 FOR THE CITY OF COSTA MESA 2021- 2029 (SIXTH CYCLE) HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE (AS REVISED), AND ADOPTION OF A

RESOLUTION TO OVERRULE THE INCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION MADE BY THE

AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY FOR THE CITY OF COSTA MESA’S 2021-2029 SIXTH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
DEPARTMENT: ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT / PLANNING

DIVISION
PRESENTED BY: JENNIFER LE, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CONTACT INFORMATION: JENNIFER LE, (714) 754-5270
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Find that potentially significant effects on the environment have been adequately analyzed in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration previously adopted on February 1, 2022 for the 2021-2029 (Sixth Cycle) Housing Element pursuant to State law, and find that none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 exist; therefore, no further action is required to comply with CEQA.

2. Approve Resolution No. 2022-XX to Overrule the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission’sMarch 17, 2022 Determination that Costa Mesa’s2021-2029 (Sixth Cycle) Housing Element is inconsistent with the John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan.

3. Approve Resolution No. 2022-XX to approve the City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 (Sixth Cycle) Housing Element (General Plan Amendment 21-01), as revised.

4. Direct the City Manager or designee to submit the adopted Housing Element to the State for certification, and authorize the City Manager or designee to make minor revisions to the adopted Housing Element as necessary to obtain State certification.

BACKGROUND:

The Housing Element is a chapter of the City’sGeneral Plan and is required by the State to be updated every eight years. It provides an analysis of the City’sdemographic, economic, and housing characteristics, identifies community housing needs, and establishes objectives, policies, and programs to meet those needs. To remain in compliance with State Housing Law, the City’sHousing Element must respond to various State laws and requirements and must be adopted by City Council

Page 1 of 14 ends

886
File #: 22-946 Meeting Date: 11/15/2022
and certified by California State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Allocation
As required by State Housing law, the State prepared a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), and in conjunction with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), allocated 11,760 housing units to the City as the City’s “fair share” of regional housing needs.

Pursuant to the RHNA, the City is required by the State to plan and zone property to facilitate housing production that meets the City’sRHNA allocation, including 2,919 “very low” income units, 1,794 “low”income units, 2,088 “moderate”income units and 4,959 “abovemoderate”income units.

Refer to Table 1. The City is not required to build the aforementioned housing units; however, the City is obligated to update the Housing Element to support housing development through land use related goals, policies, and programs, and submit annual reports to the State as to the City’sprogress and implementation.

Public Review Drafts and Planning Commission Recommendation Following a series of community outreach meetings including townhalls, an online community survey, and study sessions, staff and its expert consultant (Kimley-Horn) prepared an initial draft of the Housing Element Update. The draft Housing Element was made available for public comment in August 2021 and was subsequently discussed at a joint Planning Commission and City Council study session in September 2021. The Draft Housing Element update was submitted to HCD in October 2021, and incorporated City Council, Planning Commission and public comments. HCD comments on the City’s draft were received in December 2021.

Subsequently, the Planning Commission reviewed the Draft Housing Element and received public comments at its November 8, 2021, November 22, 2021 and December 13, 2021 public hearings.

The Planning Commission discussed the proposed revisions addressing HCD comments, and ultimately recommended approval by a 6-1 vote.

Page 2 of 14 ends

887
File #: 22-946 Meeting Date: 11/15/2022
Information regarding the Housing Element Update process is accessible on the City’s website at:
<https://www.costamesaca.gov/city-hall/city-departments/development-services/planning/housing- element-update>
City Council Adopted Housing Element - February 1, 2022 Following a preliminary review of the Draft Housing Element at its January 18, 2022 public hearing, the City Council approved and adopted the 2021-2029 (Sixth Cycle) Housing Element (General Plan Amendment 21-01), and the associated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) on February 1, 2022 by a 6-1 vote.

The staff report focused on responding to State HCD’s December 2021 comment letter and recommended adoption of the Housing Element and its submittal to the State for certification prior to the February 11, 2022 statutory deadline. The staff report stated “if HCD requires additional corrections, staff will bring the Housing Element to the Council for an update at that time.” At the meeting, staff also acknowledged a comment letter received from the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and indicated that it would continue its work with the ALUC while the Housing Element was being reviewed by State. Staff submitted the adopted Housing Element to the State on February 5, 2022.

January 18, 2022 and February 1, 2022 City Council Reports:
<https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5384364&GUID=2517E4A6-107E-496C- 84D3-24D70098F31F>
<https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5394490&GUID=F1DADF56-728F-4C7A- 9E6E-70CEF2F0EC46&Options=&Search>=
City Council Approval of the Notice of Intent to Override the ALUC’s Consistency Determination - April 5, 2022
When a jurisdiction proposes a General Plan amendment within the “planningboundary”established by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), State law requires the ALUC to make a determination as to whether the proposed land use change is consistent with the applicable Airport Environs Land Use Plan. The ALUC serves as a “limited advisory body” and may make a determination as to consistency but the Costa Mesa City Council has the final authority to make land use decisions in the City.

On March 17, 2022, the ALUC considered the City’s2021-2029 6th Cycle Housing Element. After receiving the ALUC staff presentation and a follow up presentation by City staff, the ALUC determined that the City’s Housing Element update is inconsistent with the John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) by a vote of 4-0. Additional information regarding the ALUC March 17, 2022 meeting is available online at:
<https://www.ocair.com/about/administration/airport-governance/commissions/airport-land-use- commission/march-17-2022/>
Pursuant to Public Utilities 21676(b), the City may, after a public hearing, propose to overrule the

Page 3 of 14 ends

888
File #: 22-946 Meeting Date: 11/15/2022
Pursuant to Public Utilities 21676(b), the City may, after a public hearing, propose to overrule the ALUC’sdetermination by a two-thirds vote of the City Council. Overruling an ALUC inconsistency decision requires two public hearings: one hearing for the City Council determination to notify ALUC of its intention to overrule the ALUC decision, and a second hearing for the City Council to include on the public record any ALUC and/or Caltrans Division of Aeronautics comments, and to adopt the findings to overrule ALUC’s determination.

On April 5, 2022, the City Council reviewed a detailed staff analysis of the ALUC determination as well as the required findings necessary to overrule ALUC’s inconsistency determination and unanimously adopted Resolution No. 2022-19. This Resolution included the justifications for finding that the 2021-2029 Sixth Cycle Housing Element is consistent with the AELUP pursuant to Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21670, and direction to staff to notify the ALUC of the City’sintent to “overrule” ALUC’s determination.

April 5, 2022 City Council Report:
<https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5542239&GUID=99E91626-EFB3-4F8C- 9A0F-64160C54C4B7>
Pursuant to Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21676, on April 11, 2022, the City Council Resolution was forwarded to both the ALUC and the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. Subsequently, both agencies provided comment letters (provided as an Attachment 5 to this report) which are hereby included in the public record of the City Council’s final decision to overrule the commission.

As discussed in the Analysis section of this report, staff recommends that the City Council hold the second public hearing required as part of the ALUC “overrule”process, and adopt a Resolution to override the ALUC’s inconsistency determination.

HCD Comment Letter - April 5, 2022
Following the submittal of the adopted Housing Element in February 2022, HCD provided an additional comment letter dated April 5, 2022. The letter outlined additional State comments and requested updates to certain sections of the adopted Housing Element. HCD’sApril 5th letter is attached to this report as Attachment 4. As noted in HCD’sletter, the City’sadopted 2021-2029 Sixth Cycle Housing Element addressed many of the State’sstatutory requirements. However, additional supporting information, data and updated implementing programs were requested in order to obtain Housing Element certification.

Since receiving HCD’s comment letter, staff have worked with the City’s expert consultant to complete the additional analyses and revisions and have also had several discussions with HCD staff in order to craft a revised Housing Element that the State will certify.

ANALYSIS:

The Analysis section of this report focuses on proposed revisions made to key sections of the adopted Housing Element to respond to the April 2022 HCD comments. It also provides a summary discussion of the required findings necessary to override ALUC’s previous inconsistency determination.

Page 4 of 14 ends

889
File #: 22-946 Meeting Date: 11/15/2022
Proposed Revisions to the Adopted Housing Element
In response to HCD’s April 2022 comment letter (Attachment 4), the 2021-2029 (Sixth Cycle) Housing Element was revised to provide additional supporting data, analysis, and clarifications regarding Housing Needs, Resources and Constraints, and new and modified Housing Programs.

The revisions to the Housing Element in response to HCD comments do not modify the City’s fundamental approach to planning for future housing. The City’s Housing Element continues to propose to meet its RHNA allocation through a combination of 1) incremental growth in established single family residential neighborhoods through, for example, accessory dwelling units; and 2) rezoning of sites within and around existing Specific Plan, Urban Plan and residential overlay areas to accommodate the additional housing units necessary to meet the City’sRHNA allocation. None of the corridors, housing opportunity sites, or anticipated densities cited in the previously-adopted Housing Element have been modified.

Rather, HCD comments and the proposed revisions focus on providing additional information justifying the City’s approach, and providing modified and new housing “programs” specifically requested by the State. In addition, the timing for completion of certain Housing Element programs has been modified and “objectives”were added to each program to further clarify intended outcomes (refer to Housing Element Chapter 4, Housing Programs).

The below discussion highlights key revisions. The proposed revisions to the Housing Element in their entirety are provided in underline/strikethrough format as Attachment 1 to this report. The proposed revisions were made available to the public online on the City’swebsite on November 8, 2022.
· HCD requested additional analysis and expanded programs related to Extremely Low Income (ELI) Households and “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” (AFFH) Proposed Housing Element Modification: HCD requested that the analysis for “Affirmatively further [ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2… shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction.” The revised Housing Element includes additional information regarding the City’scapacity to address housing complaints, services provided to the community through the Fair Housing Foundation, concentrations of persons with disabilities and available resources, additional analysis regarding lower income areas and affordability, displacement risk, local knowledge of areas with substandard housing conditions and the estimated need for housing rehabilitation efforts. This information is added throughout Chapters 2 (Community Profile) and 3 (Resources and Constraints) of the Housing Element and also resulted in modified Housing Element Programs 2L (Development of Housing for Extremely Low and Lower - Income Households), 4A (Fair Housing) and 4I (Partnerships with Local Organizations and Community Groups for high poverty census tracts).
· HCD requested additional information regarding development trends and housing opportunity sites and new programs pertaining to small and large housing sites Proposed Housing Element Modification: HCD requested additional information and analysis regarding: 1) redevelopment trends for already- developed properties in Costa Mesa that are similar to identified housing opportunity sites; 2) small (less than an acre) and large (more than 10 acres) housing opportunity sites; and 3) information regarding environmental constraints that could affect

Page 5 of 14 ends

890
File #: 22-946 Meeting Date: 11/15/2022
housing opportunity sites; and 3) information regarding environmental constraints that could affect housing opportunity sites. In response, a market analysis and development trend analysis was included in Housing Element Appendix B (Adequate Sites Analysis). In addition, specific findings related to such development trends have been included in the attached Resolution for Housing Element adoption. Additional information regarding small and large housing sites was also added and Program 3Q (Lot Consolidation for small sites) and 3R (Large Sites), summarized below, were also added. Lastly, staff added additional details regarding hazardous materials sites located in Costa Mesa’s industrial areas.
o Program 3Q: Lot Consolidation
§ For smaller housing sites, this program commits the City to streamline processes and establish incentives for lot consolidation, publish this information online, monitor the effectiveness, and adjust such incentives as needed. o Program 3R: Development of Large Sites
§ This program commits the City to evaluating the development status of the five “large” housing opportunity sites identified within the Housing Element and to identify additional housing sites if no development progress is made for each of the five sites. The program will include outreach and promoting housing development. · HCD requested the City reduce its ADU construction estimates and expand ADU programs
Proposed Housing Element Modification: HCD requested the City reduce its ADU construction estimate to 40 to 50 units per year. Staff included information that shows the number of ADU’s approved in 2022 already exceed the State’s annual estimate, adjusted the projected number of ADU’sbuilt per year from 70 ADUs to 50 ADUs, and modified Program 3E and Program 3M related to promoting ADU’s and monitoring ADU production throughout the planning period. o Program 3E: Promote the Development of ADU’s
§ This program was modified to include a commitment to review and revise the City’sADU Ordinance as necessary to comply with State law. The revisions to the ADU Ordinance identified by the State were already reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its October 24, 2022 public meeting. o Program 3M: ADU and JADU Monitoring Program
§ This program commits the City to monitor ADU production and affordability and make adjustments (e.g., provide additional incentives) if there is a shortfall in ADU construction.
· HCD requested additional analysis and programs regarding the City’s Code required “findings” for residential projects
Proposed Housing Element Modification: Staff evaluated the City’s findings for discretionary approvals that may apply to housing projects (such as a Master Plan, Design Review etc.) and determined that the findings do not adversely affect housing opportunities due to, for example, the denial of projects based on the strict interpretation of the findings’language. Nonetheless, some of the language used in findings may be interpreted broadly and could be modified for clarity. As such, new Program 3S was added.

Page 6 of 14 ends

891
File #: 22-946 Meeting Date: 11/15/2022
o Program 3S: Review and Revise Findings
§ For housing development land use entitlements that require findings pursuant to the Zoning Code, this program commits the City to review and revise findings language that is capable of being interpreted broadly, with the goal of improving housing cost, supply, timing of approvals, or approval certainty. · HCD requested additional information regarding Emergency Shelters and programs regarding Permanent Supportive Housing
Proposed Housing Element Modification: Staff added additional information clarifying that emergency shelters are already allowed by right in the Planned Development Industrial (PDI) zone and provided additional data regarding hazards and available parcels in this zone. In response to State comments, Program 2J was also added. This program commits the City to modifying its Zoning Code to include “transitional and supportive housing” in its land use matrix and to allow such uses in a manner that complies with State law.
· HCD requested additional information and programs regarding the City’s Reasonable Accommodation procedures, the definition of Single Housekeeping Unit, and Group Home regulations
Proposed Housing Element Modification: In response to State comments, staff included additional information, modified Program 2N, and added Programs 2O and 2P as shown below. o Program 2N: Reasonable Accommodation
“TheCity has completed an analysis of its Reasonable Accommodation process in Section 3 of this Housing Element. By the nature of Reasonable Accommodation requests and the range of potential modifications that could need to be accommodated, the City has to evaluate each request individually. This process is described within the City’sZoning Code and persons may contact the City’splanning department for assistance with requests. The City will review and consider revisions to its Reasonable Accommodation process to be consistent with State and federal fair housing requirements.

Objectives:
· Review and revise the Reasonable Accommodation procedure to promote access to housing for persons with disabilities, address potential constraints and establish potential objective standards, and provide guidance and amend as necessary to promote greater certainty on how approval findings will be implemented. · Meet with local organizations and developers to promote access to housing for persons with disabilities and address potential constraints.”
o Program 2O: Definition of Single Housekeeping Unit
“TheCity’sdefinitions of “family”and “singlehousekeeping unit”within the zoning code do not differentiate between related and unrelated individuals, or between disabled and non- disabled individuals, living together. Notwithstanding, in order to promote flexibility to accommodate residents with different living conditions, the City will review and consider

Page 7 of 14 ends

892
File #: 22-946 Meeting Date: 11/15/2022
accommodate residents with different living conditions, the City will review and consider revisions to its zoning code per the objectives below.

Objectives:
· Review and revise the definition of “singlehousekeeping unit”within the zoning code to provide greater flexibility in consideration of accommodating a variety of household situations for related and unrelated individuals living together.” o Program 2P: Group Homes
“The City has completed an analysis of its regulations applicable to group homes in Section 3 of this Housing Element. Group homes are allowed in all residential zoning districts through a conditional or special use permit. The City will review and consider revisions to its zoning code applicable to group homes per the objectives below.

Objectives:
· Review and revise the City’s zoning code and application procedures applicable to group homes to promote objectivity and greater approval certainty.” · HCD requested modifications to Housing Element Programs 3B (Fairview Development Center), 3C and 3D related to required rezoning, and Program 3G (the City-wide vote requirement).

Proposed Housing Element Modification:
o Program 3B: Fairview Development Center (FDC)
§ Program 3B was modified to clarify the City’sintent to facilitate development on the FDC property, including rezoning, and establishing incentives and expedited processing. The revisions also clarify that if the rezoning of FDC does not occur, the City is obligated to identify other sites to make up the shortfall. The program was also revised to include updated information regarding the City Council’s October 2022 approval of an agreement to accept $3.5 Million in State funds to manage and lead establishment of a Specific Plan for the FDC site in coordination with the State. A Request for Proposals (RFP) will be released by year end. o Programs 3C (Update the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan) and Program 3D (Update the City’s Urban Plans and Overlays):
§ Programs 3C and 3D were modified to clarify that updating these plans consistent with the Housing Element is necessary and required to meet the City’s RHNA allocation. o Program 3G: Address the City-wide Vote Requirement in Relation to Housing Element Compliance
In its December comment letter, State HCD stated that Measure Y is “clearly a constraint on development and conflicts with meeting state requirements. The element must include a specific analysis of the impacts on housing cost, supply, affordability, timing and approval certainty. Based on this analysis, the element must include

Page 8 of 14 ends

893
File #: 22-946 Meeting Date: 11/15/2022
timing and approval certainty. Based on this analysis, the element must include programs to address this constraint in addition to programs to make sites available to accommodate the RHNA.”Staff amended the program adding specific “milestones”and a timeline as requested by the State.

In its April comment letter, the State HCD has requested the City “committo adopt the various planning amendments, alternative actions if the appropriate zoning is not complete and provide parameters that the ballot measure or other actions will be undertaken to address this fundamental constraint to housing development (in addition to the RHNA requirements).”
As such, the City has modified Program 3G to clarify that if there remains a shortfall of sites after a Ballot Measure vote, the City will request an opinion from the State’s Attorney General’sOffice as to the City’soptions. It also adds language stating that the City will “evaluateand pursue various options to minimize the constraints of a city-wide vote requirement on housing by providing the City Council greater discretion in approving housing and affordable housing…” Program 3G, as revised, is shown below. “PROGRAM 3G: Address City-wide Vote Requirement in Relation to Housing Element Compliance
As it exists upon adoption of the 2021
‐
2029 Costa Mesa Housing Element, the City’s
Municipal Code requires voter approval of certain changes in land use, defined as those projects that amend, change or replace the General Plan, the Zoning Code, a specific plan, or an overlay plan, (collectively, legislative changes) and that involve any one of the following changes: adds 40 or more dwelling units, generates more than 200 additional average daily trips; increases the volume/capacity of an intersection based on specified formulas; changes the intersection capacity utilization or level of service based on specified formulas; adds 10,000 square feet of retail, office or other nonresidential; or, where the proposed project, combined with other projects within 8 years and a half mile of each other, meet the above criteria. Additionally, voter approval is required for projects that involve one of the above legislative changes and: changes from public uses to private uses under specified circumstances; land designated as utility right ‐
of
‐
way under
specified circumstances; land donated, bequeathed, or otherwise granted to the City; land used or designated for Costa Mesa school property; or land owned, controlled, or managed by the City.

Through extensive community outreach with Costa Mesa residents, housing advocates, and members of the development community, the City of Costa Mesa has continued to contemplate the role of the City-wide vote requirements in relation to the City’s2021 ‐
2029 Housing Element Update. State HCD has identified the City-wide vote process as a clear constraint to the future development of residential uses within the City, a constraint to implementing the land use and zoning changes necessary to achieve State ‐
mandated
compliance with the RHNA allocation, and also conflicts with meeting State housing requirements. The City recognizes that it must, in coordination with guidance from the City Attorney and input from the community, determine a path forward to be able to adopt the subsequent changes to specific plans, urban plans, and overlays that are necessary

Page 9 of 14 ends

894
File #: 22-946 Meeting Date: 11/15/2022
the subsequent changes to specific plans, urban plans, and overlays that are necessary to implement the City’s adopted Housing Element and meet the City’s RHNA allocation.

The City may move forward with adoption of a state-mandated Housing Element Update; however, it is not clear how the City-wide vote requirement affects the associated rezones and revisions to existing specific plans, urban plans, and overlays included as program actions within the Housing Element.

The City will take the following steps to identify and address specific ways in which the City-wide vote process functions as a constraint to housing compliance, the city’shousing goals, and other shared community goals.

MILESTONES TIMING FOR

COMPLETION
(1) Engage the community and other stakeholders, and complete legal analysis necessary to identify appropriate modifications to the City’s Municipal Code requirement for voter approval Complete by June 2022
(2) Prepare ballot measure language and obtain City Council approval for placement of modifications on the ballot for the November 2022 general election.

Complete by August 2022
(3) Inclusion of the proposed measure on the Ballot of Local Election.

Complete by November
2022
(4) Creation and adoption of an inclusionary housing ordinance.

The Municipal Code exempts “affordable housing proposals required by state or federal law” from the City-wide vote requirement. A City Council- approved inclusionary housing ordinance provides an opportunity to address affordable housing needs City-wide.

Within 12 months of final
adoption of the Housing
Element, consistent with
Program 2A
(5) Engage in a community planning and visioning process.

Prepare General Plan amendments, rezones, and revisions to existing specific plans, urban plans, and overlays included as program actions necessary to meet the City’s RHNA allocation as identified within the Housing Element. Complete appropriate technical studies and CEQA compliance documents. Obtain City Council approval.

Complete by June 2025
(6) If there is a continued shortfall of sites after a Ballot Measure vote, the City will request an opinion from the State’s Attorney General’s Office as to the City’s options.

Complete by December
2025
In addition to these actions, beginning in 2022 and in conjunction with the City Attorney’s Office, the City will evaluate and pursue various options to minimize the constraints of a city-wide vote requirement on housing by providing the City Council greater discretion in approving housing and affordable housing projects to comply with all requirements in State Housing Element law without further ballot initiative.

Page 10 of 14 ends

895
File #: 22-946 Meeting Date: 11/15/2022
Objective:
· Minimize the constraint of a city-wide vote requirement on creation of housing including affordable housing through the modification of existing City overlays, urban plan areas, and specific plans to rezone candidate housing sites that can accommodate affordable housing and a variety of mixed use/ housing options near jobs and transit. By 2025, initiate a ballot measure, or other alternative option, to provide City Council greater discretion in approving affordable housing and mixed use/ housing options in appropriate locations.”
Overrule of ALUC’s Inconsistency Determination
Pursuant to PUC Section 21676, on April 5, 2022, the City Council made the findings that the proposed Housing Element is consistent with the purpose of the AELUP as provided below:
· “It is in the public interest to provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems.” · “It is the purpose of this article to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.” As indicated in the “Background”section of this report, City staff forwarded to the ALUC and the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics the City Council decision and adopted findings to “overrule”ALUC’s determination, and both agencies responded with comments. Staff has specifically responded to these comments in Attachment 5 - “City Responses to Comments.”Below is a summary of the ALUC and the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics comments and staff responses.

ALUC’s Comment Letter
The ALUC’scomments related to two primary issues: (1) noise, and (2) safety hazards created by changing certain Housing Element sites land use from commercial/mixed use to residential in close proximity to John Wayne Airport.

In summary, the ALUC determined that the City’sassessment for overrule regarding noise was not problematic and agreed that the City’sNoise Element adequately addresses the interface of potential residential development and airport noise impacts.

The ALUC comments regarding safety hazards are specifically focused on 2021-2029 6th Cycle Housing Element proposed housing sites located in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan area. The ALUC contends that because the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan permits building heights in excess of the JWA Horizontal Surface (141 to 145 feet), that these housing sites present a “safetyhazard.” However, the Public Utilities Code Section 21676 exempts “land use measures” for development in areas that are “already devoted to incompatible uses.” The North Costa Mesa Specific Plan area is

Page 11 of 14 ends

896
File #: 22-946 Meeting Date: 11/15/2022
areas that are “already devoted to incompatible uses.” The North Costa Mesa Specific Plan area is approved for a hotel/residential development project of 304 feet, and is also developed with the Plaza Tower and Center Tower which exceed 20 stories. Since the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan area is already entitled and developed (“devoted”)for residential development and uses that exceed the JWA Horizontal Surface, this PUC provision is not applicable and the Housing Element is consistent with the “purpose” outlined in PUC Section 21670.

Further, the Housing Element makes no changes to height standards already adopted as part of the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan many years ago. The North Costa Mesa Specific Plan only allows residential uses at heights taller than the ALUC’sHorizontal Surface guideline after it has consulted with the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and received a determination of “no hazard.” The projects already built at such heights in the North Costa Mesa area went through this process and received such a determination”. As such, this issue is sufficiently addressed by existing regulations and no change is proposed.

Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Comment Letter
The Caltrans Division of Aeronautics’ letter primarily comments that the City’sfindings related to Public Utilities Code Section 21670 are “not consistent with the planning regulations in the Government Code.” Specifically, the Division’s comments reference the California Land Use regulation relating to “HousingElements”(Section 65583) and the “Authorityfor the Scope of General Plans”(Section 65302). However, neither of these provisions are specified for compliance in the PUC provisions relating to the “overrule”process, and therefore are not applicable to the “overrule.” Caltrans also broadly discusses the ALUC comment regarding PUC Purpose No. 2 relating to the housing sites in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan Area; however, and as indicated above, since the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan area is already entitled and developed (“devoted”)for residential development and uses that exceed the JWA Horizontal Surface, this PUC provision is not applicable and the Housing Element is consistent with the “purpose” outlined in PUC Section 21670.

Staff Recommendation - ALUC Inconsistency Determination City staff have thoroughly considered the comments by the ALUC and the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics in regard to the proposed Housing Element consistency with the PUC provisions. As further provided above, the ALUC’s and Caltrans’ comments that the proposed 2021-2029 Sixth Cycle Housing Element is inconsistent with the AELUP “purpose”is generally inaccurate. Staff is thus recommending that the City Council overrule the ALUCs determination. In order to effectuate the “overrule,”staff is recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed Resolution provided as Attachment 3, which includes the same findings the City Council previously reviewed and adopted on April 5, 2022.

Next Steps
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution overruling ALUC’s inconsistency determination, and adopt the Resolution approving the Housing Element, as revised.

After City Council adoption, the Housing Element, as revised, will be forwarded to the HCD for its

Page 12 of 14 ends

897
File #: 22-946 Meeting Date: 11/15/2022
review and certification. State HCD has up to 60 days to complete its review.

After certification, Development Services staff will process for Planning Commission and City Council review subsequent General Plan land use and zoning code amendments as required by the Housing Element. This effort will begin with a community outreach and visioning process.

In addition, City staff and various consultant teams will implement the other required Housing Element programs and actions. There are over 47 program actions identified in the Housing Element, which must be implemented during the eight year planning period. Most programs are required to be completed within the first two to three years of the Housing Element planning period (i.e., by the end of 2025). Compliance with such timelines will require a significant commitment of future City staff time and resources.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study was prepared to evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with the City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 Housing Element Update. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was circulated for public comments on October 29, 2021. The public comment period ended on November 29, 2021. On February 1, 2022, after consideration of a Planning Commission recommendation and public comments, the City Council adopted and approved the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration along with the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). Pursuant to Government Code Section 15162(a), if changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(1-3), the City as the lead agency has determined that none of the proposed revisions to the Housing Element require subsequent environmental analysis. Therefore, no further documentation is necessary.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council alternative actions include:

1. Adopting the Resolutions as proposed;

2. Adopting the Resolutions with modifications to the Housing Element Update; or

3. Not adopting the Resolutions.

Not Adopting the Housing Element update and not receiving State certification would make the City out of compliance with State Housing Element law and would subject the City to potential litigation and other enforcement actions by the State.

FISCAL REVIEW:

The adoption of the Housing Element will have no impact to the City’s General Fund. A non- compliant Housing Element may affect the City’sability to receive certain federal, State and regional funding programs that require or consider housing element compliance for eligibility or competitive ranking purposes.

Page 13 of 14 ends

898
File #: 22-946 Meeting Date: 11/15/2022
LEGAL REVIEW:

This report has been approved as to form by the City Attorney’s Office.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This item supports the following City Council Goal:
· Diversify, stabilize and increase housing to reflect community needs.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt the Resolution to overrule the Orange County ALUC’s March 17, 2022 Inconsistency Determination and adopt the Resolution approving the 2021-2029 Housing Element, as revised.

After adoption, the Housing Element, as revised, will be forwarded to the State HCD for certification.

After certification by the State, the City will begin implementing the required Housing Element plan and program actions.

Page 14 of 14 ends

899
Costa Mesa Housing Element
6th Cycle - 2021-2029
ATTACHMENT 1
900
Costa Mesa Housing Element – 2021-2029 i
City of Costa Mesa
Housing Element
2021-2029
ADOPTED FEBRUARY 2022
6th Cycle - 2021-2029
901
Costa Mesa Housing Element – 2021-2029 ii
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
A. Role of the Housing Element .............................................................................................................................. 1-1 B. State Policy and Authorization ........................................................................................................................... 1-1

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Housing Element Organization ............................................................................................................................ 1-6 CHAPTER 2: COMMUNITY PROFILE
A. Population Characteristics ................................................................................................................................. 2-1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Housing Costs and Affordability ........................................................................................................................ 2-34 G. Community Profile Summary ............................................................................................................................ 2-3 9 CHAPTER 3: HOUSING CONSTRAINTS, RESOURCES, AND FAIR HOUSING A. Nongovernmental Constraints ........................................................................................................................... 3-2

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

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

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

4. Applicant Requests to Develop Below the Maximum Density ........................................................................... 3-5 902
Costa Mesa Housing Element – 2021-2029 iii
B. Governmental Constraints ................................................................................................................................. 3-6

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

2. State Density Bonus Law ...................................................................................................................................... 3-8 Concessions and Incentives..................................................................................................................................... 3-11 Compliance with State Law ..................................................................................................................................... 3-11

3. Residential Development Standards ................................................................................................................. 3-12 Yard Requirements .................................................................................................................................................. 3-14 Site Coverage and FAR ............................................................................................................................................. 3-14 Open Space .............................................................................................................................................................. 3-14 Maximum Building Heights ..................................................................................................................................... 3-14 Parking Standards .................................................................................................................................................... 3-15

4. Variety of Housing Types Permitted .................................................................................................................. 3-17 Single-Family Dwelling ............................................................................................................................................. 3-19 Multi-Family Dwelling .............................................................................................................................................. 3-19 Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ............................................................................................................................... 3-19 Common Interest Development ............................................................................................................................. 3-19 Small Lot Subdivision, Residential ........................................................................................................................... 3-19 Manufactured Housing ............................................................................................................................................ 3-20 Boarding House ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-20 Residential Care Facility ........................................................................................................................................... 3-20 Group Homes ........................................................................................................................................................... 3-20 Transitional Housing ................................................................................................................................................ 3-22 Supportive Housing ................................................................................................................................................. 3-22 Referral Facility ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-22 Single Room Occupancy Residential Hotel (SRO) ................................................................................................... 3-22 Emergency Shelter ................................................................................................................................................... 3-22 Farmworker Housing ............................................................................................................................................... 3-25 Low Barrier Navigation Centers .............................................................................................................................. 3-25

5. Planned Development ........................................................................................................................................ 3-26 Site Design Concept ................................................................................................................................................. 3-27

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

7. Specific Plans ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-29 East 17th Street Specific Plan ................................................................................................................................... 3-29 Newport Boulevard Specific Plan ............................................................................................................................ 3-29 North Costa Mesa Specific Plan .............................................................................................................................. 3-30 Costa Mesa Theater and Arts District Plan ............................................................................................................. 3-32

8. Housing for Persons with Disabilities ................................................................................................................ 3-33 Reasonable Accommodation .................................................................................................................................. 3-33 Definition of Family .................................................................................................................................................. 3-35

9. Development Fees .............................................................................................................................................. 3-36

10. On-/Off-Site Improvements ............................................................................................................................... 3-39 Subdivision Improvements ...................................................................................................................................... 3-40

11. Building Codes and Enforcement ...................................................................................................................... 3-40

12. Local Processing and Permit Procedures .......................................................................................................... 3-41 Development Reviews ............................................................................................................................................. 3-44

13. Applicable Residential Entitlement Approval Findings ..................................................................................... 3-44 Conditional Use Permits .......................................................................................................................................... 3-45 Design Review Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 3-45 Master Plan Findings ............................................................................................................................................... 3-45 C. Infrastructure Constraints ................................................................................................................................ 3-46 903

Costa Mesa Housing Element – 2021-2029 iv

1. Water Supply ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-46

2. Water Production ............................................................................................................................................... 3-46

3. Water Quality ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-47

4. Wastewater ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-47

5. Fire and Emergency Services ............................................................................................................................. 3-47 Fire Administration Division .................................................................................................................................... 3-48 Operations Division .................................................................................................................................................. 3-48 Community Risk Reduction Division ....................................................................................................................... 3-48

6. Police Services .................................................................................................................................................... 3-49 Administration Division ........................................................................................................................................... 3-49 Field Operations Division ......................................................................................................................................... 3-50 Support Services Division ........................................................................................................................................ 3-50 D. Environmental Constraints ............................................................................................................................... 3-50

1. Geologic and Seismic Hazards ........................................................................................................................... 3-51

2. Mineral Resources .............................................................................................................................................. 3-51

3. Seismic Hazards .................................................................................................................................................. 3-51

4. Flood Hazards ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-52

5. Dam Inundation .................................................................................................................................................. 3-54

6. Sea Level Rise ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-54

7. Fire Hazards ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-54 E. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) ................................................................................................... 3-56

1. Needs Assessment.............................................................................................................................................. 3-56 Analysis of Impediments Outreach FY 2019-2024 ................................................................................................. 3-56 Fair Housing Issues .................................................................................................................................................. 3-57 Fair Housing Laws .................................................................................................................................................... 3-57 Lending Patterns ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-58 Hate Crimes .............................................................................................................................................................. 3-60 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity ................................................................................................ 3-60

2. Analysis of Federal, State, and Local Data and Local Knowledge .................................................................... 3-62 Summary of Local Data ............................................................................................................................................ 3-62 Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends ................................................................................................. 3-65 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) ............................................................................ 3-73 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence ......................................................................................... 3-77 Disparities in Access to Opportunity ....................................................................................................................... 3-79 California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) Opportunity Area Maps ...................................................... 3-85 Opportunity Areas – Education ............................................................................................................................... 3-88 Opportunity Indicators ............................................................................................................................................ 3-90 Access to Transit ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-91 Environmental Justice.............................................................................................................................................. 3-92

3. Discussion of Disproportionate Housing Needs ............................................................................................... 3-96 Existing Needs .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-95 Future Growth Need .............................................................................................................................................. 3-109

4. Displacement Risk ............................................................................................................................................ 3-109 Urban Displacement .............................................................................................................................................. 3-109 SB 330 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3-115

5. Summary of Fair Housing Analysis................................................................................................................... 3-116

6. Assessment of Contributing factors to Fair Housing in Costa Mesa .............................................................. 3-117 Regionally Identified Contributing Factors ........................................................................................................... 3-117 Locally Identified Contributing Factors ................................................................................................................. 3-118

7. Analysis of Sites Pursuant to AB 686 ............................................................................................................... 3-119

8. Analysis of Fair Housing Priorities and Goals .................................................................................................. 3-130 904

Costa Mesa Housing Element – 2021-2029 v
F. Housing Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 3-136

1. Regional Housing Needs Allocation ................................................................................................................. 3-136 Future Housing Needs ........................................................................................................................................... 3-136 Residential Sites Inventory .................................................................................................................................... 3-137 Adequacy of Sites for RHNA .................................................................................................................................. 3-137 Summary of Sites Inventory and RHNA Obligations ............................................................................................ 3-145 G. Financial Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 3-146

1. Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher, CDBG and HOME Funds ........................................................................ 3-146 Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) .................................................................................................. 3-146 HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) ............................................................................................... 3-147

2. Opportunities for Energy Conservation .......................................................................................................... 3-147 Energy Use and Providers ..................................................................................................................................... 3-147 Energy Conservation .............................................................................................................................................. 3-147

CHAPTER 4: HOUSING PLAN
Regional Housing Needs Assessment ........................................................................................................................... 4-2 A. Guiding Principles .............................................................................................................................................. 4-2 B. Housing Goals .................................................................................................................................................... 4-4 C. Housing Policies and Programs .......................................................................................................................... 4-4 POLICIES HOU-1 ............................................................................................................................................................. 4-4 HOUSING GOAL 1 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS ........................................................................................................... 4-5 POLICIES HOU-2 ............................................................................................................................................................. 4-6 HOUSING GOAL 2 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS ........................................................................................................... 4-6 POLICIES HOU-3 ........................................................................................................................................................... 4-13 HOUSING GOAL 3 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS ......................................................................................................... 4-13 POLICIES HOU-4 ........................................................................................................................................................... 4-26 HOUSING GOAL 4 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS ......................................................................................................... 4-26 D. Summary of Quantified Objectives .................................................................................................................. 4-33

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

905

Costa Mesa Housing Element – 2021-2029 vi

906

Costa Mesa Housing Element – 2021-2029 vii

907
Introduction
Chapter 1
908

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

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

B. State Policy and Authorization

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

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

The California Legislature identifies overall housing goals for the State to ensure every resident has access to housing and a suitable living environment; Section 65580 of the California Government Code states the following Housing Element goals:
909

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 65583.a Chapter 2.E
Analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with
respect to residential development. Section 65583.a Chapter 3.G.2 Identification of Publicly-Assisted Housing Developments. Section 65583.a Chapter 3.E.3 Identification of Units at Risk of Conversion to Market Rate Housing. Section 65583.a Chapter 3.E.3
910

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In accordance with Section 65583 of the California Government Code, SCAG then delegates a “fair share” of housing need to its member jurisdictions. The City of Costa Mesa’s RHNA allocation is divided amongst four income categories, which are benchmarked on the County of Orange’s median income for a family of 911

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Public Participation
Public participation is a vital component of the Housing Element update process. Public engagement creates opportunities for community members to provide their input and feedback, information which then directs the Housing Element’s goals, policies and programs. Section 65583 of the Government Code requires local governments to make diligent and continued efforts to achieve public participation of all 912
Chapter 1: Introduction 1-5
economic segments of the community. Meaningful community participation ensures that a variety of stakeholders and community members are offered a platform to engage in the City’s planning process.

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

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

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

Appendix C contains a summary of all public comments regarding the Housing Element received by the City during the update process.

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

The original source documents contain the assumptions and methods used to compile the data. 913

Chapter 1: Introduction 1-6

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

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

Appendices provides various appendices with supplementary background resources including:
 Appendix A – Review of Past Performance of 5th Cycle Programs  Appendix B – Summary of Adequate Sites Analysis
 Appendix C – Summary of Outreach
 Appendix D – Glossary of Housing Terms
914
Community Profile
Chapter 2
915

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

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

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

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

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

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

916

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-2

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

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

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

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

Under 5 years 5 to 19 years 20 to 34 years 35 to 49 years 50 to 64 years 65 years +20106.90% 17.30% 28.00% 23.60% 15.70% 8.50%20156.70% 17.20% 28.00% 21.60% 17.30% 9.50%20185.70% 17.00% 27.40% 22.00% 17.20% 10.70%0.0%5.0%10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0% Table 2-1: Population Growth Forecast, 2010-2040
Jurisdictions
Population Percent Change
2010
Actual
2012
Projected
2020
Projected
2035
Projected
2040
Projected 2010-2020 2020-2040
Newport Beach 85,186 86,300 89,300 92,300 92,700 4.8% 3.8% Costa Mesa 109,960 111,200 113,900 116,500 116,400 3.6% 2.2% Irvine 212,375 227,100 296,300 326,700 327,300 39.5% 10.5% Santa Ana 324,528 329,200 340,600 343,400 343,100 5% 0.7% Huntington
Beach 189,992 193,200 203,800 207,300 207,100 7.3% 1.6% Orange County 3,010,232 3,072,000 3,271,000 3,431,000 3,461,000 8.7% 5.8% Sources: Bureau of the Census (2010) and SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Growth Forecast by Jurisdiction Report. 917

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

918

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

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

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

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

WhiteBlack orAfricanAmericanAmericanIndian andAlaskaNativeAsianNativeHawaiianand OtherPacificIslanderSomeOther RaceTwo orMoreRacesHispanic orLatinoCosta Mesa71.6% 1.9% 0.4% 8.4% 0.7% 13.0% 4.0% 36.1%Orange County61.7% 1.7% 0.5% 20.1% 0.3% 11.7% 4.1% 34.1%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80% 919

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

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

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

Table 2-6 shows how employment has changed amongst different sectors for Costa Mesa residents between 2010 and 2018. In 2010, the majority of the working population in the City was employed in education services, health care, and social assistance. In 2018, the majority of employed persons were estimated to be in the professional, scientific, management, and administrative services sector. This sector is estimated to have increased by 2.7 percent between 2010 and 2018. Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining represents the sector with the lowest rates of employment for all cities in Orange County.
920

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

Table 2-6: Employment in Costa Mesa by Sector, 2018
Industry Sector
2010 2018 Percent
Change
2010-2018
# of people
employed
% of City
Employment
# of people
employed
% of City
Employment
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and
hunting, and mining 231 0.4% 557 0.9% 0.5%
Construction 3,831 6.4% 3,783 5.9% -0.5%
Manufacturing 5,768 9.6% 5,869 9.2% -0.4%
Wholesale trade 2,562 4.3% 2,005 3.2% -1.1%
Retail trade 6,643 11.1% 7,224 11.3% 0.2%
Transportation and warehousing,
and utilities 1,493 2.5% 1,850 2.9% 0.4%
Information 1,385 2.3% 1,216 1.9% -0.4%
Finance and insurance, and real
estate and rental leasing 6,076 10.2% 5,713 9% -1.2%
Professional, scientific,
management, and administrative
services
9,150 15.3% 11,436 17.9% 2.7%
Education services, health care,
and social assistance 10,210 17.1% 10,360 16.3% -0.8%
Arts, entertainment, recreation,
accommodation, and food
services
7,828 13.1% 8,623 13.5% 0.5%
Other services (except public
administration) 3,582 6% 3,698 5.8% -0.2%
Public Administration 1,126 1.9% 1,406 2.2% 0.3%
Total 59,885 100.0% 63,740 100.0% 6.4%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2010 and 2018. 921

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

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

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

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

922

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

923

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

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

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

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

Female Household, No
Spouse Present

Non-Family
Household1

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

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

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

924

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

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

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

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

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

Married-CoupleHouseholdsFemale Households,No Spouse PresentMale Households,No Spouse PresentNonFamilyHouseholdsHouseholder Age 65or above201842.8% 10.2% 6.7% 40.2% 6.6%201042.7% 10.5% 6.4% 40.4% 4.7%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45% 925

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-11
The average household size in Costa Mesa is estimated to be 2.7 persons per household, as shown in Table 2-11. This is less than Orange County’s average household size of 3.0 persons per household. Of Costa Mesa’s adjacent communities, the smallest average household size is in Newport Beach (2.3 persons per household), and the largest household size is in Santa Ana (4.3 persons per household).

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

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

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

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

926

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-12
Figure 2-4: Median Household Income by City, 2018
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

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

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

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

$122,709$79,207$100,969$61,774$91,318$85,398$0$20,000$40,000$60,000$80,000$100,000$120,000$140,000Newport Beach Costa Mesa Irvine Santa Ana Huntington BeachIncomeOrange County 927

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

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

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

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

The severe housing problems category relates to the livability of a residence and critically affects the quality of life of the occupants. These are important to analyze as it may reveal an aging housing stock, as well as a need for affordable housing. Severe housing problems include incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1.5 persons per room (rate of severe overcrowding), and a cost burden greater than 50 percent of a household’s annual income. Table 2-14 shows that at 70.6 percent or the Less than $25,00014%$25,000 to $34,9997%$35,000 to $49,99910%$50,000 to $74,99916%$75,000 to $99,99914%$100,000 to $149,99919%$150,000 or more20% 928

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

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

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

Overcrowded and severely overcrowded households can contribute to neighborhood deterioration. This can be due to more intensive use leading to excessive wear and tear, and/or the potential cumulative 929

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

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

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

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

930

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

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

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

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

16.3 percent spend over 50 percent. By comparison, homeowners who also earn an AMFI of 30 percent or less, 7.3 percent spend 30 percent of more of their income on housing and 6.2 percent spend over 50 percent. Table 2-18 also shows that homeowners who earn a low to moderate income are the most likely to experience a cost burden of 30 percent or more.
931

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

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

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

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

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

932

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

Special circumstances may be related to one’s employment and income, family characteristics, disability and household characteristics, or other factors. Consequently, certain Costa Mesa residents may experience higher incidences of housing overpayment (cost burden), overcrowding, or other housing problems. The special needs groups analyzed in the Housing Element include the elderly, persons with disabilities (including persons with developmental disabilities), individuals experiencing homelessness, single parents, large households, and farmworkers (Table 2-20). These groups may also overlap, for example some elderly people may have a disability of some type. The majority of these special needs groups could be assisted by an increase in affordable housing.

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

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

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

Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018; Orange County Point in Time County /Homeless Count, 2019.
933

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-19

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal housing data defines the household type as ‘elderly family’ if it consists of two persons with either or both age 62 or over. Table 2-23 summarizes the income and tenure of elderly family households in Costa Mesa. Of elderly households in Costa Mesa, 24.5 percent earn less than 30 percent of the surrounding area income, 39.4 percent earn less than 50 percent of the surrounding area. 934

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

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

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

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

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

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

935

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

State law requires that the Housing Element discuss the housing needs of persons with developmental disabilities. As defined by federal law, “developmental disability” means a severe, chronic disability of an individual that:
 Is attributed to a mental or physical impairment or combination of mental and physical impairments;
 Is manifested before the individual attains age 22;
 Is likely to continue indefinitely;
 Results in substantial functional limitations in three or more of the following areas of major life activity: a) self-care; b) receptive and expressive language; c) learning; d) mobility; e) self-direction; f) capacity for independent living; or g) economic self- sufficiency; and  Reflects the individual’s need for a combination and sequence of special, interdisciplinary, generic services, individualized supports, or other forms of assistance that are of lifelong or extended duration and are individually planned and coordinated.
936

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Large Households
Large households are defined as those consisting of five or more members. These households comprise a special need group because many communities have a limited supply of adequately sized and affordable housing units. To save for other basic necessities such as food, clothing, and medical care, it is common for lower income large households to reside in smaller units with a low number of bedrooms, which may result in overcrowding and can contribute to fast rates of deterioration. 937

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

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

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

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

Table 2-26: Percent of Large Households by Jurisdiction 5-Person
Households
6-Person
Households
7-or-More Person
Households
Total Large
Households
Newport Beach 3.6% 1.3% 0.3% 5.1%
Costa Mesa 5.8% 2.5% 1.7% 10.0%
Irvine 5.3% 1.9% 0.6% 7.8%
Santa Ana 14.2% 9.4% 11.4% 35.0%
Huntington Beach 5.3% 1.6% 0.9% 7.8%
Orange County 7.9% 3.5% 2.8% 14.2%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018. 938

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-24

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

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

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

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

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

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

939

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-25

6. Extremely Low-Income Households and Poverty Status
Extremely low-income households are those which earn less than 30 percent of the AMFI. The 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) indicates that there are approximately 6,610 extremely low-income households in Costa Mesa. Table 2-8 identifies occupations with salaries that could qualify as extremely low-income, these include: healthcare support; material moving; building, grounds cleaning, and maintenance; food preparation and serving related.

Extremely low-income households represent approximately 16.3 percent of all Costa Mesa households. Of these households, 76.5 percent are renters and 23.5 percent are homeowners. Extremely low-income renter households represent about 20.5 percent of Costa Mesa renter households, and extremely low- income owner households represent about 9.8 percent of Costa Mesa owner households.

Table 2-28 illustrates the tendencies for extremely low-income households to experience housing problems and cost burdens. The housing problems identified by CHAS include the following:
 Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom);  Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room);  Housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income; or  Severe housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income.

As the table shows, over double the percent of renters experience housing problems and cost burdens than homeowner. Cost burdens over 50 percent are more common than over 30 percent for both extremely low-income renter and owner households. In total, 13.8 percent of all Costa Mesa households earn an extremely low-income and experience at least one housing problem and 12.4 percent spend over half of their income on housing.

Table 2-28: Housing Needs of Extremely Low-Income Households Housing Problems
Renter Households Owner Households Total Households
Count % of Renter
HH Count % of Owner
HH Count % of Total
HH
Household has at least
1 of 4 housing problem 4,400 17.8% 1,210 7.6% 5,610 13.8% Cost burden > 30% 4,325 17.5% 1,165 7.3% 5,495 13.5%
Cost Burden > 50% 4,020 16.3% 990 6.2% 5,015 12.4%
Source: Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) 2013-2017.

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

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

Figure 2-6: Percent below Poverty Level, by Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin 940

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-26

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

Projected Need
To calculate the future needs of extremely low-income households, the City assumes 50 percent of its very low-income RHNA are extremely low-income households. The City was allocated a very low-income RHNA of 2,919 units; as such, the extremely low-income unit need is projected to be 1,459 units.

To address the unique needs of extremely low-income households, the City has included programs in the Housing Plan that seek to provide a variety of housing types that may provide services for extremely low- income households facing other challenges, as well as facilitate the development of new affordable units.

Programs that directly address the needs of extremely low-income households include:
 Program 2J: Transitional and Supportive Housing will amend the land use matrix to comply with SB 2, create an inventory of sites appropriate for the development of transitional and supportive housing units, and collaborate with organizations on addressing the needs of persons experiencing homelessness and extremely low-income residents.
 Program 2L: Development of Housing for Extremely Low- and Lower-Income Households will facilitate the development of housing for extremely low- and lower-income households by subsidizing up to 100 percent of the of the City’s application processing fees for qualifying developments where all units are affordable to 80% AMI or lower (when funding is available), and promote the benefits of this program to the development community.

11.5%15.5%12.7%10.4%3.6%24.7%7.1%19.5%0.0%5.0%10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%White Black orAfricanAmericanAmericanIndian andAlaskaNativeAsian NativeHawaiianand OtherPacificIslanderSome otherraceTwo ormore racesHispanic orLatinoOrigin 941

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-27

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

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

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

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

Costa Mesa reported a total of 193 individuals experiencing homelessness (187 unsheltered and 6 sheltered); this represents 2.8 percent of the total homeless population for Orange County. This percentage is greater than that of the neighboring cities of Newport Beach and Irvine as both counted under 2 percent. 942

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

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

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

8. Students
The need for student housing is another factor that affects housing demand. Student housing often only produces a temporary housing need based on the duration of the educational institution. The impact upon housing demand is important in areas that surround universities and colleges. Costa Mesa is home to a number of private and public universities and colleges. Located in Costa Mesa are Vanguard University (2,200 students), California Southern University (online), and Orange Coast Community College (24,000 students). Orange Coast Community College is primarily a commuter school serving students local to the south Orange County area. During pre-pandemic conditions when classes were fully in person, OCC had approximately 20,000 students, 39.1% of which were full-time. As OCC had very little on-campus housing, the majority of students commuted into campus. While data is not readily available, it is a fair assumption that the majority of these students live at home with family and do not require separate housing. OCC has recently built on-campus housing which may house up to 800 students. 943

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

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

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

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

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

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

34.3 percent multi-family housing. The percentage of mobile homes in Costa Mesa is estimated to be comparable to that of Orange County (2.4 percent and 2.8 percent, respectively). Single-family attached units are less prevalent in Costa Mesa (9.6 percent) than County as a whole (12.2 percent). 944

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

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

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

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

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

0.8 percent, respectively).

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

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

945

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

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

Figure 2-7: Vacancy Rates by Jurisdiction, 2018

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

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

15.5%4.8%6.0%2.6%5.6%5.4%0%2%4%6%8%10%12%14%16%18%Newport Beach Costa Mesa Irvine Santa Ana HuntingtonBeachOrange County 946

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

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

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

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

947

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

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

Table 2-35 provides estimations on the number of units with substandard living conditions (lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities or having no telephone service available). In total, 2.4 percent of Costa Mesa units are considered substandard.

Table 2-35: Costa Mesa Units with Substandard Housing Conditions Housing Condition Estimate Percent of Total
Housing Units
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 79 0.2%
Lacking complete kitchen facilities 325 0.8%
No telephone service available 613 1.5%
Total 1,017 2.4%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

Additionally, proactively surveying the City’s housing conditions is a primary component of the City’s Code Enforcement efforts. The City’s Community Improvement Division (Code Enforcement) employs approximately one-dozen full-time code enforcement officers that regularly survey the City’s residential neighborhood housing conditions relating to rehabilitation and replacement. According to the Community Improvement Division Manager, rarely does any of the City’s housing stock reach a condition that requires replacement (less than approximately one property per year). However, City staff confirmed, based on the 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan there are approximately 88 units in need of rehabilitation annually. This estimate was compiled based on a combination of code enforcement data (based on a review of total Built1939 orearlierBuilt1940 to1949Built1950 to1959Built1960 to1969Built1970 to1979Built1980 to1989Built1990 to1999Built2000 to2009Built2010 to2013Built2014 orlaterHuntington Beach1.5% 0.9% 5.1% 36.5% 29.5% 12.6% 6.6% 4.8% 1.0% 1.4%Irvine0.4% 0.2% 0.8% 3.4% 20.4% 17.2% 16.4% 23.7% 10.0% 7.4%Newport Beach4.3% 3.7% 11.7% 19.0% 22.3% 11.2% 14.2% 10.8% 1.6% 1.1%Santa Ana7.3% 6.2% 20.1% 22.2% 24.5% 10.4% 5.2% 3.1% 0.6% 0.5%Costa Mesa1.5% 2.7% 19.2% 25.4% 24.1% 12.9% 6.4% 5.2% 1.2% 1.4%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%Huntington BeachIrvineNewport BeachSanta AnaCosta Mesa 948

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-34
project cases) and data from the City’s Street Outreach Team and Housing and Community Development Team and represents approximately 1.6% of the total dwelling units within the City.

With the exception of relatively new housing communities recently developed in the City, the City’s Community Improvement Division indicates that the City’s residential areas require varying levels of proactive housing condition monitoring, with generally the older residential areas in the City being more prone to substandard housing conditions. These substandard housing conditions include but are not limited to, illegal and unsightly outdoor storage, common areas littered with trash and debris, vegetation overgrowth, and poor overall residential structure maintenance. According to City records, residential properties located in Shalimar neighborhood, Coolidge Avenue/Fillmore Way neighborhood, Mission Drive/Mendoza Drive neighborhood, and the neighborhood located on Wilson Street between Placentia Avenue and Harbor Boulevard require greater attention. For these and other neighborhoods, the City hosts “Community Clean-up Days” where community members and residents are organized to assist in neighborhood clean-up efforts. These efforts include City staff assistance, large dumpster rentals and donations from community businesses and no-profit community groups to support clean-up and rehabilitation efforts. They are held on a weekend day and publicized several weeks in advance by City newsletters and direct communication to community stakeholders. City-sponsored residential neighborhood clean-up events occur multiple times per year.

Also, in monitoring the City’s housing stock in regard to the need for housing rehabilitation or replacement, both the City’s Code Enforcement team and the City’s Building Inspection team proactively and reactively engage in surveying the City’s housing conditions as they perform their regular inspections. Housing and building code enforcement not only helps to ensure the habitability of specific properties, but also helps to keep surrounding homes and neighborhoods safe. For a home that shows clear signs of neglect, for example, the City will reach out to the tenant and owner and connect these individuals to resources such as local and regional grants and/or loans, or community service groups that are available to provide rehabilitation assistance. These proactive inspections of the City’s housing stock lead to earlier detection of substandard housing conditions and ultimately improve local neighborhoods overall.

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

The median home value in Costa Mesa is estimated to be $707,600, as shown in Table 2-36. This is $54,700 above the median home value for Orange County and comparable to the home values in Irvine and Huntington Beach. The City of Santa Ana has the lowest home value at $455,300 and the City of Newport Beach has the greatest median home value at $1,787,300.

949

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-35
Table 2-36: Median Home Value by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Median Home Value
Newport Beach $1,787,300
Costa Mesa $707,600
Irvine $797,100
Santa Ana $455,300
Huntington Beach $728,200
Orange County $652,900
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018.

Table 2-37 outlines the average monthly price of rent by number of bedrooms in Costa Mesa and how it has changed between 2017 and 2020. This data is provided by the Zillow Rent Index Report for Costa Mesa and shows that all units experienced increases in rates in the last three years; for example, one-bedroom rentals rose by 5.1 percent. The price per square foot saw a much greater increase for the three types of units, with 17.9 percent being the greatest increase for 3- or more bedroom units. This may indicate a higher demand and a need to plan for housing for large families within Costa Mesa.

Table 2-37: Average Monthly Rental Rates, 2017-2020
Unit Type January 2017 January 2018 January 2019 January 2020 % Change 2017-2020
1 Bedroom $2,055 $2,077 $2,091 $2,159 5.1%
2 bedrooms $2,553 $2,582 $2,579 $2,649 3.8%
3 Bedrooms $3,027 $3,044 $3,097 $3,160 4.4%
Price per Square Foot
Unit Type January 2017 January 2018 January 2019 January 2020 % Change 2017-2020
1 Bedroom $2.48 $2.57 $2.97 $2.83 14.1%
2 bedrooms $2.20 $2.25 $2.32 $2.36 7.3%
3+ Bedrooms $1.95 $2.15 $2.25 $2.30 17.9%
Source: Zillow Rent Index Report, January 2017-2020, accessed August 17, 2020.

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

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

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

The maximum affordable home and rental prices for residents in Orange County are shown in Table 2-38 and Table 2-39.
950

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-36
The data shows the maximum amount that a household can pay for housing each month without incurring a cost burden (overpayment). This amount can be compared to current housing asking prices (Table 2-36) and market rental rates (Table 2-37) to determine what types of housing opportunities a household can afford.

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

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

Low-Income Households
Low-income households earn between 51 percent and 80 percent of the County’s AMFI - up to $71,750 for a one-person household and up to $110,650 for a five-person household in 2020. The affordable home price for a low-income household at the maximum income limit ranges from $308,500 to $454,000. Based on the asking prices of homes for sale in 2020 (Table 2-36), ownership housing would not be affordable to low-income households. A one-person low-income household could afford to pay up to $1,794 in rent per month and a five-person low-income household could afford to pay as much as $2,766. Low-income households in Costa Mesa would not be able to afford to rent apartment units.

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

951

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

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

952

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

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

This analysis shows that the moderate- and lower-income households in Costa Mesa generally cannot afford to own a home in Costa Mesa based on for sale housing costs. Lower income households generally cannot afford to rent or own in Costa Mesa based on for sale housing costs and rental prices. Long term, this trend may result in increased instances of overcrowding, an increased number of households with a high housing cost burden, and residents moving out of Costa Mesa for ownership opportunities. 953

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-39
G. Community Profile Summary
The Community Profile provides an analysis of the Costa Mesa population and housing stock for policy considerations within this Housing Element. The Costa Mesa community’s housing needs are directly correlated to the demographic composition of the population and the conditions of existing housing within the City. The data analyzed in this Community Profile sets the baseline for the Housing Element goals, policies, and programs which are uniquely adapted to fit the needs of Costa Mesa.

The City will need to consider the following findings, but not limited to, based on the data presented in this Community Profile:
 The Costa Mesa population is showing aging trends – housing goals should consider the needs of seniors who may have less flexible income, need accessibility accommodations, or may seek assisted living options. The City has established Housing Program 2D to address this finding.  Over a quarter of the Costa Mesa population identifies as Hispanic or Latino – housing needs should account for possible cultural needs such as larger or multigenerational housing units. Additionally, housing information should be made available in Spanish to assist in the location of appropriate housing within the community. The City has established Housing Programs 2E and 4A to address this finding.
 Approximately 47 percent of the Costa Mesa population earn a lower income, indicating that production of and access to affordable housing including affordable rental options and entry level home ownership facilitation should be considered. The City has established Housing Programs 2B, 4A, 4B, and 4C to address this finding.
 Approximately 48.8 percent of renters and 31.8 percent of homeowners are estimated to spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing, indicating a high housing cost burden overall with a higher proportion of renters compared to owners experiencing overpayment. The City has established Housing Programs 2B, 4A, 4B, and 4C to address this finding.  Based on for sale and rental housing prices, a moderate-income household cannot afford to own a home in Costa Mesa, while lower income households cannot afford to own or rent in Costa Mesa without experiencing overpayment. The City has established Housing Programs 2B, 4A, 4B, and 4C to address this finding.
 The majority of housing units in Costa Mesa were built over 30 years ago – households in older homes may benefit from assistance in renovating their homes and ensuring safe living environments with access to all utilities. The City has established Housing Programs 1A and 1B to address this finding.
 Costa Mesa has a relatively low vacancy rate, indicating high demand for housing and low availability of housing units within the City. The City has established Housing Programs 2B and 3A to address this finding.
 46.5 percent of Costa Mesa households have at least one of the four identified housing problems, which include:
o Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom); o Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room – excluding bathrooms and kitchens);
954

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-40
o Housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income; and o Severe housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income.

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

The Housing Element’s Chapter 4: Housing Plan provides goals, policies, and programs for the City of Costa Mesa based on the findings of this analysis. Policies established in the Housing Plan implement the goals and programs of the Housing Element and are reviewed on yearly-basis to identify progress and success. 955
Housing Constraints, Resources, and
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Chapter 3
956

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

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

1. Land Costs and Construction Costs
Construction costs vary widely according to the type of development, with multi-family housing generally less expensive to construct than single-family homes due to square footage. However, there is wide variation within each construction type, depending on the size of the unit and the number and quality of amenities provided. An indicator of construction costs is Building Valuation Data compiled by the International Code Council (ICC). The ICC updates the estimated cost of construction at six-month intervals and provides estimates for the average cost of labor and materials for typical Type V-A wood-frame housing. Estimates are based on “good-quality” construction, providing for materials and fixtures well above the minimum required by state and local building codes. In August 2020, the ICC estimated that the average per square-foot cost for good-quality housing was approximately $118.57 for multi-family housing, $131.24 for single-family homes, and $148.44 for residential care/assisted living facilities. Construction costs for custom homes and units with extra amenities, run even higher. Construction costs are also dependent upon materials used and building height, as well as regulations set by the City’s adopted Building Code. For example, according to the ICC, an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or converting a garage using a Type V-B wood framed unit would costs about $123.68 per square foot. Although construction costs are a significant portion of the overall development cost, they are typically consistent throughout the region and, especially when considering land costs, are not considered a major constraint to housing production in Costa Mesa.
957

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-3 Land costs can also pose a significant constraint to the development of affordable and middle-income housing and represents a significant cost component in residential development. Land costs may vary depending on whether the site is vacant or has an existing use that must be removed. Similarly, site constraints such as environmental issues (e.g., steep slopes, soil stability, seismic hazards, flooding, and contamination) can also be factored into the cost of land. A September 2020 web search for vacant lots for sale in the City of Costa Mesa returned three lots for sale ranging in size from 0.23 acres at $749,000 to

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

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

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

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

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

958

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-4 Table 3-1: Disposition of Loan Applications by Race/Ethnicity– Anaheim-Santa Ana-Irvine MSA Applications by Race/Ethnicity Percent
Approved
Percent
Denied
Percent
Other
Total
(Count)
LESS THAN 50% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 26.2% 52.3% 23.1% 65
Asian 33.9% 42.5% 26.7% 1,382
Black or African American 41.6% 33.7% 25.8% 89
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 25.0% 44.2% 30.8% 52 White 45.6% 31.2% 26.1% 5,240
Hispanic or Latino 37.9% 38.2% 26.8% 1,566
50-79% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 38.1% 34.0% 29.9% 97
Asian 53.3% 25.3% 29.4% 3,153
Black or African American 43.4% 19.1% 41.4% 152
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 49.4% 39.8% 16.9% 83 White 54.5% 23.3% 27.6% 8,677
Hispanic or Latino 47.6% 27.7% 29.3% 3,245
80-99% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 51.4% 25.7% 31.4% 35
Asian 59.5% 19.2% 29.3% 1,495
Black or African American 52.9% 22.1% 30.9% 68
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 43.5% 13.0% 43.5% 23 White 61.9% 17.2% 26.1% 3,873
Hispanic or Latino 54.0% 21.4% 29.1% 1,347
100-119% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 48.9% 22.7% 29.5% 88
Asian 62.3% 15.6% 28.8% 4,820
Black or African American 55.6% 20.1% 28.6% 234
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 49.4% 27.6% 31.0% 87 White 66.2% 13.8% 25.1% 12,607
Hispanic or Latino 60.8% 16.4% 26.8% 3,398
120% OR MORE OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 59.2% 13.0% 32.0% 169 Asian 62.8% 12.9% 29.0% 17,800
Black or African American 57.7% 17.3% 27.2% 624
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 64.2% 11.4% 26.8% 254 White 68.3% 11.3% 24.9% 49,811
Hispanic or Latino 64.6% 13.3% 26.7% 6,095
Source: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Disposition of loan applications, by Ethnicity/Race of applicant, 2019. 959

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

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

86.5 in at the start of the year.

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

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

4. Applicant Requests to Develop Below the Maximum Density The City does not typically receive request to develop below the maximum density permitted for residential projects. Based on review of past projects and discussions with the development community, the existing development standards have not proved to be a constraint to meeting the maximum density. Programs 3B and 3C within the Housing Plan call for revisions to the development standards associated with the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan and the City’s Urban Plans and Overlays, including the maximum density permitted. These densities are higher than what is currently permitted within Costa Mesa (with the exception of some areas in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan where densities have exceeded 90 du/ac for specific projects). Until those zoning changes are made to permit the higher densities identified in the housing element, the City will not be able to evaluate potential requests to develop below the maximum density. The City has committed to working with the community, including the local development community, to create development standards which promote development consistent with the identified densities.
960

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

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

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

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

Residential Incentive Overlay
The Residential Incentive Overlay District is intended to create opportunities for residential development at strategic locations along Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard. The designation allows for development of new higher-density residential uses in areas where limited residential with lower densities are currently allowed. Small-lot single-family subdivisions are also appropriate in the designated areas. The Residential Incentive Overlay also expands development opportunities on residential and commercial 961

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

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

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

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

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

Development Standards – This overlay designation allows for developments that meet the following:
 Maximum Density: 40 units per acre
 Maximum Residential Cap: 450 units within the SoBECA Urban Plan 962

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The City of Costa Mesa must grant one density bonus to housing developments which contain at least one of the following (excluding any units permitted by the density bonus awarded):
963

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

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

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

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

964

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-10 Table 3-4: Density Bonus for Moderate-Income Households Percent Moderate-Income Units Percent Density Bonus
10 5
11 6
12 7
13 8
14 9
15 10
16 11
17 12
18 13
19 14
20 15
21 16
22 17
23 18
24 19
25 20
26 21
27 22
28 23
29 24
30 25
31 26
32 27
33 28
34 29
35 30
36 31
37 32
38 33
39 34
40 35

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

965

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-11 Table 3-5: Density Bonus for Land Donation
Percent Very Low-Income Percent Density Bonus
10 15
11 16
12 17
13 18
14 19
15 20
16 21
17 22
18 23
19 24
20 25
21 26
22 27
23 28
24 29
25 30
26 31
27 32
28 33
29 34
30 35

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

Compliance with State Law
Until 2021, under Government Code Section 65915, known as the Density Bonus Law, the maximum bonus was 35%. California state law AB 2345 states that all jurisdictions in California are required to process 966

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-12 projects proposing up to 50% additional density, as long as those projects provide the additional Below Market Rate units (units affordable to low and very low-income households) in the original proposed project, unless the locality already allows a bonus above 35%. The City’s Density Bonus program allows a maximum of 35% density increase; however, AB 2345 requires an allowance of up to 50% density bonus when the base BMR is proposed. The City has included a program in Chapter 4: Housing Plan to update the City’s Development Code in compliance with state legislation.

3. Residential Development Standards
The City of Costa Mesa established four residential districts to provide a range of housing types. These standards and regulations are intended to create the highest quality residential development, minimize land use conflicts, encourage the maintenance of residential neighborhoods, and implement the goals of the City’s General Plan. In addition to residential districts, Costa Mesa also includes three types of mixed- use designations to bring together residential and commercial developments.  Single-Family Residential District (R1) – Single-Family Residential is intended to promote the development of single-family detached units on lots measuring at least 6,000 square feet. The maximum density is 7.26 dwelling units per gross acre.
 Multiple-Family Residential District, Medium Density (R2-MD) – Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential is intended to promote the development of multi-family properties on lots measuring a minimum of 12,000 square feet. The maximum density is 3,630 square feet per dwelling unit / 12 dwelling units per gross acre.
 Multiple-Family Residential District, High Density (R2-HD) – High Density Multiple-Family Residential is intended to promote the development of multi-family properties with a minimum of 12,000 square feet. The maximum density is 3,000 square feet per dwelling unit / 14.25 dwelling units per gross acre.
 Multiple-Family Residential District (R3) – Multiple-Family Residential is intended to promote the development of multi — family properties with a minimum of 12,000 square feet. The maximum density is 2,178 square feet per dwelling unit / 20 dwelling units per gross acre.  Town Center District (TC) – Town Center is intended to allow intensely developed mixed commercial and residential uses within a limited geographical area located between Sunflower Avenue, I-405, Bristol Street, and Avenue of the Arts. Developments can range from one- to two- story office and retail buildings to mid- and high-rise buildings, including residential.  Planned Development Commercial (PDC) – Planned Development Commercial is intended for retail shops, offices, and service establishments, including but not limited to, hotels, restaurants, theaters, museums, financial institutions, and health clubs. These uses are intended to serve adjacent residential area and the entire community and region. Complementary residential uses may also be included in the planned development.
 Institutional and Recreational Multi-Use District – Institutional and Recreational Multi-Use is only applicable to the Fairview Development Center and is intended to allow the integration of a variety of land uses and intensities at a low to moderate density and intensity. 967

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-13 As mentioned above, the City of Costa Mesa’s Zoning Code establishes standards which regulate development throughout the City. The development standards include minimum requirements for lot size, width, building setbacks, and open space. Table 3-6 provides the development standards applicable to each zoning district in Costa Mesa that permit residential development.

Table 3-6: Development Standards in Costa Mesa - Dimensions Zone
Dimensions Min. Yard Setbacks (ft) Construction Standards Min. Lot Size
(square feet)
Min. Lot
Width (feet)
Front
(feet)
Side
(feet) Rear (feet) Max.

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

Interior Lot:
50 ft.

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

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

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

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

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

Source: City of Costa Mesa Zoning code
968

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-14 Yard Requirements
Yards provide light and air, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, emergency access, and general aesthetic improvements. The Costa Mesa Zoning Code establishes setback requirements in order to maintain yard area. Minimum setback requirements are consistent in residential districts, 5 feet, but they differ depending on type development in mixed-use districts. While it is possible that setback requirements may pose a constraint on reaching maximum permitted density in some cases, there is enough flexibility in the current ordinances that setback requirements do not constitute a significant constraint on residential development.

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

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

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

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

969

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-15 Parking Standards
The City of Costa Mesa mandates parking requirements be applied to all developments in the City. Table 3- 7 provides the required parking for all housing types. The Zoning Code further identifies the number of parking spaces that must be covered and those that can remain uncovered. These requirements ensure that there is adequate parking provided for residents and for guests in both single-family and multi-family residences.

Table 3-7: Parking Requirements for Residential Uses
Unit Type Number of Spaces
Required
Single-Family Detached with 4
Bedrooms or Less
Without garage access from alley 4
With garage access from alley 3
Single-Family Detached with 5
Bedrooms of More
Without garage access from alley 5
With garage access from alley 4
Multi-Family Residential
Bachelor/Studio 2
1 Bedroom 2.5
2 Bedrooms 3
3 Bedrooms or more 4
Source: City of Costa Mesa Zoning Code
The cost associated with garage parking construction can be viewed as a constraint to affordable housing development, especially for multi-family housing. However, Costa Mesa’s parking regulations differ depending on the number of bedrooms proposed per unit. Affordable housing projects that qualify for a density bonus may also request application for additional incentives which can be provided in the form of reduction of parking requirements. While off-street parking requirements can affect planned residential density, particularly for small lots and in-fill areas, this potential constraint is mitigated by the flexible standards shown above.

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

Table 3-8: Parking Standards of Neighboring Communities Unit Type Number of Spaces Required
City of Newport Beach
Accessory Dwelling Unit 1 parking space, with exceptions (1) Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit No additional parking required Single-Unit Dwellings – Attached 2 per unit in a garage Single-Unit Dwellings – Detached and less than
4,000 sq. ft. of floor area 2 per unit in a garage
970

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-16 Table 3-8: Parking Standards of Neighboring Communities Unit Type Number of Spaces Required
City of Newport Beach
Single-Unit Dwellings – Detached and 4,000 sq. ft. of
floor area 3 per unit in a garage
Single-Unit Dwellings – Balboa Island 2 per unit in a garage Multi-Unit Dwellings – 3 units
2 per unit covered, plus guest parking
1-2 units, no guest parking required
3 units, 1 guest parking space
Multi-Unit Dwellings – 4 units or more 2 per unit covered, plus 0.5 space per unit for guest parking Two-Unit Dwellings 2 per unit; 1 in a garage and 1 covered or in a garage Live/Work Units 2 per unit in a garage, plus 2 for guest/customer parking Senior Housing – Market Rate 1.2 per unit
Senior Housing – Affordable 1 per unit
City of Irvine
Single Family 1-3 bedrooms 2 spaces
4+ bedrooms 3 spaces + visitor parking (2)
Attached Ownership
Studio 1 space + visitor parking (2)
1 bedroom 1.5 spaces + visitor parking (2)
2 bedroom 2 spaces + visitor parking (2)
Attached Rental
Studio 1 space + visitor parking (2)
1 bedroom 1.4 spaces + visitor parking (2)
2 bedroom 1.6 spaces + visitor parking (2)
3 bedroom 2 spaces + visitor parking (2)
City of Fountain Valley
Single-family, detached: up to 4 bedrooms 2 stalls in a garage Single-family, detached: 5+ bedrooms or homes
larger than 4,000 sq. ft. 3 stalls in a garage
Single-family, detached Same as single-family, detached Mobile home park 2 covered for unit, plus 0.2 visitor stall/unit provided independent of the unit
Accessory dwelling unit
No parking required beyond that which is required for the primary residence. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65852.2, replacement parking cannot be required if an existing garage is converted to an ADU.

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

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

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

Source: City of Newport Beach, Irvine, and Fountain Valley Municipal Codes 971

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-17 Program 2M is included in Chapter 4: Housing Plan to review and revise the City’s residential off-street parking standards for multi-family residential projects in an effort to facilitate the development of multi- family developments, and specifically affordable housing projects.

4. Variety of Housing Types Permitted
California Housing Element Law mandates jurisdictions must make sites available through zoning and development standards to promote the development of a variety of housing types for all socioeconomic levels of the populations. Housing types include single-family homes, multi-family housing, accessory dwelling units, factory-built homes, mobile-homes, employee and agricultural work housing, transitional and supportive housing, single-room occupancy (SROs), and housing for persons with disabilities. Table 3- 9 shows the various housing types permitted throughout the City of Costa Mesa.

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

R1 R2-MD R2-HD R3 C1 C2 C1-S TC MG MP PDR-LD PDR-MD PDR-HD PDR-NCM PDC PDI I&R I&R-MLT Single-Family P P P P - - - - - - P P P P P P - P
Multi-Family - P P P - - - P - - P P P P P P - P
Accessory
Dwelling Unit P P P P - - - P - - P P P P P P - P
Common
Interest
Development
- P P P - - - P - - P P P P P P - P
Small Lot
Subdivision,
Residential
- P P P - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mobile Home
Park - C C C - - - - - - C C C C C C - -
Boarding
House, Small
(1)
- P P P - - - - - - P P P P P P - -
Boarding
House, Large
(1)
- C C C - - - - - - - C C C C C - -
Residential
Care Facility,
6 or Fewer
Persons

P P P P - - - - - - P P P P P P P P
972

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

R1 R2-MD R2-HD R3 C1 C2 C1-S TC MG MP PDR-LD PDR-MD PDR-HD PDR-NCM PDC PDI I&R I&R-MLT Residential
Care Facility,
7 or More
- C C C - - - - - - - C C C C C C -
Group
Homes, 6 or
Fewer
Persons

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

S C C C - - - - - - - C C C C C P -
Sober Living
Homes, 6 or
Fewer
Persons

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

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

P – Permitted
C – Conditional Use Permit
S – Special Use Permit
973

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-19 Table 3-9: Housing Types Permitted in Costa Mesa
Housing
Types
Zones
Residential Commercial Industrial Planned Development
Institutio
nal &
Rec.

R1 R2-MD R2-HD R3 C1 C2 C1-S TC MG MP PDR-LD PDR-MD PDR-HD PDR-NCM PDC PDI I&R I&R-MLT (-) – Prohibited
Single-Family Dwelling
The Costa Mesa Zoning Code defines a Single-Family Dwelling as a building of permanent character which is designed or used for residential occupancy by one family. A single mobile home on a foundation system on a single lot is a single-family dwelling. A single-family dwelling may be attached or detached from another single-family dwelling, including but not limited to an accessory dwelling unit. Single Family dwelling units are permitted in the R1, R2-MD, R2-HD, and R3 residential zones, as well as the PDR-LD, PDR- MD, PDR-HD, PDR-NCM, PDC, PDI, and I&R-MLT zones.

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

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

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

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

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

Small Lot Subdivision, Residential
974

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-20 A Small Lot Subdivision refers to a residential development that contains a maximum of 15 detached or townhome style units with no common walls where each unit is independently constructed on an individual parcel. In a small lot subdivision, the land is subdivided into fee simple parcels containing each unit and each individual lot is provided with either a direct access to a public street/alley or an easement access through a recorded subdivision map. Small Lot subdivision projects are permitted in the R2-MD, R2-HD, and R3 residential zones.

Manufactured Housing
Manufactured housing includes detached housing that is built to the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, including structures known as manufactured homes and mobile homes. A factory-built structure is considered a single-family home and shall be reviewed under the same standards as a site-built structure if it is manufactured under the authority of 42 U.S.C. section 5401 - National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act. Mobile homes are permitted conditionally in the R2-MD, R2-HD, R3 residential zones and PDR-LD, PDR-MD, PDR-HD, PDR-NCM, PDC, and PDI zones.

Boarding House
A Boarding House is a residence or dwelling, other than a hotel, wherein rooms are rented under 2 or more separate written or oral rental agreements, leases, or subleases. The property owner, agent, or rental manager may or may not reside on the property. A small boarding house rents 2 or less rooms, while a large boarding house rents out 3 to 6 rooms. The City of Costa Mesa prohibits boarding houses that rent more than 6 rooms. Small boarding house developments are permitted in all zones where manufactured/mobile homes are permitted, and large boarding house developments are conditionally permit in these zones.

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

Group Homes
A Group Home is a facility that is being used as a supportive living environment for persons who are considered handicapped under state or federal law. A group home operated by a single operator or service provider (whether State licensed or unlicensed) constitutes a single facility, whether the facility occupies one or more dwelling units. Group homes are allowed in all residential zoning districts through a conditional or special use permit. Small group homes are permitted with a special use permit in residential and planned development zones, and they are permitted as a primary use in institutional zones subject to consistency with an adopted Master Plan. Large group homes are conditionally permitted in residential and planned 975

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-21 development zones and are permitted as a primary use in the institutional zones subject to consistency with an adopted Master Plan.

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

Based on California Health and Human Services (CHHS) data shown below, Costa Mesa has more Certified & Licensed group home facilities (in number and per capita) than the surrounding Orange County jurisdictions. Under the current regulations, there are significant portions of the City that can accommodate additional facilities. Per capita estimates are shown below (based on 2021 US Census population estimates).
 Costa Mesa: 55 Certified and Licensed Facilities (1 per 2,013 residents)  Newport Beach: 35 Certified and Licensed Facilities (1 per 2,422 residents)  Huntington Beach: 42 Certified and Licensed Facilities (1 per 2,777 residents)  Fountain Valley: 16 Certified and Licensed Facilities (1 per 3,530 residents)  Irvine: 5 Certified and Licensed Facilities (1 per 61,806 residents)  Santa Ana: 28 Certified and Licensed Facilities (1 per 11,051 residents) Notwithstanding, the City has included Program 2P in the Housing Element to review and consider revisions to its zoning code and application procedures applicable to group homes to promote objectivity and greater approval certainty.

976

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-22 Transitional Housing
The Costa Mesa Zoning Code defines Transitional Housing as a development with buildings configured as rental developments but operated under program requirements that call for the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at some predetermined future point in time, which may not be less than 6 months. Transitional housing that is provided in single family dwelling, multi-family dwelling units, residential care facilities, or boarding house uses, shall be permitted, conditionally permitted, or prohibited in the same manner as the other single-family dwelling, multi-family dwelling units, residential care facilities, or boarding house uses. Currently, the city permits transitional housing consistent with the development standards and regulations of the type of unit it is proposed as; for example, if a transitional housing project is proposed as a single-family unit (SFU), it is subject to the same provisions of the identified zone for a SFU. The City has identified Program 2J to update the zoning code to acknowledge transitional housing distinctively in the City’s land use matrix, consistent with state law.

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

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

Single Room Occupancy Residential Hotel (SRO)
An SRO is permitted in certain commercial zones and contains units designed for long-term occupancy by a single person. Double occupancy may be permitted. SROs are conditionally permitted in the C1 and C2 commercial zones.

Emergency Shelter
An emergency shelter provides temporary housing and food for individuals in need or disaster victims. The shelters may be operated by a public or non-profit organization. Emergency shelters are permitted by-right 977

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-23 in the PDI Zone. Emergency shelters are also permitted in the MP Zone with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. All emergency shelters are subject to the following development standards (City-owned emergency shelters are exempt from certain provisions):
 The maximum length of stay may not exceed 120 days in a 365-day period.  Each emergency shelter may have a maximum of 30 beds.  Off-site parking must be provided at a parking rate of 1 parking space per 4 beds or one 1 space per employee, whichever is higher. In comparison to the Cities of Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, and Irvine, Costa Mesa’s emergency shelter parking requirements are lowest and therefore not considered a constraint.
 Stays at an emergency shelter facility shall be limited to the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. the following day.
 Nonoperational and unregistered vehicles may not be kept on site.  Each emergency shelter will provide an interior and exterior waiting area adequate to accommodate waiting clients and to prevent queuing into the public right-of-way. An exterior waiting area must be physically separated and visually screened from the public right-of-way.  The emergency shelter facility will provide an on-site resident manager on site at all times.  A minimum distance of 300 feet must be maintained from another emergency shelter. The distance of separation shall be measured in a straight line between the property lines of each use without regard to intervening structures or objects.
 The shelter operator shall provide minimum exterior lighting in compliance with the city’s security requirements.
 The shelter operator shall patrol a half-mile radius surrounding the shelter site during hours that the shelter is in operation to ensure that shelter clients and homeless individuals who have been denied access are not congregating in the neighborhood.  Alcohol and narcotics use, and consumption are prohibited within the facility and on the property.  An operations plan will be submitted for review and approval by the development services director and police chief prior to operation of the emergency shelter. The plan must include minimum provisions related to on-site security and safety, staff training, loitering control, client eligibility, counseling services, and indoor and outdoor management of the facility.

In April 2021, the City of Costa Mesa completed the construction of its permanent Bridge Shelter within the City. The Costa Mesa City Council purchased the Airway property in March of 2019 and completed $4.5 million worth of capital improvements to convert the 26,000-square-foot industrial warehouse to a 12,000- square-foot 72-bed shelter with a 14,000- square- foot tenant space. The permanent Bridge Shelter was built in coordination with the neighboring City of Newport Beach who made a one-time payment of $1.4 million in capital costs as well as $200,000 in furniture, fixtures, and equipment for the site. Additionally, Newport Beach will provide $1 million annually for 20 set-aside beds.

Construction of the Bridge Shelter, as well as the organization and operation of the temporary Bridge Shelter at Lighthouse Church, represent the Costa Mesa’s commitment to assisting those residents currently experiencing homelessness. With the shelter in full operation, the City is now able to assist up to 978

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-24 72 residents at one time. This multi-year effort is a tremendous step towards helping to house residents within the City of Costa Mesa who may need assistance and transition to more permanent housing. The City also provides services and assistance to residents of the Bridge Shelter.

In addition, a total of 294 parcels (483.5 total acres and an average parcel size of 1.6 acres) are zoned MP and 150 parcels (168.7 total acres and an average parcel size of 1.1 acres) are zoned PDI which allows for the development of emergency shelters by-right without discretionary approval. Additionally, the Bridge Shelter parcel is approximately 1.3 acres large – which is similar to the average size of other parcels in the MP and PDI zones. These parcels currently include industrial uses such as light manufacturing, warehousing, and logistics centers, office buildings, schools, churches, civic uses and surface parking lots. There are two areas of the City with a mix of PDI and MP zoning – these include the area between John Wayne Airport and the 55 Freeway and the area to the north-west of the City between the 405 Freeway and W MacArthur Boulevard. Parcels located in these PDI and MP zones are all located approximately within a half-mile of a transit stop. In the area closest to John Wayne Airport, the 71 OCTA line runs through Red Hill Avenue. In the area closest to W MacArthur Boulevard, OCTA lines 43, 76, and 37 run along Harbor Boulevard and W MacArthur Boulevard.

Based on CalEnviroScreen 4.0, there are 3 hazardous waste generators within the MP and PDI zones in the north-west portion of the City and 4 near the north-east portion of the City as shown in Figure 3-1b. These generators are light industrial uses and do not create an environment unfit for human habitation. Located in close proximity to the area are existing and new housing units. In fact, residential development is allowed in certain industrial zones in the City pursuant to residential overlay zoning and subject to an adopted master plan. As such, the hazardous waste generators identified by CalEnviroScreen 4.0 do not pose a threat to the development and use of future emergency shelters in the area.

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

Source: City of Costa Mesa, Zoning Code Map.
979

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-25 Figure 3-1b: Map of Hazardous Waste Generators

Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0, Hazardous Waste.

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

Low Barrier Navigation Centers
AB 101 states that “Low Barrier Navigation Center developments are essential tools for alleviating the homelessness crisis in this state.” Low Barrier Navigation Centers are defined as a Housing First, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. Low Barrier Navigation Centers are required as a use by right in areas zoned for mixed uses and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses if it meets specified requirements. The Costa Mesa Municipal Code does not address Low Barrier Navigations Centers by 980

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-26 definition. A program is included in Chapter 4: Housing Plan to ensure the City’s development standards allow Low Barrier Navigation Centers by-right in all zones that permit mixed-uses and non-residential uses.

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

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

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

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

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

Major changes involving substantial amendments to the master plan encompassing one or more of the minor changes listed above, or any other proposed change determined by the Development Services 981

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-27 Director as a major amendment, shall be subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. If the major amendment results in an overall building square footage that exceeds the maximum density or building square footage allowed by the approved master plan, the Zoning Administrator must find that the major amendment is consistent with the density, floor area ratio, and trip budget standards established by the general plan, as applicable.

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

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

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

Medium-Density and High-Density Zone, and North Costa Mesa Zones: Single- and multi-family residential developments containing any type or mixture of housing units, either attached or detached, including but 982

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-28 not limited to, clustered development, townhouses, patio homes, detached houses, duplexes, garden apartments, and high-rise apartments or common interest developments are appropriate.

As a Complementary Use: nonresidential use of a religious, educational, or recreational nature may be allowed if the planning commission finds the use to be compatible with the PD residential project.

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

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

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

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

Any of these proposed changes as listed above are required to be approved by the Costa Mesa voters through a special or general election after the City Council has approved the project. Applicants may choose to put their project on a General Election which could result in timing delays to the project as those typically only occur in June and November of even numbered years or may pay for a Special Election to occur. Special Elections typically cost approximately $200,000, a cost which must be paid for by the developer. This can be a significant capital investment that may return uncertain election results (even if a project is approved 983

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-29 by the City Council through an entitlement process). This process may discourage developers from pursuing housing development projects and particularly affordable housing projects.

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

While the exact cost and impact is not known, it can be assumed based on the analysis above that the Measure Y process adds time to the entitlement schedule and potentially additional costs if a Special Election is required. Program 3G discusses specific actions the City will take to address Measure Y in the context of the Housing Element and making sites available to accommodate the City’s RHNA.

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

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

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

Developments over 4 stories are prohibited.

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

The Commercial-Residential land use designation is intended to allow commercial uses which serve and complement the residential neighborhoods to the east and within the specific plan. Appropriate uses 984

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-30 include markets, drug stores, retail shops, financial institutions, service establishments and support office uses. Single room occupancy hotels are also permitted in this area. The location of these uses near residential neighborhoods is further intended to reduce the need for longer vehicle trips to areas of more intense commercial activity in order to obtain goods or services.

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

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

985

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-31

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

0.15 high traffic

0.25 moderate traffic

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

R1, R2-MD,

PDR-MD,

MU, I&R
≤ 12 units per
ace

0.15 high traffic

0.25 moderate traffic

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

Ancillary commercial uses are
permitted in the planned
development zones.

R2-HD, R3,

PDR-HD,

PDR-NCM,

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

PDR-NCM
zone is 25-35
units per
acre)

0.15 high traffic

0.25 moderate traffic

0.35 low traffic
Commercial
Center (1)
Major shopping, service, and office
facilities designated
serve city-wide and regional markets.

C1, C2, C1-
S,

PDC, AP, P,
CL
≤ 20 units per
acre

0.25 high traffic

0.35 moderate traffic

0.45 low traffic

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

PDC
≤ 20 units per
acre

0.652 South Coast Plaza
(east of Bear Street)

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

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

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

MP, POI, CL ≤ 20 units per
acre

0.20 high traffic

0.30 moderate traffic

0.40 low traffic

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

Source: North Costa Mesa Specific Plan (2016)
986

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-32 Table 3-12: Maximum Building Height – North Costa Mesa Specific Plan Sub-Are Max. Building Height
Area 1 – Home Ranch Varies (1)
Area 2 – Metro Pointe
30 feet / 2 stories (2)(3)
(North of South Coast Drive)
90 feet / 6 stories (2)(3)
(South of South Coast Drive)
Area 3 – South Coast Plaza and Crystal
Court
85 feet / 4 stories
Area 4 – SCP Town Center 315 feet / 25 stories (2)
Area 5 – The Lakes
90 feet / 6 stories (2)
(Mid-Rise Residential)
280 feet / 26 stories (2)
(High-Rise Residential)
Area 6 – South Coast Metro Varies (2)(4)
Area 7 – Sakioka Lot 1 60 feet / 4 stories (4)
Area 8 – Sakioka Lot 2
60 feet / 4 stories (2)(4)
(North of Collector Street)
180 feet / 12 stories (2)(4)
(South of Collector Street)
Notes:
(1) See North Costa Mesa Specific Plan.
(2) Buildings above 173 feet in height will require a determination of no hazard by the FAA. (3) Current development agreement allows buildings up to 15 stories. (4) Buildings which encroach into the setback for Anton Blvd. and/or Sakioka Dr. cannot exceed 30 feet (approx. 2 stories) within the setback area.

Source: North Costa Mesa Specific Plan (2016)
Costa Mesa Theater and Arts District Plan
The Costa Mesa Theater and Art District includes 54 acres of land located east of Bristol Street, south of Sunflower Avenue, west of Avenue of the Arts, and north of the San Diego Freeway. The specific plan area includes high-rise office buildings, cultural facilities, hotels, restaurants, and other commercial uses; it neighbors high-density residential developments. The goals of the plan are to:
 Create a strong sense of place and awareness of a coherent identity for the Costa Mesa Theater and Arts District that will recognize existing cultural and corporate resources in the area and successfully integrate new resources as they are developed.  Assist pedestrians and vehicle operators in reaching their destinations quickly and easily, and, once they are in the area, make information available that highlights additional points of attraction throughout the district.
 Inform local, regional, national, and international communities about the Costa Mesa Theater and Arts District.
 Support occasional programs and installations in the Costa Mesa Theater and arts District that will recognize the importance of culture and the arts in daily life. 987

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-33  Encourage appropriate interplay between policies that apply particularly to the Costa Mesa Theater Arts District and those policies that evolve in the City of Costa Mesa to serve regional needs.  Improve communication and cooperation among area property owners in monitoring and fostering design and development within the district.

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

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

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

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

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

An application for a reasonable accommodation must be submitted to the City of Costa Mesa’s Planning Division and requires approval by the Development Services Director within 60 days of the application being deemed complete. A denied application may be appealed to the Planning Commission and is subject to the notice, review, approval, and appeal procedures prescribed for any other discretionary permit. There are no fees associated with the application and it must include:
 The zoning code provision, regulation, policy, or condition from which accommodation is being requested;
988

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-34  The basis for the claim that the individuals are considered disabled under state or federal law, and why the accommodation is necessary to provide equal opportunity for housing and to make the specific housing available to the individual;
 Any other information that the Director reasonably determines is necessary for evaluating the request;
 Documentation that the applicant is either an individual with a disability, applying on behalf of one or more individuals with a disability, or a developer or provider of housing for one or more individuals with a disability;
 The specific exception or modification to the zoning code provision, policy, or practices requested;  Documentation that the specific exception or modification requested by the applicant is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the residence; and
 Any other information that the hearing officer reasonably concludes is necessary to determine whether the grounds for reasonable accommodation can be made, so long as any request for information regarding the disability of the individual(s) benefited complies with fair housing law protections and the privacy rights of the individual(s) affected.

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

The inherent constraints of any reasonable accommodation process are that the accommodation must be both “reasonable” and “necessary.” Each of these concepts are unavoidably subjective in some ways and entail a highly specific inquiry into a particular, typically unique, set of circumstances. The examples offered by HCD in its comments on the draft element reference consideration of General Plan consistency, for 989

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-35 example. A General Plan and evaluation of uses as consistent or inconsistent with the General Plan may be a constraint, but both a General Plan and acting consistently with the General Plan are obligations imposed on the City by State law. Similarly, impacts to individuals and properties in the vicinity of any requested deviation from standards is a routine and appropriate factor to review in determining whether a particular accommodation requested is reasonable under all the circumstances presented. Nevertheless, the City has established Program 2N and has committed to review and revise its reasonable accommodation procedures to be consistent with the requirements of State law as needed, and to consider public comments to determine whether revisions can be made to minimize constraints in the process.

Definition of Family
Under the right of privacy, the California Constitution prohibits a restrictive definition of “family” which limits the number of unrelated persons and differentiates between related and unrelated individuals living together. The City of Costa Mesa’s Municipal Code defines the term “family” as one or more persons occupying one dwelling unit and living together as a single housekeeping unit. The City also defines a “single housekeeping unit” as occupants which have established ties and familiarity with each other, jointly use common areas, interact with each other, share meals, household activities, and expenses and responsibilities. Membership in the single housekeeping unit must be fairly stable as opposed to transient, the members have some control over who becomes a member of the household, and the residential activities of the household are conducted on a nonprofit basis. The City also includes that there is a rebuttable presumption that integral facilities do not constitute single housekeeping units.

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

The Courts have clearly distinguished between single housekeeping units and those of a more transient nature, such as boarding homes, motels, etc. The City’s code does not restrict single housekeeping units to those who are related, but does properly define a single housekeeping unit consistently with the law. State zoning law allows the city to establish zones of different residential density, such as R-1 (single family residential), R-2 (two unit/family residential), multi-family, mixed use, etc. The City’s definition of family does not touch on whether the members are disabled or not, is not based on and is not intended to discriminate against any based on different levels of ability or disability. The City has added Program 2O to review and revised the definition of single-housekeeping unit (which is language within the definition of family) to provide greater flexibility in consideration of accommodating a variety of household situations for related and unrelated individuals living together.

990

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-36

9. Development Fees
Residential developers are subject to a variety of fees and exactions to process permits and provide necessary services and facilities as allowed by State law. Development fees can be a constraint to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing because the added costs for developers results in higher housing unit costs. Development fees are, however, necessary to provide planning and public services. Table 3-13 provides the planning processing fees and Table 3-14 provides the engineering fees.

Table 3-13: Planning Processing Fees
Review Process Fee
ABC License Review $500
Administrative Adjustment $3,800
Address / Address Change $200
Appeal
Planning Commission
Decision
Located within 500 ft. of
project site $1,220
Located greater than 500 ft.
of project site $3,825
Non-Planning Commission
Decision
Located within 500 ft. of
project site $690
Located greater than 500 ft.
of project site $3,825
Banner Permit $25
CC&Rs Review $1,000
Certificate of Appropriateness $7,500
Certificate of Compliance $1,500
Conditional Use Permit $7,500
Conditional Use Permit – Measure X $27,508
Density Bonus Review $12,000
Design Review Minor $1,500
Major $3,800
Designating a Cultural Resource No fee
Development Agreement Time and materials with
$20,000 min. deposit
Development Agreement
Annual Review
Planning Commission Review $1,425
City Council Review $1,875
Development Review (Staff) $1,500
Environmental Review / CEQA Total consultant contract
estimates plus 10%
Flood Zone Determination Letter $250
Gate Permits $500
General Plan Amendment Screening $5,000
General Plan Amendment $12,000
Home Occupation Permit (Planning Review) $100
Land Use Restriction $500
Lot Line Adjustment $1,500
991

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-37 Table 3-13: Planning Processing Fees
Review Process Fee
Master Plan $9,000
Master Plan Amendment
Minor Change $1,250
Minor Amendment $6,000
Major Amendment $7,500
Minor Modification $500
Minor Conditional Use Permit $3,800
Minor Design Review $1,500
Mixed-Use Development Plan Screening $5,000
Mobile Home Park
Applications
Mobile Home Park Conversion $7,500
Tenant Relocation (Staff Review) $5,000
Tenant Relocation (Third Party Review) Total consultant contract estimates plus 10%
Off-Site Hazardous Waste
Facility
Notice of Intent $5,000
Conditional Use Permit $12,000
Local Assessment Committee (Formation
and Convening) $5,000
Planned Signing Program $1,500
Plan Check
Commercial $250
Industrial $250
Residential – Minor, 4 or Less $250
Residential – Major, 5 or More $500
Landscape Plan Only $500
Pre-Application Review $1,500
Public Entertainment Permit $1,500
Public Notice (500-Foot Radius and Newspaper Publishing) $1.00 per mailing address plus publishing costs
Reasonable Accommodation No fee
Renewal/Time Extension
Director Action $500
Zoning Administrator Action $2,500
Planning Commission Action $3,800
Residential and Non-Residential Common Interest Development Conversion
$7,500 plus $115 per unit
for required building
inspection
Rezone $10,000
Second-Story Notification $500
Shared Parking Approval $500
Small Cell Facility Encroachment Permit – Planning Review $1,000 Special Use Permit $5,500
Specific Plan / Amendment $12,000
Specific Plan Conformity Review $9,000
Tentative Tract Map $6,000
Tentative Parcel Map $3,800
992

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-38 Table 3-13: Planning Processing Fees
Review Process Fee
Tree Removal Review / Tree Replacement Plan $500
Urban Master Plan Screening $10,000
Use Determination Letter $500
Variance $7,500
Zoning Verification Letter $250
Source: City of Costa Mesa Planning Processing Fee Schedule (2019)

Table 3-14: Engineering Fees
Type Fee
Drainage Fee $6,283 - $11,309 per acre + storm drain upgrade Final Map Check Fee $90/hour
Off-Site Plan Check $90/hour
Street Improvement Plan Check Fee $90/hour
Deposit/bond – Off-Site Work Twice the amount of the cost estimate of off-site work Construction Access Permit $230
Curb and Gutter Permit $365
Driveway Approach $425
Sidewalk Approach $380
Wheelchair Ramp $365
Public Right-of-Way Inspection $125/hour
Source: City of Costa Mesa Development Fees (2019)
The City of Costa Mesa assesses impact fees on a project-by-project basis, taking into account the number of units proposed in the development and the impact these units may have on the local school district, parkland, circulation in the area, and sewage and water infrastructure. Table 3-15 provides the development impact fees as they relate to the development of housing in Costa Mesa.

Table 3-15: Development Impact Fees
Use Fee
Newport-Mesa Unified School District
Residential Developer Fees $1.84 per sq.ft. (additions under 500 sq.ft. may be exempt)
Transportation
Low Density Residential (9.41 ADT) $235 per net trip
Medium Density Residential (7.5 ADT) $235 per net trip
High Density Residential (6.85 ADT) $235 per net trip
Parkland
Single-Family Residential $13,572 per dwelling unit
Multi-Family Residential $13,829 per dwelling unit
Apartment $5,000 per dwelling unit
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
Small New Development Plan Check $420
993

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-39 Table 3-15: Development Impact Fees
Use Fee
Large New Development Plan Check $1,260
Single Family Residential
1 Bedroom $3,083
2 Bedrooms $4,029
3 bedrooms $4,973
4 Bedrooms $5,918
5+ Bedrooms $6,912
Multi-Family Residential
Studio $1,591
1 Bedroom $2,486
2 Bedrooms $3,482
3 bedrooms $4,426
4+ Bedrooms $5,371
San Juaquin Hill Trans. Corridor Agency
Single-Family Residential $4,448 per dwelling unit
Multi-Family Residential $2,595 per dwelling unit
Mesa Water District
Service Establishment Fee $20/account
Sources: City of Costa Mesa and Other Agencies Development Fees (2019) Newport-Mesa Unified School District Developer Fees
CMSD Sewer Connection Fees (2020)
The development fees associated with each project is dependent on the housing type, density, intensity of use, and location. In addition to these direct fees, the total cost of development is contingent on the project meeting the City’s policies and standards, as well as the project applicant submitting necessary documents and plans in a timely manner.

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

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

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

10. On-/Off-Site Improvements
994

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-40 Site improvements in the City consist of those typically associated with development for on-site improvements (street frontage improvements, curbs, gutters, sewer/water, and sidewalks), and off-site improvements caused by project impacts (drainage, parks, traffic, schools, and sewer/water). Because residential development cannot take place without the addition of adequate infrastructure, site improvement requirements are considered a regular component of development of housing within the City and may also influence the sale or rental price of housing. The majority of cost associated with on and off- site improvements is undertaken by the City and recovered in the City’s development and impact fees.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. Building Codes and Enforcement
The City of Costa Mesa’s construction codes are based upon the California Code of Regulations, Title 24 that includes the California Administrative Code, Building Code, Residential Code, Electrical Code, Mechanical Code, Plumbing Code, Energy Code, Historical Building Code, Fire Code, Existing Building Code, 995

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-41 Green Building Standards Code, and California Referenced Standards Code. These are considered to be the minimum necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the City’s residents. In compliance with State law, the California Building Standards Code is revised and updated every three (3) years. The newest edition of the California Building Standards Code is the 2019 edition with an effective date of January 1, 2020.

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

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

Applicants for all permits or reviews are recommended to request a pre-application meeting with the respective department to: confirm City requirements as they apply to the proposed project; review the City’s review process, possible project alternatives or revisions; and identify information and materials the City will require with the application, and any necessary technical studies and information relating to the environmental review of the project.

The typical proposal for a single-family or multi-family residential development entitlement review is provided below:
 New single-family residences that comply with development standards are processed through the normal plan check process. Planning staff is the approval body for single-family developments and do not require public hearings.
 New multi-family developments (with 3 or fewer units) that comply with development standards are processed through the normal plan check process. Planning staff is the approval body for these type of developments (staff report written and posted online) and do not require public hearings. Approximate processing time to get to a decision is typically 6–8 weeks; following planning approval, the project would go through normal plan check process.  New multi-family developments (with 3 or more units) that comply with development standards are processed through the Design Review application process. The Planning Commission is the 996

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-42 approval body for these types of developments, with a public hearing before the 7-member commission. Approximate processing time is 8–12 weeks; following planning commission approval, the project would go through normal plan check process.

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

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

Table 3-16: Planning Application Review Process
Planning Application
Public
Notice
Required
Public
Hearing
Required
Recommending
Authority
Final Review
Authority
Notice of
Decision
Development Review No No None Planning Division No Minor Modification Lot Line Adjustment No No None Planning Division No
Administrative Adjustment
Yes No None Zoning
Administrator Yes Minor Conditional Use Permit
Minor Design Review
Planned Signing Program
Design Review
Yes Yes Planning
Division
Planning
Commission Yes
Mobile Home Park Conversion
Common Interest Development
Conversion
Specific Plan Conformity Review
Tentative Parcel Map
Tentative Tract Map
Variance
Conditional Use Permit
Yes Yes Planning
Division
Planning
Commission (1) Yes Density Bonus
Master Plan
Master Plan – Preliminary
Redevelopment Action Yes Yes Planning
Commission
Redevelopment
Agency Yes
Rezone Yes Yes Planning
Commission (2) City Council No
Local Register of Historic Places No No Planning
Commission (3) City Council Yes
Certificate of Appropriateness No No Planning
Commission (3)
Planning
Commission (3) No
Note:
(1) Except where noted otherwise in the Zoning Code.
(2) If located in a redevelopment project area, the Redevelopment Authority is the recommending authority. (3) Or other commission/committee as designated by the City Council.

Source: City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29. Planning Application Review Process Table 3-17 shows recent projects which received entitlement approval and the date applicants submitted for building permits. As shown, the gap between planning approval and building submittal ranges from about one week to a little over a year. Applicants may submit for building permits directly after the appeal 997

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-43 period ends (the appeal period is seven days). Timing of submittals is dependent on applicants and may vary based on unique situations unrelated to City processes.

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

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

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

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

Development Review to construct a new two-story
residential unit (ADU) which consists of 1 bed, kitchen, family room, parlor and 2 baths. Total square footage is 1,196 sq. ft. Includes a new three car garage.
* The COVID-19 may have played a factor in delay of submitted plans. The City also had to adapt to taking in plans electronically.

Between 2017 and April 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed a total of 35 projects proposing 152 total housing units. The average entitlement processing for these projects was an average of 175 days from submittal (less than six months) to final entitlement approval with projects typically being approved in one hearing (only seven of the 35 projects had more than one hearing and none of the projects required more than two hearings). The City’s entitlement processing fees are flat rate fees, with any costs associated with project delays resulting from the costs associated with holding the land. All but three of the proposed projects received approval. The following details the reasoning behind the denial of the three projects (eight total units):
 PA-16-68 (March 2017): 2-unit Small Lot Subdivision project Project did not meet the Residential Design Guidelines and was not compatible with the surrounding properties due to the large mass and scale of structures, lack of open space, and the side entryway design which resulted in a project closed itself off from the neighborhood.  PA-16-20/ T-18034 (March 2018): Master Plan for 5-unit live/work development Proposed Master Plan does not meet the goals of the General Plan, 19 West Urban Plan and the Zoning Code in terms of design, site planning, integration of uses and structures and protection of the integrity of neighboring development. The project did not comply with live/work development standards such as setbacks and parking standards and the deviations from objective Code 998

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-44 requirements requested by the applicant would have resulted in a project that was inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the General Plan and Urban Plan for the area.  PA-18-36/ ZA-18-40 (October 2018): Proposal does not meet minimum lot size development standards; applicant requested a Variance for ADU on an R1 property. Variance findings could not be made. ADU development standards have since been modified to remove minimum lot size requirements.

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

13. Applicable Residential Entitlement Approval Findings Indicated below are the applicable approval findings specified in the Costa Mesa Municipal Code for various residential project entitlements. In order to reduce processing time, and set clear application expectations, staff is trained to provide developers and applicants guidance for compliance with satisfying required findings. This guidance comes in the form of preliminary application reviews, creating and distributing residential development hand-outs (such as specific Residential Design Guidelines and FAQs), planning counter discussions, providing applicants with examples of successful project application submittals and various other types of staff/applicant assistance. In addition, the Planning Commission is regularly trained on the importance of adequately evaluating project findings and offerings project design modifications/solutions for project approval when the Commission believes that the findings are not being satisfied. As indicated further in this Section, very few residential projects have been denied in the last five years, which is an indicator of success for the aforementioned staff and Planning Commission residential development efforts.

999

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-45 Conditional Use Permit Findings.
 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;  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; and  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.

Design Review Findings.
 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;  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; and
 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.

Master Plan Findings.
 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;  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; and  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.

In its analysis, Costa Mesa reviewed the approval findings listed above that are applicable to residential projects and found that some contain language which may be interpreted broadly. For example, the first Master Plan finding requires that projects exhibit excellence in design. The master plan process applies to 1000

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-46 specific areas of the City where flexibility in development standards is offered through the master plan process due to unique circumstances in the area and to promote revitalization and flexibility necessary to accommodate differing types of residential development within the city. As it is a process used to modify approved development standards, the City reviews development project Master Plans to promote a high quality of life for future residents at all income levels, as well as compatibility with surrounding development. Further, no project has been denied on the basis of not being able to meet these specific findings. Nevertheless, the City understands that approval findings should be clear to applicants and strives to promote quality development within the community. In an effort to further clarify this process, Program 3S requires the City to review all findings and revise those findings which are capable of being interpreted broadly, with the goal of improving housing cost, supply, timing of approvals, or approval certainty.

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

1. Water Supply
The Mesa Water District is responsible for providing safe, local, and reliable water to 110,000 customers in Costa Mesa, as well as some parts of Newport Beach and unincorporated areas of Orange County. Mesa Water pumps water from Orange County’s groundwater basin, which is located beneath north-central Orange County between Irvine and the Los Angeles County border and from Yorba Linda to the Pacific Ocean. The groundwater basin derives its water from the Santa Ana River and imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Mesa Water does not depend on other water sources, however, water from Northern California and the Colorado River can be imported as necessary.

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

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

1 Mesa Water District
1001

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-47

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

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

According to Mesa Water District and the City of Costa Mesa Conservation Element, access to water does pose a constraint to the development of housing in the City. Mesa Water District has adopted and regularly updates an Urban Water Management Plan in order to ensure an adequate supply of water for the following 5 years, and the District continuously maintains the reservoir, water mains, and wells. Through continued community outreach and water conservation strategies, the City and the District are able to conserve more water than before – customers have reduced their water usage by 20 percent since 20152.

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

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

5. Fire and Emergency Services
The City of Costa Mesa's Fire & Rescue Department aims to protect life, property, and the environment using highly trained professionals committed to service excellence. Across six fire stations and City Hall, the

2 Mesa Water District
3 Costa Mesa Sanitary District
1002

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-48 Department has 94 full-time employees, 84 sworn positions, ten non-sworn positions, and the equivalent of one full-time position with part-time staff to provide 24-hour protection and response to the community's residents, businesses, and visitors. The Costa Mesa Fire & Rescue Department is an "all-risk" and “all-hazard” organization.

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

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

Community Risk Reduction Division
This Division works to prevent and reduce risks to the community by enforcing protections standards and fire and life safety codes through fire prevention, planning, and code enforcement. The Department achieves such goals by doing the following:
 Reviewing building construction plans;
 Conducting building construction and business inspections;  Investigating citizen complaints;
 Monitoring the City's hazardous materials disclosure program as Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) liaison to the Orange County Environmental Health Division;  Providing training to department personnel regarding fire and life safety codes; and  Assisting professional trades with technical fire code requirements and department public education efforts.
1003

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-49 Community risk reduction and fire prevention strategies are critical components for new development projects and throughout the life of the building. During the entitlement and pre-construction phases of a new building or tenant improvement project, the CRR team applies the California Fire Code (CFC) and locally adopted amendments to building and fire system plan review to ensure conformance to state and international standards. Once plans are reviewed and approved and building permits are issued, Fire Protection Specialists perform technical inspections and acceptance tests of fire protection systems and building construction for Fire & Life Safety compliance. After the Certificate of Occupancy is issued for a new building or tenant improvement, Annual Operational Fire Permits are issued based on the hazard of the use, and Company Inspections are conducted to complete emergency response pre-planning operations and verify ongoing compliance with the CFC.

Fire and Emergency Services provide sufficient services which would not cause a strain on the Department's ability to respond to community emergencies. The City recognizes in its General Plan Safety Element that additional emergency services and funding will be required as the population ages and additional residents and employees come to the City; however, this is addressed and maintained in the Safety Element's goals and policies. The existing six facilities are spread out throughout the City in such a way to provide the fastest service possible; the Department aims to respond to at least 80 percent of emergency calls within 5 minutes. In addition, no part of Costa Mesa lies within a State Responsibility Area (SRA), which indicates a fire hazard area, nor the very High Fire Severity Zone4.

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

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

Administration is comprised of the following bureaus and units:

4 Costa Mesa Safety Element
1004

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-50  Professional Standards
 Public Affairs & Crime Prevention
 Training & Recruitment
 The Office of Emergency Management
(OEM)

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

Support Services Division
The Support Services Division is responsible for specialized investigations and provides essential logistical support services to the Police Department. It is responsible for computer-related activities associated with the 24-hour operation of the City’s public safety computer system; and responsible for the research and development of numerous programs, including safety equipment, new laws and regulations, and policy development. Support Services is comprised of the following bureaus:
 Investigative Services Bur
 Records and Evidence
 Telecommunications

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

D. Environmental Constraints
The City of Costa Mesa contains a variety of natural landscapes and environmental features, which may cause constraints to the development of housing. The City is located approximately one mile from the Pacific Ocean, directly alongside the Santa Ana River, and atop an uplifted mesa. As with most of California cities, the City of Costa Mesa sits along major fault lines. In total, the City is susceptible to a variety of environmental hazards that could affect housing, including fires, flooding, and geological and seismic hazards. However, no known environmental or other conditions pose a constraint to or preclude development of housing on identified sites during the planning period.

1005

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

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

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

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

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

3. Seismic Hazards
The City of Costa Mesa is located near several active earthquake faults such as the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone and the San Joaquin Hills Fault Zone, which would prove the most damaging to the City in the event of an earthquake. Other faults such as the San Andreas, Whittier, Elsinore, Palos Verdes, and Puente Hills Faults are located further away and would potentially cause less direct damage to the City’s infrastructure, depending on the magnitude of the quake. The Safety Element notes indirect impact to the City resulting from a severe quake of one of these faults, particularly the San Andreas Fault, includes the need to provide aid, an infusion of households seeking housing, and mass care and sheltering services.

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

Given the extent of seismically active areas in California, any new residential structures will face potential hazards. The location of the City of Costa Mesa on relatively flat land improves enable it to provide a safer location for development in comparison to neighboring cities with steep slopes or along the Pacific Ocean. 1006

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-52 Therefore, seismic activity in Costa Mesa does not create a burden or constraint to the development of housing.

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

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

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

5 FEMA Flood Zone Designations, Natural resources Conservation Service – Field Office Technical Guides 1007

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-53 Figure 3-2: Flood Zones and Identified Sites Map

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

1008

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-54

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

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

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

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

Figure 3-3 maps the fire hazard severity zones identified within the City in relation to the proposed sites for future housing. Based on the map there are no fire hazard severity zones within the City of Costa Mesa.

As there are no fire hazard severity zones identified within the City, fire is not considered a major hazard or constraint to the development of housing.

1009

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-55 Figure 3-3: Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Proposed Sites Source: VHFHSV in LRA, Cal Fire, November 2011.
1010

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-56 E. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Beginning January 1, 2019, AB 686 established new requirements for all California jurisdictions to ensure that local laws, programs, and activities affirmatively further fair housing. All Housing Elements due on or after January 1, 2021, must contain an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) consistent with the core elements of the analysis required by the federal Affirmatively Further Fair Housing Final Rule of July 16, 2015.

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

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

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

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

Analysis of Impediments Outreach FY 2019-2024
As a part of the Regional Analysis for the County, a series of outreach workshops and events were hosted, including the following:
 Outreach by the Lawyers’ Committee to tenants, landlords, homeowners, fair housing organizations, civil rights and advocacy organizations, legal services provers, social services providers, housing developers, and industry groups;
 Stakeholder and focus group meetings organized by the Lawyers’ Committee in Mission Viejo, Westminster/Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Fullerton;
 Community meetings across Orange County with additional outreach to members of protected classes, including the Latino and Vietnamese communities; and  Virtual public hearings and City Council meetings.
1011

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-57 Of the fair housing impediments listed in the Regional AI, the City of Costa Mesa was identified as experiencing the following local contributing factors as impediments to fair housing choice:
 Housing Discrimination
 Racial and Ethnic Segregation
 Unfair Lending
 Overcrowding
Local contributing factors are detailed further below in Section E.4 “Assessment of Contributing Factors to Fair Housing.”
Fair Housing Issues
Within the legal framework of federal and state laws and based on the guidance provided by the HUD Fair Housing Planning Guide, impediments to fair housing choice can be defined as:
 Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of age, race, color, ancestry, national origin, age, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, source of income, sexual orientation, or any other arbitrary factor which restrict housing choices or the availability of housing choices; or  Any actions, omissions, or decisions which have the effect of restricting housing choices or the availability of housing choices on the basis of age, race, color, ancestry, national origin, age, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, source of income, sexual orientation, or any other arbitrary factor.

As a part of the 2019-2024 AI, the County identified fair housing impediments including the following:
 Housing Discrimination  Racial and Ethnic Segregation  Reasonable Accommodations  Unfair Lending
 Density Bonus Incentive  Discriminatory Advertising
 Zoning  Cost Burden
 Affordable Homeownership  Accessibility
Fair Housing Laws
All jurisdictions across California are subject to a number of fair housing laws. The following section details how the City of Costa Mesa maintains compliance with the listed laws. More specific laws are detailed throughout this Chapter 3 (such as Senate Bill 330 and Assembly Bill 686), and programs in the Housing Plan specify which Legislature is addressed.
 California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA): The FEHA provides employees with protection from discrimination, retaliation, and harassment in employment, as well as protects tenants or homeowners from discrimination from landlords, real estate agents, home sellers, builders, and mortgage lenders. The City reviews fair housing complaints and lending patterns – details on both are provided within this Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing section. The City also implements and updates programs to promote fair and equal access to housing. Lastly, the City continues to review standards and requirements that may constrain equal access to housing and the development of affordable housing.
 Government Code Section 65008: This Legislature protects lower- and moderate-income households and persons experiencing homelessness from discrimination that inhibits affordable 1012

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-58 units and emergency shelters. The following programs address the development of affordable units and emergency shelters: Programs 2B, 2J, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4E, and 4F.  Government Code Section 8899.50: This Legislature establishes the requirement for jurisdictions to administer programs and activities that affirmatively further fair housing. Program 4A establishes actions the City will commit to throughout the 6th Planning Cycle to affirmatively further fair housing.
 Government Code Section 11135: This legislation protects residents of the State of California from discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, ethnic group identification, age, mental disability, physical disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation. Through the Housing Element, the City assesses potential constraints that inhibit all residents from accessing housing and resources. The Housing Plan contains a number of programs that provide for greater access to a variety of housing types for all income levels, promotion of information and resources to special needs groups, and continued review of City permits and processing for streamlining and removal of constraints.  Government Code Section 65863 (No-Net-Loss Law): This Legislature establishes guidance on No- Net-Loss requirements. Jurisdictions are required to maintain adequate sites to accommodate its RHNA at each income category throughout the entirety of the Planning Cycle. Program 3A is included to address the requirements of this Legislature.  Density Bonus Law: The City has an adopted Density Bonus Ordinance. Program 2I is included in the Housing Plan to ensure the Ordinance maintains compliance with State Density Bonus Law.

Chapter 3.B.2 provides details on incentives and concessions granted to qualifying projects through the Density Bonus Ordinance.
 Housing Element Law: All California jurisdictions are required to adequately plan for the needs of their current and future population. All policies and programs included in the Housing Plan are included to maintain compliance with all California housing laws and to comply with the California State Department of Housing and Community Development’s requirements for Housing Elements.

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

1013

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-59 Table 3-18: Disposition of Loan Applications by Race/Ethnicity– Anaheim-Santa Ana-Irvine MSA Applications by Race/Ethnicity Percent
Approved
Percent
Denied
Percent
Other
Total
(Count)
LESS THAN 50% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 26.2% 52.3% 23.1% 65
Asian 33.9% 42.5% 26.7% 1,382
Black or African American 41.6% 33.7% 25.8% 89
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 25.0% 44.2% 30.8% 52 White 45.6% 31.2% 26.1% 5,240
Hispanic or Latino 37.9% 38.2% 26.8% 1,566
50-79% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 38.1% 34.0% 29.9% 97
Asian 53.3% 25.3% 29.4% 3,153
Black or African American 43.4% 19.1% 41.4% 152
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 49.4% 39.8% 16.9% 83 White 54.5% 23.3% 27.6% 8,677
Hispanic or Latino 47.6% 27.7% 29.3% 3,245
80-99% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 51.4% 25.7% 31.4% 35
Asian 59.5% 19.2% 29.3% 1,495
Black or African American 52.9% 22.1% 30.9% 68
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 43.5% 13.0% 43.5% 23 White 61.9% 17.2% 26.1% 3,873
Hispanic or Latino 54.0% 21.4% 29.1% 1,347
100-119% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 48.9% 22.7% 29.5% 88
Asian 62.3% 15.6% 28.8% 4,820
Black or African American 55.6% 20.1% 28.6% 234
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 49.4% 27.6% 31.0% 87 White 66.2% 13.8% 25.1% 12,607
Hispanic or Latino 60.8% 16.4% 26.8% 3,398
120% OR MORE OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 59.2% 13.0% 32.0% 169 Asian 62.8% 12.9% 29.0% 17,800
Black or African American 57.7% 17.3% 27.2% 624
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 64.2% 11.4% 26.8% 254 White 68.3% 11.3% 24.9% 49,811
Hispanic or Latino 64.6% 13.3% 26.7% 6,095
Source: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Disposition of loan applications, by Ethnicity/Race of applicant, 2019.

1014

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-60 Hate Crimes
Hate crimes are violent acts against people, property, or organizations because of the group to which they belong or identify with. The Federal Fair Housing Act makes it illegal to threaten, harass, intimidate, or act violently toward a person who has exercised their right to free housing choice. In Orange County, there were a total of 9 hate crimes reported in 2019. Table 3-19 below identifies the reported hate crimes in Costa Mesa between 2014 and 2019. Data for hate crimes reported in Costa Mesa was not available by bias for the years 2014-2016 and 2018. However, in 2017 and 2019 a total of 5 hate crimes were reported in the City, all of which were motivated by race, ethnicity, or ancestry.

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

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

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

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

There are no current fair housing lawsuits within Costa Mesa. The City analyzed data from the Costa Mesa Fair Housing Action Plan from the 2016/2017 reporting period to 2020/2021 and found the following relating to outreach and engagement, property management trainings, fair housing issues, and fair housing allegations as well as how they were resolved:

1015

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-61 Fair Housing Action Plan 2016/2017 Summary:
 The Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) conducted 2 tenant & 2 landlord workshops.  FHF conducted 2 certificate property managers training.  FHF provided fair housing related serves to 204 unduplicated households: 77.5% of calls came from tenants, 6.4% from property owners & 5.4% from landlords/managers.  FHF addressed 230 housing issues; top 3 issues were habitability (21%), notices (27%) & lease terms & rent increase (tied at 8% each).
 18 fair housing allegations were received by FHF regarding mental & physical disability (14) familial status (3), race (2) & gender (1). 11 allegations were resolved via counseling & 7 cases opened; no evidence was found to sustain 4 allegation, 1 investigation was inconclusive, 1 allegation was sustained & 1 case is pending.
 FHF provided over 4,600 pieces of fair housing literature in English, Spanish and Vietnamese.

Fair Housing Action Plan 2017/2018 Summary:
 The Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) conducted 2 tenant & 2 landlord workshops.  FHF conducted 2 certificate property managers training.  FHF provided fair housing related serves to 206 unduplicated households: 82.5% of calls came from tenants, 4.9% from property owners & 5.8% from landlords/managers.  FHF addressed 241 housing issues; top 3 issues were notices (22%) habitability (20%) & deposits (12.5%).
 12 fair housing allegations were received by FHF regarding mental & physical disability (10) familial status (1) & race (1). 7 allegations were resolved via counseling & 5 cases opened; no evidence was found to sustain 2 allegations 1 investigation was inconclusive & 1 case is pending.  FHF provided over 3,700 pieces of fair housing literature in English, Spanish and Vietnamese.

Fair Housing Action Plan 2018/2019 Summary:
 The Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) conducted 1 tenant & 1 landlord workshop.  FHF conducted 1 certificate property managers training.  FHF provided fair housing related serves to 178 unduplicated households: 86.0% of calls came from tenants, 2.8% from property owners & 3.9% from landlords/managers.  FHF addressed 198 housing issues; top 3 issues were habitability (27%), notices (21%) & deposits (9%).
19 fair housing allegations were received by FHF regarding mental & physical disability (14), gender (1), race (2), national origin (1), & sexual orientation (1). 16 allegations were resolved via counseling & 3 cases opened; no evidence was found to sustain 1 allegation. Allegations were sustained in 2 cases and resolved through conciliation and education.
 FHF provided over 1,600 pieces of fair housing literature in English, Spanish and Vietnamese.

Fair Housing Action Plan 2019/2020 Summary:
 The Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) conducted 1 Fair Housing Workshop.  FHF provided fair housing related serves to 153 unduplicated households: 91.5% of calls came from tenants, 3.2% from property owners & .6% from landlords/managers.  FHF addressed 167 housing issues; top 3 issues were habitability (22.1%), notices (14.3%) & lease terms (8.9%).
1016

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-62  14 fair housing allegations were received by FHF regarding mental & physical disability (12), national origin (1), & familial status (1). 11 allegations were resolved via counseling & 3 cases opened; no evidence was found to sustain 1 allegation. Allegations were sustained in 2 cases and resolved through conciliation and education.
 FHF provided over 2,803 pieces of fair housing literature in English, Spanish and Vietnamese.

Fair Housing Action Plan 2020/2021 Summary:
 The Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) conducted 5 Fair Housing Workshop.  FHF provided fair housing related serves to 173 unduplicated households: 82.6% of calls came from tenants, 1.7% from property owners & 7.5% from landlords/managers.  FHF addressed 183 housing issues; top 3 issues were habitability (15.3%), eviction (14.7%) & notices (10.9%).
 21 fair housing allegations were received by FHF regarding mental & physical disability (10), Age (1), Gender (1), Martial Status (1), national origin (2), familial status (1), Race (4), Source of Income (1). 13 allegations were resolved via counseling & 8 cases opened; no evidence was found to sustain 4 allegations. Allegations were inconclusive in 1 case, allegations were sustained in 3 cases and resolved through conciliation.
 FHF provided over 2,812 pieces of fair housing literature in English, Spanish and Vietnamese.

As noted, the City tracks fair housing cases reported as well as how they were resolved (if resolved) annually through completion of the City of Costa Mesa Fair Housing Action Plan. In addition, as the City updates its Specific Plans, additional outreach will occur to collect feedback from the community and identify rehabilitation and enforcement needs and priorities.

2. Analysis of Federal, State, and Local Data and Local Knowledge Summary of Local Data
As a part of the Housing Element Update for 2021-2029, the City of Costa Mesa implemented a thorough and expansive outreach program. The program intended to gather a deeper understanding of housing concerns and issues, challenges, and opportunities to housing, and gain insight and feedback from residents and the community on housing in Costa Mesa. As a part of the outreach program, the City hosted the following:
 Virtual townhall community meeting #1 – November 18, 2020  Online community survey – November 19, 2020
 Subject matter expert meetings – February 9-11, 2021
 District specific meetings – February 18 and 18, 2021  Targeted focus group meetings – throughout the update 202-2021  Virtual townhall community meeting #2 – September 2, 2021 During the outreach program the City gathered input and ideas from the public. Key feedback or concerns related to fair housing, which were identified during engagement, include the following:
 Accessory Units should be affordable to lower income households  The City needs more housing
 There should be more bike lanes to support active transportation  Housing should be focused on increasing quality of life for residents 1017

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-63  More education about affordable housing to increase public awareness and public opinion  Need supportive services along with housing
 Overcrowding often occurs and there need to be opportunity for multigenerational living  Senior housing should be prioritized, followed by housing for persons with disabilities  More affordable housing near transit and jobs
 Overall need for more affordable housing for residents of Costa Mesa, both for renters and owners In addition to the fair housing and housing accessibility related concerns, a large percentage of residents were not interested in increasing the housing stock in Costa Mesa. Many residents identified a desire and interest to keep Costa Mesa lower density for single-family homes, a disinterest in ADUs and objections to growth in affordable housing stock.

Historical Impediments to Local Housing Choices and Mobility Local impediments to housing choices and mobility have been considered as a part of the Housing Element Update for 2021-2029. For example, the City’s previous land use and zoning provisions include certain regulations that are considered restrictive in regard to increasing the development of housing units in the City. The City’s parking standards for multi-family development requires parking relating to “tenant covered parking,” “tenant open parking” and “guest parking,” and in certain bedroom configurations, the City’s multi-family parking standards require up to four parking spaces per unit (Housing Program 2M is included to “review and revise the Zoning Code’s requirements for residential off-street parking for multi-family projects to facilitate the development of multi-family housing, and specifically affordable housing.”) Additionally, the City’s adopted Specific Plans and Urban Plans include density standards that if increased would allow for greater housing choices in the City and housing located closer to job centers (Housing Program 3C and 3D have been included to amend the City’s specific plan and urban plans to increase densities to meet that City’s RHNA). Also, in 2016, residents of Costa Mesa voted to pass Measure Y: An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects. One of the provisions of this measure requires voter approval for changes in zoning and/or land use that would increase housing within an area by 40 or more residential units. Such a vote may discourage developers from pursuing housing development projects and particularly affordable housing projects (the Housing Element includes Program 3G to take steps to identify and address specific ways in which the City-wide vote process functions as a constraint to housing compliance, the City’s housing goals, and other shared community goals).

Lastly, the City has focused in the past on transportation investments related primarily to mobility of single- occupant vehicles (SOVs) instead of multi-modal transportation which available generally to all demographic segments. However, the City now focuses on multi-modal circulation investments such as transportation projects related to traffic calming to increase pedestrian and bike safety, and enhancements to existing sidewalks and the provision of new sidewalks and bike paths and facilities to encourage walkability/bikability in the City.

Past Community Development Action Analysis - Urban Plan Development As the Costa Mesa community has changed over time from a primarily suburban community within larger Orange County to a mixed use community that includes urban, semi-urban and suburban neighborhoods, the City began to modify its land use plans and zoning to promote mixed use, mixed income walkable residential communities. The first overlay districts, adopted by the City in April 2006, were the SoBECA Urban Plan district and three Westside Residential Urban Plans. These plans served as "overlay zones" and 1018
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-64 established provisions for mixed-use development and residential development in the mixed-use overlay areas. The Urban Plans resulted from the collaboration of a 40-member Westside Revitalization Oversight Committee (WROC) appointed in 2003 by the City Council. The Urban Plans followed previous efforts to revitalize the Westside and create an artist village around Bristol Street by other committees.

The intent of the various Westside Urban Plans was to provide an incentive for redevelopment of marginal commercial and industrial properties in an area of the City that was closest to the beach. The 19th West and Mesa West Bluffs plans were developed to provide for a variety of land uses such as mixed use, live/work and residential lofts and to create ownership opportunities on the Westside.

The Mesa West Residential Ownership Overlay was intended to redevelop older rental residential structures with new ownership properties. The overlay allowed for development up to the High Density Residential General Plan capacity regardless of the residential zoning and to allow development up to three- stories in height.

The SoBECA overlay was intended to allow a mix of housing, eclectic retail/service, creative studios and entertainment/restaurant uses that attract local residents and visitors.

Since 2006, the majority of projects in the Westside of the City have been approved under the Urban Plans/overlay districts. Over time, some concerns have been expressed that development under the urban plans has changed the character of neighborhoods and encouraged new development that in some cases removed and replaced existing older housing stock with residential ownership opportunities that were less affordable to existing residents of the area. There is a perception that this has resulted in increased property values limiting the opportunity to consolidate smaller parcels into larger development lots. While much of the development pursuant to the urban plans in the last decade replaced industrial uses and resulted in remediation of a number of brownfield sites, concerns have, nonetheless, arisen regarding the concept of these Urban Plans. The following are concerns that have been expressed regarding implementation of the Urban Plans/overlay districts and potential actions to address these concerns:

Table 3-20: Feedback on the Implementation of the Urban Plans/Overlay Districts Concern Remedial Action
Increased density and proximity to single family
residences
Modify the boundaries to allow an appropriate
transition between the overlay zones and R1 zones
Limited open space / park access The 2015 amendment requires a minimum of 30- percent open space and inclusion of common
recreational areas to promote quality living
environments
No variety in products (all 3-4 stories with multiple living levels - not conducive to all ages)
Modify standards to require a mix of two-story and
three-story product types
Parking - live/works are used as residential uses but with less parking
Increase guest parking requirement and require the
same parking ratio for live/work and residential loft
development consistent with residential standards
based on number of bedrooms
Saturation of market for live/work products The majority of new development on the Westside are live/work units; require a mix of live/work and
residential lofts, and two-story residential product types Proximity of residential uses to existing industrial uses CC&Rs and homebuyer notices provide advance notification to the buyers regarding potential noise
1019

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-65 nuisance impacts associated with living in a mixed use
urban environment. Additional buffer may be needed
between residential and major industrial uses
Privacy Impacts Three-story in proximity to single story and two-story development must demonstrate minimal privacy
impacts; roof decks and balconies should face project
interiors
Increased Height - Live/work development are allowed
to be four stories or a maximum 60 feet in height; the
amendment in 2015 allowed rooftops to be counted
toward open space requirement and not considered a
story
Rooftops should be considered as stories to improve
neighborhood compatibility. The 30-percent open
space requirement should not include roof tops and
focus on ground floor amenities to promote quality
living environments.

The overlay plans have been amended periodically since adoption to address changes in market demands, land use patterns, and community concerns as identified above. The 6th cycle housing element proposes amendments which respond to community needs and the community’s need for a range of housing types and more housing opportunities affordable at all income levels.

Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends
Race and Ethnicity
The dissimilarity index is the most used measure of segregation between two groups, reflecting their relative distributions across neighborhoods (as defined by census tracts). The index represents the percentage of the minority group that would have to move to new neighborhoods to achieve perfect integration of that group. An index score can range in value from 0 percent, indicating complete integration, to 100 percent, indicating complete segregation. An index number above 60 is considered to show high similarity and a segregated community.

It is important to note that segregation is a complex topic, difficult to generalize, and is influenced by many factors. Individual choices can be a cause of segregation, with some residents choosing to live among people of their own race or ethnic group. For instance, recent immigrants often depend on nearby relatives, friends, and ethnic institutions to help them adjust to a new country.6 Alternatively, when white residents leave neighborhoods that become more diverse, those neighborhoods can become segregated. Other factors, including housing market dynamics, availability of lending to different ethnic groups, availability of affordable housing, and discrimination can also cause residential segregation.

Figure 3-4 shows the dissimilarity between each of the identified race and ethnic groups and Costa Mesa’s White population. The White population within Costa Mesa makes up the majority of the City’s population at approximately 71 percent according to 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) estimates.

The higher scores shown in the figure below, directly indicate higher levels of segregation among those race and ethnic groups. The race and ethnic groups with the high scores were Native Hawaiian (52.4 percent) and Hispanic (51.8 percent). These scores correlate directly with the percentage of people within that racial or ethnic group that would need to move into a predominantly White census tract in order to

6 Allen, James P. and Turner, Eugene. “Changing Faces, Changing Places: Mapping Southern California”. California State University, Northridge, (2002).
1020

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-66 achieve a more integrated community. For instance, 52.4 percent of the Native Hawaiian population would need to move into predominantly White census tract areas to achieve “perfect” integration, or 51.8 percent of the Hispanic population would need to move into predominantly White census tract areas for perfect integration.

As indicated above, a score of 60 or higher indicates a highly similar and segregated area. The City does not have any racial or ethnic groups with scores higher than 60. However, scores above 30 indicate moderate levels of segregation. It is important to note the areas where moderate segregation occurs in order for Costa Mesa to understand any additional disparities in access to opportunities or housing, as well as identify lack of resources for the communities. In the City of Costa Mesa, all racial and ethnic groups, except for those who identify as two or more races, show a score of 30 or greater dissimilarity index. The City of Costa Mesa is committed to furthering fair housing access and increasing fair housing opportunities to communities of color.

Figure 3-4: Dissimilarity Index with White Population in Costa Mesa

Source: Census Scope, Social Science Data Analysis Network Disability
In 1988, Congress added protections against housing discrimination for persons with disabilities through the FHA, which protects against intentional discrimination and unjustified policies and practices with disproportionate effects. The FHA also includes the following unique provisions to persons with disabilities:
(1) prohibits the denial of requests for reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities if necessary, to afford an individual equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; and (2) prohibits the denial of reasonable modification requests. With regards to fair housing, persons with disabilities have special 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%HispanicTwo or More RacesOtherNative HawaiianAsianAmerican IndianBlackHispanicTwo orMoreRacesOtherNativeHawaiianAsianAmericanIndianBlackDissimilarity Index with Whites51.8% 19.4% 36.7% 52.4% 36.3% 31.0% 35.9% 1021

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-67 housing needs because of the lack of accessible and affordable housing, and the higher health costs associated with their disability. In addition, many may be on fixed incomes that further limit their housing options.

Table 3-28 provides data for persons with disabilities in Costa Mesa, Orange County, and across California; Figure 3-15 also maps out populations with disabilities throughout the City. There are five census tracts that report 10 to 20 percent of the population with a disability. These tracts are located the center of the City in the south-western region. The central census tracts include the Fairview Developmental Center and a senior living development (Azulon at Mesa Verde). The census tracts in the south-western region also include a senior living development (Vivante Newport Mesa). These may contribute to the higher occurrence of persons with disabilities.

Regarding access to community resources and services, the central census tracts are located near community parks, fire and police services, grocery stores and commercial uses, and medical offices. Public transit runs directly between both central census tracts along Harbor Boulevard, as well as Fairview Road.

The south-western census tracts are also located near community parks, grocery stores and commercial uses, medical offices, and they have access to public transit along Placentia Avenue, 19th Avenue, and Victoria Street.

It is the policy and practice of the City to take all reasonable steps to ensure its services, programs and activities are accessible to all members of the public including persons with disabilities. The City’s leadership team and accessibility experts work to ensure all departments comply with this policy by carrying out the following functions:
 Provide technical assistance to support City departments in complying with federal, state, and local disability access laws.
 Assist departments and divisions in evaluating their facilities, programs, services, and activities to ensure provision of reasonable accommodations to people with disabilities.  Facilitate the resolution of grievances filed against the City of Costa Mesa that allege noncompliance with disability access laws.

Additionally, the City is concerned with public right-of-way access for everyone including people with disabilities. Staff is aware of pedestrian mobility concerns for people with various disabilities. The following information describes department programs available to the public:
 Curb Ramp Program – The City administers the Sidewalk Accessibility Curb Ramp Program by identifying locations and managing the installation of curb ramps throughout the city. These ramps provide safer and easier pedestrian access to sidewalks, particularly for persons with disabilities.

All newly constructed ramps comply with the current Americans with Disabilities Act standards.  Contractual Services – The City utilizes contractual services to install curb ramps each year through the ongoing capital-funded program. Along with these ongoing City-funded installation projects, the program also assists and coordinates installation projects with a variety of other programs and construction projects.
1022

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-68  City Staff also utilize a priority approach to select locations for new ramps. Installation project priorities are based on the following criteria:
o Known routes used, and requests by persons with disabilities o Known locations in the walking route to school plans
o Known routes to senior and community centers and around parks o Requests from the community
o Mobility Access Analysis for People with Disabilities o Upon request, staff conducts a study of obstructions blocking pedestrian or wheelchair travel.

Costa Mesa residents with disabilities living in the five census tracts listed above may also benefit from regional resources. The Regional Center of Orange County provide services to person with developmental disabilities, including: housing options, employment opportunities, prenatal diagnostic evaluations, as well as services for early intervention, therapy, respite care, childcare, adult day programs, transportation, medical and dental, and recreation. The following lists a number of additional agencies and organizations and the services they provide for Costa Mesa residents:
 Dayle McIntosh Center - Provides support services, advocacy, transition services, information and referral, peer support, housing assistance, health care access and more.  Employment Development Department - The California State Disability Insurance Program (SDI) provides short term Disability Insurance (DI) and Paid Family Leave (PFL) wage replacement benefits to eligible workers who need time off work.
 Family Caregiver Resource Center - Assists families who are coping with the physical, emotional, and financial responsibilities of caregiving.
 Help Me Grow - Connects families with developmental, behavioral or learning concerns to resources in the community for children birth to 6 years of age.  In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) - Provides supportive services to aged, blind, and disabled persons who are limited in their ability to care for themselves and cannot live safely at home without help.
 Lions Sight and Hearing Foundation of Southern California - Provides hearing aids and common eye surgeries Income qualifications apply.
 Orange County Deaf Equal Access Foundation - Provides services to deaf and hard of hearing community including employment assistance, information and referral, advocacy, peer counseling, independent living, communication assistance ([email protected]).  Protection and Advocacy Inc. (PAI) - Provides legal representation in response to rights/violations for persons with disabilities.
 Rehabilitation Institute of Southern California - Programs which increase the ability of disabled individuals to function at home and at school, on the job, and in the community.  St. Jude Brain Injury Network - Assist persons with a traumatic brain injury to attain access into gainful employment, appropriate community reintegration programs, accessible housing, and research-related education.
1023

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-69 Costa Mesa children with disabilities living in the five census tracts listed above also have access to assessments/evaluations and education plans through the Newport-Mesa Unified School District Harper Assessment Center, as well as individual and family counseling, suicide prevention services, and residential services through the South Coast Community Services Student Assistance Program (SAP). Acuity Behavior Solutions provides a variety of Applied Behavioral Analysis techniques for children and teens with autism in Orange County, this includes: play-based applied behavior analysis services, individual in-home therapy, and social skills groups for children and teens.

Income
Government Code Section 65008 provides protection against the discrimination of lower- and moderate- income households that inhibits affordable housing development. As detailed in Chapter 2.C.2, the City of Costa Mesa is made up of households earning a variety of income levels. Table 2-12 shows over a quarter of Costa Mesa households earn less than 50 percent of the area median family income (AMFI) and just under 40 percent earn over $100,000. Figures 3-5a and 3-5b provide mapping of median incomes and poverty status across the City and in surrounding communities.

Figure 3-5a illustrates a greater tendency for lower median incomes towards the center of the City with higher median incomes along the City’s western, northern, and eastern edges. When considering zoning, block groups with lower median incomes generally overlap with zones that allow for multi-family housing development at higher densities. In comparison, block groups with higher median incomes tend to be zoned for single-family residential. This shows lower income households have a greater ability to afford apartments and condominiums over single-family residences. Chapter 2.F.5 also indicates the housing market for single-family residences is more difficult to access for households not earning an above moderate income.

Figure 3-5b illustrates poverty status by census tract. The data is similar to that of Figure 3-5a as it shows higher concentrations of poverty towards the City’s southern and central region. There is one census tract (636.05) that reports 30 to 40 percent of its population falling under the poverty line. This census tract is further detailed in the following section as an area of high segregation and poverty; however, the data is dated 2019 and does not reflect recent development and financing. While the area is identified as high segregation and poverty, it has seen much redevelopment over recent years and the median home value according to 2020 ACS 5-Year Estimates is $922,500. The median contract rent for the census tract is $1,665, and the median household income is $71,150. Program 4I is included in the Housing Plan to specifically address the high segregation and poverty finding for census tract 636.05 by partnering with local community-based organizations, stakeholders and groups who provide supportive resources and programs to further identify specific needs of this community and connect community members with appropriate resources.

Furthermore, the Appendix B Sites Analysis includes the identification of a number of sites throughout the entirety of the City so as to provide for future residential development at a variety of densities. This is intended to allow for a variety of housing types affordable to all income categories. Sites were selected based on the availability of land, property owner and developer interest, and access to transportation, resources, and services. A number of sites are located in areas that report both high and lower median 1024

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-70 incomes, as shown in Figure 3-5a, so as to provide for future affordable units in areas where existing communities may benefit from and in areas of high opportunity. More details on the sites selection are provided in Appendix B.

1025

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-71 Figure 3-5a: Income Segregation – Median Income

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 1026

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-72 Figure 3-5b: Income Segregation – Poverty Status

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 1027

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-73 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) To assist communities in identifying racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), HUD has developed a census tract-based definition of R/ECAPs. The definition involves a racial/ethnic concentration threshold and a poverty test. The racial/ethnic concentration threshold is straightforward: RECAPs must have a non-white population of 50 percent or more. Regarding the poverty threshold, Wilson (1980) defines neighborhoods of extreme poverty as census tracts with 40 percent or more of individuals living at or below the poverty line. Because overall poverty levels are substantially lower in many parts of the country, HUD supplements this with an alternate criterion. Thus, a neighborhood can be a R/ECAP if it has a poverty rate that exceeds 40% or is three or more times the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan/micropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower.

Location of residence can have a substantial effect on mental and physical health, education opportunities, and economic opportunities. Urban areas that are more residentially segregated by race and income tend to have lower levels of upward economic mobility than other areas. Research has found that racial inequality is thus amplified by residential segregation. However, these areas may also provide different opportunities, such as ethnic enclaves providing proximity to centers of cultural significance, or business, social networks, and communities to help immigrants preserve cultural identify and establish themselves in new places. Overall, it is important to study and identify these areas in order to understand patterns of segregation and poverty in a City.

Figure 3-6 below displays the R/ECAP analysis of the Costa Mesa area. The low poverty index captures the depth and intensity of poverty in a given neighborhood. The index uses both family poverty rates and public assistance receipt, in the form of cash-welfare, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

The poverty rate and public assistance for neighborhoods are determined at the census tract level, and the higher the score, the less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood. HUD provides data for the entire Orange County region, and not Costa Mesa specific, as shown in the map. Figure 3-6a shows that Costa Mesa has a pocket of concentrated Hispanic population towards the southern central region of the City. The eastern region of the City is shown to be mostly made up of concentrated White, Non-Hispanic, population. There is also a minor concentration of Hispanic and Native American, Non-Hispanic, populations in the SoBECA area of Northern Costa Mesa.

While there are no R/ECAP areas within the City, Figure 3-6a shows one in the nearby City of Irvine surrounding the University of California – Irvine campus. According to the AI, it is likely that they qualify as R/ECAPs due to the high proportions of students. In addition, the figure shows a large concentration of Hispanic population directly north of Costa Mesa in the City of Santa Ana. The City of Costa Mesa is committed to increasing housing mobility opportunities for persons outside of the City and in Orange County as a whole. Chapter 4: Housing Plan of this Housing Element outlines housing opportunity, affordable housing, and fair housing strategies to increase opportunities to all households.

Additionally, Figure 3-6b displays the data for TCAC areas of high segregation and poverty. The maps shows that there is one census tract that is designated as high segregation and poverty (census tract: 636.05).

Areas that are identified as high segregation and poverty are consistent with the standards for both poverty (30% of the population below the federal poverty line) and racial segregation (overrepresentation of people of color relative to the county).
1028

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-74 Census tract 636.05 is generally located in the southwestern portion of the City. This tract contains 3 different Costa Mesa City Council Districts - Districts 4, 5, and 6. The zoning designations within this tract is majority industrial (MG, General Industrial) and high density residential (R2-HD and R3), with commercial corridors along Newport Boulevard and 19th Street. The general Westside area also has 3 adopted urban plans, which do not change the underlying zoning of the property but allows for the development of live/work units and/or residential development. Since the adoption of the urban plans in 2006, the City has approved 541 newly constructed units, which includes the subject census tract.

1029

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-75 Figure 3-6a: R/ECAP Areas, Costa Mesa

Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool, Data Versions: AFFHT0006, April 28, 2021 1030

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-76 Figure 3-6b: TCAC Area of High Segregation and Poverty

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 1031

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-77 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty have long been analyzed and reviewed as a contributing factor to segregation. However, patterns of segregation in the United States show that of all racial groups, the White population is the most severely insulated (separated from other racial groups).7 Research also identifies segregation of affluence to be greater than the segregation of poverty. Racial and economic segregation can have significant effects on respective communities, including but not limited to, socioeconomic disparities, educational experiences and benefits, exposure to environmental conditions and crime, and access to public goods and services.

Data used in the analysis of Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA) comes from the 2015-2019 ACS and measured at the census track level. The definition for an RCAA is a census tract in which 80 percent or more of the population is White and a median income of at least $125,000. The nationwide RCAA analysis identifies the following:
 RCAA tracts have more than twice the median household income of the average tract in their metro area.
 Poverty rates in RCAAs are significantly lower and are, on average about 20 percent of a typical tract.
 RCAAs tracts are more income homogenous than R/ECAPs.  The average RCAA is about 57 percent affluent, whereas the average R/ECAP had a poverty rate of 48 percent.
 The typical RCAA tract has a rate of affluence 3.2 times that of a typical tract, whereas R/ECAPs on average had a poverty rate 3.2 times that of a typical tract.

Overall, RCCAs may represent a public policy issue to the extent that they have been created and maintained through exclusionary and discriminatory land use and development practices. Postwar patterns of suburbanization in many metropolitan areas were characterized by White communities erecting barriers to affordable housing and engaging in racially exclusionary practices. Figure 3-7 illustrates five RCAAs mostly along the City’s edges. As noted above, these areas overlap with the presence of single-family neighborhoods. Table 3-21 displays the RCAAs for Costa Mesa, and Table 3-22 shows local (Costa Mesa) and regional (Orange County) context for the median household incomes of White residents.

7 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation. University of Minnesota. Edwards Goets, Damiano, Williams. 2019.
1032

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-78 Figure 3-7: Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence, Costa Mesa

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 1033

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-79 Table 3-21: RCCAs - Median Household Income by Race by Census Tract, Costa Mesa Census Tract Percent Population White Median Income
Census Tract 638.05 69.5% $122,750
Census Tract 636.01 62.3% $120,057
Census Tract 638.02 65.5% $118,000
Census Tract 631.02 81.6% $127,153
Census Tract 631.03 75.3% $131,477
Source: (U.S. Census Bureau) from HCD AFFH Data Viewer, Accessed November 3, 2022.

Table 3-22: RCCAs - Median Household Income by Race, Costa Mesa and Orange County Race Costa Mesa Orange County
Median Income Population Median Income Population
White $ 91,9591 72.2% $98,5351 64.3%
All Households $ 90,370 -- $ 94,441 --
Notes: 1. Median income in the past 12 months (in 2020 inflation-adjusted dollars) Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2020.

Disparities in Access to Opportunity
The UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank partnered to develop the Regional Opportunity Index (ROI) intended to help communities understand local social and economic opportunities. The goal of the ROI is to help target resources and policies toward people and places with the greatest need to foster thriving communities. The ROI incorporates both “people” and “place components, integrating economic, infrastructure, environmental, and social indicators into a comprehensive assessment of the factors driving opportunity.”
The ROI: People is a relative measure of people's assets in education, the economy, housing, mobility/transportation, health/environment, and civic life as follows:
 Education Opportunity: Assesses people’s relative success in gaining educational assets, in the form of a higher education, elementary school achievement, and regular elementary school attendance.  Economic Opportunity: Measures the relative economic well-being of the people in a community, in the form of employment and income level.
 Housing Opportunity: Measures the relative residential stability of a community, in the form of homeownership and housing costs.
 Mobility/Transportation Opportunity: Contains indicators that assess a community’s relative opportunities for overcoming rural isolation.
 Health/Environment Opportunity: Measures the relative health outcomes of the people within a community, in the form of infant and teen health and general health.  Civic Life Opportunity: A relative social and political engagement of an area, in the form of households that speak English and voter turnout.

The ROI: Place is a relative measure of an area's assets in education, the economy, housing, mobility/transportation, health/environment, and civic life. 1034

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-80  Education Opportunity: Assesses a census tract's relative ability to provide educational opportunity, in the form of high-quality schools that meet the basic educational and social needs of the population.
 Economic Opportunity: Measures the relative economic climate of a community, in the form of access to employment and business climate.
 Housing Opportunity: Measures relative availability of housing in a community, in the form of housing sufficiency and housing affordability.
 Health/Environment Opportunity: A relative measure of how well communities meet the health needs of their constituents, in the form of access to health care and other health-related environments.
 Civic Life Opportunity: Measures the relative social and political stability of an area, in the form of neighborhood stability (living in same residence for one year) and US citizenship.

Figure 3-8 shows the ROI: People classifications throughout the City, the “ROI: People” data identifies the achievement levels that persons living within these census tracts have attained. As the figure shows, classifications vary greatly throughout Costa Mesa. The City has areas of high opportunity to the west and east of the City, but also has areas classified as the low opportunity in the southern and central regions of the City. Persons living in the areas identified as low opportunity “people” are considered to have low achievement opportunities for economic, health, and housing. The figure shows one census tract, identified as Inset B, where the general attainment for education, transportation, housing, economic opportunity, or jobs was low the residents living in this tract. Further analysis shows the census tract, identified as Inset A, has overall very low levers of education, economic, housing, transportation, and civic life attainment among residents. Low attainment levels may project generational poverty, lower levels of upward mobility, and increased challenges accessing essential resources and opportunities. Increase housing opportunities and access, specifically affordable housing, in this area can provide stability, safety, and important resources to a community. The City of Costa Mesa has identified portions of this area to accommodate future growth for low and very low-income housing.

Figure 3-9 displays opportunities provided within each census tracts. The map shows that most of the City is classified as high opportunity. High opportunity areas mean that individual census tracts provide the necessary and essential resources for housing, economic or job opportunity, quality education and educational services, safe and affordable transportation, and quality civic and environmental life. Utilizing areas which provide important and essential resources, to increase housing opportunities can help to break cycles of poverty and increase overall community health. The City of Costa Mesa has identified housing opportunity sites to accommodate the RHNA in a variety of high opportunity areas. 1035

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-81 Figure 3-8: Regional Opportunity Index, People – City of Costa Mesa Source: UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank, 2014.

Inset A
Inset B
1036

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-82 Figure 3-9: Regional Opportunity Index, Place – City of Costa Mesa Source: UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank, 2014. 1037

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-83 Additionally, Table 3-23 and Figure 3-10 below display the data for Regional Opportunity Index in Costa Mesa overall compared to the State of California. The data shows the following key findings:
 Costa Mesa residents reportedly have lower math and English proficiency levels; however, they have higher rates of college education, high school graduation, UC/CSU eligibility.  The economic conditions in Costa Mesa are high. There is a higher rate of high-quality employment amongst residents and higher minimum basic income than the State. There are many jobs available, and that trend continues to increase.  Costa Mesa households are predominantly renter households. Housing adequacy is the same for the City and the State, but homes in Costa Mesa are reportedly less affordable.  The City reports high rates of available vehicles per household, as well as commute time. Costa Mesa residents spend more time traveling to and from work than residents across the State.  Despite lower air quality reports, Costa Mesa residents have high access to medical and health care, as well as access to supermarkets.
 Costa Mesa residents have high rates of English fluency, despite slightly lower rates of citizenship.

Figure 3-10: Regional Opportunity Index, Costa Mesa and California

Source: UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank, 2014.

Education:PeopleEconomy:PeopleHousing:PeopleMobility/Trans:PeopleHealth/Env:PeopleCivicLife:PeopleEducation:PlaceEconomy:PlaceHousing:PlaceHealth/Env:PlaceCivicLife:PlaceStatewide Average52.95 68.74 56.26 74.02 94.31 53.7 52.68 14.77 55.19 36.73 80.19City of Costa Mesa54.44 72.78 46.85 83.51 95.51 51.87 69.51 20.83 45.61 55.11 78.24020406080100120 1038

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-84 Table 3-23: Opportunity Indicators, Costa Mesa and California ROI Indicator Costa Mesa California
Education
People
College Educated Adults 45% 38%
Math Proficiency 67% 70%
English Proficiency 63% 65%
Elementary Truancy 24% 24%
Place
High School Graduation Rate 93% 83%
UC/CSU Eligibility 53% 41%
Teacher Experience 66% 36%
High School Discipline Rate 8% 6%
Economic
People
Employment Rate 92% 89%
Minimum Basic Income 66% 64%
Place
Job Availability 1291.12 701.75
Job Quality 50% 40%
Job Growth 4% 3%
Bank Accessibility 0.38 0.24
Housing
People
Home Ownership 39% 55%
Housing Cost Burden 50% 52%
Place
Housing Adequacy 91% 91%
Housing Affordability 0.14 0.19
Mobility People
Vehicle Availability 88% 86%
Commute Time 73% 60%
Internet Access 4.81 4
Health/Environmental Place
Infant Health 96% 95%
Birth to Teens 5% 7%
Years of Life Lost 25.68 29.84
Place
Air Quality 9.35 10.01
Prenatal Care 91% 83%
Access to Supermarket 65% 53%
Health Care Availability 3.63 1.76
Civic Life
People
Voting Rates 27% 31%
English Speakers 91% 88%
Place
US Citizenship 81% 83%
Neighborhood Stability 83% 85%
Source: UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank, 2014.

1039

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-85 California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) Opportunity Area Maps The Department of Housing and Community Development together with the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee established the California Fair Housing Task Force to provide research, evidence- based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals (as defined by HCD). The Task force developed the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Maps to understand how public and private resources are spatially distributed. The Task force defines opportunities as pathways to better lives, including health, education, and employment. Overall, opportunity maps are intended to display which areas, according to research, offer low-income children and adults the best chance at economic advancement, high educational attainment, and good physical and mental health.

According to the Task Force’s methodology, the tool allocates the 20 percent of the tracts in each region with the highest relative index scores to the “Highest Resource” designation and the next 20 percent to the “High Resource” designation. Each region then ends up with 40 percent of its total tracts as “Highest” or “High” resource. These two categories are intended to help State decision-makers identify tracts within each region that the research suggests low-income families are most likely to thrive, and where they typically do not have the option to live—but might, if given the choice. As shown in Figure 3-11a below, much of Costa Mesa is classified moderate to high resource areas with pockets of low resource areas in the southwest region of the City. Costa Mesa has one area identified in Figure 3-11b classified as high segregation and poverty in the southern area of the City – census tract 636.05. This census tract includes industrial, residential, and retail/commercial uses, as well as the Costa Mesa Senior Center and new Superior Pointe and 17 West residential developments. While the area is identified as high segregation and poverty, it has seen much redevelopment over recent years and the median home value according to 2020 ACS 5-Year Estimates is $922,500. The median contract rent for the census tract is $1,665, and the median household income is $71,150.

The City of Costa Mesa is committed to exploring programs and avenues to increase housing access and opportunity to both existing residents, future residents, and households in nearby areas. Program 2L is included in the Housing Plan to facilitate access to funding, priority processing, and outreach for lower income households, including those located in census tract 636.05. Program 4I is also included to specifically address the high segregation and poverty finding for census tract 636.05 by partnering with local community-based organizations, stakeholders and groups who provide supportive resources and programs to further identify specific needs of this community and connect community members with appropriate resources.

1040

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-86 Figure 3-11a: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map – Costa Mesa and Surrounding Region

Source: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and Department of Housing and Community Development, 2021. 1041

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-87 Figure 3-11b: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map – High Segregation and Poverty (2021)

Source: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and Department of Housing and Community Development, 2021. 1042

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-88 Opportunity Areas – Education
The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Maps include education data, as illustrated in Figure 3-12. This data represents opportunity levels based on the following four factors:
 Math proficiency – Percentage of 4th graders who meet or exceed math proficiency standards.  Reading proficiency – Percentage of 4th graders who meet or exceed literacy standards.  High school graduation rates – Percentage of high school cohort that graduated on time.  Student poverty rate – Percentage of students not receiving free or reduced-price lunch.

As Figure 3-12 shows, the City has a variety of education outcome scores. The more positive education outcomes are located over East Side Costa Mesa, east of the 55 Freeway, as well as over the neighborhoods south of the 405-freeway and in the center of the City. The area of the City west of Harbor Boulevard and north of Fairview Park are rated moderate for educational outcomes. West Side Costa Mesa in the City’s south-western region has the lowest educational outcome.

Title 1 schools receive additional government funding to assist their lower-income student base who are at risk of falling behind. Within Newport-Mesa Unified School District, there are a total of 10 elementary schools, 2 middle schools, and 2 high schools. The following 3 elementary schools are Title 1 schools: Davis Elementary School, Heinz Kaiser Elementary School, and Woodland Elementary School. Davis Elementary School is located in the center of Costa Mesa just north of the OC Fairgrounds and Heinz Kaiser and Woodland Elementary Schools are both located in East Side Costa Mesa between the 55 Freeway and the Upper Newport Bay State Marine Conservation Area.

1043

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-89 Figure 3-12: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map – Education
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 1044

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-90 Opportunity Indicators
Opportunity indicators also help inform communities about disparities in access to opportunity. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) developed the opportunity indicators to help inform communities about disparities in access to opportunity, the scores are based on nationally available data sources and assess resident’s access to key opportunity assets in the City. Table 3-24 provides the index scores (ranging from zero to 100) for the following opportunity indicator indices:
 Low Poverty Index: The low poverty index captures poverty in a given neighborhood. The poverty rate is determined at the census tract level. The higher the score, the less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood.
 School Proficiency Index: The school proficiency index uses school-level data on the performance of 4th grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods have high-performing elementary schools nearby and which are near lower performing elementary schools. The higher the score, the higher the school system quality is in a neighborhood.  Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the score, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood.
 Transit Trips Index: This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a three-person single-parent family with income at 50% of the median income for renters for the region (i.e. the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA)). The higher the transit trips index, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit.  Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a three-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. The higher the index, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.
 Jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a region/CBSA, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood.  Environmental Health Index: The environmental health index summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block-group.

Table 3-24 below displays the opportunity indices by race and ethnicity for persons in Costa Mesa.

According to the data, there is some poverty among the population of Costa Mesa, across all racial/ethnic groups. There are higher levels of poverty among the Hispanic and Native American populations. All racial/ethnic groups in Costa Mesa experience levels of environmental health below 50, meaning all residents are exposed to a higher degree of environmental pollutants. Otherwise, the data shows the City has high marks for school proficiency, labor market, transit, transportation cost, and job proximity. 1045

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-91 Table 3-24: Opportunity Indicators, City of Costa Mesa
(Costa Mesa,

CA CDBG)
Jurisdiction
Low
Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor
Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-
Hispanic 60.10 72.71 73.56 89.69 81.33 83.04 28.03
Black, Non-
Hispanic 55.04 70.24 69.80 90.47 83.27 83.47 25.72
Hispanic 40.06 60.53 56.72 90.42 83.05 78.57 30.24
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-
Hispanic

61.51 71.28 73.20 90.57 82.88 87.44 22.65
Native
American,
Non-Hispanic

53.54 70.81 68.03 90.49 82.74 81.69 28.26
Population Below Federal Poverty Line
White, Non-
Hispanic 53.85 69.80 68.91 90.07 82.43 80.51 28.58
Black, Non-
Hispanic 61.70 78.78 82.00 91.46 84.89 87.37 19.50
Hispanic 33.36 56.69 51.57 90.56 83.60 78.70 31.40
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-
Hispanic

55.36 71.81 73.29 90.38 83.08 84.52 24.46
Native
American,
Non-Hispanic

50.53 67.96 56.06 91.85 77.66 85.70 19.03
Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Online Mapping tool, Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; NATA

Access to Transit
Transit explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. According to the data provided, Costa Mesa scored a 5.4 AllTransit performance score, illustrating a moderate combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible that enable a moderate number of people to take transit to work. In comparison to neighboring cities – Huntington Beach scores a 4.4, Irvine scored a 3.6, Santa Ana scored a 6.6, and Newport Beach scored a 3.9. Access to transportation increases both the economic and environmental/health opportunities. Additionally, AllTransit provides the following data for Costa Mesa transportation:
 98.8% of jobs are located within ½ of transit.
 99,721 customer households have access to a business within a 30-minute transit commute.  2.29% of workers walk to work and 1.43% bike to work
 There are no households within a ½ miles of high frequency transit.  On average, there are 6 transit routes within ½ of a block group on average.

1046

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-92 Table 3-25: Opportunity Indicator – Transit
Jurisdiction
AllTransit
Performance
Score
Transit Trips Per
Week within
1/2 Mile
Jobs Accessible
in 30-min trip
Commuters Who
Use Transit
Transit Routes
within 1/2 Mile
Costa Mesa 5.4 837 292,009 2.55% 6
Orange
County 4.2 528 172,595 2.28% 4
Source: AllTransit Fact Sheet, Costa Mesa, 2021.

Figure 3-13: All Transit Performance Score – Costa Mesa

Source: AllTransit Fact Sheet, 2021.

Environmental Justice
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) developed a screening methodology to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution called the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviro Screen). In addition to environmental factors (pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic sites, and hazardous materials exposure) and sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low birth weight infants), CalEnviro Screen also takes into consideration socioeconomic factors. These factors include educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment. Research has shown a heightened vulnerability of people of color and lower socioeconomic status to environmental pollutants. Figure 3-14 below displays mapped results for the CalEnviro Screen in Costa Mesa and the Orange County region. The map shows that Costa Mesa is primarily moderate-scoring, with a few low-scoring census tracts and a couple high-scoring census tracts. High scores signify high levels of pollution burdens and low scores signify 1047

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-93 low levels of pollution. Table 3-26 and 3-27 below identifies the CalEnviro Screen scores for the highest and lowest scoring census tracts in Costa Mesa, respectively.

Table 3-26: CalEnviro Screen 3.0 – Highest Scoring Census Tract (6059063605) Pollutant Percentile* Health Risk/Burden Percentile*
Ozone 40 Asthma 47
PM 2.5 53 Low Birth Weight 78
Diesel 51 Cardiovascular Rate 33
Pesticides 0 Education 92
Toxic Releases 85 Linguistic Isolation 76
Traffic 58 Poverty 88
Drinking Water 10 Unemployment 76
Cleanups 98 Housing Burden 74
Groundwater Threats 92
Hazardous Waste 93
Impaired Water 0
Solid Waste 53
*Percentile derived using a weighted scoring system to determine average pollution burden/ socioeconomic scores relative to other census tracts.

Source: CalEnviro Screen 3.0 Map Tool, June 2018 Update. Accessed April 28, 2021.

Table 3-27: CalEnviro Screen 3.0 – Lowest Scoring Census Tract (6059063905) Pollutant Percentile* Health Risk/Burden Percentile*
Ozone 40 Asthma 33
PM 2.5 53 Low Birth Weight 11
Diesel 46 Cardiovascular Rate 24
Pesticides 0 Education 27
Toxic Releases 89 Linguistic Isolation 22
Traffic 47 Poverty 34
Drinking Water 10 Unemployment 13
Cleanups 44 Housing Burden 59
Groundwater Threats 25
Hazardous Waste 63
Impaired Water 0
Solid Waste 0
*Percentile derived using a weighted scoring system to determine average pollution burden/ socioeconomic scores relative to other census tracts.

Source: CalEnviro Screen 3.0 Map Tool, June 2018 Update. Accessed May 24, 2021. 1048

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-94 Figure 3-14: CalEnviro Screen, Costa Mesa (2018)

Source: CalEnviro Screen 3.0 Map Tool, June 2018 Update. Accessed April 28, 2021. 1049

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-95

3. Discussion of Disproportionate Housing Needs
The analysis of disproportionate housing needs within Costa Mesa evaluates existing housing need, need of the future housing population, and units within the community at-risk of converting to market-rate.

Existing Needs
As described in Section 3.G.1 of this Housing Element, the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA) administers Section 8 Housing Choice vouchers within the City of Costa Mesa. For the 2020 year, there were a total of 561 Section 8 voucher holders within the community: 110 for persons with disabilities, 394 for seniors, and 54 families with at least one dependent.

Housing Needs in Costa Mesa
A variety of factors affect housing needs for different households. Most commonly, disability, household income, and household characteristics shape the type and size of housing needed, as well as accessibility based on existing units in a City. Table 3-28 through 3-35 display data for demographic characteristics of Costa Mesa, as compared to Orange County and the State of California. Additional detailed analysis of the Costa Mesa community is provided in Chapter 2: Community Profile.

Table 3-28 displays the data for persons with disabilities in the City, County, and State. Overall, about 10.6 percent of the California population has at least one disability. Orange County and the City of Costa Mesa both have lower percentages by about 2 percent less persons with disabilities. Ambulatory, Independent Living, and Cognitive Difficulties are the top three most common disabilities for all three jurisdictions, in order starting from most common. These figures may be reflective of disabilities commonly found amongst the senior population. Each of reasonable accommodation procedures and opportunity for accessible housing can provide increased housing security for the population with disabilities.

Table 3-28: Population by Disability Type by Geography, 2019 Disability Type Costa Mesa Orange County California
Hearing Difficulty 2.4% 2.5% 2.9%
Vision Difficulty 1.6% 1.5% 2%
Cognitive Difficulty 3.4% 3.4% 4.3%
Ambulatory Difficulty 4.3% 4.5% 5.8%
Self-Care Difficulty 1.7% 2.2% 2.6%
Independent Living Difficulty 3.8% 4.3% 5.5%
Total with a Disability* 8.3% 8.5% 10.6%
* Total of noninstitutionalized population with at least one disability.

Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

Figure 3-15 shows the population with a disability throughout the City. As illustrated, the majority of the City has census tracts that report less than 10 percent of a disabled population. There are a few census tracts with a population of 10 to 20 percent reporting at least one disability.

1050

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-96 Figure 3-15: Population with a Disability, Costa Mesa

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 1051

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-97 Table 3-29 and 3-30 displays household type and income data for the State, County, and City. Overall, Orange County has the largest percentage of family households (71.7 percent) and Costa Mesa has the smallest with about 10 percent less. Costa Mesa has the lowest percentage of female households without a spouse. Non-family households represent the largest household type in Costa Mesa at 40.5 percent, which is about 9 percent more than California and 12 percent more than Orange County. About 40 percent households in both the State and the County have at least one person above the age of 60, while there are about 30 percent of households in Costa Mesa with at least one person over the age of 60. Different household types have varying housing needs – senior households may benefit from reasonable accommodation procedures and being located near medical facilities, single-parent households may benefit from affordable housing options due to limited income, and family households may benefit from larger housing units located near community areas and schools.

Table 3-29: Population by Familial Status by Geography, 2019 Familial Status Costa Mesa Orange County California
Family Households 59.5% 71.7% 68.7%
Married-Couple Family
Households 43.2% 54.9% 49.8%
With Related Children
Under 18 29.3% 34.1% 34%
Female Households, No Spouse 10.1% 11.5% 13%
Non-Family Households 40.5% 28.3% 31.3%
Households with One or More
People 60 Years+ 29.5% 39.9% 39.1%
Total Households 40,986 1,037,492 13,044,266
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

Table 3-30 provides a breakdown on incomes for the State, County, and City. The majority of households in each region earn between $100,000 and $200,000 annually. Orange County has the highest median income at $90,234, about $6,000 more than for Costa Mesa and $15,000 more than for California as a whole.

Table 3-30: Households by Income by Geography, 2019
Household Income Costa Mesa Orange County California
Less than $10,000 4.5% 4.2% 4.8%
$10,000-$14,999 2.3% 2.7% 4.1%
$15,000-$24,999 5.6% 5.6% 7.5%
$25,000-$34,999 6% 6% 7.5%
$35,000-$49,999 9.5% 8.8% 10.5%
$50,000-$74,999 15.8% 14.6% 15.5%
$75,000-$99,999 13.9% 12.8% 12.4%
$100,000-$149,999 19.9% 18.6% 16.6%
$150,000-$199,999 10% 11.1% 8.9%
$200,000 or More 12.4% 15.5% 12.2%
Median Income $84,138 $90,234 $75,235
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019. 1052

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-98 Figure 3-16 below shows the City has varying rates of married-couple households throughout its different census tracts. In general, the map shows the eastern and western edges of the City, which are predominantly single-family neighborhoods, have the highest rates of married-couple households (40-60 percent). Towards the center of the City, census tracts report approximately 20 to 40 percent married- couple households.

When compared to Figure 3-17, the census tracts with the highest rates of married-couple households overlap with the highest rates of children living in married-couple family households. Costa Mesa has a generally high propensity of children living in married-couple family households throughout most census tracts. In comparison to neighboring communities, however, Costa Mesa has less census tracts with children in married-couple family households.

Figure 3-18 shows the City, as with its neighboring communities, has very low rates of children living in female-headed households with no spouse present. Most of the City reports approximately 20 percent of less, except for a census tract towards the southern edge of the City which reports 40 to 60 percent of children living in female-headed households. This same census tract is also one of two which reports 20 to 40 percent of its population over the age of 18 living alone, as illustrated in Figure 3-19. The rest of the City has fairly low rates of individuals living alone, with the remaining census tracts reporting less than 20 percent.

1053

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-99 Figure 3-16: Married-Couple Households, Costa Mesa

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 1054

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-100 Figure 3-17: Children in Married-Couple Households, Costa Mesa

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 1055

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-101 Figure 3-18: Children in Female-Headed Households, Costa Mesa

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 1056

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-102 Figure 3-19: Individuals Living Alone, Costa Mesa

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 1057

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-103 Table 3-31 displays data for households experiencing overpayment or cost burden in the State, County, and City. Housing cost burden can cause mainly displacement, which may create limited access to essential goods and community, as well as employment by potentially increasing commute times. The percentages of households that experience a cost burden greater than 30 percent is overall similar amongst the State, County, and City. Costa Mesa experiences higher rates of cost burden than the County by about two percent. The City also has the largest percentage of households with a cost burden over 50 percent at about

21.6 percent, compared to about 19 percent in both the State and County. Increased opportunity for affordable housing and housing assistance funds help to prevent cost burden on households.

Table 3-31: Household Overpayment by Geography, 2019
Overpayment Costa Mesa Orange County California
Cost Burden > 30% 42.1% 40.5% 40.1%
Cost Burden > 50% 21.6% 19.3% 19.4%
Cost Burden Not Available 1.3% 1.4% 1.4%
Source: HUD Consolidated Planning/CHAS Data, 2013-2017.

Figure 3-20 shows household overpayment for homeowners and Figure 3-21 shows household overpayment for renters. As illustrated, overpayment disproportionately affects Costa Mesa renters compared to homeowners. Overpayment for homeowners is greater in census tracts along the 55 Freeway.

Overpayment for renters is higher to the south of the City in census tracts along Placentia Avenue and to the north in Mesa Verde and along Harbor Boulevard.

1058

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-104 Figure 3-20: Overpayment by Homeowners, Costa Mesa

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 1059

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-105 Figure 3-21: Overpayment by Renters, Costa Mesa

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 1060

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-106 Table 3-32 displays data for household tenure (homeowners and renters) for the State, County, and City.

Homeownership is a crucial foundation for households with low incomes to build strength, stability, and independence. The opportunity for transition into the homebuyer’s market is important in a healthy housing market. Table 3-32 shows that the City of Costa Mesa has a much lower percentage of homeowners than the County and State, reporting about 38 percent, compared to 57 percent in the County and 55 percent in the State. Costa Mesa also has higher rates of renter at 62 percent, compares to 43 percent in the County and 45 percent in the State.

Table 3-32: Households by Tenure by Geography, 2019
Household Tenure Costa Mesa Orange County California
Owner Households 38.3% 57.4% 54.8%
Renter Households 61.7% 42.6% 45.2%
Total Occupied Housing Units 40,986 1,037,492 13,044,266 Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

Additionally, Table 3-33 displays data for overcrowding. Overcrowding is defined as between 1.01 and 1.5 persons per bedroom in a household, and severe overcrowding is defined as more than 1.51 persons per bedroom. Overcrowding often occurs when nonfamily members combine incomes to live in one household, such as college students and roommates. Overcrowding also occurs when there are not enough size- appropriate housing options for large or multigenerational households. The City has the lowest percentages of owner-occupied households with overcrowded and severely overcrowded households compared to the County and State. Renters in Costa Mesa are disproportionately affected by overcrowding when compare to homeowners. Overall, across all three regions, owners were less affected by overcrowding and severe overcrowding.

Figure 3-22 also shows overcrowded households within the City. The figure shows three census tracts with over 20 percent of overcrowded households along Placentia Avenue west of the 55 Freeway.

Table 3-33: Households by Overcrowding by Geography, 2019 Overcrowding and Tenure Costa Mesa Orange County California Owner Households
Overcrowded 0.6% 1.5% 1.6%
Severely Overcrowded 0.2% 0.6% 0.6%
Renter Households
Overcrowded 5.3% 4.2% 3.6%
Severely Overcrowded 2.7% 2.6% 2.4%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

1061

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-107 Figure 3-22: Overcrowded Households, Costa Mesa

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 1062

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-108 Housing Stock in Costa Mesa
Table 3-34 and 3-35 display comparative housing stock data for the State, County, and City. Table 3-20 below shows data for occupied housing units by type. A variety of housing stock provides increased opportunity in communities for different size and household types. The majority of housing stock in Costa Mesa is multi-unit developments (50.6 percent for 2 or more units). Single-family housing units represent about 48 percent of the housing stock in Costa Mesa. Comparatively, single family units represent about 63 percent and 64 percent of the housing stock in the County and the State, respectively.

Table 3-34: Occupied Housing Units by Type by Geography, 2019 Housing Unit Type Costa Mesa Orange County California
1-Unit, Detached 37.9% 50.6% 57.7%
1-Unit, Attached 9.2% 12.3% 7.0%
2 Units 2.9% 1.6% 2.4%
3 or 4 Units 9.6% 6.9% 5.5%
5 to 9 Units 9.4% 6.7% 6.0%
10 to 19 Units 9.1% 5.4% 5.2%
20 or More Units 19.6% 13.7% 12.3%
Mobile Home 2.2% 2.7% 3.7%
Boat, RV, Van, etc. 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

Table 3-35 below displays housing stock by year built for the City, County, and State. Older housing units generally require more upkeep, regular maintenance, and can cause a cost burden on both renters and homeowners. The majority of Costa Mesa’s housing stock (68.2 percent) was built during a housing boom between 1950 and 1979. The trend is similar for the County and State, with majority of units built between 1980 and 2013. Overall, increased numbers of older housing can lead to displacement, cost burden, and substandard living conditions. An analysis of the housing stock in provided in Chapter 2: Costa Mesa Community Profile.

Table 3-35: Housing Unit by Year Built by Geography, 2019 Year Built Costa Mesa Orange County California
Built 2014 or later 2.6% 2.7% 1.7%
Built 2010 to 2013 1.0% 2.0% 1.7%
Built 2000 to 2009 5.2% 8.3% 11.2%
Built 1990 to 1999 6.3% 11.7% 10.9%
Built 1980 to 1989 12.3% 14.9% 15.0%
Built 1970 to 1979 23.6% 23.3% 17.6%
Built 1960 to 1969 26.7% 19.5% 13.4%
Built 1950 to 1959 17.9% 13.0% 13.4%
Built 1940 to 1949 3.1% 2.1% 5.9%
Built 1939 or earlier 1.3% 2.5% 9.1%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

1063

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-109 Future Growth Need
The City’s future growth need is based on the RHNA production of 2,919 very low and 1,794 low-income units within the 2021-2029 planning period. Appendix B of this Housing Elements shows the City’s ability to meet its 2021-2029 RHNA need at all income levels. This demonstrates the City’s ability to accommodate the anticipated future affordable housing needs of the community.

4. Displacement Risk
The potential for economic displacement risk can result from a variety of factors, including large-scale development activity, neighborhood reinvestment, infrastructure investments, and changes in local and regional employment opportunity. Economic displacement can be an inadvertent result of public and private investment, where individuals and families may not be able to keep pace with increased property values and market rental rates.

Urban Displacement
The Urban Displacement Project developed a neighborhood change database to map neighborhood transformations and identify areas vulnerable to gentrification and displacement. This data was developed to assist local decision makers and stakeholders better plan for existing communities and provide additional resources to areas in need or at-risk of displacement and gentrification. Table 3-36 provides the criteria used to identify each displacement typology and the total number of Costa Mesa Census Tracts that currently fall within each category.

Table 3-36: Displacement Typology Criteria and Costa Mesa Census Tracts Modified Types and Criteria Census Tracts
Low-Income/Susceptible to Displacement
 Low or mixed low-income tract in 2018.
6059063701
6059063605
Ongoing Displacement of Low-Income Households
 Low or mixed low-income tract in 2018.
 Absolute loss of low-income households, 2000-2018.
--
At Risk of Gentrification
 Low or mixed low-income tract in 2018.
 Housing affordable to low or mixed low-income households in 2018.  Didn’t gentrify 1990-2000 OR 2000-2018.
 Marginal change in housing costs OR Zillow home or rental value increases in the 90th percentile between 2012-2018.
 Local and nearby increases in rent were greater than the regional median between 2012-2018 OR the 2018 rent gap is greater than the regional median rent gap.
--
Early/Ongoing Gentrification
 Low or mixed low-income tract in 2018.
 Housing affordable to moderate or mixed moderate-income households in 2018.
 Increase or rapid increase in housing costs OR above regional median change in Zillow home or rental values between 2-12-2018.  Gentrified in 1990-2000 or 2000-2018.
--
Advanced Gentrification
 Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high-income tract in 2018.  Housing affordable to middle, high, mixed moderate, and mixed high- income households in 2018.
6059063604
1064

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-110 Table 3-36: Displacement Typology Criteria and Costa Mesa Census Tracts Modified Types and Criteria Census Tracts
 Marginal change, increase, or rapid increase in housing costs.  Gentrified in 1990-2000 or 2000-2018.

Stable Moderate/Mixed Income
 Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high-income tract in 2018. 6059062610
6059063908
6059063902
6059063803
6059063702
6059063201
6059063101
At Risk of Becoming Exclusive
 Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high-income tract in 2018.  Housing affordable to middle, high, mixed moderate, and mixed high- income households in 2018.
 Marginal change or increase in housing costs.
6059063903
6059063904
6059063102
6059063906
6059063905
6059063808
6059063802
6059063807
6059063202
Becoming Exclusive
 Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high-income tract in 2018.  Housing affordable to middle, high, mixed moderate, and mixed high- income households in 2018.
 Rapid increase in housing costs.
 Absolute loss of low-income households, 2000-2018.
 Declining low-income in-migration rate, 2012-2018.
 Median income higher in 2018 than in 2000.
6059063301
Stable/Advanced Exclusive
 High-income tract in 2000 and 2018
 Affordable to high or mixed high-income households in 2018.  Marginal change, increase, or rapid increase in housing costs. 6059063907
6059063805
6059063806
6059063601
6059063302
6059063103
Source: Urban Displacement Project, University of California Berkeley (2021).

Table 3-36 and Figure 3-23 both show the City is mostly made up of census tracts which are currently identified as “exclusive” or are in the process/at-risk of becoming exclusive. These areas overlap with most of the City’s single-family neighborhoods. Two census tracts on the west-side of Costa Mesa and to the east of Placentia Avenue are currently identified as low-income and susceptible to displacement. The south- western-most census tract to the west of Placentia Avenue is categorized as “Advanced Gentrification”, signifying a rapid increase in housing cost over the past few years. 1065
c
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-111 Figure 3-23: Urban Displacement Project - Gentrification and Displacement

Source: Urban Displacement Project, University of California Berkeley (2021). 1066

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-112 Inventory of Assisted Affordable Housing
Affordable covenants help to ensure that certain housing units remain affordable for an extended period of time. Covenants provide lasting affordable options to low and very low-income households in a community. Table 3-37 below provides a list of 1,144 housing units with affordability covenants, of which 75 housing units are at-risk of converting to market-rate between 2021 and 2031.

Jurisdictions are required by State Housing Element Law to analyze government-assisted housing that is eligible to convert from lower income to market rate housing over the next 10 years. State law identifies housing assistance as a rental subsidy, mortgage subsidy or mortgage insurance to an assisted housing development. Government assisted housing may convert to market rate housing for several reasons, including expiring subsidies, mortgage repayments, or expiration of affordability restrictions. Consistent with the requirements to analyze the impacts of the potential conversion of these units to market-rate units, this section provides an analysis of preservation of assisted housing units at-risk of conversion.

Table 3-37: Affordable Housing Units in Costa Mesa with Covenants Name of Project Address Target Group Potential
Expiration Funding
Target
Income
Level
Assisted
Units
Casa Bella 1844 Park Ave. Senior 2025 HUD Section 8 Very Low 75 Bethel Towers 678 W. 19th St. Senior 2067 LIHTC Low 53
St. John’s Manor 2031 Orange Ave. Senior 5/2062
HUD Section 8, HOME, Costa Mesa
Redevelopment,
Federal Rental
Rehab
Very Low 36
Costa Mesa
Family Village
2015 -2019 Pomona Ave. 755-771 W. 20th St.
1924-1932 Wallace Ave.

Costa Mesa City CouncilNovember 15, 2022

Costa Mesa City Council
November 15, 2022