All Belong” program, planning for the Fairview Developmental Center, and HCD’s rezoning requirements. As a result, the risk of “unintended consequences” has become significant.
Unlike many landowners, CJS is neither in a hurry to develop its properties nor, at this time, focused upon residential development of the CJS Properties. To the contrary, the common reputational and economic interests of CJS and the City are to a significant degree tied to CJS’s thoughtfully planned and highly successful commercial development. While these shared interests do not preclude residential development in the future, CJS is not ready to commit the CJS Properties to residential development at this time, whether directly or inadvertently.
As we have communicated since before the holidays, it has become clear that sooner or later CJS will need to request the removal of the CJS Properties from the Housing Element. Therefore, CJS is formally requesting the City to take all actions necessary to remove the CJS Properties from the Housing Element.
Please reach out to either me or Justin McCusker if you have any questions or if there are further steps which CJS must take to facilitate the near-term removal of the CJS Properties from the City’s updated Housing Element.
Thank you.
COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP
By: Tim Paone
Partner
cc: Costa Mesa City Manager Cecilia Gallardo-Daly
Costa Mesa Planning Commissioners
HE Site No. CJS Site ID
134 Harbor Associates
136 Harbor Associates
137 Home Ranch
138 Home Ranch
198 Home Ranch
139 Town Center
140 Town Center
HE Site No. CJS Site ID
141 Town Center
205 Town Center
145 South Coast Plaza
146 South Coast Plaza
147 South Coast Plaza
203 US Post Office
204 US Post Office
537
Ä1
Ä73
Ä55
§¨405
WardSt
W 18th St
W BaySt
Placentia Av
e
SSus
an St
E 19th St
Anton Blvd
Cliff Dr
SakiokaDr
Yorktown Ave
Mes
aVerdeDrive East
Hospital Rd
Bison Ave
Bayside Dr
MesaVe
rdeDrive West
Slater Ave
BayviewPl
Mesa Dr
Ol
dNewport B
lvd
22nd St
Park Ave
38th St
College Ave
W Wilson St
Westcliff Dr
SusanSt
Dove
St
Santa Ana Ave
W 17th St
E 15th St
Anaheim Ave
Santiago
DrE 16th St
Via Lido
Quail St
W Segerstrom Ave WDyer Rd
Ford Rd
S Flower St
So uthwe
stBirch
St
Eastbluff
Dr
Gisler Ave
Dover
Dr
E Bay St
WesterlyPl
Big Canyon
Dr
River Ave
NewhopeSt
Monte Vista Ave
S Rait
tSt
LosJardines
Via Lido Nord
Clay St
Via Lido Soud
Adams Ave
Hamilton Ave
S Fairview St
Baker St
E 17th St
Ellis Ave
W 19th St
Victoria St
Fair Dr
Campus Dr
Garfield Ave
Birch St
BearSt
Del MarAve
SuperiorAve
Sunflower Ave
W Sunflower Ave
E Dyer Rd
Fairview Rd
Euclid St
IrvineAve
W Balboa Blvd
E Balboa Blvd
MainSt
E Coast Hw
y
Jam
boree R
d
Pacific Coast Hwy
MacArthur Blvd
Brookhur
stSt
W Warner Ave
Harbor Blvd
Southeast Bristol St
N Bristol St
Bristol St
Talbert Ave
Warner Ave
SMainSt
f
S Coast Dr
Red Hill
Ave
New
portBlvd
W Coast Hwy
Costa Mesa City Boundary
Parcel Boundaries
Housing Element Opportunity Sites
Measure K Sites
0 0. 50.25
Miles
[
Date: 2/18/2026 User: cstarbird Path: \\dudek.int\data\GISData\Projects\j1729203\MAPDOC\Working\CostaMesaHousingElement_Working.aprx Map: ParcelMap_NoOverlays_TempChanges Layout: Fig_ParcelMap_NoOverlays_TempChanges SOURCE: City of Costa Mesa, Orange County Sanitation District, Open Street Map Neighborhoods Where We
All Belong Zoning Updates and Housing Element Implementation Housing Element and Measure K Sites Map
ATTACHMENT 5
538
ATTACHMENT 6
Notes: GPLU = General Plan Land Use, DU/AC = density, VL- very low income, L – low income, M = moderate income, AM = above moderate income Table 1. Proposed density and affordability distribution for sites proposed to be added to the Housing Element Sites Inventory
APN Unique
Id Address Zone GPLU Specific Plan Size (Ac) DU/AC Net
Units VL L M AM
418-181-11 210 To be Assigned CL GC - 0.43 23 10 - 1 - 9 419-203-08 209 2000 Harbor C1 GC - 1.55 25 38 - 4 - 34
Tab
le 2. Density and affordability distribution for sites proposed to be removed from the Housing Element Sites Inventory
APN Unique
Id Address Zone GPLU Specific Plan Size (Ac) DU/AC Net
Units VL L M AM
424-241-11 96 610 W. 18th St. R2-HD HDR Mesa West 0.58 40 23 4 2 4 13 140-041-38 134 3390 Harbor MP IP North Costa
Mesa 5.78 90 520 98 57 104 260
140-041-63 136 3390 Harbor MP IP North Costa
Mesa 1.69 90 152 28 16 30 77
140-041-82 137 3315 Fairview Rd. PDC CC North Costa
Mesa 7.58 90 443 44 22 44 333
140-041-93 138 1201 S. Coast Dr. PDC CC North Costa
Mesa 30.30 90 1,772 177 88 177 1,33
0 410-051-48 139 3400 Bristol St. TC CAC North Costa
Mesa 0.53 90 47 8 5 9 25
539
2 Notes: GPLU = General Plan Land Use, DU/AC = density, VL- very low income, L – low income, M = moderate income, AM = above moderate income
APN Unique
Id Address Zone GPLU Specific Plan Size (Ac) DU/AC Net
Units VL L M AM
410-051-51 140 685 Sunflower
Ave. TC CAC North Costa
Mesa .88 90 78 14 8 15 41
410-051-52 141 3410 Bristol St. TC CAC North Costa
Mesa 1.35 90 121 22 13 24 61
412-491-07 145 3333 Bristol St. PDC RC North Costa
Mesa 6.41 90 575 120 60 115 288
412-491-11 146 - PDC RC North Costa
Mesa 5.37 90 483 91 53 96 243
412-501-06 147 3333 Bristol St. PDC RC North Costa
Mesa 10.00 90 900 171 99 180 450
19-041-02 194 2180 Harbor
Blvd. C1 G Harbor
Mixed-Use 0.77 50 38 7 4 7 21
419-041-06 195 2180 Habor Blvd. C1 G Harbor
Mixed-Use 2.50 50 125 23 13 25 63
140-041-83 198 - PDC CC North Costa
Mesa .023 90 0 0 0 0 0
139-313-21 203 1590 Adams Ave. C1 G Harbor
Mixed-Use 0.19 50 9 1 0 1 7
139-313-30 204 1590 Adams Ave. C1 G Harbor
Mixed-Use 2.40 50 120 22 13 24 60
410-501-25 205 3420 Bristol St. TC CAC North Costa
Mesa 0.75 90 70 13 7 14 35
540
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2026-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITI OF
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO THE SIXTH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT (2021-2029) OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN IN
CONNECTION WITH THE HOUSING ELEMENT SITES REZONING (PCTY-25-0008 AND PSPA-26-0001) TO ADD AND REMOVE CERTAIN HOUSING ELEMENT OPPORTUNITY SITES (PCTY-26-0001)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY' OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, FINDS AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa is processing a focused amendment to the Housing Element of the City's General Plan to remove and replace specific Housing Element Opportunity Sites at the request of the respective property owners; WHEREAS, under California law, every city must adopt a general plan, which must include specified mandatory elements, and may include additional optional elements, in furtherance of State policy to provide a comprehensive, long-term plan for the physical development and use of property within the City's jurisdiction; WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65350 et. seq., this Housing Element Update constitutes a General Plan Amendment; WHEREAS, the City's Sixth Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element was adopted by the Costa Mesa City Council on February 1, 2022, by Resolution No. 2022-06 and amendments adopted on November 15, 2022, by Resolution No. 2022-67, and was revised as recently as March 1, 2023, to incorporate non-substantive changes as directed by the City Council;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the removal of 17 Housing Element Opportunity Sites and addition of two sites-both within the boundary of Measure K-to the Housing Element Candidate Sites Analysis at the request of the respective property owners, would not significantly impact any agency or special district within or abutting the City of Costa Mesa and does not constitute a major amendment to the General Plan within the meaning of Government Code Section 65352;
WHEREAS, this amendment to the Housing Element is necessary to remove 17 properties that the property owners have identified as no longer available for residential development in a manner that is suitable to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, ATTACHMENT 7
541
and add two properties in support of reducing the loss of sites capacity at the request of the property owners;
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on February 23, 2026, with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162, staff reviewed the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Sixth Cycle Housing Element and determined that a subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration (ND) is not required for the update to the City of Costa Mesa Housing Element that would reduce development capacity. The action to add/remove Housing Element sites falls within the capacity studied under this MND and MMRP. Additionally, on July 1, 2025, a new statutory CEQA exemption, known as SB 131 or Public Resources Code Section 21080.085(a), went into effect, providing a CEQA exemption for actions needed to implement Housing Elements, including implementation of Program 3A, which requires the City to continue to maintain an inventory of sites to meet RHNA. The City's proposed amendments implement a schedule of actions contained in the approved Housing Element pursuant to Government Code Section 65583 and do not allow the construction of a distribution center, or oil and gas infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed amendments are statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.085(a). As such, additional environmental review is not required for this amendment to the Housing Element.
WHEREAS, the CEQA environmental determination for this project reflects the independent judgement of the City of Costa Mesa.
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission, in its independent judgment and affer fully considering alternatives, testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing hereby, RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the General Plan Amendments to the Housing Element of the City's General Plan incorporated herein as Exhibit A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon 542
the activity as described in the staff report, and compliance of all applicable federal, state, and loca! laws.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution, or the document in 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 23rd day of February, 2026. r
N-g
-//
HArlan. hair
Mesa Planning Commission
543
STATEOFCALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )ss
CITY OF COSTA MESA )
1, Carrie Tai, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. PC-2026-07 was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on February 23, 2026, by the following votes:
AYES: Harlan, Andrade, Dickson, Klepack, Martinez, Rojas NOES: Zich
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Carrie T-aecretary
Costa Mesa Planning Commission
Resolution No. PC-2026-07
544
Costa Mesa Housing Element 19,a':', 6'h Cycle - 2021-2029
EXHIBIT A
Appendix B
Sites Analysis (text updates to add two sites
and remove 7 7 sites; a comprehensive update
to be conducted following a No Net Loss
analysis later in 2026)
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-O
545
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle - 2021-2029
A.Candidate Sites Analvsis Overview
The Housing Element is required to identify potential candidate housing sites by income category to meet the City's RHNA Allocation. The sites identified within the Housing Element represent the City of Costa Mesa's ability to plan for housing at the designated income levels within the 6'h housing cycle planning period (2021-2029). As described in this appendix, the development capacity for each site depends largely on its location within the City, a specific plan or urban plan area as well as known development factors.
Where possible, property owners were consulted to help the City better understand potential future housing growth on candidate housing sites within the City.
This appendix contains Table B-5, which identifies each candidate housing site within Costa Mesa's sites inventory. The sites are identified by assessor parcel number (APN) as well as a unique identifier used to track sites within the inventory. Additionally, the following information is provided for each parcel. * Address
* Ownership
* Zoning (including Specific Plan areas, Urban Plans, and Overlays, if applicable) * Size (Net developable acres removing known development constraints) * Density
* Vacancy status
* Previous Housing Element identification
* Potential Development Capacity (Dwelling Units) by income category * Description of existing use
A summary of thisinformation is included within the Housing Resources section (Chapter 3) of Costa Mesa's 2021-2029 Housing Element.
Table B-1 shows the City's 2021-2029 RHNA need by income category as well as a summary of the sites identified to meet that need. The analysis within this appendix shows that the City of Costa Mesa has the capacity to meet their 2021-2029 RHNA allocation through a variety of methods, including:
* Identification of development capacity on sites which either currently permit or will be rezoned to permit development of residential uses at or above 30 dwelling units per acre * Identification of City owned properties suitable for the development of housing * Future development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-1
546
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle - 2021-2029
Table B-1: Summary of RHNA Status and Sites Inventory (to be comprehensively updated following a No Net Loss ana lysis later in 2026)
Very Low
Income*
' Low Income
Moderate
Income*
Ab6ve
Moderate
Income -
Total
RHNA (2021-2029) 2,919 1,794 2,088 4,959 11,760
Units Constructed in Projection
Period (Begins June 30, 2021)
3 19 9 8 39
Remaining Unmet RHNA 2,916 1,775 2,079 4,951 11,721
Large Sites
Fairview Developmental Center 575 345 690 690 2,300
Sakioka Lot 2 120 60 120 900 1,200
Senior Center Housing Project 40 20 0 o 60
Pacific Arts Plaza and Town
Center
53 27 53 402 535
Total Potential Capacity - Large
Sites
Overlays, Specific Plans, and urban Plans
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
SoBECA Urban Plan 128 70 141 383 732
Mesa West Bluff Urban Plan 195 109 208 555 1,071
19 West Urban Plan 115 64 123 335 640
Harbor Mixed Use Overlay 270 151 286 778 1,485
Total Potential Capacity -
Overlays, Specific Plans, and
Urban Plans
Projected ADU Constrciction
ProjectedADUConstruction i 97 168 117 8 I 391
Sites Inventory Total
Total Units towards RHNA
Total Capacity Over RHNA
Categories
'The City's Extremely Low Income (ELI) housing need is assumed to be 50% of the very low RHNA need for the planning period.
1. Approved Projects and Projects in the Pipeline
Approved Proiects since June 30, 2022
As shown in Table B-1, the City of Costa Mesa has approved residential development projects since the start of the projection period for the 6'h Cycle. The projection period is the time in which development activity can count towards meeting the City's 6'h Cycle RHNA need. Cities within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region can begin taking credit for the 6th cycle for development that was approved on or after June 30'h, 2021. Table B-2 contains projects that received approvals during that timeframe.
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-2
547
Table B-2: Units Permitted
Address
Building Permit
Number
Date Issued Type Income Category
900 W 20th Street BC21-00060 7/6/2021 ADU Low
2994 Croftdon Street,
Unit B
BC21-00123 7/7/2021 ADU Moderate
1850 Paros Circle BC20-00583 7/7/2021 ADU Moderate
230 Sherwood Place,
Unit B
BC20-00469 7/12/2021 ADU Low
257 Knox Place BC21-00228 7/16/2021 ADU Moderate
2175 Tustin Avenue,
Unit C
BC21-00121 7/20/2021 ADU Low
2545 Westminster Avenue,
Unit B
BC21-00225 7/20/2021 ADU Low
281 E 20th Street BC20-00376 7/27/2021 SFR Above Moderate 281 E 20th Street,
Unit B
BC20-00376 7/27/2021 ADU Low
118 Magnolia Street,
Unit B
BC21-00261 8/11/2021 ADU Low
382 Ramona Way,
Unit B
BC21-00110 8/11/2021 ADU Low
700 W 20th Street,
Unit D
BC21-00296 8/12/2021 ADU Very Low
482 E 20th Street,
Unit A
BC21-00321 8/13/2021 ADU Low
2049 Monrovia Avenue,
Unit B
BC21-00113 8/31/2021 ADU Moderate
536 Caleigh Lane BC19-00957 9/8/2021 SFR Above Moderate 324 Costa Mesa Street,
Unit B
BC20-00578 9/20/2021 ADU Low
227 Mesa Drive,
Unit B
BC21-00140 9/22/2021 ADU Moderate
330 0gle Street,
Unit B
BC21-00355 9/27/2021 ADU Low
379 E 19th Street,
Unit B
BC21-00190 9/28/2021 ADU Low
861 Joann Street,
Unit B
BC21-00269 9/28/2021 ADU Moderate
1951 Rosemary Place BC20-00111 9/28/2021 SFR Above Moderate 1951 Rosemary Place,
Unit B
BC20-00111 9/28/2021 ADU Moderate
1939 Continental Avenue,
Unit B
BC21-00166 10/5/2021 ADU Very Low
1984 0range Avenue BC21-00461 10/13/2021 ADU Moderate 2510 Carnegie Avenue BC21-00339 10/14/2021 ADU Low
974 Linden Place BC21-00137 10/14/2021 ADU Very Low
2687 Elden Avenue,
Unit B
BC21-00530 10/18/2021 ADU Low
320 Colleen Place BC21-00334 11/5/2021 SFR Above Moderate 320 Colleen Place,
Unit B
BC21-00333 11/5/2021 ADU Low
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-3
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle - 2021-2029
548
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle-2021-2029
Table B-2: Units Permitted
Address Building Permit
Number
Date Issued Type Income Category
3078 Roanoke Lane,
Unit B
BC21-00265 11/5/2021 ADU Moderate
246 Cecil Place BC21-00293 11/16/2021 SFR Above Moderate 2014 Maple Avenue,
Unit 108
BC21-00534 11/22/2021 ADU Low
2014 Maple Avenue,
Unit 109
BC21-00535 11/22/2021 ADU Low
466 E 18th Street,
Unit B
BC21-00408 11/23/2021 ADU Low
257 Flower Street BC21-00644 12/3/2021 SFR Above Moderate 2458 Norse Avenue BC21-00626 12/3/2021 SFR Above Moderate 2845 Ellesmere Avenue,
Unit B
BC21-00341 12/7/2021 ADU Low
473 0gle Street BC21-00694 12/14/2021 SFR Above Moderate 363 Rochester Street BC21-00625 12/20/2021 ADU Low
Proiects in the Pipeline
Development projects that are in the planning process but have not received land use approvals or building permit are considered "in the pipeline." For applications submitted for a land use approval, projects are considered "pending" until the necessary land use approvals are issued, at which point a project is deemed "approved." Once a building permit is issued, the project is identified as "building permit issued." When project construction is completed, and all necessary building safety inspections have been completed a certificate of occupancy or "final building permit" is issued.
Pursuant to the HCD Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook Government Code Section 65583.2, for projects yet to receive their certificate of occupancy or final building permit, the element must demonstrate that the project is expected to be built within the planning period. The City believes that many of these "in the pipeline" housing units are likely to be developed within the planning period and could further the City's efforts in reaching its required RHNA, if/once developed. Although "projects in the pipeline" are not included as "candidate housing sites", they represent opportunities for future housing construction in Costa Mesa within the planning period. If/when these housing units are built, the units will count toward achieving the City's RHNA allocation as mandated by State law.
The below summary includes housing projects at various planning/development stages, and consist of potential housing developments of various sizes, types and housing affordability ranges. The summary includes recent housing projects that have been submitted for land use approvals at this time but are not yet "approved"; projects that are "approved" but no building permits have been issued or applied for; and other housing projects that City staff is working on in partnership with other entities or agencies to develop housing resources in the City.
* Senior Housing Project at the Senior Center (Jamboree Housing ENA) - On July 21, 2020, the City Council approved an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with Jamboree Housing Corporation in determining the feasibility, and potential terms, for the right to acquire a long-term leasehold interest in an approximately O.90-acre portion of the parking lot at the Senior Center property to develop a senior housing project. The conceptual density study plans envisioned the potential for Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-4
549
Costa Mesa Housing Element '@'m!"u\> ' m+-i-. - t g. t' -5 "!
6'h Cycle-2021-2029
60 senior affordable dwelling units at the site. An application for an Urban Master Plan Screening for the proposed project was submitted in November 2021 and staff continues to work with the applicant to bring the project forward for a decision. * Urban Plan Screening Project (1711 & 1719 Pomona Avenue) - On November 16, 2021, the City Council considered an Urban Plan Screenin@ of a Master Plan request for eight live/work units on a O.46-acre lot. The proposed Master Plan includes a deviation request from the Urban Plan's live/work standards for minimum lot size. The urban planning screening process is the City's first stage of development review for projects proposed in mixed-use overlay districts. The Council generally supported the project's concept, including the request for a deviation from minimum lot size and provided the applicant guidance for the project proposal to include in a future application for Planning Commission consideration.
* Urban Plan Screening Project (1540 Superior Avenue) - On January 18, 2022, the City Council is scheduled to consider an Urban Plan Screening request for nine live/work units on a O.44-acre ot. The Urban Plan screening process is the City's first stage of development review for projects proposed in mixed-use overlay districts. After the City Council screening, the applicant will use the City Council's guidance to include in a future application for Planning Commission consideration. * One Metro West (1683 Sunflower Avenue) - The proposed project is a mixed-use development and consists of residential, specialty retail, creative office, and recreational uses. The project is proposed to include up to 1,057 dwelling units (anticipated to be rental units), 25,000 square feet of commercial creative office, 6,000 square feet of specialty retail, and 1.5-acres of public open space. The proposed development includes three multi-family residential structures with a maximum building height of seven stories; one stand-alone office buildin@ up to four stories in height; tenant-serving commercial retail space integrated into one of the residential structures; open space; landscaping; streetscape improvements; and a Class-l bike trail system on Sunflower Avenue providing access to the Santa Ana River Trail. The project was approved by City Council in 2021. The project includes 10 percent (106 units) of the residential development project component to be affordable (67 very low income units and 39 low income units) for 40 years. The proposed Project is subject to Measure Y, as codified in Article 22, Chapter IX of Title 13 (Zoning) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. Pursuant to Measure Y, after final approval by the City Council, includin@ all CEQA review, the voters must then approve the Project. * Costa Mesa Village (2540 Newport Boulevard) - Costa Mesa Village is an existing 97-unit SRO/efficiency development which was redeveloped many years ago from an existing motel. An application to update and amend the original entitlement (which allowed for the conversion of the former motel into an SRO/efficiency unit development) was submitted in November of 2021. The intent of the Conditional Use Permit amendment is to modify and update the conditions of the original entitlement while adhering to the City of Costa Mesa"s recent SRO policy. The update will include revisions to enhance project housing and social services to qualified low-income individuals and persons with disabilities. Up to 23 of the 97 housing units are anticipated to be supported by Section a 811 subsidy administered by the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) for persons with developmental disabilities, with the remaining units to continue as affordable housing units for individuals living/working in the City of Costa Mesa. The project is expected to be heard by the Planning Commission on January 24, 2022, with the final decision by the City Council thereafter. * Project Homekey - On November 16, 2021, the City Council directed staff to collaborate with the County of Orange and associated development partners to submit application(s) for the Homekey Program grant funding for the acquisition, rehabilitation and conversion of one or two motel ocations proposed for permanent supportive housing. City staff have been working with several existing motel owners of properties that range between approximately 40 to 90 units. The Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-5
550
Costa Mesa Housing Element
" ! \ 'i
i5 !ll-.i 6'h Cycle - 2021-2029
proposals will provide direct permanent supportive housing with funding from the City of Costa Mesa, the County and (if awarded) Homekey grant funds from the State. The target population for these units would include at risk or currently homeless individuals and seniors, age 62 and over, and chronic homeless individuals and couples, with a subset of the units for eligible persons that qualify for Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) programs. Because the City operates the 72 bed Bridge Shelter on Airway Avenue, the Homekey Program could provide a seamless opportunity to stabilize this most vulnerable population where supportive services are provided on site, in the expedited Homekey permanent supportive housing model. * The Plant (765-767 Baker Street and 2972 Century Place) - This project consists of the proposed renovation of three existing commercial buildings (containing the former Car Mart and Plant Stand) totalin@ 19,100 square feet, for retail and restaurant uses surrounding a central courtyard area. In addition, new buildings are proposed consisting of two greenhouse structures which will contain food stall uses, and a four-story mixed-use building with 48 residential units, 14 live/work units, and 2,570 square feet of workshop/maker office space above a two-level parking structure. This project was approved by the City Council in 2019. * Families Forward (Pomona Avenue) - Families Forward, founded in 1984, is committed to preventing and ending family homelessness in Orange County. Families Forward has acquired and is working on plans to rehabilitate and expand a multi-family property on Pomona Avenue. At completion, the project will include the interior and exterior renovation of the existing 6 units and the addition of 2 new accessory dwelling units that will collectively house 8 families at risk of, or experiencing, homelessness. Families Forward has submitted preliminary plans to the City and are working to advance construction plans which are expected to be submitted to the City for expedited review in January 2022. The project will be owned and operated by Families Forward but is being constructed as a collaboration between Families Forward and HomeAid of Orange County. Families Forward will provide wrap-around services to low- to moderate-income family residents and provide a case manager, housing resource specialist, and other professionals to build a plan toward self-sufficiency. The families will also receive supportive services such as counseling, career coaching and access to our food pantry.
In 2020, Families Forward helped house and bring an end to homelessness for 15 Costa Mesa families (49 adults and childrenl with 33 Costa Mesa families accessing the Families Forward food pantry and taking another step towards stability. When complete, the Pomona project will serve as an entry point for families in and near Costa Mesa. Also, on November 17, 2020, the City Council approved a Subrecipient Agreement with Families Forward to establish a Tenant Based Renta Assistance (TBRA) program to assist qualified, very low-income households who are current residents of Costa Mesa (or households with strong community ties to Costa Mesa).
For a variety of reasons, not all projects in the pipeline complete the planning approval or building permit process and are built and occupied. However, these projects provide an indication of what future housing construction may include within the Housing Element planning period. As indicated above, City staff wil continue to work with the aforementioned project applicants and other City housing efforts to reach the City's goals.
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-6
551
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle-2021-2029
Figure B-1: Map of Candidate Housing Sites (All Income Categories)" 205 140 206
LEGEND
N
I
2 Miles
iiiia-i-i City Boundary
Density
40 du/ac
41 du/ac - 50 du/ac
[:5si du/ac - 60 du/ac
§§s* du/ac - go du/ac
'Comprehensive Sites Inventory map update to be conducted following a No Net Loss analysis later In 2026.
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-7
552
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle - 2021-2029
Figure B-2: Map of Candidate Housing Sites (By Zonlng)" lii
J "' I
.177
L:
,!
N
2 Miles
Specific Plan
019 West
OFairview Developmenta
QHarbor Mixed-Use
[Mesa West
gNorth Costa Mesa - H P
§North Costa Mesa - SL2
NOrth Costa Mesa
[k SOBECA
"Comprehensive Sites Inventory Zonlng map update to be conducted following a No Net Loss analysis later In 2026.
Appendix B' Sites Analysis B-8
553
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-9
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle - 2021-2029
554
6'h Cycle-2021-2029Costa Mesa Housing Element
Figure B-2: Map of Candidate Housing Sites (SoBECA Focus) Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-10
555
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle - 2021-2029
2. Selection of Sites
The City of Costa Mesa has identified sites with capacity to accommodate the 2021-2029 RHNA. The City has identified parcels within a variety of different zones, specific plan areas, urban plans, and overlays. Each of these either currently permit residential development or will be amended per Programs 3B and 3C to permit residential development at the densities specified in Table B-5. The identified sites have been evaluated to determine the extent to which on-site uses are likely to redevelop within the planning period.
It was found that a number of the existing uses (identified in Table B-5) are either permanently closed or availableforlease. Manyoftheusesareinmulti-tenantcommercialcenterswithoneownershipandmost show little to no evidence of recent investment or redevelopment.
The City does not have access to most leasing information as these are generally private documents but has conducted an analysis to identify sites that show characteristics indicating they are likely to redevelop within the planning period. When possible, the City had discussions with property owners to determine interest in redevelopment for residential uses. The analysis also includes several letters of potential residential development interest in Appendix A.
Community Input on Sites Selection
Community input was an important component of the sites identification and selection process. The City conducted multiple public outreach meetings, including district specific meetings where community members gave input on areas of importance within their district. This information was collected as notes on maps of each district and can be found in Appendix C. Community members also provided feedback on potential housing development types and focus areas on the online community survey. Additionally, draft versions ofthe sites inventory were discussed at both Planning Commission and City Council study sessions, with decision makers providing input and community members able to make public comments.
Lastly, the City held discussions with major property owners within the City to better understand theirlong- range plans for development of the properties under their ownership. The City used these discussions to more accurately determine potential unit yield and affordability assumptions for some of the identified candidate housing sites. Additional information is provided for specific properties in Table B-5.
3. Redevelopment of Non-Vacant Sites for Residential Uses The City of Costa Mesa does not have sufficient vacant land available to accommodate fifty percent of their low/very-low income RHNA. To accommodate the need at all income levels, the City has analyzed sites within non-residentially zoned areas that permit residential development through Specific Plans, Urban Plans, or Overlays. The City also evaluated and included parcels not currently within Urban Plans which wil be added when those Urban Plans are amended as part of Programs 3B and 3C.
As the City cannot accommodate 50 percent of the low/very low income RHNA, state law requires that the City analyze the following:
* Analysis of leases that would prevent redevelopment of the site, * The extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to the future residential development within the planning period,
* The City's past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential uses, Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-11
556
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle-2021-2029
* Current market demand for the existing use,
* Development trends and market conditions, and
* Regulatory or other incentives to encourage redevelopment.
Lease Analysis
Existing lease agreements on infill and non-vacant properties present a potential impediment that may prevent residential development within the planning period. State law requires the City to consider lease terms in evaluating the use of non-vacant sites, however the City does not have access to private lease agreements or other contractual agreements amongst parties because they are private documents.
Therefore, the City has conducted an analysis to identify sites that show characteristics indicating they are ikely to redevelop within the planning period, including past performance, an on-the ground existing use analysis and a market analysis to understand cost of land, construction, and development trends in Costa Mesa.
Experience Developinq Non-Vacant Sites for Residential Uses As part of the candidate housing sites analysis, the City has evaluated recent projects that have redeveloped within non-residentially zoned areas that included residential units. Those projects, including the zoning, use prior to redevelopment, and a project analysis of the approved development plan, are shown in Table B-3. The City's analysis showed that prior uses on these redeveloped sites were similar in nature to the existing uses on sites identified within the sites inventory in Table B-6. Based on the information provided in Table B-3, the City has created a classification system for sites with characteristics that are applicable to the candidate sites inventory. The intent of this classification system is to draw parallels from past development and local knowledge and trends in development to the potential future development of the candidate housing sites identified. These classifications are based in real past development that has occurred within the City and while some comparisons may not be an exact match for the sites identified, they show a strong correlation with the understanding that every parcel is unique in terms of site characteristics, existing use, ownership, and other factors which can affect future development. The development classes are generally defined as:
* Development Class A: Uses on these sites prior to redevelopment included eitherlight industrial or office type uses. These are areas that previously served commercial or office businesses and have redeveloped throughout the city based on property owner interest and market trends. This also includes uses within the SoBECA Urban Plan area. * Development Class B: Uses on these sites prior to redevelopment included self-storage, vehicle storage, and industrial uses. Many of these sites are located within the Mesa West or 19 West Urban Plan areas which covers a large portion of the industrial areas within the City. * Development Class C: Uses on these sites prior to redevelopment included primarily commercia uses along Harbor Boulevard or another major city commercial corridor. These projects are typically in a mixed-use setting, whether within the same development or directly adjacent. Many of these sites are within the Harbor Mixed-Use Urban Plan area. * Development Class D: These sites are motel conversions within the City. The City is continuing to pursue Project Homekey funds to encourage redevelopment of specific motels within the City in coordination with property owners and operators of these buildings. * EX: Existing proposed project or anticipated project.
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-12
557
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle - 2021-2029
The City has also conducted a parcel specific analysis of existing uses for each of the identified sites. This analysis of existing uses, including indicators of a likelihood that the existing use will redevelop within the next eight years, are provided in Table B-6. This analysis is based on information readily available to the City and research that can be found through online research. The City does not always have access to private lease information but has included information that property owners have shared regarding individual sites.
The following residential development projects have been constructed on parcels that were either non- residentially zoned or had an existing non-residential use on-site within Costa Mesa.
Table B-3: Example Developmerit of Non-Vacant Sites for Residential Uses Project
Address
Dwelling
Units
Zoning
Use Prior to
Redevelopment
Project Analysis
Development
Class
125 Baker
St.
240 PDR -
HD
Industrial use This development is a 240-unit wrap apartment complex on a 4.2-acre parcel in
a largely industrial and office area of Costa
Mesa. The project was built at a density of
approximately 57 du/ac. The site was
A
previously a light industrial and office uses
use similar to some of the identified
candidate housing sites. The project was
rezoned from CL to PDR-HD.
1957
Newport
Blvd.
38 PDR -
HD
Self-storage
use and trailer
storage lot
This development is a 38-unit condominium
project along the Newport Blvd commercial
corridor. The site was previously a self-
storage and trailer storage use similar to
some of the identified candidate housing
sites. The project was rezoned from Cl to
PDR-HD.
B
2277
Harbor
Blvd.
200 PDR -
HD
Motel use This development is a 200-unit apartment complex on a previous motel use site. This
development is located on Harbor
Boulevard and shares many existing
characteristics with sites identified within
this corridor in the candidate sites
inventory. The project was rezoned from
Cl to PDR-HD.
D
671 W.
17" St.
177 MG Brownfield
development
(Argotech
Industries)
This development is 177 live/work and loft
residential units and was developed on a
site that was previously largely surface
parking area. This site is in the Mesa West
Urban Plan area and adjacent to some of
the sites identified within the candidate
housing sites analysis. This project also
shares many existing use characteristics
with those identified sites.
B
1620 and
1644
89 MG Industrial use
(Ametek
This development is 89 live/work residential
units on a former industrial use site in the
B
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-13
558
Table B-3: Example Developmerit of Non-Vacant Sites for Residential Uses Project
Address
Dwelling
Units
Zoning
Use' Prior to
Redevelopment
Project Analysis
Development
Class
Whittier
Ave.
Aerospace and
Defense)
Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan area. Similar
to 671 W. 17th Street, this site shares many
geographic and existing use characteristics
with sites identified in the candidate
housing sites analysis.
1500
Mesa
Verde
Drive East
215 PDC Vacant
commercial
area
This development is 215 senior apartments
developed at four stories along Harbor
Boulevard directly adjacent to existing
commercial uses. This project is an
example of the types of horizontal mixed-
use projects that the City anticipates may
develop along Harbor Boulevard and
matches assumptions made in the Housing
Element.
c
1527
Newport
Boulevard
40 C2 &
MG
Industrial uses,
including boat
and automobile
repair
This development is 40 live/work units with
ground floor commercial/office workspaces
and two stories above for residential. This
development is in the 19 West Urban Plan
area and previous uses are consistent with
sites identified within the sites inventory.
B
132, 134,
140
Industrial
Way
22 C2 &
MG
Industrial uses,
including boat
and automobile
repair
This development is 22 live/work units with
ground floor commercial/office workspaces
and two stories above for residential. This
development is in the 19 West Urban Plan
area and previous uses are consistent with
sites identified within the sites inventory.
B
1677-
1985
Superior
Avenue
49 C2 &
MG
Gas station and
a mixture of
commercial
and industrial
uses.
This development is 49 live/work units with
ground floor commercial/office workspaces
and two stories above for residential. This
development is in the 19 West Urban Plan
area and previous uses are consistent with
sites identified within the sites inventory.
B
2025
Placentia
Avenue
36 MG Commercial
and industrial
uses, including
storage and
repair for boats
This development is 36 live/work units with
ground floor commercial/office workspaces
and two stories above for residential. This
development is in the Mesa West Bluffs
Urban Plan area along Placentia Avenue
and previous uses are consistent with sites
identified within the sites inventory.
B
2095
Harbor
Boulevard
29 PDC Commercial
buildings and
gas station
which had been
vacant for
several years.
This development is 28 single-family homes
with live/work potential, including ground
floor commercial/office workspaces and
two stories above for residential. This
development is in the Harbor Mixed Use
Urban Plan area along Harbor Avenue and
c
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-14
Costa Mesa Housing Element
l'FA/k'.@'n, ./i. q
ffa :JJ
'*
6'h Cycle-2021-2029
559
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle-2021-2029
Table B-3: Example Developmerit of Non-Vacant Sites for Residential Uses Project
Address
Dwelling
Units
Zoning
Use Prior to -
Redevelopment
ProjectAnalysis
Development
Class
previous uses are consistent with sites
identified within the sites inventory.
1672
Placentia
Avenue
32 MG Boat yard and
industrial
building
This development is 32 live/work units with
ground floor commercial/office workspaces
and two stories above for residential. This
development is in the Mesa West Bluffs
Urban Plan area along Placentia Avenue
and previous uses are consistent with sites
identified within the sites inventory.
B
This analysis of recent sample development projects shows that residential development occurs within the City on sites that have existing non-residential uses. As indicated in the analysis notes, these example sites share many characteristics with the candidate housing sites in Table B-6. This demonstrates that there is development potential on these sites as well as interest in developing these types of sites for residential uses within Costa Mesa.
Existinq Uses on Candidate Sites and Redevelopment Opportunity The City has identified and analyzed existing use on candidate sites in Table B-6 below. As the City is a built- out community, consisting mainly of commercial retail, industrial and single-family housing, a primary goal was to identify sites compatible for the development of multifamily and mixed-use housing as well as not displace existing residents. Therefore, the City identified the best possible sites with the most feasible opportunity for redevelopment over the next 8 years.
Housinq MarketAnalysis
n addition to an on-the-ground existing use analysis, the City of Costa Mesa has market conditions to facilitate the redevelopment of non-vacant sites for residential. Table B-3 above shows that a total of 1,167 dwelling units have been constructed through redevelopment in the City. Additionally, a California Association of Realtors report for Historic Housing trends shows that the average time a unit spends on the market in Orange County is just 18.6 days in the last four years (2017-2021) and just 13.3 days in the last two years.l Specificallyin Costa mesa, homes spent just over one month on market and the sale-to-list price ratio was 100.14%, indicating a sellers' market and the need for more housing.2 According to the New Homes Directory (online resource), historical Housing Market data, the average price for an attached unit, 1,500 square feet or less, increased by 48 percent over the last planning cycle (S434,87 in 2014 to 5645,000 in 2021).3
I Median time on Market of Existing Detached Homes, Historical Data, California Association of Realtors (CAR), Accessed online:
December 9, 2021. https://www.car.orH/marketdata/data 2 Realtor.com, Housing Market Summary, Costa Mesa. Accessed Online: December 9, 2021. https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Costa-Mesa CA/overview 3 New Homes Directory.com, Historical Housing Report in Costa Mesa, Accessed Online: December 9, 2021. https://www.newhomesdirectory.com/California/Costa Mesa/historical-housin@-report Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-15
560
Costa Mesa Housing Element
-(of""%"',
i/o4?'y,
l: e. 1 a '11,%'i,,''S ;. XRo )as -
X'+"h;;mu>":/
6'h Cycle-2021-2029
Additionally, the according to the CAR Current Sales and Price Statistical Survey, the median cost of a home for sale in Orange County increased by 20 percent from 2020-2021 (from 5930,000 in October 2020 to Sl,120,000 in October 2021).4 The indicators above signify an increased market demand for new housing.
4. Development of Sma// Site Parcels
The City of Costa Mesa has identified several candidate housing sites that are smaller than half an acre in size. Assembly Bill 1397 identifies general size requirements for candidate housing sites of greater than half an acre and less than 10 acres in size. The City has only identified sites smaller than half an acre which show the likelihood of redeveloping in conjunction with other parcels which collectively meet the half acre requirement or where the property owner/developer has provided a draft development proposal to the City. The likelihood of redevelopment was based primarily on common ownership amongst adjacent parcels which share a property line. In most instances, these parcels are currently developed as a single use and it is reasonable to anticipate that the collection of parcels will redevelop as one new development to maximize efficiency and design of the new use. Candidate sites less than half an acre in size represent a small portion of the City's overall RHNA need.
The potential candidate sites which are anticipated to be consolidated into a single development are identified within Table B-6.
The candidate sites that are smaller than half an acre are shown in Table B-4 below along with descriptions of theirlikelihood to redevelop that go beyond the descriptions in Table B-6. 4 Current Sales and Price Statistics, California Association of Realtors (CAR), Accessed online: December 9, 2021. https://www.car.org/marketdata/data
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-16
561
Table B-4: Analysis of Candidate -lousing Sites Under O.5 acres APN
Unique
10 Address
Specific
Plan/Urban
Plan Area
Size
(Ac)
Use Description
418-181-11 210 Bristol St. (to
be assigned)
N/A 0.43 The subject property is a surface parking lot.
The property owner/developer provided a
pre-application and rezoning application for
a 10-unit residential development project. In
February 2026, the property
owner/developer requested to have the site
added to the Housing Element.
42543103 20 1666 Superior
Ave
19 West 0.29 These are all adjacent parcelsin a contiguous block bounded by E 15th Street, Superior
Avenue, E 17th Street, and Newport Blvd. All
parcels within this block have been identified
as candidate housing sites and total 4.70
acres. Sites 22 and 23 are owned by the
same property owner. The existing uses are
all car-related industrial uses which are
single-story.
As shown in Table B-2, the City worked with
property owners of parcels along Industrial
Way (Specifically 132, 134, and 140
Industrial Way, less than a quarter mile
southwest of these identified parcels) to
facilitate the development of residential
uses on parcels previously occupied with the
same types of uses as these three parcels
(boat and auto repair uses). These parcels
are located within the 19 West Urban Plan
area and are permitted to develop in the
same manner as the parcels along Industrial
Way.
42543105 22 126 E 16" St 19 West 0.42
42543106 23 126 E 16" St 19 West 0.35
41817101 208 754 Saint
Clair St
SoBECA 0.27 These parcels are occupied by warehouse and light industrial uses within the SoBECA
Urban Plan area. The SoBECA Urban Plan
focuses on residential as a mixed-use
component and promoting the development
of residential in addition to the existing
commercial anchors in the Mall and the
Camp. The City has established Program 3D
to update the Urban Plans within the City to
focus more heavily on residential uses at the
identified densities.
As identified in Table B-2, the City developed
Baker Block on industrial parcels which
previously occupied similar light industrial
uses in a largely industrial corridor
approximately one-third of a mile from the
41817102 179 752 Saint
Clair St
SoBECA 0.26
41820202 182 841 Baker St SoBECA 0.33
41820205 185 2969 Century
PI
SoBECA 0.09
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-17
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle-2021-2029
562
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle - 2021-2029
Table B-4: Analysis of Candidate -lousing Sites Under O.5 acres APN Unique
ID Address
Specific
Plan/Urban
Plan Area
Size
(Ac) Use Description
SoBECA area. These uses have similar
historical context and assumptions have
been tied to this project and others as
examples of redeveloping these types of
uses for residential within industrial areas.
Additionally, Policy LU-2.10 ofthe City of Costa Mesa"s Land Use Element within the General Plan promotes ot consolidation of residential properties. While the sites identified in the table above are commercial in nature, the intent of the policy remains effective in consolidating smaller parcels towards the creation of a arger residential development.
5, Development of Large Site Parcels
The 2021-2029 sites inventory includes several sites that are larger than 10 acres. These sites exceed the AB1397 size requirement and require additional analysis. The following background and analysis relates to each site in the inventory that exceeds that inventory. The City has conducted meetings with each of these major property owners to determine their future interest in developing housing on the identified properties. These properties when developed pursuant to the densities included within this Housing Element would be subject to the City's inclusionary housing requirements which are in process and anticipated to be adopted per Program 2A. This supports the City's assumptions of affordability on the sites described below. The housin@ element also includes Program 3R which commits the City to take actions to promote the development of large parcels at the densities and affordability levels identified within the housing element. There are no unit caps within the City which would limit the number of units which can be developed on these sites. That is subject to the densities provided within the City's zoning code.
Fairview Developmental Center
The Fairview Developmental Center (FDC) is a State-owned property that is approximately 109 acres in size and located on Harbor Boulevard within Costa Mesa. The FDC currently serves as one of the largest residential facilities for developmentally disabled persons in the State of California. The FDC was previously identified in the City's 5'h cycle Housing Element (2013-2021) and the City has continued discussions with the State to determine the potential residential yield of the area takinginto consideration the existing uses. n January 2020, the Costa Mesa Fairview Developmental Center Ad Hoc Committee met to discuss potential development yields for the site. The Committee presented a report to the City Council which summarized its strategic engagement in the development of the local vision, priorities, and reasoning behind the stated preliminary vision of a solutions-based, housing-first model for the site. The Committee took into consideration the City's recent efforts to open a homeless shelter and identified opportunities for permanent supportive housing and integrated workforce housing within the City. Conceptual yield studies and draft plans have also been compiled for the property and helped to inform development capacity assumptions. There are no current development agreements or density caps on the property as residential uses are not currently permitted. The City will need to come to an agreement with the State of California Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-18
563
Costa Mesa Housing Element
for future use of the site and then solicit input from the development community on potential entitlement, ikely through a competitive bid process. The City is confident that there is significant interest in redeveloping the property once it becomes available based on informal discussions with developers during the housing element update process.
FDC was discussed multiple times in public workshops by local housing advocacy groups in support of residential uses on the site for primarily affordable housing developments and workforce housing. The City has established Program 3B to work with the State of California to establish the FDC area as a mixed-use village that prioritizes housing and promotes development at the densities and affordability levels identified within this housing element. As stated in Program 3B, the City envisions a two-year process to negotiate future residential development use on the site. If not established within two years, the City will identify additional sites to accommodate a potential shortfall in sites to accommodate the remaining RHNA.
The City"s 6"h Cycle analysis includes an assumption of 2,300 dwelling units broken down into the very low, ow, moderate, and above moderate-income categories.
Sakioka Lot 2
Sakioka Lot 2 is a 30.93-acre site located north of the 405 Freeway with General Plan Land Use designation that allows up to 660 residential units, 863,000 Square feet of office or retail use and a Floor Area Ratio of
1.0. The property is also located in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan.
The site is currently under a development agreement (DA) that was recently extended for ten years until May of 2031. The City has had continued discussions with the property owners who have indicated there is the potential for future housin@ development on the site in strategic areas. This development would occur pursuant to the new densities identified within the Housing Element, which may lead to the development of more units than currently established under the DA. The property owner and City could potentially amend the current DA or the property owner may develop outside of the DA but under the zoning requirements of the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan in order to achieve more than 660 residential units in the future. Therefore, the existing DA does not present a cap or restriction on the future number of potential units on the Sakioka Lot 2 parcel. Furthermore, there are not affordability caps within the current DA which would limit the number of units which may be affordable. The City's 6'h Cycle analysis includes an assumption of 1,200 dwelling units broken down into the very low, low, moderate, and above moderate-income categories. The property owner has expressed interest in communications with the City in developing for residential uses within the 8-year planning cycle.
PacificArts Plaza
Pacific Arts Plaza project is an 18.3-acre site located in South Coast Plaza Town Center currently developed with a variety of office buildings and restaurants. The site is designated Cultural Arts Center (CAC) by the General Plan and has a zoning designation of Town Center (TC). The property is also located in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. Portions of the site are under a Development Agreement. The existing development approvals referenced in the original Development Agreement that allows for a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.55 and maximum building square footage of 1,227,978. The Development Agreement was recently extended for two years and will expirein August of 2023. The City has had continued discussions with the property owners who have indicated there is the potential for future housing development on the site in strategic areas.
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-19
564
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle-2021-2029
6. Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory dwelling units, or ADUs, are housing units which may be developed in addition to an existing single- or multi-family residential use. These housing units can be free-standing or attached to a primary structure and are intended to provide additional housing on an existing residential lot. Often ADUs provide housing for family members or are rented to members of the community.
As a result of new legislation and an increased effort by the City to promote ADUs, the City has seen an increase in applications so far in 2022. The City approved/permitted the following number of ADUs since 2018:
* 2018 - 4 ADUS
* 2019 - 6 ADUS
* 2020 - 19 ADUs
* 2021- 43 ADUs
* 2022 - 68 ADUs
Of the 41 permits issued in 2021, 1 was available at the extremely-low income level, 3 were available at the very-low income level, 25 were available at the low-income level, and 12 were available at the moderate income level. As of the end of April 2022, the City of Costa Mesa has seen an increase in ADU activity. The City has approved and is in the process of issuing permits for 27 ADUs through approximately one-third of the year. Projected out over 2022, this demonstrates the continued trend of ADU growth and puts the City on pace for 81 approved ADUs in 2022. This exceeds the City's 2022 projection of 50 units by 31 units and positions the City well to exceed its projected ADUs within the planning period.
In compliance with State law, ADUs are allowed in all zones that allow single dwelling unit or multiple dwelling unit development. Junior Accessory Dwellin@ Units (JrADUs) are permitted only in single dwelling unit zones.
The City of Costa Mesa has determined based on past performance that it is appropriate to anticipate the development of 391 accessory dwelling units from 2021 to 2029 (approximately 50 per year through the planning period). Approximately 265 of these units are anticipated to be affordable at the low and very- low-income categories. A total of 117 ADUs are anticipated to be affordable at the moderate-income level and 8 ADUs are anticipated at the above moderate-income level. This affordability estimation is based on guidance from SCAG and HCD based on surveys of existing ADUs in the SCAG region between April and June 2020. Another local factor that contributes to the City's anticipated overall ADU growth expectations is that the City's ADU provisions are more flexible than the State ADU regulations, and therefore are more desirable for ADU development. For example, the State's minimum standard related to ADU required parking is that ADU's located within 500 feet of certain transit areas are not required to provide parking, whereas the City's ADU standards allow ADUs to be constructed without any parking regardless of location.
Also, the State's minimum standard related to ADU height is that a local ADU ordinance shall allow an ADU height a minimum of 16 feet, whereas the City's ADU height standards allow a building height of 27 feet.
Lastly, the State's minimum floor area requirement for ADUs is 850 square feet for studio units and 1,000 square feet for one-bedroom units, whereas the City"s ADU floor area standards allow for larger ADUs in Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-20
565
Costa Mesa Housing Element it" Ei 'ji 6'h Cycle-2021-2029 that a detached ADU can be constructed up to 1,200 square feet, and an attached ADU may be the @reater of 1,000 square feet or 50 percent of the size of the existing residential unit.
The City performed a trend analysis looking at the growth in ADUs from 2018 - 2021. That analysis is shown in the table below.
Table B-5: ADU Assumption Analysis (2018 - 2021)
Year ADU Permitted (2018-Based Strategy)
Projection Period
Total:
390
2028 50
2027 50
2026 50
2025 50
2024 50
2023 50
2022' 68
2021' 43
2020" 19
2019" 6
2018" 4
""' indicates actual permitted ADUs within that year.
As shown in Table B-4, Costa Mesa has seen sustained increases in ADU production each year since 2018 with the lowest being a 50% increase between 2018 and 2019 as new State laws and local processes were not common knowledge amongst homeowners. The City expects that they while ADU production is likely to continue to increase year after year, there may be some drop off in that increase as more property owners develop ADUs. The City anticipates approximately 50 ADUs will be permitted per year for the remainder of the planning period.
A further indication of this is recent development trends observed by the City. Planning staff recently received and processed a development which included 13 ADUS which were conversions of existing garages. These units ranged from 152 to 363 square feet and consisted of a studio unit arrangement with one bathroom. This is a direct result of two actions: (1) developers and local property owners becoming educated on the new ADU laws and (2) the City of Costa Mesa making diligent efforts to discuss ADU potential and provide informational materials to the community. In addition to the methodology and concrete local data presented above, the City understands that ADU trends may change. In response, the housing element includes Program 3M to monitor ADU production every two years and has stated actions should production not match the anticipated amount in the housing element.
To assist in furthering the recognition and understanding of ADUs potential within Costa Mesa and reach the City's ADU development projections, Costa Mesa has included Program 3E, which identifies actions the City will take to promote and incentivize the development of ADUs during the planning period. As outlined in the program, these actions include:
* Coordinating with the County on implementation of a permit-ready ADU program * Post a user-friendly FAQ on the City's website to assist the public with the general questions.
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-21
566
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6th Cyc!e - 2021-2029
* Waivin@ specific permitting fees to make ADU development more feasible * Creating an expedited plan check review process to ease the process for homeowners * Research potential State and Regional funding sources for affordable ADUs and make the information found publicly available to homeowners
7. Water, Sewer, and Dry Utility Availability
Each site has been evaluated to ensure there is adequate access to water and sewer connections as well as dry utilities. Each site is situated with a direct connection to a public street that has the appropriate water and sewer mains and other infrastructure to service the candidate site. The City has sufficient total water and sewer capacity (existing and planned) to accommodate the 2021-2029 regional housing need. The City plans for future housing growth through the Mesa Water District Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP).
This was most recently updated in 2020. Future sewer capacity is planned for through the Costa Mesa Sanitary District Sewer System Management Plan (SSMPI which was most recently amended and recertified by the Board of Directors in January 2021.
B. Calculation of Unit Capacity
This section contains a description of the candidate sites identified to meet Costa Mesa"s RHNA need at all income levels. The full list of these sites is presented in Table B-6.
1. Realistic Capacity and Affordability Calculations Costa Mesa's 2021-2029 Housing Element sites analysis assumes that each identified candidate housing site will develop with at a range of income levels. Primarily, it is assumed that sites identified within Table B-6 will redevelop with the following affordability characteristics:
* 30% of units available to residents in the low and very low-income categories * 20% of units available to residents in the moderate-income category 50% of units available to residents in the above moderate-income category Costa Mesa recognizes that not all sites within the inventory will develop such that they meet these affordability assumptions. The following developments have all occurred recently within the City's urban plans, specific plans, overlays, or on non-residentially zoned sites. Many or these are described in more detail in Table B-2.
* 2277HarborBlvd-PreviousmotelusethatunderwentarezonefromC1toPDR-HDanddeveloped as a fully residential project with 200 apartment units. * 671 W 17th Street - Previous industrial brownfield site in the Mesa West Bluff Urban Plan which developed as a fully residential project with 177 live/work units. * 1620 and 1644 Whittier Avenue - Previous industrial use in the Mesa West Bluff Urban Plan which developed as a fully residential project with 89 live/work units. * 1500MesaVerdeEastDrive-CommerciallyzonedparcelalongHarborBoulevardwhichdeveloped as a fully residential project with 215 senior apartments. * Brickyard East and West - Previous industrial warehouse uses along Placentia Avenue which developed as a fully residential project with 29 townhouse units.
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-22
567
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle-2021-2029
Consistent with local housing market trends data presented earlier in this appendices, the City of Costa Mesa is seeing an increase in residential development and rarely receives requests for fully non-residential uses in the area identified within the candidate housing sites analysis.
The City has established goals and programs within the Housing Element aimed at identifying funding opportunities and partnering with the development community to increase the amount of affordable housing built in future developments. If the City is able to identify partnerships leading to fully affordable projects, that would also help to cover any potential shortfall in capacity in any of the four income categories. The City of Costa Mesa recognizes that should a "No Net Loss" situation occur, they will be required to identify additional sites and has analyzed additional potential housing sites within the Housing Element's environmental clearance document.
There are several candidate housing sites in which the affordability assumptions differ from those presented above. Those sites include:
* APN 418-181-11 (address to be assigned). This site was developed as a surface parking lot. The property owner/developer has applied for a pre-application and rezoning to accommodate a ten- unit residential development with one low income unit. The other nine units are assumed to be affordable to above moderate income households.
* Costa Mesa Senior Housing Project (APN 424-211-01). This site is owned by the City of Costa Mesa who has had previous discussions with a developer on a fully affordable project on this site. This site assumes 60 units which are all affordable at the lower income levels. * Fairview Developmental Center. This site is analyzed previously in the large site analysis portion of this appendices. This site is owned by the State of California and the City anticipates working in collaboration with the State to support the goal oF developing affordable housing. The City has assumed that approximately 40% of the units on this site will be available to residents at the lower income levels, while 30% will be available to residents at the moderate-income levels. The remaining units are anticipated to be market-rate.
* Sakioka Lot 2. The City has conducted outreach meetings with this property owner and determined that it is realistic to assume that 15% of future units on this site may be available to residents at the lower income levels. This site has an existing development agreement. @ Pacific Arts Plaza and Town Center. The City has conducted outreach meetings with this property owner and determined that it is realistic to assume that 15% of future units on this site may be available to residents at the low and very-low income levels. This site has an existing development agreement.
2. Specific Plan, Urban Plan, and Overlays
As identified in Programs 3B and 3C, of the Housing Plan (Chapter 4), the City will be modifying some of the existing Specific Plans, Urban Plans, and Overlays within Costa Mesa. The densities identified in Table B-6 reflect revisions to many of these areas to permit residential development at a higher density than what the current zoning permits as of adoption of this document. As noted, the City has three years to complete these zoning amendments. The City is proposing to either analyze or modify the following areas:
* North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
* 19 West Urban Plan
* SoBECA Urban Plan
* Mesa West Bluff Urban Plan
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-23
568
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle-2021-2029
* Residential Ownership Urban Plan
(Propose to Remove)
* Residential Incentive Overlay
* Harbor Mixed-Use Overlay
These areas, with the exception of the Residential Ownership Urban Plan, which is proposed to be removed, will be modified through Programs 3B through 3C to permit residential development at or above the default density for Costa Mesa of 30 dwelling units per acre. When considering appropriate densities, the City held outreach meetings with members of the community, decision-makers, the development community, and major property owners. As part of these meetings, the City discusses and analyzed what densities were appropriate to maintain the character of the surrounding neighborhoods while also presenting the opportunity for future residential development that can realistically facilitate the development of units available at the lower income levels.
The City will continue to conduct community outreach post adoption of the Housing Element to discuss potential revisions to development standards within these areas with the goal of effectively planning for future affordable housing. Densities established as a part offuture zoning changes must accommodate the densities shown in Table B-6 for the sites identified.
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-24
569
Table B-5: Sites to Aooommadate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA lto be comprehensively updated %llowing a No Net Loss analysis laterin 2026) Note. Thls table is sorted by unique iden[lfier [Unlque 10) The umque idenrffiers were estabHshed at the beginning of the sites owlysis process Som e SlteS Were Lemrwed ti; part Of th e OnalySIS und SitpS here net renum bered ta retaln C On[lnUi31 far the '.Omm unity and 0th Pr US PrS When l'efemng tO SpeClfiC SiteS.
APN
uplque
Id' Address Owner Zonlng
Garieral'
Plan
ljnd
use
Coundl
District
Specfflc
Plans
Sm
(ACi
DensRy -Vaaint
Potentlal
Consolld
'mlon '
Llsed
Insth'
CVde
Net
L!nlts
Very
Low ' Low Moderate
Above
Moderate Notes
Exlsttng
Building
SF
Mu
Bulldaut
per FAR
%
Oavpled
Dev. Class
424-202-
02 12 719 W
19th St
PANGE
MARCCTR
PANGE
REVOC TR
C1 G 4 19 West 129 50 Yes 64 12 -l 12 34
Small commercial uses
m a stnp mall center
Approximately halT oi
the parcel is surface
parking and property
abuts a malor
transportation comdor
(19th Street) Shoppmg
Center shows no recent
sign of renovation.
12,509 70,028 18% c
424-202-
03 13
707 W
191h St
_ MtlNOZ
FAMILY
PROPERTIES
LLC
Cl G 4 19 West 2.00 50 gg 18 10 ig 52
Existing single-user
lSmart&Flnal) with large
5prj3cB parklng lot.
Potential to redevelop
for mixed-use adjacent
to major transportation
corridor il'lth Street).
20,404 108,723 19% c
424-211-
01 14 695 W
19th St
CITY OF
COSTA MESA
Cl G 5
19 West
(Seruor)
2.66 50 60 40 20 € o
Proposed Senior Center
Housing prolect.
16,181 144,946 11% EX
4X-2!11-
20 16
1710
Pomona
Ave
PACIFIC
MESA
PROPERTIES
MG Ll s 19 West 1.08 50 53 10 s 10 28
Existing self-storage
facility in close proximity
to new residential uses
and major
transportation corridor
il7th Street). The
existlng slngle-story
building is located less
than 100 feet away from
recently constructed
residentlal The increase
in permitted residential
density afforded by thls
Housing Element update
cycle is an incentive for
property owners to gain
greater economic return
with residential
development as
opposed to remaining as
commercial.
Additionally, this Llrban
17,560 5El,633 30% B
4ppBl1dx B: Sites Analysis B-25
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle - 2021-2029
570
i Table B-6: !Jtes to Aaommodme Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA (to be comprehensively updated following a No Net Loss analysis later in 2026) Note. Ttus table is sorted by unique Identffier /Unrque 10). The un!que identfiers were establlshed at the begrnning of the sites analysis process.
Some sites were removed ri= pork of the analysls +ind sites vvere not reriumbered ti retam cominuity for the '_ommunity and other users when refemng to speclfic sites APN
unlque
Id
Addreas Owner Zonlng
General
!'lan
Land
kiss
Coundl
Dlstrld
Spedflc
Plans
Size
(AC)
DensRy Vaant
POtOntlal
ainsolld
mlon
. used
ln.5th
Qtde
Net
unRs
Very
Low
Low
I
Moderate
Above
Moderate
Nots
Existing
Building
,SF
Max
Bulldout
par FAR
%
Oa.upled
Day. aass
I
Plan Area has seen
significant past
ownership interest in
conversion of existing
commercial/II(;ht
industrlal/office into
residential development
with similar previous
exlstlng sites (including
more than one-hundred
multi-story residential
loft units located
immediately across 17"
Street). Further, one of
the maln objectives of
the 19 West 11rban Plan
is to aaencourage
commercial/residential
mixed-use
development" wlth an
emphasis on "vertical
mixed-use
developmenPa ii.e.,
multi-story). Based on
past local development
trends and future
allowed increases in
residential density, It is
conceivable and likely
that the economic
return of a residential
use will encourage the
ownership to redevelop
the exlsting storage use
Into either residential or
residential mlxed-use
{similar to adjacent
properFies) within the
planning period. I I
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-26
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle - 2021-2029
571
Table B-6: Sites to Aa:ommodate Cost Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA (to be comprehensively updated following a No Net Loss analysis later in 2026) Note. This table is soned by unlque identifier /Umque 10). The unique identifiers were es[abllshed rit the beginmng of the sites analysrs process.
Same SireS Were remOV ed a.. park Of the an alySIS [lnd SiteS kere nO[ rerurmbered [O retain C Ontlwlh,l far the :Ommunlty an d rdhel iiS erS When referring [O SpeClfiC RITES.
APN
unique
Id
' Address Owner Zonlng
Ganem
P!an
Land
ua
Coundl
DktnCt
Specffl:
Plans
Sm
(AC)
aDensRy Vaunt
Potential
Consolld
atlon
used
In 5th
' (Je
Net
un%
Very
Low
Low Moderate
Abm
Moderate
N
ExlsUng
aulldlng-
SF
, Mu
Bulldout
' per FAR
%
Oa:upled
Day. Class
424-281-
21 17
670 W
yzth St
PACIFIC
MESA
PROPERTIES
MG Ll 5 19 West 1.06 50 53 10 5 10 28
Existing 2-story office
and commercial uses in
close proximity to new
residential uses and
malor transportation
corridor (17th Sjreet).
12,364 57,813 21% A
424-281-
22 18
660 W
17th St
PACIFIC
MESA
PROPERTIES
MG Ll 5 l"l West 2.22 50 110 20 12 22 55
Existing self-storage
facility and 11ght
Industrial/commercial
use in close proximity to
new residential uses and
major transporratlon
corridor il7th Street).
2(1,164 120,722 24% B
425-431-
02 19
1680
Supenor
Ave
B DINNS INC CL G 6 19 West 211 SO 105 19 11 21
I
53 Existing hotel use
(Ramada) with large
surface parking lot
Property is directly
adjacent to Newport
Boulevard and next to
new multi-family
development
25,337 115,045 22% D
425-431-
03 20
1666
Superior
Ave
SCHWARTZ
PAuL D 2007
TR
MG Ll 6 13 West 0.29 50 A 14 2 I 2 9
Collection of existlng
warehouse and
Industrial uses adjacent
to new multi-family
development. The
Housing Element
antlcipates this proper§
may be redeveloped
with adjacent uses as
indlcated in this table.
3,693 15,921 23% B
425-431-
04 21
116 E
16Fh St
SHEEHAN
MICHAEL W
TR
MG
I
Ll 6 19 West 0.73 50 A 36 6 3 7 19
Collection of existing
warehouse and
industnal uses adjacent
to new multi-family
development The
Housing Element
anticipates this proper!y
may be redeveloped
with adjacent uses as
indicated in this table
13,899
I
39,955 35% B
I
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-27
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle - 2021-2029
572
Table B-6: Sites to Acommodate Cost Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA (to be aimprehensively updated following a NO Net Loss analysis laterin 2026) Note. This table rs sorted by umque identdier (llnrque 10). The unlque identifiers were established at the begrnning of the sites rinalysrs process Same Sr[eS Were lemOVed O.; part Of the ClnCllJSiS {'nd Site5 Vvere nor renllmbered ti) rehJln COn[inllit%' far the'_OmmlJnitl and OtheT users When l'efemng tO SpeClfiC RITES.
APN
Llnlqua
Id
Address Owner Zonlng
€ieneral
Plan
'Laid
Llse
Coundl
District
Specfflc
Plans
Size
IAC)
Density' V*>nt
Potentlal
Colld'
a&l6n
used
' Insth
'q2e
Net
'Un%
Very
Low
Low Moderite.
Abma
Mode%te
Notes
Exlstlng
Bulldlng
SF
Max
Bulldout
per FAR
%
Oa:upled
Dev; Class
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
i
I
I i
I
i
The existing single-story
collection of warehouse
buildings is located
across 16" Street from
appro+iimately 6€
affordable
modular/mobile home
residential units and also
located in close
proximity to more than
one-hundred multi-story
residential loft units
located on 17" Street.
This Urban Plan Area has
seen significant past
ownership interest in
conversion of existing
commercial/light
industrial/office uses
into residential
development with
similar previous existing
sites Furihet, one of the
main objectives of the
19 West lltban Plan is to
'aencourage
commercial/residentlal
mixed-use
developmentaa with an
emphasis on %ertical
mixed-use
development"li.e,
multi-story). Based on
past local development
trends and Tutute
allowed increases in
residential density
afforded bythe
associated zone
changes, It is
conceivable and likely
I I I I
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-28
W'k z
'4QffiFa.!;
lll !.Q
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle - 2021-2029
573
Table B-6: Sites to Aanmrnodate CO!S Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA (to be oomprehensivety updated following a NO Net Loss analysis later In 2026) Note. This table is sorted by umque identifier /Umque 10). The unique identifiers were established m the beginnlng of the sites analysis process Some steps were removed o.; pM of the anolysls rind sites vrere nor renumbered to re[riin contrnurT4r for the :ommunr[y and other users when referring to specific sites APN
unique
Id
Add ' Owner Zffnlng
General
. Plan
Land
Llse
Coulldl
DIStJlCt
Spedflc
Plans
Slze
(AC)
Density Vaaint
.PotenUal
Consolld
gtlon
.used
In 5th
Oyde
Net
un%
' Very
low
Low Moderate
Abm
Nloderate
Notes '
E+dstlng,
BulltfiOg
" SF
Mu
Bulldout
per FAR
%
Ozupled
Dev. Class
that the economic
return ok a residential
use will encourage the
ownttship to redevelop
the existing uses into
either residential or
residential mixed-use
(similar to adjacent
proper?es) within the
planmng penod.
I
425-431-
OS
22 126 E
16th St
126
PROPERTIES
ILC
MG Ll 5 19 West 0.42 50 A 20 3 2 4 10
A vehicle repair facility
developed with older
and randomly located
structures. The Housing
Element anticlpates this
property may be
redeveloped with
at5acent uses as
indicated in this table.
The existing collection of
vehicular repalr and
vehicle storage buildlngs
are located across 15"
Street from
approximately 60
affordable
modular/mobile home
residential units and also
located in close
proximity to more than
one-hundred multi-story
residentlal loft units
located on 17" Street.
Thls urban Plan Area has
seen signiflcant past
ownership Interest in
conversion of existing
commercial/light
industrlal/office uses
into residential
development with
10,868 22,831 48% B
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-29
6'h Cycle - 2021-2029Costa Mesa Housing Element
574
Table B-6: Sues to Accommadme Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA (to be aimprehensively updated following a No Net Loss analysis later in 2026) Note. This table is sorted by umque identfier /Unrque 104. The unique identifiers were established at the beginnlng of the sites onalysls process Same RITES Were remOVed Cl; part Of the anal'lSiS {lnd SiteS'here net renllmbered ti) re[rlln COminlJit%' far the'_Ommklrit'l and Other users When Lefernng TO SpeClfiC RITES.
APN
Llnlque
Id
Address Owner. Zo'nli'
General
Plan
i Land
':, Llse'
Coundl
DlstrlCt
Spadflc
Fling
Size
(AC)
DeniRy Vamnt
Potentlai
Consalld
_ atlon
used
16 5th
' CJi
)m
un%
Vex
low
Low Moderati
Above
Modffirate
'Notes
E+dstlng
Building
SF
Mu
Buildout
per FAA
%
Oa:uplad '
Day. Class
similar previous existing
sites. Funher, one of the
main objectives of the
19 West urban Plan is to
aaencourage
commercial/resldential
mixed-use
developmentaa with an
emphasis on "vertical
mlxed-use
development" ii.e.,
multi-story). Based on
past local development
trends and future
increases in residential
densities afforded by the
next Housing Element
cycle, R is conceivable
and likely that the
economic return of a
residentlal use will
encourage the
ownership to redevelop
the existlng uses Into
either residential or
residential mixed-use
(slmilar to nearby
properties) within the
planning perlod.
425-431-
OS
23 126 E
16Th St
126
?ROPERTIES
I LLC
Cl G
I
6 19 West 0 35 50 A
I
17 3 1
I
3 1 €
Collection of existing
warehouse and
industnal uses adjacent
to new multi-family
development The
Housmg Element
anticipates this property
may be redeveloped
with adjacent uses as
indicated in this table
5,158 19.226 27% B
Appendix B. Sites Analysis B-30
Costa Mesa Housing Element
/'#zan',i' a
6'h Cycle - 2021-2029
575
Table B-6: SRes to Ammmadate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA (to be comprehensively updated following a No Net Loss analysis laterin 2026) Note. Thrs table is soded by unlque identlfier (Uruque 10) The umque rdentffiers were established m the begmnrng of the sites owl/srs pmcess.
SOme SlteS Were LemOVed CU pClrt Of the OnalJSIS and SlrPS VWal? net renlJmbered t'l retaln COn[lnlJl3" far the :0mmunit7 Clnd Other uSerS When I efernng TO SpeClfiC Alter.
APN ,
unlque
Id
Address .Owner Zonlng
General
Plan
Land
use
Coundl
Dlstrlct
Spedflc
llans
Slze
(AC) DensJ Vaaint
. Potential
Consolld
mlon
used
In 5th
Cme
Net
Units
Very '
Low
Low Moderate
Abova
Moderab
Notes
_ Existing
Building
SF
Max
Bulldaut
.perFAR
%
€)aupled
Dev. Class
425-431-
07 24
1601
Newport
Blvd
WINKAL
HOLDINGS L
LC
Cl G 6 19 West 0.79 50
I
I
39 7 4 7 22
Collection of existing
warehouse and
industrial uses adjacent
to new multi-family
development. The
Housing Element
anticipates this property
may be redeveloped
with adjacent uses as
indicated in this table.
9,604 42,753 22% B
420-Cn2-
16 38
2476
Mark St
STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
I&R-
M LT
MUC 1
Fairview
[)evelop
mental
108 9
1 60
2,30
o
575 345 690 690
Fairview Developmental
Center propeTh7 See
analysis in Appendix B
for additional
inTormaiion on potential
to redevelop
944,681 N/A N/A EX
141-351-
06 39
2700
Harbor
Blvd
FEMINO
IAMES1 THE
11 &S
FEMINO
LIVINGTR
Cl G 3
Harbor
Mixed-
use
0.68 50 34 6 3 6 19
Mlxed us building with
flrst floor retail and
offices
8,228
I
37,198 22% c
, 141-361-
11 40
I
2666
Harbor
Blvd
HARBOR CM
LLC
I
Cl G 3
I
Harbor
Mixed-
use
2 41 50
I I
120 I
I
22 I
13 24 60
Former Ace Hamware
store, now for lease
after Ace went out of
business Large big box
struciute with surTace
parking along a malor
transportation corridor
(Harbor Blvd). This
p(0p@Hy is located
adjacent to an
3pp(0@lnate 30 unit
recently completed
residential developmem
lalso fronting Harbor
Blvd) and several
hundred residential
apartment units located
easterly of the property.
Given the nature of the
current extended
I
44,693
I
I
130,965 34%
I
c
/lppBlldjy 8: Sites Analysis
B-31
Costa Mesa Housing Element
576
Tabhi B-6: !Jtes to Axmmodate Comi Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA ito be a+mprehensively updated following a No Net Loss analysb later in 2026) Note. This table is sorted by uruque identffier /Unlque 104. The unique rdenUfiers wetp establrshed at the begmnmr) of the sites onalysrs process.
SOme SiteS Were !emOVed OS pClr[ Of the anal'lSiS and Sr[eS 'here net renllmbered ta ret€ lln COn[in+lit%' pr the :OmmlJnitJ and Other 113!rS When l'eferrrng TO SpeClflC SiteS APN
unlque-
Id
Address Owner ZonJ'
' General
'Plan
Land
use
Coundl
Dlstrlct'
.Spedflc
Plans
Size
(AC)
Density 'Vaaint
Potentlal
Consolld.
atlon
used
In 5th
Cj2e
Net
units
Very
Low
Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
Note
Exlstlng
Bulldlng.
SF
Max
Bulldout
par FAR
%
Ozupled
Dev. Class
I
vacancy history, difficult
lease market for a larger
Tacility and permitted
residential densities
affomed to this property
by the next Housing
Element cycle, it is
conceivable and likely
that this property will be
redeveloped with
residential The
aforementioned
adjacent residential
property located on
Harbor Boulevard was
previously developed
with a large automobile
dealetship within the
cunent planrung penod
during the previous
planmng period which
identiTies a potential
trend for this property
to be redeveloped
similarly with residential
141-361-
21 41
z:zgo
Harbor
Blvd
LEFEBVRE
MAUREEN
ELIZABETH
Cl G 3
Harbor
Mixed-
use
0.75 50 37 7 4 7 20
Mixed use bulldinB with
retail and offices on first
floor and offices on 2nd
and 3rd floor. Building is
partially vacant with
large surface parking lot
adjacent to major
transportation corridor
iHarbor Boulevardl.
10,347 40,932 25% c
141-361-
22 42
2750
Harbor
Blvd
SRS COLLEGE
CENTER
Cl G 3
Harbor
Mixed-
use
1 71 50 85 16 9 17 43
Existing older
commercial shoppmg
center adjacent to malor
transportation corridor
(Harbor). Uses range
from commetcm to
office and restaurants
12,032 92,942 13%
I al
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-32
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle - 2021-2029
577
Table B-6: Sites to Ammodate Cost Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA (to be aimprehenshiely updmed following a No Net LOSS analysis later in 2026) Note. Thrs table Is sorted by umque Identifier /Umque 10) The unrque idemrfrers were established m the beglnnmg of the sites anrilysis process Some srtes were removed a: part of the analysis and sites here not renumbered to retain contrnur3i for the :ommunrty and other users when referring to specific sites.
APN unlue
Id.
Address 'Omer " '. Zarilng
General
Plan
Land
use
Coundl
Dd
Spedflc
Plans
Six
(AC)
Denslty. Vaont
Potential
Consolld
atlon
Used
In 5th
me
Net
.unhs
Very
Low
Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
Notes
Exlstlni'
Bulldlng
'SF
Max
'Bulldout
per FAR'
%
Oa:upled
Dev.Class
Large surface parking
lot.
141-361-
23 43
2730
Harbor
Blvd
SRS COLLEGE
CENTER
Cl G 3
Harbor
Mixed-
Llse
0.68 50 33 6 3 6 18
Existing older
commerclal shopplng
center adjacent to major
transportation corridor
IHarbor Boulevard).
Llses include
commercial, office and
restaurants. Large
shared suface parking
lot. This property is
located BCTO5S the street
(%tetson Place) from
several hundred
residential apanment
units. Several of the
larger commercial units
in this shopplng center
are currently vacant or
have been chronically
vacant in the past, and
the center Is In need of
investment and is
somewhat lacking
commercial vltality.
Thus, it is concelvable
and likely, similar to
other nearby adjacent
commercial properties,
that thls properiy will be
redeveloped with
residential unlts durlnH
the current planning
period. The future
Increase in permitted
residential denslty
afforded by thls Houslng
12,075 36,948 33% c
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-33
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6th Cycle - 2021-2029
578
Table B-6: SRes to Acoommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA (to be comprehensively updated following a NO Net Loss analysls later in 2026) Note. Thrs table is sorted by umque rden[drer (Umque 10). The umque iden[ffiers were established m the beginmng of the sites analysis process SOme SiteS Were LemOVed OS part Of the ClnalJSIS {lnd SiteS llerP net renlJmbered ti) retCNn COntlnlJl[%' far the :ClmmlJnr['i rind Other llSerS When Leferrlng tO SpeClflC Siren.
APN
Unique
Id
addras Owner Zonlng
Geneml
' Pran
Lanl'
use
Coundl
Dlstrlct
..Spadflc.
Plans
, Size
(AC)
Density. -Va>nf
'potential'
'(jffifltl
don
LISed
ln'5th
CVde
. Net
Llnlts
Very
' Low
Vm Moderati
Above
Moderate
Notes'
Exlstlng
Bulldlng
Sr
Max
'. Bul!dout
' per FAR
%
Oa:upled
Dev. Class
Element update cycle
for this property is
considered an attractive
incentive for properky
owners to galn greater
economic return with
residential development
as opposed to remaining
as commercial.
141-361-
27 44
2710
Harbor
Blvd
10HNSON
GREGORY A
& IACLYN H
Cl G 3
Harbor
Mixed-
use
0 67 50 33 6 3 6 18
Existing older
commercial shopping
center adjacent to maloy
transportation comdor
(Harbor) uses range
from commercial to
office and restaurants
Large surTace parking
lot.
9,240 36,515 125% c
141-361-
28 45
2706
Harbor
Blvd
MESAVERDE
CENTER LLC
Cl G 3
Harbor
Mixed-
Llse
0.97 50 48 9 5 9 26
Vacant Pier 1 Imporu
box store and suface
parking lot. Building is
currently for lease.
14,997 52,666 28% c
419-a31-
08 52
2200
Harbor
Blvd
GRAY
ENTERPRISES
Cl-S G 5
Harbor
Mixed-
use
(1.75 50 37 7 4 7 20
Sufflace parking lot
within large retail
shopping centtr
Potential lot mixed-use
redevelopment Retail
center has major big box
tenants which have
permanently closed,
le;iving an excess of
surface parking
o 40,935 0% c
419-031-
og
53 2200
Harbor
Blvd
GRAY
ENTERPRISES
Cl-S G 5
Harbor
Mixed-
use
1.17 50 58 ll 6 ll 31
Former K-Mart box store
which has permanently
dosed. Shopping center
is adjacent to multi-
family residential and
may redevelop for
mixed-use. While the
data shows a high
development usage, this
98,908 63,595 156% c
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-34
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle - 2021-2029
579
Table B-6: 5ffles to Aocommodate Cost Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA (to be comprehenshiely updmed following a NO Net Loss analysis later in 2026) Note. This table is sorted by umque Identifier /Umque 10) The unique identifiers were established a[ the beginrUng of the sites anolysrs process Same SlteS Were remOVed aj pall Of the anCll'lSIS [lnd SltPS Were nor renlJmbered tt) retain CClntinl)i3'fOr the '_OmmlJnr[J and Other 115PrS When T eferrlng [O SpeClfiC SiteS.
APN
unique
Id
" Address Owner Zonlng
General
Plan
Land
Lla
Coundl
Di!tdCt
Spedflc
)'lanri -
Sla
M
Denmy Vaaint
PotenUal
Consolld
gtlon
= used
tn5th
C'yde.
Net
Un%
Very
Low
Low Moderate
-Above
Modemte
Notes
E+dmng
Building
SF
Max
" Bulldout
par FM
%
O#upled
Do;Cbss
tenant space remains
vacant. Large leasable
floor areas are difficult
to lease and this building
has been vacant since
2021. Similar to several
atljacent properties
located along Harbor
Boulevard which have
converted to residential,
resldentlal units are
both profitable and in
demand In thls local
area; thus it is
conceivable and likely
that the ownership of
this property wlll
consider residential re-
development instead of
remaining an existlng
commerclal use wlthln
the current plannlng
period. Further, the
potential increase in
future permltted
residential density
afforded bythis Housing
Element update cycle
for thls propedy is
considered an attractive
mcentive for property
owners to gain greater
economic return with
residential development
as opposed to remaitilng
as a more difficult to
lease larger commercial
SpaCel
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-35
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6th Cycle - 2021-2029
580
Table B-6: Sites to Aanmmodate Qista Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA (to be oomprehensively updated following a No Net Loss analysis later in 2026) Note. Thrs table is sorted by unlque identifier /Umque 10). The umque identifiers were establlshed at the beginnrng of the sites rinalysis process Same SlteS Were remOVed aj part Of the anCllpSIS klnd SlteS Were net renlJmbered tO retain COntlrnlm,'far the '_0mmllnlt9 and Other uSerS When Tefernng [O SpeClfiC Strew.
APN
untque
ld.
Addrass Owner Zonlng
General
Plan.
Land
Llse
' Coundl
(ilSUid
Spedfic
Plans
St!
(Ac).
DensRy Vaffim.
I
Potential
Consolld
atlan
used
ln'5th
C'yde
Net
Lln%
Very
Low
Low Moderate
Abova
Maderate
Note
ExkUng
Building'
SF
Max
Bulldout
per FAR
%
Oa.uplid
Dev.'Cbss
419-031-
12 54
I
2200
Harbor
BlVd
GRAY
ENTERPRISES
I
Cl-S G I 5
I
Harbor
Mixed-
use
3 16 50
I
:158
I
I
I
I
30 17
I
31 81
Former K-Mark box store
which has permanently
closed. Shopping center
is adjacent to multi-
family residential and
may redevelop for
mixed-use Large
leasable floor are;is are
difficult to lease and this
building has been vacant
now for several years
(since 2021) Similar to
several adjacent
properties located along
Harbor Boulevard that
have converted uses
from commercial to
residential, residential
units are both profitable
and in demand in this
local area, thus it is
conceivable and likely
that the ownership of
this property will
consider residential re-
development instead of
remaining an existing
commercial use during
the current planning
penod. Further, the
potentlal increase in
future permitted
residential density
afforded by this Housing
Element update cycle
Tor this property is
considered an attractive
incentive for property
owners to gain greater
economic retum with
residential development
98,908
I
I
172,145 57%
j
I
c
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-36
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6th Cycle - 2021-2029
581
Table B-6: Sites to Aanmmodate Comi Mesa 2021-2(129 RHNA lto be a>mprehensively updated following a No Net Loss analysis later in 2026) Note. This table is sorted by unique identffier [Unlque 104. The unlque Identifiers were establ!shed at the beginning of the sites analysis process Some srteS Were remOVed O.; part of the Clnal'iSrS +'nd sites vvere not reWmbered (a regain cominlJit%' for the :ommllnity and Other USERS when refemng [o specffiC Siren.
APN
unique
Id
Address Owner Zon!ng
' Get'eral
Plan
Land
use
CCnlndl
Dlstrld
Spedflc
'Plins
Size.
IAC)
oensW Vaunt
Mentlal
Qiffilld
don
used
In 5th i
Cydffi
Net
units
Very
Low
Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
Notes
Existing
Bulldlng
SF
Max
. Bulldaut
par FAR
%
Oauplad
Dev. aag
I
as opposed to remaining
as a more difficult to
lease larger commercial
space
419-171-
58 56
2150
Harbor
Blvd
2150
HARBOR
BLVD LLC
Cl G 5
Harbor
Mixed-
Use
1.17 50 58 11 6 11 31
Norms restaurant with
large surface parking lot
adjacent to major
transportation comdor
iHarbor Blvdl.
6,606 63,521 IO% c
422-021-
09 57
1131
Harbor
Blvd
SHERMAN
DONALD L H
C2 G 4
Harbor
Mixed-
Use
0 83 50 41 7 4 8 21
Auto parts store, retail
store, and pet grooming
store, with large surTace
parking area adjacent to
malor transportation
corridor (Harbor Blvd).
6,891 45,202 15% c
422-091-
11 58
2075
Harbor
Blvd
LEWIS 10HN
T & LEWIS
MARY K
C2 G 5
Harbor
Mixed-
use
0.63 50 31 5 3 6 16
Tools and equipment
rental yard adjacent to
major transpot'tation
corridor iHarbor Blvd).
3,032 34,196 9% c
422-091-
12 59
2069
Harbor
Blvd
TANNER
DALE A
C2 G s
Harbor
Mixed-
Use
0 54 50 26 4 2 5 14
Auto repair shop with
large yard adjacent to
malor transportation
comdor (Harbor Blvd)
S,032 29,322 17% c
422-091-
14 61
2049
Harbor
Blvd
C M HARBOR
CM LLC
C2 G s
Harbor
Mixed-
use
0.54 50 26 4 2 5 14
Auto repair shop with
large yard adjacent to
major transportation
conidor IHarbor Blvd).
4,586 29,226 16% c
422-091-
24 62
2015
Harbor
Blvd
NEWPORT
MESA AUTO
CENTER LLC
C2 G 5
Harbor
Mixed-
use
0 62 50 30 s 3 6
I
15 Newport Mesa Auto
Center with car repair
and cat wash uses
adjacent to major
transportation corridor
(Harbor Blvd).
9,663 33,643
I
29%
I
C
422-091-
26 63
2007
Harbor
Blvd
949
STORAGE tLC
C2 G 5
Harbor
MIXed-
use
0.83 50 41 7
I
4 I
l-
21 Self-storage facillty wlth
surface parking lot and
access to major
transpodatlon corridor
(Harbor Blvd). Thls
p((ipqrty fronts a
predominantly l-,---145,248
31% B
Appendix B: Sites Analysis
B-37
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle - 2021-2029
582
Table B-6: Sizes to Am>mmodate Costa Mega 2D21-2029 RHNA (to be aimprehensrvely updated following a No Net Loss analysis later in 2026) Note. This table is sorted by umque idemifier [Umque 10) The unlque Identifiers were established rit the beginnlng of the sites analysis process Same SiUaS Were remOVed (l.; part Of the an alySIS an d SiteS Were nO[ rewmbered to retriin COntiwi31 far rh e '_0mmunrty and Other (IS erS When lefemng TO SpeCifrC StteS.
APN Unique
Id '
1. Address Owner ZonJ
General
Plan
Land
. use
Coundl
DCt
Spedflc
Plans =
k
(AC)
Denslty ' Vaznt
POtentlal
Consolld
atlon
-llffld
, ln5th
Cycle
Net.
Unhs
Very
Low Low Moderate
A&xm
Modirate
Nots
Existing
aulldlng
SF
Max
Bulldout
pirFAR
%
Cktuplad
Dev. Class
resldential street [Charle
Street) that is developed
primarily with residential
uses. Given the potential
height and density that
thlS prOpe% COuld pield
based on the future
density increase
afforded by this Housing
Element cycle, a
resldential use is both
conceivable and likely
dutlngthe current
planning perlod.
Additlonally, the storage
use Is considered
relatively small in size
compared to other local
storage facllitles and
therefore, the
investment return on a
residential use is likely
greater than the use of
storage. I
422-101-
03 64
igsg
Harbor
Blvd
IUNEAU
PAULINE
BRECHT
C2 G 5
=E==I
0 56 50 27 5
,l
5 15
Budget Truck Rental
yard which is largely a
paved surface parking
lot with a small building
Site is adjacent to malor
transportation comdor
(Harbor Blvd).
624 30,425 2% c
422-101-
06 65
1974
Charle St
CHARLE ST
REALTY LLC
C2 G s
Harbor
Mixed-
Llse
0.53 50 26 4 2 5 14
Existing low-intensity
light industrial and
warehouse uses.
7,962 28,!164 27% A
422-193-
23 66
2215
Harbor
Blvd
CHEN-RONG
PROPERTIES
LLC
C2 G 4
Harbor
Mixed-
use
0 58 50
I
28 5 3 5 16
Agi ng
furniture/consignment
store structure with
surTace parking lot
adjacent to malor
transportation conidor
(Harbor Blvd). This
12,757 31,475 41%
I
c
I
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-38
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle - 2021-2029
583
' Table B-6: Sfflesto Azmmodate Costa Mega 2021-2029 RHNA (to be comprehensively updated following a No Net Loss analysis laterin 2026) Note. Ttus table is sorted by unique Identlfier /Unlque 10). The unlque rdenkffiers were establrshed ot the begrnnrng of the sites onalysrs process.
Some sites were rernr>ved o; port of the analysis rind sites vvere not renumbered ta reh:rin continuity for the :ommurjty rind other users when refemng [o specific sites.
APN
Qnlque
Id
Address Owner Zonlng
Cieneral '
:PlaTh'
. Land
use .
Coundl
Di!tnCt
jpecfflc
.Ntant
Size
(S)
Density Vaaint
Potentlal
Consalld
atlon.
used
' In Sth
C'yde
Net
units
Very
Low
Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
'Noffi
Exlstlng
Bulldlng
SF
Max
Bulldoul
psr FAR
%
Oa:upled
Day. Class
property is surrounded
on several sides by
residential uses
(including mobile home,
single4amily and multi-
family - more than
several hundred units)
Given the age of this
structure, size and
potential increase in
profit yield of converting
the commercial use to
residential, it is both
conceivable and likely
that the property could
be converted to
residential during the
cunent planning period.
I
422-193-
24 67
2205
Harbor
Blvd
AQuA 26 LLC C2 G 4
Harbor
Mlxed-
Llse
0.58 50 28 5 3 5 16
%lng vacant motel use
with large surTace
parking lot adjacent to
major transportation
conidor (Harbor Blvd).
This propertywas
recently purchased with
the intent to convert the
motel to affordable
housing. The owner is
currently working to
obtain a grant
iCommunlty Care
Expanslon t'rogram)
through the California
Department of Social
Services. Thus, it is likely
that the motel will
convert to affoidable
residential quickly within
the current planning
geriod.
10,089 31,469 32% c
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-39
Costa Mesa Housing Element !!':::r"'z" "l)'j))
584
Table B-6: Sites to Accommodate Coska Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA (to be comprehensmely updated following a NO Net Loss analysis laterin 2026) Node. Thrs table is sorted by unique idenUfier /Llnrque 104. The unique idenUfiers were establ!shed at the beginnlng of the sites owlysis process SOME SlteS Were remOVed O; park Of the anCll'iSIS and SiteS Vvere n[:]t renl)mbered [O retClin COntlnlJlt%'fOr the :Ommunlbl and CltheT users When l'efernng [O SpeClfiC Siren.
APN
unique
Id
Address Owner Zonlng
Genirai
Plan'
Lffind
Llse
.Coundl
'Dlstrlct '
Spedflc.
Plans
Sla
(Ac) (%nilty .Va>nt.
.Potentlal
Cor+solld:
atlon
Used
- In 5t§
Cme '
Net
un%
Very
Low
Low Moderate
Above
Moderate . Notes
Existing
Building
SF
Mu
Bulldout
per FAR
%
Oa:upled
Dev. Class
422-282-
11 6)1
2044
Placentia
Ave
SAA 2LLC I MG
I
I
I
I
jl.
I
I
Ll 4
Mesa
West
1 18 40
I
j.
i
I
47 I
ig 5 9 25
Auto repalr shop and
light industrial uses with
surface parking adjacent
to recently developed
townhouses and
apartments Building
shows little sign of
recent renovation. This
property is located
within 100 feet of two
recently developed
residential properties
that were previously
developed with
commercial uses One of
the nearby existing
residential proper(ies is
now ;i multi-family
mixed use property with
residential located on
i the upper floors and
I commercial located on
the ground floor, and
the other residential
property consists of
detached residential
lofts that were
converted from a
previous bakery facility
Thus, there is a
neighborhood pattern
and trend of residential
conversions that could
OCCIIT during the current
planning period on the
subject property
Furthtt, the potential
increase in future
permitted residential
density afforded by this
Housing Element update
I
26,636 64,338 41% B
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-40
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6th Cycle - 2021-2029
585
Table B-6: Sites to Aa:ommodate Cost Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA (to be aimprehenshiety updated following a No Net LOSS analysls later in 2026) Node. Thrs table is sorted by uruque identifier /Umque 10). The uruque identifiers were established at the beginnrng of the sites analysrs process Same SlteS Were remOVed a3 park Of the anOl'iSIS and SltPS lluere nO[ reralmbered tO retain CClntlnllltj' far the :ClmmlJn% Clnd Other uSerS When f efenln() TO SpeCfiC Siren.
APN
unlque
Id-
.Add Cm'er. mnlng
General
' Plan
: Land'
use
Coundl
, Dlstrlct.
.Spedflc
Plans
.SIZe
(*)
. Denslty. ' Vaunt
Potential
" Consolld
don
Used
In 5th
CVde
Net -
Llnlts
Very.
Low
lxffi Mfderate
Above.
Moderate
Note
ExlsUng
sulldlng
SF
'Max
.Bulldout
per FAR
%
Oa:upled
Dev. Class
cycle for this property is
considered an attractive
incentive for property
owners to g;un greater
economic retum with
residential development
as opposed to remaining
as a more difficult to
lease commercial space
422-291-
04 69
2055
Placentla
Aye
PUBLIC
STORAGE
PARTNERS
LTD
MG Ll 4 Mesa
West
1.85 40 73 13 8 14 38
Self-storage facillty
adjacent to recently
developed townhouses
and apartments. Several
of the Cityas previously
exlsting storage uses in
the nearby vlcinity have
been converted to
residential and the
subject property is
located adjacent to 14
recently developed
iesidentlal lofts. The
aforementioned
adjacent loft property
was previously
developed with an
automotive use and
therefore there is a
neighborhood
pattern/trend of
commercial to
residential converslon.
This property is also
located nearby two
recently developed
resldentlal properties
that were previousiy
developed with
commercial uses. One of
the nearby existing
residential properties is
34,929 100,710 35% B
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-41
"Jff 6'h Cycle - 2021-2029Costa Mesa Housing Element 586
Table B-6: Sites to Aaommodate Coska Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA (to be comprehensively updated following a No Net Loss analysis later In 2026) Note. This table is sorted by unlque identfier [Unrque 10). The unique IdenUfiers were establlshed m the begrnnrng of the sites analysrs process Same SiteS Were remOVed ti; pM Of the analySIS und Sr[eS vvere net rewmbered TO retaln C Ontinuit%l far the :Omrrurnityr and Oth er tiS erS Wh en refemng tO SpeCffiC SiteS APN"
unique
Id
Addms*.: Omer" ' Zonlni
General
' .Plan
, Lffind
Use
Cofindl
Dktrlct=
', Spadflc'
' Plani
. Slze
(AC) Dens% .Va>nt.
.' Potentlal
'aimlld'
don
".used
. In 5th"
'a Cyds
Nei
units
Vex
Low
Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
Notes
'Efflstmg
Bulldlng
SF'
MaX
Bulldout a
pa( FAR '
%
' upled
Dev..aass
now a multi-family
mlxed use property with
residential located on
the upper floors and
commercial located on
the ground floor, and
the other resldential
property consists of
detached residential
lofts that were
converted from a
previous bakety facllity.
Lastly, the existing
storage fadlity is single-
story and therefore Is
consldered under
developed even in
regard to the exlstlng
use and therefore
residential could be
considered an attradive
and profitable re-use of
th e property during the
current planning period.
Lastly, the potentlal
increase in future
permitted residential
density afforded by this
Housing Element update
cycle for this property is
considered an attractive
incentive for the
property owner to galn
greater ecotiomic return
with residential
development as
opposed to remalning as
a storage facility.
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-42
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle - 2021-2029
587
Table B-6: Sites to Aanmmodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA (to be aimprehensively updated following a No Net Loss analysis later in 2026) Note. Thrs table rs sorted by unique identffier (lJnrque 10) The unique Identifiers were established at the beginnrng of the sites analysls process Some sites were removed o: pork of the rinalysis rind sites vvere not renumbered [o retoln continulhy for the :ommun% and other users when referring [o sper:lfic sites.
APN
Unique
Id
Address Owner Zonlng
General
Plan
Land
. Llse
Coundl
DIStTlCt
Specfflc
Plans
Sla
(AC)
DensRy Vaaint
Potential
Colld
atlon
used
In 5tN
CVde
Net
unlts'
Very
Low
Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
Notes
Existing
Bulldlngj'
SF
Max
Blllldout
per FAR .
%
Oa:upled
Dev. Class
422-291-
05 I
I
70 2065
Placentia
Ave
PUBLIC
STORAGE INC
MG Ll 4 I Mesa
West
0 92 40 36 6 3 7 19
This self-storage Tacility
although is located on a
separate property is
operated m conjunction
with the above site
(aaunique ida') 59. This
property is owned m
common with the
aforementioned site and
is developed with a two-
story storage structure
It is likely that these two
properties could be
combined and
developed similar to
many adjacent
properties with multi-
family residential mixed-
use development or
residential lofts during
the cunent planning
penod The size of this
property and the future
increased densities
permitted by the next
Housing Element cyde,
combmed with the
adjacently owned parcel
contributes to a higher
probability that the
property owner
considers the economic
advantages of
residential conversion
23,549 50,355 47% B
422-291-
06 71
2051
plBcentja
Ave
PLACENTIA
AVE
PROPERTIES
LLC
MG Ll 4 Mesa
West
0.92 40 36 6 3 7 ig
Existing office/light
industrlal uses adjacent
to recently developed
townhouses and
apartments.
6,720 50,355 13% A
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-43
Costa Mesa Housing Element 1%,l 6'h Cycle - 2021-2029 588
I Table Bi: Sit5 tO ACCOmmOdme COSta Mega 2021-2029 RHNA (tO be COmprehensively updated following a NO Net LOSS analjAis laterln 2[)26) Note. Thls table is sorted by unique Identlfier [Unique 10). The umque rdenkffiers were established ot the begrnnrng of The sites awlysis process SOm e SiteS Were !emOVed tie; part Of th e analySiS [lnd Sr[eS vvere net rerwmbered t.) retaln C OntlnUlt%l far the :Omrrwnity and Other USERS When l'efemng TO SpeCdrC SiteS.
APN
unlque
Id
Address
I
'Owner Zanlng
Gemral
Plain
Land
Llse
Coiindl
District
Spffi
Plans
I
Size
, (AC) '
DensRy. Vaunt
Potentlal
CorlSII}11d
gtlon
used
In 5th
CJe
Net
un%
Very
Low
Low Moderate
Above
Modtiffite
Notes
ailstlng
Bulldlng
SF
. Max
aulldolit
' par FAR
%
Oa:uplad
Dev. Class
422-301-
01 72
l9g7
Placentia
Ave
HARTLEY CO MG Ll
I
4 I
Mesa
West
I
2 31 40
I
I
I
i
192
I
I
17 10 18 47
Warehouses with large
surface parking lot Two
buildings on the site
Adjacent to recently
developed townhouses
and apartments
Building shows little sign
ok recent renovation
This property is located
nearby several recently
developed residential
properties that were
previously developed
with commercial uses
Thus, there is a
neighborhood pattern
and trend of residential
conversions that could
occur dutmg the current
planmnB penod on the
subject property. Lastly,
the property is larger
than many of the lots m
this area and therefore
is more conducive for
higher density
residential
development, and thus
considered more
attractive for residential
redevelopment than
even many of the
previously converted
nearby existing
residential uses Lastly,
the potential increase in
future permitted
residential density
afforded by this Housing
Element update cycle
for this property is
37,645 125,891 30%
I
I
I
i
I
A
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-44
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle - 2021-2029
589
Table B-6: SiteS tO ACComm0date COSta Me&l X)21-2029 RHNA (tO be COmprehensively updated following a NO NLt LOSS analpls later in 2026) Note. Ttus table is soned by unique rdentffier [unrque 10). The un!que rdentffiers were establrshed ot the begrnnrng of the sites awlysis process.
Some sites were removed Cl; prirt of the awlysis +ind sites vvere not reriumbered ti) retam cominui[y for the :ommunity and other users when refemng to specdrc sites - APN
unlquff.
Id
Address Owner - ';ffinlng
General
Pla6
Land
use
(jiflndl
Dlstrlct
Specific.
Plans
Size.
tAC)
Dinslty Vaaint
Patentml
Consolld
mlon
used
in'5tti.
Cyde
hk't
units
Very
Low
'Low Moderate
Above
'Moderate
Note
. Existing
' !iulldlng.
SF
Max
Bulldout
par FAR
%
'Oa:upled
Dav. Cbiss
1. considered an attractive
mcentive for the
property owner to gain
greater economic return
with residential
development ;is
opposed to remaining as
a more difficult to lease
commercial space.
422-454-
28 74
2101
Placentia
Aye
CASACOS LLC MG Ll 4
Mesa
West
0.91 40 36 6 3 7 19
Restaurant with large
surTace parking lot.
Potential for mixed-use
development.
4,802 49,428 10% c
424-061-
01 75
885 W
18th St
MONROVIA
AVENUE
PARTNERS
LLC
MG Ll 5
I
Mesa
West 125 40
I
I
49 I
j
I
I
I
g
I
5 I
I
9 27
One-story warehouses
with a large surface
parking lot Hundreds of
residential properties
are located across West
18" Street from the
suJect property and
therefore the suJect
property if re-developed
with residential uses
would be considered
neighborhood
compatible. The existing
large open parking lot
could be redeveloped
with a residential
component and likely a
lar(;e portion of the
existing commercial uses
could remain. The
property could also be
redeveloped with
second-floor residential
as a mixed-use, pursuant
to the Mesa West lltban
Plan. Given the current
high demand for
residential in the City
22,144
I
I
I
I
67,858 33%
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
B
I
I
i
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-45
Costa Mesa Housing Element
/4
6'h Cycle - 2021-2029
590
Table B-5: Sitesto Ammadate Costa Masa X)21-2029 RHNA (to be comprehensively updated following a No Net Loss analysls laterin 2026) Note. Ttus table is sorted by unique identlfier (Unique 10) The umque identffiers were establlshed at the beglnnlng of the sites analysis process Some sites were removed a: pan of the analysis +ind sites vvere not renumbered ta retam continu!ty for the :ommunity and other users when referrrng to specific sites APN ;unl4ue
'ld.
JQdress Owner " ffinf4.
Generar
Plan
'Land -
Llss
Coundl
'District
.Spedfl:
'.Plans
Size
(AC)
.Density ' Vi>m
Patentlal
eo;soNd'
don
used
In 5iTh
(-'de
Net
'unlts
Very
Low
Low Moderate
'Abova
Hoderate
Notes
E+dsUng
Building
'SF'
Mu
' Bulldout
per FAA
%
Ociipled
Dev..Class
and profit yield,
residential conversion
dunng ihis planning
period is conceivable
424-061-
03 76
859 W
18th St
CRANK
FAMILY 2007
LLC
MG Ll s
Mesa
West
0.81 40 32 6 3 6 17
One-story multi-unit
warehouse facility and
surface parklng lot. The
property could be
redeveloped with
commercial first-floor
and second-floor
residential mixed-use
development, pursuant
to the Mesa West Urban
Plan. The Mesa West
Urban Plan encourages
the construction of first
floor commercial with
second floor residential.
Several large apartments
are located in close
proximity to the subject
proper§. Given the
current high demand for
resldential in the City,
future permitted higher
density afforded by this
Housing Element cyde
and expanded proflt
yield, residential
development on thls
property Is conceivable
durlng thls plannlng
Eeriod,
16,926 44,209
I
38% c
424-061-
04 77
851 W
18th St
SEA
PROPERTIES
MG Ll 5 Mesa
West
179 40 71 13 7 14 36
Auto body shop with
large surface parking lot
25.478 97,501 26% c
424-061-
05 78
1791
Placentia
Ave
BOYD WILLIS
BLAIR SR TR
MG Ll 5 Mesa
West
4.27 40 170 32 18 34 85
Single-story warehouses
with large surface
parking lot and drive
aisles. Flve buildings on
the site which show little
72,191 232,421 31% B
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-45
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6th Cycle - 2021-2029
591
Table B-6: Sites to Aa:ommodate Cost Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA (to be aimprehenslvely updated following a NO Net Loss analysls later in 2026) Note. This table is soned by umque identifier /Umque 10) The unique Identifiers were established at the beginning of the sites analysrs process Same SlteS Were lemOVed aj p[irt Of the anal'lSIS [lnd SlteS lArere nor renumbered TO rehJln COntlrulm%' far the :Ommllnlt'l and Other llsers When ! efernng TO SpeClflC Sl[eS APN
I
unlqua'
Id
Address Owner Zonlng
Genial
Plan
Land
Use
Coundl
Dlstlct
Spedflc
' Plans
' Sm
'. (40)
Density Vaunt
I
'Potential
Colld
agon'
used
-tn.5th
i Cms.
Net
unlts
Very
Low
Low Moderate
Above
"Moderate
Notes
ExlsUng
Bulldlng.
' SF
MaX
Bulldout
per FAR
%
Oa:upled
(m. Class
sign of recent
renovation. The
properky is considered
large in size
(approximately 4 acres)
and could be
redeveloped with
commercial first floor
and second-floot
residentlal
development, pursuant
to the Mesa West Urban
Plan. The Mesa West
Llrban Plan encourages
the construction of first
floor commercial with
second floor residential.
Several hundred
apartment and
condominiums units are
located in close
proximlty ieast of
Placentla Avenue) to the
subject property. Given
the current high
demand for residential
In the City, profit yield
for residential and
Increase in future
residential densities
allowed on this proper§
as a result of the next
Housing Element cyde,
residential development
on thls property is
conceivable during this
planning perlod.
424-061-
06 79
1751
Placentia
Ave
BOYD WILLIS
BLAIR SRTR
MG Ll 5
Mesa
West
4.70 40 187 35 20 37 95
Single-story warehouses
with large surface
:::t::,::.. I
80,909 255,845 32% B
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-47
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6fh Cycle - 2021-2029
592
Table B-6: mes to Aazmmodate Cost Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA (to be aimprehensively updated following a No Net Loss analysis later in 2026) Note. This table is sorted by unrque identifier [Umque 10). The umque identifiers were established at the beginmng of the .iites anrilysis process Same SlteS Were remOVed a.= part Of the anCll'jSIS and .!ltPS lluPre nor renumbered TO rekaln COntlnlJl3'fOr the :OmmlJnl['l Clnd Other US!75 When Lefernng tO SpeClfiC SlfeS.
APN
Unique
Id
Address Owner ZonJ
' General '
Plan
Land
Use.
Coundl
DIStffCt
Spedflc '
Plans
Sm
(Ac) DensltV Vaunt
.Potentlal.
'fQi!la
atlon
"Used
In 5th
Cycle
Net
Un%
Very
Low
Moderate
Above
Moderate.
Notes '
ExlsUng
Bulldlng
SF -
Max
Bullaout
per FAR
%
Oa.upled
Dev. Class
I
I
on the site which show
little sign of recent
renovation The
(ttoperty is considered
large in size
lapproximately 4 5
acres) and hundreds oT
residential properties
are located across
Placentia Avenue from
the sublect property.
Therefore, the subject
property if re-developed
with residential uses
would be considered
neighborhood
compatible. The
property could be
redeveloped with
second-floor residential
pursuant to the Mesa
West urban Plan. Given
the cunent high
demand for residential
in the City, future
residential densities
allowed on this property
as a result of the next
Housing Element cycle
and profit yield,
residential development
is conceivable durmg
this plannmg penod
424-281-
01 97
1730
%mrna
Ave
C&K
PARTNERS
MG Ll 5
Mesa
West
0.99 40 39 7 4 7 22
Warehouses wlth
suface parking lot. One
building on the site.
11,802 54,028 22% B
Appendix B. Sites Analysis B-48
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6th Cycle - 2021-2029
593
Table B-S: S'nesto Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA lto be comprehensively updated fo11owlng a No Net Loss analysis laterin 2026) Note. This table is sorted by unique iderRlfier [uruque 10) The umque rdentffiers were established m the beginning of the sites analysrs process.
Some sites were removed o; prirt of the awlysis +ind sites vvere not renumbered ta retarn continu!ty for the '_ommunlty and other users when refemng to sperjfrc sites.
APN unique
, Id
Address Owner Zonlng
General
Plan
Land
ua
Coundl
Dlstrld
Specific
Plans
Size
(AC)
=mnsRy Vaaint
Potentlal
Consolld
atlon
t!sed.
In 5ttt-
Cme
= Net
units
Very
Low
'Low Moderate
Abow
Moderate
Nots
'mstlng
suildlng
SF
MaX
Bulldout
per FAR
%
Oaupled
, Dev. Cbss
424-281-
19 %
I
424
Pomona
Ave
PACIFIC
MESA
PROPERTIES
MG Ll
I
I
5 Mesa
West
1.19 40
I
47 8
I
I
I
s
I
g 25
I
Warehouses with large
surface parkmg lot. One
building on the site The
existing single-story
building is located in
close proximity to
residential uses This
11rban Plan Area has
seen significant past
ownership interest in
conversion of existing
commercial/light
industrial/office into
residential development
with similar previous
existing sites (including
more than one-hundred
multi-story residential
loft units located
immediately across 17"
Street, developed utidet
separate ownership)
Further, one of the main
oblectives oT the Mesa
West Urban Plan is to
aaencoutage
(0BmHcial/residential
mixed-use
developmenta' with an
emphasis on 'avertical
mixed-use
developmentaa (i e,
multi-story). Based on
past local development
trends, R is conceivable
and likely that the
economic return of a
residential use will
encourage the
ownership to redevelop
ihe existmg use into
19,676 64.716 30% B
Appendix B: Sites Analysis
B-49
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6th Cycle - 2021-2029
594
Table B-6: Sites to Aazmmodate Costa Mesa 2021-X)29 RHNA (to be comprehensively updated following a No Net Loss analysls later in 2026) Note This table is sorted by unique Idenkffier (Llnrque 10). The unique Identfflers were establlshed at the beglnning of the sites awlysis process Some sites were removed o.; part of the analysis und sites vvere not renumbered ta retain continuity for the:ommunrty and other users when teferrrng to sperjfic sites.
APN
unlqua.
id '
Address Owner 'Zonlr3
General
Plan
Land
ua
Coundl
Dlstrlct
Specific
Plans
Size
(AC)
Density Vaunt
Potentlal
Couolld
atlon
used
'In 5tb
CVde
' Net
Llnlts
Very
Low
:Low Moderate
Abova
Moderate
Notes '
Exlstlng
Building'
SF
Mu
.' Bulldout
per FAR
%
Oaupled
Dev. Class
I
either residential or
residential mixed-use
(similar to adjacent
propedies) within the
cunent planrung period
It should also be noted
that several live/work
developments
(encouraged by this
Urban Plan) are
cunently proposed in
this area on similar sized
properties that are
existing commercial
uses.
I
424-281-
23 99
560 W
17th St
PACIFIC
MESA
?ROPERTIES
MG Ll 5 Mesa
West
I
2.26 I
40 I
II
90 17
I
I
I
9 18 45
Large single-story self-
storage facility adjacent
to existin@ multi-family
residential. Several of
the City/s prevlously
existlng storage uses In
the nearby vicinity have
been converted to
residentlal. There is also
a nelghborhood
pattern/trend of
commercial to
residential conversion
with several recently
developed higher
density residential loft
properties constructed
nearby on 17" Street.
Thus, it is conceivable
that the subject
property owner would
pursue residential
conversion of the
property In the current
planning period similar
to nearby properties.
50,219 122,853 41% B
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-50
6'h Cycle - 2021-2029Costa Mesa Housing Element
595
Table B-6: Sms to Ammodate Com Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA (to be aimprehensively updated following a No Net Loss analysis later In 2026) Note. This table is sorted by unique identifier /Umque 10). The unique identifiers were es[riblished at the beginnrng of the sites anolysrs process.
Some sites were removed as port of the analysrs und sites were nor renumbered [o retain continuihy for the :ommuni[y and other users when refemnr) [o sperjfic sites.
APN
unlquj
Id .
Addras Owner
I
Zonlng
General
Plin.
Land
Use
Coundl
Dlmid
'. Spedfic
Plans
SIU!
(AC)
DensRy Vatmt.
I
PotenUal
Consolld
aUin'
used
In 5t§
C'Vde
Net
un%
Very
low
Low Moderate
.Above
Moderate
Notas
' ExlsUng
Bulldlng
SF
Max
Bulldout
i perFAR
%
Oa:upled
De'. Class
Residential conversion is
also made more
attractive to ownership
by the future increases
in residential densities
allowed for this property
by the next Housing
Element cvcle.
424-321-
17 100
1882
Whittier
Ave
AYRES SELF
STORAGE
COSTA MESA
LLC
R2-MD MDR s Mesa
West
1.08 43 8 4 8
I
23 Large sin(41e-story self-
storage facility adjacent
to existing multi-family
residential This
property is generally
sunounded by existing
residential uses Several
of the City's previously
existing storage uses in
the nearby vicinity have
been converted to
residential. It is likely
that residential units on
this property would be
considered by the
property owner to be an
attractive re-use and for
potential re-
development within the
planning period Future
increases in residential
densities allowed on this
property as a result of
the next Housing
Element cyde is also
considered an incentive
lot the property owner
to develop residential
18,808 59,063 32% B
z:ig-oai-
ag
131
3303
Harbor
Blvd
SDCO COSTA
MESA
COMMERCE
PARKINC
PDI IP 1
North
Costa
Mesa
10.00 90 900 171 gg 180 450
Existing single-story light
industrial/offlce uses on
large site. The Clty has
received interest In the
potentlal future
160,463 326,700 49% A
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-51
Costa Mesa Housing Element '#""' 6'h Cycle - 2021 -2029 596
Table B-6: Sites to Ammmodate Cnsba Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA (to be aimprehenshtely updated following a No Net Loss analysis later in 20261 Note. Thistableissortedbyunlqueldentifier[UmquelD) Theuruqueidentifierswerees[ablishedatthebeginnlngofthesitesrinalysisprocess.
Same Sl[eS Were remOVed (l.; prin Ofthe an rilySiS und SiteS vvere nO[ rewmbered ta reta!n C Ontirwit41 far the':Omrmrnity and Other US err When refemng [O SpeClfiC Sites.
APN
unique.
Id
Address Owner Zonlng :
General
llan
.. Land=
" uai
COundl.
Dlstrld
Specific '
-. Plffins.
Slza
" k) DensJ Vaant
potentlal
Conaolld
don
used
In 5th
' CVde
Net
Units.
Very
Low
Low Moderate
/Uiove
Moderate
Notes
hlstlng
Building
SF
Mu
Bulldout
par FAR
.%
(ktupled
Dev. Class
redevelopment of the
site for residential uses.
In addition, the site is
consldeted very large
wlth extensive areas for
residentlal
development.
139-031-
42 132
1575
Sunflowe
t Ave
RREEF CPIF
1575
SIINFLOWER
LLC
MP IP 1
North
Costa
Mesa
8.03 90 722 137 79 144 362
Existing single-story light
industrial/office uses on
large site. The City has
received interest in the
potential future
redevelopment oT the
site for residential uses.
In addition, the site is
considered very large
with extensive areas for
residential
development.
133,055 262,313 54% A
139-031-
67 133
3333
Harbor
Blvd
BEG
HOLDINGS LP
tMP IP I
North
Costa
Mesa
10.00 90 900 171 99 180 450
Sofia Llnivetsity site
iformer Whlttier Law
School site) wlth large
surface parking lot and
largely underdeveloped
land. The City has
received interest in the
potential future
redevelopment of the
Site for residential uses.
In addltion, the site is
considered very large
with extenslve areas for
residential
development.
130,197 326,7[)0 40% EX
410-441-
17 142
14850
Sunflowe
t Ave
ROY K
SAKIOKA &
SONS
I
PDC
I
UCC 2 CNOos'tah
'?:;- I
30 93 90 Vacant
1,20
o
120 60 120
I
900
I
Sakioka Lot 2 property
See analysis in Appendix
B for additional
inTormation on potential
to redevelop i
IS,275
1,347,31
1 1% EX
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-52
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle - 202"l-2029
597
Table B-6: !Jtes to Aavmmodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA (to be comprehensively updated following a No Net Loss analysis later in 2026) Node. Ttus krible is soned by unlque Identffier [unrque 10). The unlque identlfiers were establlshed at the begmnrng of the sites analysis process.
Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites vvere not reriumbered ta retaln continulty for the :ommunity and other users when refemng to speclflc sites APN.
unique
Id
Addrass Owner Zori%
'General
" Plan
Land'
.Llse
Coundl
. DLmd
%mfflc
Plans ,,
= Size
(AC)
DensRy Vaffint
Potentlal
Consolld
mon '
=used.
. In 5th
Cma'
?iet
units
Very
Low
Low
I
yoderate
Above
Moderate
Nam
Exlmng'
Bulldlpg
SF
Mffi
Bulldout
per FAA
%
Oa:iipled
Dev. Chss
410-501-
31 144 N/A
JKS-CMFV
LLC
PDC uCC 2
North
Costa
Mesa
3.39 90 305 57 33 61 153
Large surface parking
lot. Analysis assumes
only redevelopment of
the surface parklng lot
area. The City has
discussed the potenUal
future redevelopment of
this site for high-density
residentlal uses with the
property owner.
o 116,821 0% EX
418-161-
06 I
il76
I
j
I=;E'-
'l
ZELDEN
ALICE WI LLER
I
MG Ll
I
2 SoBECA
I
0 72
I
60 I
I
i
43 I
I
I
i-
I
4 I
I
1. I
23 I
I
Existing light industnal
building that is used as a
brewery/restaurant with
large surface parking lot.
Site is located within the
SoBECA lltban Plan
redevelopment area
Large residential
neighborhoods located
nearby Pursuant to the
5(iBeca Urban Plan,
vertical mixed-use
development is
encouraged and
therefore residential
could be developed
within the current
planning period. In
addition, the SoBeca
area is considered an
attractive area for
certain younget
@enerations and
therefore the prospect
of iesiding on the
subject property would
' @enetate interest to the
property ownership
Also, staff has met with
the current occupant
and there is uncertainty
16,880 39,375
I
43%
I
I
A
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-53
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle - 2021-2029
598
Table B-6: SRes to Ammodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA (to be aimprehenshiely updmed following a No Net Loss analysis later in 2026) Note. Thls table is sorted by umque idemdrer (unique 10). The umque identifiers were estriblished at the beginnrng of the sr[es analysis process Some sites were removed as part of the anrilysis and sites were not renumbered [o retaln contlnui3i for the :ommunr[y and other users when referring [o specific sites. mN
unlqua
Id
Address Owner Zonln@
Ger4ral
Plin '
Land
Use
Coundl
6mCt
Spedflc
Plans
Size
(AC)
' Denslty' Vaunt
Potential
.'Consolld
atlon
used _
In 5th
Cyde
Net
Unlts
Very
Low
Lm Moderate
At+ove
Moderata
'Notes
Existing
aBulldlng.
SF'
MaX
Bulldout
perFAR
%.
(kzupled
Day. Class
if the existing use will
continue Lastly, future
residential densities
allowed on this property
as a result of the next
Housing Element cyde
would incentivize
property ownership to
converk to residential
418-162-
02 177
2968
Randolph
Aye
PALANIIAN
IERRY 0
MG Ll 2 SoBECA 0.72 60 43 8 4 8 23
One-stop warehouses
wlth suface parking lot.
Site is located within the
S(}BECA urban Plan
redevelopment area.
Large residential
neighborhoods located
nearby. Pursuanttothe
SoBeca urban Plan,
vertical mixed-use
development is
encouraged and
therefore residentlal
could be developed
within the current
planning period. In
addition, the SoBeca
area Is considered an
attractive area for
cer(ain younger
generations and
therefore the prospect
of residing on the
subject property would
@enetate Interest to the
property ownership.
Residential could also be
developed on the
second story. Lastly,
future residential
densities allowed on this
property as a result of
18,531 39,251 47% A
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-54
6'h Cycle - 2021-2029Costa Mesa Housing Element
599
Table B-6: Sites to Aavmmodate Cosb Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA (to be aimprehenshtely updated following a No Net Loss analysis later in 2026) Note Thrs table is sorted by unrque identifier (Unique 10). The unrque iden[ifrers were established ot the beginnmg of the sites analysis process Same SlteS Were RmOVed C1.= part Of the anahlSIS [lnd SlteS l)rere nor remlmbered [O retaln COntlnl)13'fOr the :OmmlJn% and Other 11sers When referring [O SpeClfiC Strew.
APN
unlqua
ld -
Address ' Owner 'Zanlng
Gemral
Plan
Land
use
',:Coundl
. DCt
Spedflc
Plans
me
(AC)
Dendty Vaunt
PotenUal
Consolld
gtlon
used
In 5th
Cyde
Net
un%
Vary
uiw
tow Moderate
'Above
Moderate
Nota
Qstlng"
Biilldlng
i SF
Max
Bull44ut
a psr FAR
%
Oa:upled
Dev. Class
the next Housing
Element cycle would
incentivize property
ownership to convert to
resldential.
448-163-
05 178
2064
Bristol St
PEP BOYS Cl G 2 SoBECA 1 47 60 88 16 9 17 46
Tire shop with large
surface parking lot Site
is within the SoBECA
Lkban Plan
iedevelopment area.
19,022 79,928 24% A
418-171-
02 179
752 Sairit
Clair St
PuRCILLY
GAY
WHEEIER
C2 G 2 SoBECA 0.26 60 B 15 2 1 3 8
School yard for learning
center. Site Is within the
SoBECA urban Plan
redevelopment area.
424 14,201 3% A
<zg-igi-
04 180
766 Sanit
Clalr St
766 ST CLAIR
LLC I
I
I
C2
I
G 2
i
i
I
SoBECA
I
I
0 67
I
I
I
i
60 I
40 7
I
4 I
I
j 8 20
Existing fitness studio is
located in the aging
warehouse with large
suface parking lot Site
is within the SoBECA
urban Plan
redevelopment area
which encourages mixed
use development that
combmes residential
and nontesidential uses
It is located near a
vibrant commercial and
business condor and
areas that have been
slated to convert from
commercial to mixed
use/residential
development. Given its
close proximity to these
areas and inclusion in
the urban Plan, it is
likely to convert dunng
this 8 year Planning
cycle. Lastly, future
residential densities
allowed on this property
12,32'l 36,507
I
34% A
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-55
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle - 2021-2029
600
Table B-6: Sites to Aa:ommodate Cosl Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA (to be comprehensively updated following a No Net Loss analysis later in 2026) Note. This table is sorted by unique identfier [kJnrque IDJ. The unlque identifiers were establlshed at the begmnrng of the sites analysis process Some sites were removed av pM of the analysis rind sites vvere not renumbered +l) re[am con[inuit;i for the '_ommurjty and other users when referrmg [o specffic sites APN
Llnlque
' Id
Address Owner .Zonlng
General
Plan
.Land"
Llse
Coundl
District
Specffi(l
Plans
Size
(AC)
DensRy Vaunt
Potentlal
Cormlld'
atlon
LlffiJ
In 5th
CQs
Net
units
Very
Low
Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
Nota
Existing
Bfilldlng
SF
MaX
Bllll'daut
par FAR
%
Ckcupled
Dev. CIBH
I
as a result of the next
Housing Element cycle
would incentivize
property ownership to
convert to residential.
418-202-
01 181
845 Baker
St
RMAFII LOC
LLC
Cl G 2 SoBECA 0.87 60 52 9 s 10 27
Small strip mall with
large suface parking lot.
Site is withln the SoBECA
Urban Plan
redevelopment area.
11,899 47,299 25% A
418-202-
02 182 841 Baker
St
I
BAKER
STREET
PROPERTIES
LLC
Cl G
I
1,
SoBECA [] 33 60
I
o 19
I
I
3 I
I
2 j
3 12
I
Nightclub with large
surface parking lot Site
is within the SoBECA
Llrban Plan
redevelopment area
which encourages mixed
use development that
combines residential
and nonresidential uses
It is located near a
vibrant commercial and
business comdor and
areas that have been
slated to convert from
commercial to mixed
use/residential
development Given its
close proximity these
areas and inclusion m
the Lkban Plan, it is
likely to convert dunng
this 8 year Planning
cycle Additionally,
nightclubs are prone to
have a Jher tumovet
rate than many other
commercial uses so a
potential use change is a
possible occurrence
within the plannmg
period Lastly, future
6,401 17,870 36% A
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-56
6fh Cycle - 2021-2029Costa Mesa Housing Element
601
i Table B-6: SRes to Aaximmodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA (to be comprehenshtely updated following a No Net Loss analysis later in 2026) Note. Thls table is sorted by unlque rdemffier (Unrque 10). The unrque iden[frers were established at the beginnrng of the sites anrilysls process.
Same SlteS Were f emOVed OS part Of the analJSIS {lnd SlteS llere net renlJmbered TO retaln COntlnul3' far the :0mmlJnlt9 and Other uSerS When I efernng [O SpeClflC Strew.
APN.
unique
Id
Add Owner a Zonlng
Generil
...Plan
Land
ua
Coundl
Dlstrld!.
",Sped%
Plins.
Size
(AC)
Dendty Vi>nt'
' Potential '
Consollda
atlon
Used
"ln5th.
Qtda
Net
fJnlts
Very
Low
Low Moderate
Above
Mmerate
Note'
Exlstlng
. BulsldFlng
'Mu
Bulldout
per FAR
%
:(kciipled
Dev. Class
I I
residential densities
allowed on this property
as a result of the next
Housing Element cycle
would incentivize
property ownership to
convert to residenti;il
418-202-
03 183
841 Baker
St
BAKER
STREET
PROPERTIES
LLC
Cl G 2 SoBECA 0.60 60
l-
35 l-
- 7 18
liUti=:lft:-
8,881 32,546 27% A
418-202-
04 184 801 Baker
St
RED
MOIINTAIN
ASSET FIIND
ILLC
i
Cl
I
G 2 ' SoBECAI
I
I
I
I
I 086
I
I
I 60
I
51 I
9 I
5 10
I
i
I
I 26
Strip mall with large
suface parking lot Site
is located within the
SoBECA llrban Plan
redevelopment area
which encourages mixed
use development that
combmes residential
and nonresidential uses.
It is located near a
vibrant commercial and
i business corridor and
i are;is that have been
islated to conved from
I commercial to mixed
use/residential
development. Given its
close proximity to these
areas and inclusion m
the Llrban Plan, it is
likely to convert during
this 8 year Planning
cycle. Lastly, future
residential densities
allowed on this property
as a result of the next
Housmg Element cycle
would incentivize
15,474 46,602 33% A
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-57
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle - 2021-2029
602
Table B4: Sit@3 tO ACII!)mmodate COSta Mega 2021-2029 RHNA (tO be oomprehensively updated following a NO Net LOSS analpls later in 2026) Note. This table is sorted by unique Identifier /Unique 10). The umque rdenkfiers were established at the begmnmg of the sites analysis process SOme SlteS were remOVed (); pCln Of the anal'lSIS +'nd Sltl_S Vvere net renllmbered ta retaln CDntlnlJl3" far the '_0mmllnlt9 rind Other lJSerS When Lefernng [O SpeClfiC SlteS.
APN
.Llnlque
Id'
Address - Owner Zonlng
General
Plan
Land
' Llse
aiundl
'51strld
Spedflc
Plans
Size'
(AC).
Dendty Vaaint
Potential
(jinsolld
don
used
In 5th
CVde
Net
Llrdts
Very
Low
Low " Moderate
Above
Moderate.
' Notes
E+dstlng
.Bulldlng
SF
Max
Bulldout -
per FAR
%
Cktupled
Dev. Class
property ownership to
convert to residential.
418-202-
05 185
2969
Century
PI
ECHAN
BARBARA
TRIIST
Cl Ll 2 SOBECA o.og 60 E 5 o o 1 3
SurTace parking lot. Site
is wlthln the SoBECA
Urban Plan
redevelooment area.
469 4,712 10% A
418-202-
06 186
2969
Centut'y
PI
ECHAN
BARBARA
TRUST
MG Ll 2 SoBECA 0 68 60 E 40 7
I
I
I
4 8 20
Gym with large surface
parking lot Site located
is within the SoBECA
Urban Plan
redevelopment area
which encourages mixed
use development that
combines residential
and nonresmential uses
It is located neat a
vibrant commercial and
business corridor and
areas that have been
slated to convert from
commercial to mixed
use/residential
development Given its
close proximity to these
areas and inclusion in
the llrban Plan, it is
likely to convert dunng
this 8 year Planrung
cycle Lastly, future
residential densities
allowed on this property
as a result of the next
Housing Element cycle
would incentivize
property ownership to
convert to residential
13,488 36,893 37% A
418-202-
07 187
2959
Century
PI
GRAYBAR
ELECTRIC CO
INC
MG 11 2 SoBECA 0.50 60 30 5 3 6 15
Electrical equipment
manufacturer/
distrlbutor Slte is located
within the SoBECA
10.200 27,436 37% A
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-58
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle - 2021-2029
603
Table B-6: Sites to Aa:ommodate Cost Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA (to be armprehensmely updated following a NO Net Loss analysis later in 2026) Note. This table is sorted by unrque identifier [umque 10). The unique identifiers were established at the beginmng of the sites anolysrs process Some sites were removed ti; prir[ of the analysis rind sites vrere nor renumbered [o regain continuity for the :ommunity and other users when referring [o speclfic sites.
APN
Llnlque
., Id
Address Owner mnJ
Ger)eral
Plan'
l' :Land
use
Coiindl
Det
Spedfic
Plans
Sin.
(AC)
DensRy Vaunt.
Potential
Consolld
'a ' ailon
used'..
In 5th
'C'me
Net
.Unlts
'Very
low
'Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
Notes
adstlng
B91ldlng
SF
Max
Blllldout
per FAR
%
Oa:upled
' Dev. Class
11rban Plan
redevelopment area
which encourages mixed
use development that
combines resldentlal
and nonresidential uses.
It is located near a
vibrant commercial and
business corridor and
areas that have been
slated to convert from
commercial to mixed
use/residential
development. Given its
close proximity to these
areas and Inclusion in
the Lkban Plan, it is
11kely to convert during
thls 8 year Planning
cycle. Lastly, future
residential densities
allowed on thls properky
as a result of the next
Housing Element cyde
would incentivlze
property ownership to
conver! to residential.
418-202-
10 188
2942
Century
PI
I
SCM
ENTERPRISES
I
MG Ll 2 SoBECA 0 87 60 52 g s
I
10 27
Co-workmg office with
large surface parking
Site is located within the
SoBECA Urban Plan
redevelopment area
which encourages mixed
use development that
combines residential
and nonresidential uses
It is located neat a
vibrant commercial and
business condor and
areas that have been
slated to convert from
14.382 47,242 30% A
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-59
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6th Cycle - 2021-2029
604
Table B-6: SRes to Aanmmodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA (to be oomprehensivety updated following a No Net Loss analysis later in 2026) Note. This table Is sorted by umque identifier /Umque 10). The unrque Identifiers were established at the beginnlng of the sites analysis process.
Sr>me sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites vvere not renumbered to retain contrnurty for the :ommunlty and other users when referring to specific sites.
APN
Llnlque
Id
Addressa' Ownar Zonlng
4semral
Plan
Land
use
Coundl
Dlstrlct.
Spc
Plans
Sla
, (AC)
Density Vaaint
'PotenUal
Consolld
atlon
used
In 5th
CVde
Net
unhs
Very
Low
LOW' Moderate
Above
%!oderate
Notes
' ExlsUni'
' Building
SF
Max
Bulldom
perPAR
%
Oa:upled
Dev. Cla*
commercial to mixed
use/residential
development Given its
close proximity these
areas and inclusion in
the urban Plan, it is
likely to convert during
this 8 year Planning
cycle Lastly, Tuture
residential densities
allowed on this proper§
as a result of the next
Housing Element cycle
would incentivize
property ownership to
convert to residential.
I
I
418-202-
12 189
2952
Century
PI
GRAHAM
GORDON T
TR
MG Ll 2 SoBECA o.go 60 54 10 5 10 29
Existing single story
warehouse with large
storage yard that is
currently used as an air
conditioning business.
Site Is located within the
SoBECA urban Plan
redevelopment area
which encourages mlxed
use developmentthat
combines residential
and nonresidential uses.
This property is located
south of a development
that has an existing
approved Master Plan
that will change the use
from
commercial/industrial to
mixed use development.
The existing warehouse
is a single story that may
be redeveloped to
support mixed use
development including
17,227 49,090 35% A
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-60
6th Cycle - 2021-2029Costa Mesa Housing Element
605
Table B-6: Sites to Acommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA (to be aimprehensively updated following a No Net Loss analysis laterin 2026) Note. Thrs table is sorted by unrque identifier /Unrque 10). The unique identifiers were established at the beginnrng of the sites rinalysrs process.
Some sites were removed Cl.; port of the analysis und sites vrere nor renumbered [o re[oln continuiT4r for the :ommur:% and other users when refemng [o specffic sites.
APN
_unlqua
Id
Address ' Owner Zffnlng
General
Plan
Land
' Use
,Coundl
Dlstrlct
Spedfic
- Plans
Size
(AC)
DensRy Va=nt
potenUal
Coplld
atlon
used
ln5th
Cma
Net
Units
%4ery
Low
Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
Notes
Exlstlng
Bulldlng
SF
, Mu
Bulldout
psr.FAR
%
:Oa:uplm
Day. aass
I
residential and live/work
units. Lastly, future
residential densities
allowed on this property
as a result of the next
Housing Element cyde
would incentivize
proper§ ownetshlp to
convert to residential.
418-202-
12 190
2972
Century
PI
PROJECT C
LLC
I
MG
I
Ll
I
I
2 SoBECA 0 94 60
I
I I
I
I
56 10 6 11
I
29 I
Auto repair shop with
surface parking Site is
located within the
SoBECA llrban Plan
redevelopment area
which encourages mixed
use development that
combines residential
and nontesidential uses
This properky along with
parcels 418-202-13 and
418-202-14 ate included
in a Master Plan for a
mixed use development
The previously approved
planmng application at
this site indicates a
desire to convert the
commercial use to a
mixed use development
A portion of the site is
included in a Master
Plan PA-1!1-12 that was
approved by City Council
on September 3, 2019
The Master Plan was for
of a mixed use
development that
included restaurants,
retail spaces, office
spaces, 48 residential
units, and 14 live work
I
.1
j
18,109
I
51,374
I
i
35%
I
A
I
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-61
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle - 2021-2029
606
Table B-6: Sms to Ammmodate O:ista Mesa 2t)21-2029 RHNA Ita be aimprehenshie§ updated following a No Net Loss analysis later in 2026) Note. Thls table is sorted by unlque idemrfrer (Umque 10). The unrque identifiers were esmbllshed at the begmnrng of the sites anolysls process Same SlteS Were RmOVed rlS pClr[ Of the analJSIS and Slt!S MLaf? nO[ reralmbered tO retain COntlru)13'fOr the :ClmmUn% and Other US!75 When referring [O Spe6fiC SiteS.
APN -
.unlque
Id'
Add . Ownir ' Zanlni
General
Plan
.'Land
use
Coundl
Dlstrkt
.,Spedfic
Plans
.Slze
,.4Ac)
Density Vaunt
Potential
Consolld
atlon
Um
In 5th
me
Net
_ unlts
Very
Low
Law Mtxlerateo
At+ova
Moderate
Notes
'Existing.
Bulldltig
57 Mu
Bulldiut
per FM
%
(kffiupled
Day. Class '
I I
units Lastly, future
residential densities
allowed on this property
as a result of the next
Housing Element cycle
would incentivize
property ownership to
include additional
residential units than
previously proposed
418-202-
13 igi
2972
Century
Pi
PROJECT C
LLC
MG Ll 2 SoBECA 0.91 60 54 10 5 10 29
Warehouse with large
yard. Site is located
within the SoBECA
urban Plan
redevelopment area
which encourages mlxed
use development that
combines residential
and nonresidential uses.
This propeity along with
parcels 418-202-12 and
418-202-14 are Included
in a Master Plan for a
mixed use development.
The prevlously approved
plannlng application at
this site indicates a
deske to converk the
commercial use to a
mixed use development.
A portlon of the site is
included In a Master
Plan PA-19-12 that was
approved by City Coundl
on September 3, 2019.
The Master Plan was for
of a mixed use
development that
Induded restaurants,
retail spaces, office
spaces, 48 residential
18,372 49,319 37% A
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-62
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle - 2021-2029
607
Table B-6: Sites to Acommodate Cost Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA (to be comprehensively updated following a No Net Loss analysis laterin 2026) Note. This table is soned by unique Identlfrer (Uruque 104. The unique identfflers were estriblished a[ the begmnrng of the sites analysrs process.
Some sites were removed o; part of the rinrilysis und sites vvere nor renumbered to retoln continuity for the :ommunity and mher users when refemng to specdic sites.
APN
Un!que
Id'
Address " Owner -Zonlng
General'
Plan
Land
:tlse
(jiundl
Dmct
'.jSpedfic
- .Plans
'Size
(AC)
Density Vaunt
Potentlal
Coffilld
atlon.
used
In 5th
CV:e
Net
units
Very
Low
Low ' Moderate
Abova
Moderate
Nom
Exl0ng
Bulldlng
SF
Max
Bulldoffi
per FAR
%
:Cktupled
Dev. Cbiss
units, and 14 live work
units.
Lastly, future residential
densities allowed on this
property as a result of
the next Housing
Element cycle would
incentivize property
ownership to include
additional residential
units than previously
proposed.
418-202-
14 193
j
I
I
I
765 Baker
St
PROJECT C
LLC
I
C2 G 2
i
j
SoBECA
I
I
I
I
067
I
I
I
I
I I
40 7
I
i
I
4 I
i
8 I
20 Existing auto repair shop
use Site is located
within the SoBECA
11tban Plan
redevelopment area
which encourages mixed
use development that
combmes residential
and nonresidential uses
This property along with
parcels 418-20242 and
418-202-13 are mcluded
in a Master Plan for a
mixed use development
I The previously approved
iplanmng application at
this site indicates a
desire to convert the
commercial use to a
mixed use development
A portion of the site is
included in a Master
Plan PA-19-12 that was
approved by City Council
on Septembtt 3, 2019
The Master Plan was for
of a mixed use
development that
included restaurants,
16,802
i
36,615 46%
I
i
I
A
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-63
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle - 2021-2029
608
Tabb! B-6: Him!! tO ACCOmmOdate COSt Mega 2021-2029 RHNA (tO bt' COmprehensively updated following a NO Net LOSS analflls later In 2026) Note. This table is sorted by unrque !dentlfrer [Llmque 10). The unique identifiers were es[abllshed m the begmnmg of the sites onalysrs process Some sites were removed o.; port of the analysis und sites vvere nor renumbered ta re[am cominuity for the :ommurity and other iisers when refemng to specfrc sites APN
unlque
Id
Addffi Owner . Zonlng
General
Plan
Land
use
Coundl
Dlstrlct
sflc
Plans
Size
(AC):
DensRy Vaont
PotenUal
Qinsalld
atlon
Llsed
In 5th
Cycle
Nat
Unlts
Very
low
Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
Notes
adsUng
.Bulldlng
SF
Mu
Bulldaut
par FAR
-%
Oa:upled
DeV. CIBH
I I
retail spaces, office
spaces, 48 residential
units, and 14 live work
units Lastly, future
residential densities
allowed on this property
as ;i result of the next
Housing Element cycle
would incentivize
property ownership to
include additional
residential units than
previously proposed
418-101-
OS
197
1425
Baker St
1425 BAKER
LLC
Cl G 2
Harbor
Mixed-
Use
1.90 60 114 21 12 22 59 Existing auto dealer with
large surface parklng.
24,359 103,665 24% c
418-101-
03 igg
1491
Baker St
F'URCILLY
GAY
WHEELER TR
Cl G 2
Harbor
Mixed-
Use
1 27 60 B 74 14 8 14 39
Restaurant and
barbershop Site is
anticipated to redevelop
with adjacent parcels as
shown in this table.
4,434 69,124 6% c
424-202-
01 200
745W
19ih St
PANGE
MARC C
REVOC TR
Cl G 4 19 West 0.63 50 30 5 3 6 15
Strip mall with surface
parking lot adjacent to
major transportation
corridor 119th st.). Site
has the potential to
redevelop for mixed-
use.
9,838 34,468 29% c
410-4)11-
OS
201
3201 Park
Center Dr
THE IRVINE
COMPANY
LLC
TC CAC 2
North
Cosla
Mesa -
Pac Arts
6 27 90 H 186 18 9 18 141
Pacific Arts Center
property See analysis in
Appendix B for
additional information
on potential to
redevelop.
81,187 483,SOS 17% EX
410-491-
07 202
501
Anton
Blvd
THE IRVINE
COMPANY
LLC
TC CAC 2
North
Costa
Mesa -
Pec Am
12.07 go H 349 35 18 35 261
Paclflc Arts Center
property. See analysis In
Appendix B for
additional information
on potential to
redevelop.
230,300 930,850 25% EX
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-64
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle - 2021-2029
609
Table B-6: Sfflesto Acaimmadme Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA (to be comprehensively updated following a No Net Loss analysis laterin 2026) Note. Thls trible is sorted by unique identffier (Unique 10). The unrque rdenkflers were established at the beginnmg of the sites analysis process Some sites were temoved ris part of the analysis and sites vvere not renumbered fi) retwn contrnur3i for the ':ommuni[y rind other users when refemng [o specific sites.
APN
unique
Id-
Add ' Owner'. Zonlng
Generil
Plan'
Land
um
Coundl
Dlstrld
Spedflc
Plans
Size
(AC)
Density Vaaint
pmntlal
Consolld
atlon
lml
tn sty
me
Net
unlts
Very
Low
Low Moderate'
Above
hAoderate
Notes
Existing.
Building'
SF
MaX
Bulldout
per FAA
%
Oa:uplm
Day. Class
410-501-
25 206
545
Anton
Blvd
IKS-CMFV
LLC
PDC UCC 2
Ntirth
Costa
Mesa
0 74 90 66 12 7 13 34
Small commercial out
parcel uses Property
owner has indicated
interest in redeveloping
the site for residential
uSeS
5,026 25,367 20% EX
410-501-
36 207 N/A
IKS-CMFV
LLC
PDC 11CC 2
Norkh
Costa
Mesa
1.82 90 164 31 1!l 32 84
Surface parking lot.
Property owner has
Indicahed interest in
redeveloplng the site for
residential uses.
5,026 62,729 8% EX
418-171-
01 208
754 Saint
Clair St
PIIRCILLY
G AY
WHEELER TR
C2 G 1 SoBECA 0.27 60 B 15 2 1 3 8
Existing learning center
use Site is anticipated
to redevelop with
atljacent parcels as
shown in this table
3,797 14,921 25% A
140-041-
81 196
3333
Susan St
THE HIVE
CRE ATIVE
OFFICE INC
PDI IP 1
North
Costa
Mesa
4.00 90 432 68 39 72 252
Current Los Angeles
Chargers' practice field
facility. The Chargers
new training facility will
open in Spring 2024 in El
Segundo CA. The City
has discussed the
potentlal future
redevelopment of the
football practice field for
high-density residential
uses with the property
owner. The site is
located wlthin the North
Costa Mesa Specific Plan
which supports urban
mixed development,
Induding retail,
Industrial, business park,
and residentlal uses.
The site is dlredly
adjacent to retail and
offices spaces to the
west, Medium Density
Residential (townhomes)
93,238 130,680 71% EX
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-65
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle - 2021-2029
610
' Table B-6: mes to Aanmmodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA (to be aimprehensively updated following a No Net Loss analysis later in 2026) Note. Thrs mble is sorted by unrque identifier [Umque 10). The unique identdiers were es[abllshed at the begmnmg of the sites rinalysis process.
Some sites werp removed (I; part of the analysis rind .iites were nor renumbered [o retain conUnui'by for the :ommunity and other users when refemng to specific sites APN
unique
Id
Address Owner Zonlng
. General
: F'lan
Land
" use
Coundl
DlfUiCt
Spedflc
Plans
Size
(Ac)
_'DinsQ Vaaint
PotenUal
Consolld
atlon
used
In 5th
CVde
Net
unlts
Very
Low
Low . Moderate
Above
Moderati'
Notes
Exlmni
aoi4ipg
SF
Max
Bulldaut
per FAR
%
Oa.uplad
Dev. Cffiss
to the east, commercial
to the south and a
business center/post
office to the norkh.
419-203-
08 209
2000
Harbor
OCHARBOR
MEDICAL
PLAZA LLC
Cl GC 5 155 25 38 o 4 o 34
Existing retail center
with surTace parking lot
Property
owner/developer
requested to have the
site added to the
Housing Element for
future residential
development
I
c
418-181-
11 210
To be
assigned
iBrlstol
St)
2821
BRISTOL SITE
LLC
CL GC 3 0.43 23 Vacant 10 o 1 o g
Existing surface parklng
lot. Property
owner/developer
applied for a pre-
applicatlon, residentlal
rezoning, and requested
to have the site added
to the Housin@ Element
for future 10-unit
development with one
unit affordable to a low
income household.
EX
Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-66
Costa Mesa Housing Element 6'h Cycle - 2021-2029
611
PARTIDA, ANNA
From: Cynthia McDonald <[email protected]>
Monday, February 23, 2026 11 :57 AM Sent:
To:
Cc:
ROJAS, JOHNNY; VALLARTA, ANGELY; ZICH, JON; HARLAN, JEFFREY; KLEPACK, KAREN; MARTINEZ, DAVID; [email protected]; PC Public Comments TAI, CARRIE; HALLIGAN, MICHELLE; MCGILL, ANNA; CITY CLERK Subject: Public Hearing Item 1: Resolution recommending City Council amend Sixth Cycle Housing Element in connection with Housing Element Sites Rezoning Dear Commissioners:
I respectfully request that staff address the following issues when this item is heard this evening.
1. HCD Notification and Approval
Has the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) been notified that the City intends to modify the Housing Element Sites Analysis in a manner that results in a net loss of approximately 46% of the City's non-buffered RHNA capacity?
• If so, what was HCD's response?
• If not, why has the City not sought HCD guidance prior to advancing this action? If the City proceeds without HCD input, how does it intend to respond should HCD initiate enforcement action requiring the City to replace the lost capacity? Similarly, how will the City respond if a developer, individual, or third party seeks to compel rezoning of other parcels to make up for the deficit?
2. Loss of Funding
The City has already lost funding for the homeless shelter due to Housing Element noncompliance. • What additional funding has already been lost?
• As long as the City remains out of compliance, how does it intend to address potential losses of other critical funding sources, including but not limited to regional transportation funds, permanent local housing allocations, Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) grants, local housing trust funds, CalHOME grants, infill infrastructure grants, and Pro-Housing Design funding?
3. Other Penalties and Enforcement Risks
How does the City plan to respond if HCD exercises its authority to suspend the City's ability to issue residential and nonresidential permits until the Housing Element is deemed compliant? Additional risks include:
• Loss of Permitting Authority: A court could suspend the City's ability to issue building permits (including remodels), approve zoning changes, or approve subdivision maps-significantly disrupting development patterns and quality citywide.
1 ATTACHMENT 8
612
Financial Penalties: The City could face fines of up to $100,000 per month, which may be multiplied by a factor of six if unpaid.
* CourtReceivership:AcourtcouLdappointareceiverwithauthoritytoremedyHousingELement deficiencies and bring the City into compliance.
* StreamlinedMinisterialApprovals:TheCitycouLdbesubjecttoevenlessdiscretionaryreview than currentLy required, including fully ministerial approvals with no public hearings, in order to accelerate housing production.
4. Removal of Properties from the Sites Analysis
The agenda report identifies 17 properties proposed for removal from the Housing Element Sites Analysis. Many of these property owners have legal counsel advising them to request removal.
Has the City notified other property owners-particularly those without Legal representation-that they may also request removal of their properties? Failure to do so may expose the City to Legal chaLLenges or require additional amendments to the Sites Analysis.
How does the City intend to make a "No Net Loss" finding, when it is clearly Losing 17 properties, and may Lose even more? By upzoning other properties? Where?
5. Impacts on Other Housing Element Programs
Revisions to the Sites Analysis wilL necessitate updates to other Housing Element programs. For example:
Chapter 4, Program 3C (North Costa Mesa Specific Plan) currently states that:
* 16sitestotaLingapproximateLy70.75acresareidentifiedintheSiteslnventory, @ 6,435unitsareanticipatedtomeettheCity'sRHNAshortfalL,and * Rezoningwillpermitdensitiesofupto90dwellingunitsperacre,withnooveraLlunitcaps.
These figures are no Longer accurate and must be corrected. What other Housing Element programs wil( require amendment as a result of these changes?
Another example iS Program 3B (FairvieW Developmental Center), which states that if permits Or entitlements are not issued by mid-2027, the City will identify a(ternative sites within 180 days, consistent with SB 166 (No Net Loss). Given that the City has not yet produced a draft Specific Plan, meeting this timeline appears unlikely. If additional sites must be identified, how does the Cityintend to do so when it is already unable to meet its RHNA obligations in other parts of Costa Mesa?
6. Broader Concerns and Next Steps
The City previously assured residents that it WOuld bring the Housing Element intO compliance. The potential penalties associated with noncompliance were a significant factorin promoting Measure K to voters. However, it now appears that Measure K has instead enabled increased development while Leaving the City exposed to serious Legal and financial risk.
The City characterizes the Measure K zoning as "additive," yet the proposed changes may result in net tOSSeS that undermine Housing Element compLiance. Rushing thiS item forward Without notifying all affected property owners or securing HCD approval risks Long-term harm to the City. 2 613
Llsing "additives" in an engine may delay necessary repairs, but it can also cause greater damage over time. I urge the City to slow down, do this work correctly, and avoid compounding existin@ problems.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that you do not approve this item tonight.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Cynthia McDonald
CAUTIO-N: This email originated-from outside 6fthe organizatio-n-'. Do-not click-lim-s-or6-pen attachrnents unlessyourecognizethesenderandknowthecorit4epijs..safe.R1eportanysuspicjous,actiyitiesto$2 ' Nnfoqation Technology DepartmentJ - --
3 614
PARTIDA, ANNA
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
GREEN, BRENDA
Monday, February 23, 2026 11 :41 AM
PC Public Comments
FW: Planning Commission Must Remove Costa Mesa Women's Club From Rezoning List Respectfully,
Brenda Green
City Clerk
City Clerk's Officel (714) 754-5221
77 Fair Drive l Costa Mesa l CA 92626
As City Hall has reopened, we encourage the public to take advantage of our appointment system. Appointments can be made at www.costamesaca.Hov/appointments. Please note that It is required that all guests check in with our Concierge Staff, located on the 1"' Floor Lobby, upon arrival at City Hall.
From: Priscilla Rocco <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 11:39 AM
To: CITY CLERK <[email protected]>; Gay Lee Royer <[email protected]> Subject: Planning Commission Must Remove Costa Mesa Women's Club From Rezoning List Planning Commission,
I am a member of the Costa Mesa Women's Club (CMWC), which has been a fixture in the city since 1910. Everything we do is for charity and the betterment of the city. We own our building on 610 West 18th Street. This land should be removed from the rezoning list. Better to rezone the golf course for affordable high- density housing, as it pollutes the ground water with all the chemicals used to keep the monoculture pristine for rich people to play a game.
Priscilla Rocco
1 615
PARTIDA, ANNA
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Autumn Elliott <[email protected]>
Monday, February 23, 2026 11:13 AM
PC Public Comments
Jia Min Cheng
Public Comments on Item #1 for today's Planning Commission meeting 2026.02.23 DRC and Elliott comments re Planning Commission Item re HE amendments.pdf; 2025.12.19 Email from Kim Barlow to DRC and Elliott re Costa Mesa Housing Element Program 2N.pdf; 2026.01.12 DRC and Elliott comments re proposed revisions to Costa Mesa RA ordinance.pdf
Attached please find pubLic comments on Item No. 1 on today's Planning Commission agenda regarding amendments to the Sixth Cycle Housing ELement. The document with today's date are our comments, and the other two documents are attachments to our comments.
Please Let us know if there is any problem opening the documents or iT you need anything else from us.
Thank you,
Autumn ELLiott
Law Office of Autumn ELLiott
325 N. Larchmont BLvd., Ste 307
Los AngeLes, CA 90004
(213)500-9454
CAUTION: This emaiD origiriated from outside'of the organization. Do: not click links or open attachments} pnless.you recognize the sender and know the contentjs safe,R<,portany susicious activitiestothe r
Jnforination Technolqgy Departme2
1 616
Disability
Rights
California
California's protection & advocacy system
January 12, 2026
VIA EMAIL
LEGAL ADVOCACY UNIT
1831 K Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
Tel: (916) 504-5800
Fax: (916) 504-5801
TTY': (800) 719-5798
Intake Line: (800) 776-5746
www.disabilityrightsca.org
Kim
Jones Mayer
3777 N. Harbor Blvd.
Fullerton, CA 92835
khb(,jones-mayer.com
RE: Costa Mesa's Proposed Revisions to RA Ordinance Dear Ms. Barlow:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on Costa Mesa's proposed revisions to the City's reasonable accommodation ordinance pursuant to the settlement agreement in the jnsight v. Costa Mesa case.
In your December 19, 2025 email to us, you said that Costa Mesa was proposing to delete subsection (7) of Section 1 3-200.62(f) of the City's reasonable accommodation ordinance. You explained that the deletion is proposed because "it is operationally difficult for staff or the applicants to make this determination given lack of inTormation and the difficulties in ensuring that any facilities adequately allow individual(s) with said disability(ies) to live in a residential setting. Furthermore, this subsection is unnecessary given the other provisions of the Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance." We support the deletion of subsection (7) from Section 13- 200.62, which requires a finding that "the existing supply of facilities or a similar nature and operation in the community is sufficient to provide individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting.
617
January 12, 2026
The deletion of subsection (7) is an important first step in bringing Costa Mesa's reasonable accommodation ordinance into compliance with state and Federal fair housing requirements. However, in order to bring the entire reasonable accommodation regulation into compliance, Costa Mesa will need to make additional changes. Given the structure of the current ordinance, it will be difficult to do that by simply editing or rewording the text. Instead, we propose that the City repeal sections of the ordinance in their entirety and replace them with new ones.
To begin with, Section 13-200.62 (f) has problems that cannot be remedied without restructuring. That section is a list of findings "all of which are required for approval" of a reasonable accommodation request. But the list combines factors that the person or entity requesting the accommodation must establish in order to be entitled to an accommodation, i.e., the topics of Findings (1 ) and (2), with factors that are the City's burden to establish if it is going to deny the accommodation, i.e., the topics of Findings (3), (5), and (8). These two types of topics need to be separated to clearly delineate who - the person or entity making the request, or the City - bears the burden of proof.
As written, Findings (3), (5), and (8) require affirmative findings that there is no undue financial or administrative burden, no direct threat, and no fundamental alteration for the approval of a reasonable accommodation request. In other words, they require that the City affirmatively find that those factors are not present. This has the effect of putting the burden on the person or entity making the request to establish the absence of an undue burden or fundamental alteration. That is contrary to fair housing law, which makes it the City's burden to establish that there is an undue burden, direct threat, or fundamental alteration before denying a reasonable accommodation request. Fair housing law does not permit the City to make the establishment of the absence of those factors a requirement.
Undue burden, direct threat, and fundamental alteration can properly be in the reasonable accommodation ordinance, but the regulation needs to be structured in a way that makes clear that if the person or entity making the request establishes the factors addressed in Findings (1 ) and (2), the City must grant the accommodation unless it finds that granting the 618
January 12, 2026
accommodation will impose an undue financial or administrative burden, will result in a direct threat, or will result in a fundamental alteration (i.e., the inverse of the current language regarding findings). It does not work to combine them in the same list as the elements that the person or entity making the request has the burden to establish. The two types of findings must be bifurcated.
Moreover, the current structure of the reasonable accommodation ordinance also makes it difficult for the ordinance to adequately reflect the law governing the findings that the City must establish to deny an otherwise valid reasonable accommodation request. For example, where the ordinance a orizes e o eny a reasona le accommodation request based on a direct threat Finding, it must also state that in such a case the City must find that the threat cannot be mitigated by reasonable accommodation. 28 C.F.R. §35.139. A finding that granting a reasonable accommodation would be an undue burden or fundamental alteration must also be made "after considering all resources available for use in the funding and operation of the service, program, or activity, and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion." 28. C.F.R. §35.150(a)(3). It will be difficult to add such clarifications in a clear way unless the two types of findings under Section I 3-200.62(f) are separated and the Findings for which the City bears the burden are written in the affirmative.
Section 13-200.62 (T) also includes Factors that do not fall within either the burden of the person or entity making the accommodation request or the allowable reasons for the City to deny a request, but instead layer on additional obligations that are not permitted under fair housing law. Finding (4) requires a finding that the "requested accommodation is consistent with surrounding uses in scale and intensity oT use." The City cannot apply different occupancy, use, or development standards to shared housing for peop(e with disabilities as compared to other forms of housing, nor can it require a household of people with disabilities to be limited to fewer people than a single housekeeping unit would be allowed to have. To the extent that a requested accommodation would result in housing that was vastly different from permitted housing uses, City staff could evaluate whether granting the request would constitute a fundamental alteration to a City program or would result in an undue burden or direct threat. But simply having the same number of people that a single housekeeping unit would 619
January 12, 2026
be allowed to have, or failing to meet another occupancy or development standard that was not also applied to single housekeeping units, could never fall within one of those permitted reasons for denying an accommodation request. Consistency with other uses should therefore not be listed as a separate required finding.
similar
Likewise, Finding (6) requires in some instances "a finding that the requested accommodation is necessary to make facilities of a similar nature or operation economically viable in light of the particularities of the relevant market and market participants generally." For the same reasons that the City is removing Finding (7), which also focuses on "facilities of a nature and operation" rather than on the specific housing that is at issue for a particular reasonable accommodation request, the City should remove Finding (6). It is just as true that it will be "operationally difficult for staff or the applicants to make this determination given lack of imormation" for Finding (6) as for Finding (7). Moreover, providing a feasibility study or market study about other housing does not fall within the burden of someone making a reasonable accommodation request. Making such a study a condition of approving a disability-related accommodation is therefore a discriminatory housing practice. This should likewise not be listed as a required finding.
The deletion of Finding (7) should also be accompanied by a revision to the language of Finding (2), which states that, "[t]he requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." To ensure that City staff interpret Finding (2) consistent with fair housing laws, by focusing on the housing at issue in the request rather than "facilities of a similar nature and operation" elsewhere, Finding (2) should be revised to refer to an equal opportunity to use and enjoy "their dwelling," "the dwelling at issue in the accommodation request," or something similar.
In order to bring the reasonable accommodation ordinance into compliance with federal and state fair housing law, the City will also need to revise other portions of the ordinance. As reflected in the settlement agreement, we would welcome the opportunity to work with the City during that portion of its review of the reasonable accommodation ordinance and to provide feedback on any draft revisions of those other sections. 620
January 12, 2026
For those portions of the ordinance as well, it would be most effective for the City to repeal and replace language rather than try to work within the existing structure. For example, Section 1 3-200.62(b) loads burdensome and irrelevant requirements onto people or entities making reasonable accommodation requests. A lay homeowner who needs an accommodation due to disability should be able to comply with application requirements without having to hire an attorney or other expert to help them understand what they need to do. The City should limit the application to information that is necessary for the City to evaluate whether the person or entity making the request has met their burden, such as the location of the dwelling at issue, the existence of the disability, the nature of the accommodation that is being reques , an e conn on een e disability and the requested accommodation. The provisions in Section 13- 200.62(b) that require people or entities making reasonable accommodation requests to provide "[a]ny other information that the director reasonably determines is necessary for evaluating the request for reasonable accommodation" ((b)(3)) and "[a]ny other information that the hearing officer reasonably concludes is necessary to determine whether the findings required by subsection (e) of this section can be made" ((b)(7)) are particularly problematic because they are not limited to the information necessary to establish that a person or entity is entitled to a reasonable accommodation.
Section 13-200.62(d) provides that appeals of reasonable accommodation requests will be handled through the same procedures as "any other discretionary permit." However, the appeals process pertaining to reasonable accommodation requests needs to be navigable and manageable by lay people with disabilities. This provision should be repealed and replaced with new language that requires a prompt, clear statement of the reasons for any denial, establishes a simple procedure for requesting an appeal, provides a reasonable deadline for making requests for an appeal, and eliminates the need for individuals or entities to pay for the City's review of their reasonable accommodation determination.
Most importantly, the section of the reasonable accommodation ordinance addressing appeals must exempt them from the review procedures that govern general zoning matters in order to respect the privacy of people's disabilities and disability-related needs during any review process.
Hearings regarding reasonable accommodations requests should not be 621
January 12, 2026
made by legislative bodies, and no public notice should be made regarding reasonable accommodation reviews. Public hearings create an opening for members of the public to express animus against people with disabilities, which imposes an improper barrier to people seeking such accommodations. For example, at the hearings regarding Insight's reasonable accommodation request, a member of the public told the Planning Commission that a person who is "mentally disabled does not belong in a neighborhood next door to me or any of us in this room," and someone testified to the City Council that the "mentally ill cannot associate with our children, neighbors." As you know, hearing those types of comments was traumatic for our client Ms. Doe, who spoke about her own experiences with mental il ness, an ways ying a nsig s housing had helped her, at a hearing on Insight's reasonable accommodation request. Not only is the City not obligated to provide the public with a forum to intimidate and humiliate people like Ms. Doe, but the City cannot put people like her through such an ordeal as a condition of having their accommodation request reviewed. Nor can such animus play any part in the City's review of an accommodation request. For similar reasons, the ordinance should also make clear that only the person or entity making the request can appeal a decision regarding a reasonable accommodation, in contrast to the current language which permits virtually anyone - including neighbors with an animus against people with disabilities - to appeal.
Finally, Sections 13-200.62(e) and (g), regarding "considerations," overlap with the required "findings" in Section 13-200.62(f) in a way that impedes consistency with fair housing law. Like Section 1 3-200.62(f), these sections fail to make clear which elements are the burden of the person making the reasonable accommodation request to establish and which are the City's burden. Many of them are also improper considerations. For example, the City cannot take into account "whether granting the request would be consistent with the City's General Plan." By definition, any reasonable accommodation request pertaining to zoning will be inconsistent with the zoning scheme. "Requiring public entities to make exceptions to their rules and zoning policies is exactly what the FHAA does." Anderson v. City of Blue Ash, 798 F.3d 338, 363 (6th Cir. 201 5); City of Edmonds v.
Washington State Bldg. Code Council, 18 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1994) (FHA imposes an affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate disabled persons). The question is not whether a requested disability 622
January 12, 2026
accommodation is inconsistent with the City's General Plan, but whether granting it would fundamentally alter the General Plan. To take another example, the City cannot take into consideration whether "the accommodation would result in a substantial increase in traffic or insufficient parking" (§ 1 3-200.62(g)(2)) or "create an institutionalized environment due to the number of and distance between facilities that are similar in nature or operation" (§ 4 3-200.62(g)(4)) unless it is also doing so with respect to single housekeeping units. Again, the City cannot impose more stringent development or occupancy standards on housing occupied by people with disabilities than on single housekeeping units, nor can it use vague or undefined conditions as a basis for denial of a reasonable accomm a n requ . ese are examp es, an no an e aus e of the issues with subsections (e) and (g) of Costa Mesa's reasonable accommodation ordinance. We would be happy to provide additional comments or to discuss with you and with City staff in more detail our further thoughts on bringing the ordinance into compliance with state and federal fair housing requirements.
ist,
We appreciate your time and attention to our comments and look forward to working with you and the City further on these important access issues for Costa Mesa residents with disabilities. Please let us know if you would like to discuss any oT these issues further.
Sincerely,
Autumn M. Elliott
Law Office of Autumn Elliott
Jia Min Cheng
Managing Attorney
Disability Rights California
623
2/23/26, 9:50 AM Costa Mesa Housing Element - Program 2N - Autumn Elliott - Outlook @ Outlook
Costa Mesa Housing Element - Program 2N
From Kimberly Hall Barlow <[email protected]>
Date Fri 12/1 9/2025 9:42 AM
To [email protected] <[email protected]>; Autumn Elliott <[email protected] >
Cc TAI, CARRIE <[email protected]>; Tarquin Preziosi <[email protected]> Counsel: Pursuant to the terms of the City's settlement agreement with Insight Psychology and Jane Doe, we are submitting to you the proposed language to satisfy Program 2N of the City's Housing Element for your comment, should you desire to provide any:
"Any person seeking approval to construct and/or modify residential housing for person(s) with disabilities, and/or operate a residential care Facility, group home, or referral facility, which will substantially serve persons with disabilities may apply for a reasonable accommodation to obtain relief from a Zoning Code provision, regulation, policy, or condition which causes a barrier to equal opportunity for housing."
In summary, whether a reasonable accommodation may be granted depends on whether it is necessary to give the disabled "an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling," and whether it is reasonable. The regulation provides that an accommodation is not reasonable if it "impose[s] an undue financial or administrative burden on the City" or "if it would fundamentally alter a City program, such as the City's zoning scheme." The regulation defines the procedures that must be followed in seeking an accommodation, including the "findings" that the City must make before granting the requested accommodation or an "alternative reasonable accommodations which provide an equivalent level of benefit to the applicant.
The findings required are:
1. "(1 ) The requested accommodation is requested by or on the behalf of one or more individuals with a disability protected under the fair housing laws.
2. The requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.
3. The requested accommodation will not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city, as "undue financial or administrative burden" is defined in fair housing laws and interpretive case law.
4. The requested accommodation is consistent with surrounding uses in scale and intensity of use.
5. The requested accommodation will not, under the specific facts of the case, result in a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or substantial physical damage to the property of others.
6. If economic viability is raised by the applicant as part of the applicant's showing that the requested accommodation is necessary, then a finding that the requested accommodation is necessary to make facilities of a similar nature or operation economically viable in light of the particularities of the relevant market and market participants generally, not just for that particular applicant.
about:blank?windowld=SecondaryReadingPane25
624
2/23/26, 9:50 AM Costa Mesa Housing Element - Program 2N - Autumn Elliott - Outlook
7. Whether the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature and operation in the community is sufficient to provide individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting.
8. The requested accommodation will not result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program."
Proposed Change - Delete subsection (7) as it is operationally difficult for staff or the applicants to make this determination given lack of information and the difficulties in ensuring that any facilities adequately allow individual(s) with said disability(ies) to live in a residential setting. Furthermore, this subsection is unnecessary given the other provisions of the Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance.
Please let us know if you have any comments on this proposed language.
JONES MAYER
-------.-L A W
www.1ones-mayer.com
Kimberly Hall Barlow
Partner
Jones Mayer
3777 N. Harbor Blvd.l Fullerton, CA 92835
(714)446-1400i U (714)446-1448
www.1ones-mayer.com
d% P/ease consider the environment before printing this e-mail
about:blank?windowld=SecondaryReadingPane25
625
Disability
Rights
California
California's protection & advocacy system
Januaiy 12, 2026
VIA EMAIL
LEGAL ADVOCACY UNIT
1831 K Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Tel: (916) 504-5800
Fax: (916) 504-5801
TTY: (800) 719-5798
Intake Line: (800) 776-5746
www.disabilityrightsca.org
Kimberly Hal
Jones Mayer
3777 N. Harbor Blvd.
Fullerton, CA 92835
[email protected]
RE: Costa Mesa's Proposed Revisions to RA Ordinance Dear Ms. Barlow:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on Costa Mesa's proposed revisions to the City's reasonable accommodation ordinance pursuant to the settlement agreement in the Insight v. Costa Mesa case.
In your December 19, 2025 email to us, you said that Costa Mesa was proposing to delete subsection (7) of Section I 3-200.62(f) of the City's reasonable accommodation ordinance. You explained that the deletion is proposed because "it is operationally difficult for staff or the applicants to make this determination given lack of information and the difficulties in ensuring that any facilities adequately allow individual(s) with said disability(ies) to live in a residential setting. Furthermore, this subsection is unnecessary given the other provisions of the Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance." We support the deletion of subsection (7) from Section 4 3- 200.62, which requires a finding that "the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature and operation in the community is sufficient to provide individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting.
626
January 12, 2026
The deletion of subsection (7) is an important first step in bringing Costa Mesa's reasonable accommodation ordinance into compliance with state and federal fair housing requirements. However, in order to bring the entire reasonable accommodation regulation into compliance, Costa Mesa will need to make additional changes. Given the structure of the current ordinance, it will be difficult to do that by simply editing or rewording the text. Instead, we propose that the City repeal sections of the ordinance in their entirety and replace them with new ones.
To begin with, Section 13-200.62 (f) has problems that cannot be remedied without restructuring. That section is a lis o n ings "all of which are required for approval" of a reasonable accommodation request. But the list combines factors that the person or entity requesting the accommodation must establish in order to be entitled to an accommodation, i.e., the topics of Findings (1 ) and (2), with factors that are the City's burden to establish if it is going to deny the accommodation, i.e., the topics of Findings (3), (5), and (8). These two types of topics need to be separated to clearly delineate who - the person or entity making the request, or the City - bears the burden of proof.
As written, Findings (3), (5), and (8) require affirmative findings that there is no undue financial or administrative burden, no direct threat, and no fundamental alteration for the approval of a reasonable accommodation request. In other words, they require that the City affirmatively find that those factors are not present. This has the effect of putting the burden on the person or entity making the request to establish the absence of an undue burden or fundamental alteration. That is contrary to fair housing law, which makes it the City's burden to establish that there is an undue burden, direct threat, or fundamental alteration before denying a reasonable accommodation request. Fair housing law does not permit the City to make the establishment of the absence of those factors a requirement.
Undue burden, direct threat, and Fundamental alteration can properly be in the reasonable accommodation ordinance, but the regulation needs to be structured in a way that makes clear that if the person or entity making the request establishes the factors addressed in Findings (1 ) and (2), the City must grant the accommodation unless it finds that granting the 627
January 12, 2026
accommodation will impose an undue financial or administrative burden, will result in a direct threat, or will result in a fundamental alteration (i.e., the inverse of the current language regarding findings). It does not work to combine them in the same list as the elements that the person or entity making the request has the burden to establish. The two types of findings must be bifurcated.
Moreover, the current structure of the reasonable accommodation ordinance also makes it difficult for the ordinance to adequately reflect the law governing the findings that the City must establish to deny an otherwise valid reasonable accommodation request. For example, where the ordinance a orizes e o eny a reasona e accomm a on request based on a direct threat finding, it must also state that in such a case the City must find that the threat cannot be mitigated by reasonable accommodation. 28 C.F.R. §35.139. A finding that granting a reasonable accommodation would be an undue burden or Fundamental alteration must also be made "affer considering all resources available for use in the funding and operation or the service, program, or activity, and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion." 28. C.F.R. §35.150(a)(3). It will be difficult to add such clarifications in a clear way unless the two types of findings under Section 1 3-200.62(f) are separated and the findings for which the City bears the burden are written in the affirmative.
Section 13-200.62 (f) also includes factors that do not Tall within either the burden of the person or entity making the accommodation request or the allowable reasons for the City to deny a request, but instead layer on additional obligations that are not permitted under fair housing law. Finding (4) requires a Finding that the "requested accommodation is consistent with surrounding uses in scale and intensity of use." The City cannot apply different occupancy, use, or development standards to shared housing For people with disabilities as compared to other forms of housing, nor can it require a household of people with disabilities to be limited to Tewer people than a single housekeeping unit would be allowed to have. To the extent that a requested accommodation would result in housing that was vastly different from permitted housing uses, City staff could evaluate whether granting the request would constitute a fundamental alteration to a City program or would result in an undue burden or direct threat. But simply having the same number of people that a single housekeeping unit would 628
January 12, 2026
be allowed to have, or failing to meet another occupancy or development standard that was not also applied to single housekeeping units, could never fall within one of those permitted reasons for denying an accommodation request. Consistency with other uses should therefore not be listed as a separate required finding.
Likewise, Finding (6) requires in some instances "a finding that the requested accommodation is necessary to make facilities or a similar nature or operation economically viable in light of the particularities of the relevant market and market participants generally." For the same reasons that the City is removing Finding (7), which also focuses on "facilities of a similar nature and operation" rather than on the s c housing that is at issue for a particular reasonable accommodation request, the City should remove Finding (6). It is just as true that it will be "operationally difficult for staff or the applicants to make this determination given lack of information" for Finding (6) as for Finding (7). Moreover, providing a feasibility study or market study about other housing does not fall within the burden or someone making a reasonable accommodation request. Making such a study a condition of approving a disability-related accommodation is therefore a discriminatory housing practice. This should likewise not be listed as a required Finding.
The deletion of Finding (7) should also be accompanied by a revision to the language of Finding (2), which states that, "[t]he requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." To ensure that City staff interpret Finding (2) consistent with fair housing laws, by focusing on the housing at issue in the request rather than "facilities of a similar nature and operation" elsewhere, Finding (2) should be revised to refer to an equal opportunity to use and enjoy "their dwelling," "the dwelling at issue in the accommodation request," or something similar.
In order to bring the reasonable accommodation ordinance into compliance with federal and state fair housing law, the City will also need to revise other portions of the ordinance. As reflected in the settlement agreement, we would welcome the opportunity to work with the City during that portion of its review of the reasonable accommodation ordinance and to provide feedback on any draft revisions of those other sections. 629
January 12, 2026
For those portions of the ordinance as well, it would be most effective for the City to repeal and replace language rather than try to work within the existing structure. For example, Section 4 3-200.62(b) loads burdensome and irrelevant requirements onto people or entities making reasonable accommodation requests. A lay homeowner who needs an accommodation due to disability should be able to comply with application requirements without having to hire an attorney or other expert to help them understand what they need to do. The City should limit the application to information that is necessary for the City to evaluate whether the person or entity making the request has met their burden, such as the location of the dwelling at issue, the existence of the disability, the nature of the accommodation that is being requested, and the connection between the disability and the requested accommodation. The provisions in Section 13- 200.62(b) that require people or entities making reasonable accommodation requests to provide "[alny other information that the director reasonably determines is necessary for evaluating the request for reasonable accommodation" ((b)(3)) and "[alny other information that the hearing officer reasonably concludes is necessary to determine whether the findings required by subsection (e) of this section can be made" ((b)(7)) are particularly problematic because they are not limited to the information necessary to establish that a person or entity is entitled to a reasonable accommodation.
Section 13-200.62(d) provides that appeals of reasonable accommodation requests will be handled through the same procedures as "any other discretionary permit." However, the appeals process pertaining to reasonable accommodation requests needs to be navigable and manageable by lay people with disabilities. This provision should be repealed and replaced with new language that requires a prompt, clear statement of the reasons for any denial, establishes a simple procedure For requesting an appeal, provides a reasonable deadline for making requests for an appeal, and eliminates the need for individuals or entities to pay for the City's review of their reasonable accommodation determination.
Most importantly, the section of the reasonable accommodation ordinance addressing appeals must exempt them from the review procedures that govern general zoning matters in order to respect the privacy of people's disabilities and disability-related needs during any review process.
Hearings regarding reasonable accommodations requests should not be 630
January 12, 2026
made by legislative bodies, and no public notice should be made regarding reasonable accommodation reviews. Public hearings create an opening for members of the public to express animus against people with disabilities, which imposes an improper barrier to people seeking such accommodations. For example, at the hearings regarding Insight's reasonable accommodation request, a member of the public told the Planning Commission that a person who is "mentally disabled does not belong in a neighborhood next door to me or any of us in this room," and someone testified to the City Council that the "mentally ill cannot associate with our children, neighbors." As you know, hearing those types of comments was traumatic for our client Ms. Doe, who spoke about her own experiences with mental il ness, an e ways a ying a nsig s housing had helped her, at a hearing on Insight's reasonable accommodation request. Not only is the City not obligated to provide the public with a forum to intimidate and humiliate people like Ms. Doe, but the City cannot put people like her through such an ordeal as a condition of having their accommodation request reviewed. Nor can such animus play any part in the City's review of an accommodation request. For similar reasons, the ordinance should also make clear that only the person or entity making the request can appeal a decision regarding a reasonable accommodation, in contrast to the current language which permits virtually anyone - including neighbors with an animus against people with disabilities - to appeal.
Finally, Sections 13-200.62(e) and (g), regarding "considerations," overlap with the required "findings" in Section 1 3-200.62(ta) in a way that impedes consistency with fair housing law. Like Section 1 3-200.62(f), these sections fail to make clear which elements are the burden of the person making the reasonable accommodation request to establish and which are the City's burden. Many of them are also improper considerations. For example, the City cannot take into account "whether granting the request would be consistent with the City's General Plan." By definition, any reasonable accommodation request pertaining to zoning will be inconsistent with the zoning scheme. "Requiring public entities to make exceptions to their rules and zoning policies is exactly what the FHAA does." Anderson v. City of Blue Ash, 798 F.3d 338, 363 (6th Cir. 201 5); City of Edmonds v.
Washington State Bldg. Code Council, 18 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1994) (FHA imposes an affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate disabled persons). The question is not whether a requested disability 631
January 12, 2026
accommodation is inconsistent with the City's General Plan, but whether granting it would fundamentally alter the General Plan. To take another example, the City cannot take into consideration whether "the accommodation would result in a substantial increase in traffic or insufficient parking" (§ 1 3-200.62(g)(2)) or "create an institutionalized environment due to the number of and distance between facilities that are similar in nature or operation" (§ I 3-200.62(g)(4)) unless it is also doing so with respect to single housekeeping units. Again, the City cannot impose more stringent development or occupancy standards on housing occupied by people with disabilities than on single housekeeping units, nor can it use vague or undefined conditions as a basis for denial of a reasonable accomm a on requ . ese are examp es, an no an e aus e or the issues with subsections (e) and (g) of Costa Mesa's reasonable accommodation ordinance. We would be happy to provide additional comments or to discuss with you and with City staff in more detail our further thoughts on bringing the ordinance into compliance with state and federal fair housing requirements.
ist,
We appreciate your time and attention to our comments and look Forward to working with you and the City further on these important access issues for Costa Mesa residents with disabilities. Please let us know if you would like to discuss any of these issues further.
Sincerely,
Autumn M. Elliott
Law Office oT Autumn Elliott
Jia Min Cheng
Managing Attorney
Disability Rights California
632
PARTIDA, ANNA
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jim Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>
Monday, February 23, 2026 10:47 AM
PC Public Comments
Pubic Hearing #1 2.23.2026 - Reso City Council Amend Housing Element Pubic Hearing #1 2.23.2026 - Reso City Council Amend Housing Element.pdf; Pubic Hearing #1 2.23.2026 - Reso City Council Amend Housing Element.pdf Please make available to Commissioners, and please make these comments part of the Public Record
Please confirm receipt of this email
Cheers,
Jim Fitzpatrick
Solutioneer in Residence
CAUTION: This emaiTh originated from outside of the organization. Do not'click Iinks or open attaclu'ne{-ntm unless you recognize the sender and know tle pontent is safe. Report anysusicior>s.activities:to $ei mnformation TechmologyIepariiqent.j
1 633
GROUP HOME ORDINANCE - REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
QUESTIONS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION:
* Why have the Letters from Housing & Community Development (HCD), Disability Rights California (DRC) and The Ohio House (OH) been ignored by Costa Mesa? * There's a rumor, "The City is Winning" with Group Homes, but is it? INCORRECT o City !!!!!! the INSIGHT CASE
a $1,750,000 million judgement against the City
N City required to work with DRC to modify the Group Home Ordinance * The 2 sides remain very tnuch apart from a successful resolution * Requirement to approve the Housing Element = Modify Group Home Ordinance * How will Costa Mesa achieve "Substantial Compliance" with the Housing Element, with these issues? * Costa Mesa has been compelled, in multiple ways, to modify the Group Home Ordinance o Just exactly what has been modified?
* Has HCD reviewed, commented or approved the current Grorip Home Ordinance modifications? NO o Prediction is the City will receive another HCD Letter, prior to March 17, even stronger than past * Why is Costa Mesa picking this fight with HCD? We need a Housing Element & we have bigger issues @ How is it going with DRC? Well, you can see from DRC's Letter, they are far apart * How is it going witli Ohio House? City has not responded * Has the City responded to CRD open complaint, seeking mediation? NO * Does the City seek to move from the adversarial litigation phase to a phase of cooperation? o Apparently Not?
* In a stnuctural budget deficit environment, can the City afford to continue the high spends of Iitigation, when a reasonable solution has been offered? Please, think like a TaxPayer! * PS: Just what is an "operator"? Appears to be problematic, and an intentional Trojan Horse? Page I of 1
634
GROUP HOME ORDINANCE - REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
OUESTIONS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION:
* Why have the Letters from Housing & Community Development (HCD), Disability Rights California (DRC) and The Ohio House (OH) been ignored by Costa Mesa? * There's a rumor, "The City is Winning" with Group Homes, but is it? INCORRECT o City !9!! the INSIGHT CASE
a $1,750,000 million judgement against the City
a City required to work with DRC to modify the Group Home Ordinance @ The 2 sides remain very much apart from a successful resolution * Requirement to approve the Housing Element = Modify Group Home Ordinance * How will Costa Mesa achieve "Substantial Compliance" with the Housing Element, with these issues? * Costa Mesa has been compelled, in multiple ways, to modify the Group Home Ordinance o Just exactly what has been modified?
* Has HCD reviewed, commented or approved the current Grorip Home Ordinance modifications? NO o Prediction is the City will receive another HCD Letter, prior to March 17, even stronger than past * Why is Costa Mesa picking this fight with HCD? We need a Housing Element & we have bigger issues @ How is it going with DRC? Well, you can see from DRC's Letter, they are far apart * How is it going witli Ohio House? City has not responded * Has the City responded to CRD open complaint, seeking mediation? NO @ Does the City seek to move from the adversarial litigation phase to a phase of cooperation? o Apparently Not?
* In a structural budget deficit environment, can the City afford to continue the high spends of litigation, when a reasonable solution has been offered? Please, think like a TaxPayer! * PS: Just what is an G'operator"? Appears to be problematic, and an intentional Trojan Horse?
635
PARTIDA, ANNA
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
GREEN, BRENDA
Monday, February 23, 20261 :21 PM
PC Public Comments
FW: Public Comment submission
Costa Mesa Amendment to the Sixth Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element Sites 1nventory.docx.pdf
Respectfully,
Brenda Green
City Clerk
City Clerk's Office l (714) 754-5221
77 Fair Drive l Costa Mesa i CA 92626
EfiO[7
As City Hall has reopened, we encourage the public to take advantage of our appointment system. Appointments can be made at www.costamesaca.gov/appointments. Please note that It is required that all guests check in with our Concierge Staff, located on the 1" Floor Lobby, upon arrival at City Hall.
From: Alejandra Perez Matus <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 12:31 PM
To: GREEN, BRENDA <[email protected]>
Cc: Cesar C. <[email protected]>; Kennedy C <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment submission
Hi,
On Behalf of The Kennedy Commission I am writing to submit a letter of public comment for the Planning commission meeting, Item number 1 under Public Hearings. Attached is the letter, Best Regards,
Alejandra Perez Matus
Pro'ect Mana er
CAU-TIO-N: This- 'emai! origjnated from outside-of the orga-ni- zation. Do n-ot cli-ck links or 'op- en attacer4j, unless you reco.g:ze the seffider and knowthe content is safe. Report4nysus'picious activities toth,d :[nformation Technologyartment3
1 636
February 23, 2026
Jeffrey Harlan
Costa Mesa Plaru'iing Commission
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
ivwsv.kennedycoinmiss0on.org
177(]1 Cotviin itve., Suitc 200
frvine, CA 92614
949 230 0909
RE: Item PH-1 - Amendment to the Sixth Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element Sites Inventory
Honorable Chair Harlan and Costa Mesa City Planning Commission, The Keiu'iedy Commission (the Cornrnission) is a broad-based coalition of residents and community organizations advocating for the production of homes affordable for families earning less than $30,000 annually in Orange County. Since 2001, we have successfully partnered with jurisdictions across the county to create horising and land-use policies that increase affordable housing opportunities for lower-income working families.
The Commission understands the complexity of the amendment before you, particularly in light of the recent appellate decision iii New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach and its implications for overlay-based Housing Element implementation. We understand that the City is responding to evolving legal guidance and property owner concerns. However, the scale and impact of the proposed changes warrant careful scrutiny.
According to the staff report, the amendment worild remove 17 Housing Element Opportunity Sites and add ffio new sites, resulting in a net loss of 15 sites and 5,431 units from the Housing Element Sites Inventory. The unit loss by income category is as follows:
* 843 very low-income units
* 455 low-income units
* 869 moderate-income units
* 3,264 above-moderate units
When Costa Mesa adopted its Sixth Cycle Housing Element, it identified total site capacity for 17,042 units to meet a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) obligation of 11,760 units.
This created a 45 percent buffer above the required allocation. Buffers are not surplus housing; they are planning safeguards that accorint for sites that do not develop as anticipated, reductions in density, feasibility constraints, or changes in market conditions.
If the City removes 5,431 units from its adopted inventory of 17,042 units, the remaining theoretical capacity would be approximately 11,611 uiffts. This amount falls below the City's RHNA requirement of 11,760 units. In practical terms, this action does not merely eliminate the 45 percent buffer - it reduces total site capacity below what is required to accommodate the City's assigned housing need.
Under Governrnent Code § 65863 (No Net Loss), when a jurisdiction takes a legislative action that results in insufficient site capacity to accommodate its remainingaRHNA by income category, the City must make formal findings and, if a deficit exists, identify and make available additional adequate sites within 180 days. Because this amendment reduces total site capacity below RHNA, it 1 637
triggers the City's No Net Loss obligations immediately upon adoption.
The income distribution of the lost capacity further heightens concern. Costa Mesa's RHNA obligation includes 2,821 veiy low-income rinits and 1,632 low-income rinits. To date, the City has permitted only 98 very low-income units (approximately 3 percent of its very low-income RHNA) and 162 low-income units (approximately 9 percent of its low-income RHNA). These are the categories where progress is most limited and where site adequacy is most critical.
The amendment would remove 843 very low-income units and 455 low-income units from the City's assumed site capacity. The central issue is not merely the number of units being removed, but whether the remaining inventory demonstrate sufficient capacity to accommodate the City's remaining unmet need in these categories. The staff report itself acknowledges that this action removes sites needed to meet RFnSJA in the low- and very low-income categories. Because No Net Loss requirements apply by income category-not merely in aggregate-any reduction that results in insufficient remaining lower-income site capacity obligates the City to identify replacement sites within 180 days.
Reopening the Housing Element mid-cycle introduces uncertainty and places the City in a reactive posture at a time when lower-income production remains substantially behind schedule. Identifying feasible sites capable of accommodating very low- and low-income housing at required minimum densities is significantly more complex than identifying sites for above-moderate housing.
We understand the City's effort to respond to legal developments and property owner requests.
However, Housing Element implementation must balance private interests with the City's statutoiy obligation to plan for and accommodate housing for lower-income households. Removing 5,431 units of planned capacity without concurrently identifying specific replacement sites creates measurable risk to compliance and to the City's ability to meet its lower-income housing obligations.
Accordingly, we respectfully urge the Planning Commission to ensure that any recommendation to the City Council is paired with a clear and transparent corrective strategy, including:
1. A defined public timeline for identifying and rezoning replacement sites sufficient to eliminate the site deficit and address the No Net Loss.
2. A commitment to restore at minimum a 15-20 percent RHNA buffer to provide planning stability and prevent a future No Net Loss.
3. A clear program on how very low- and low-income site capacity will be restored and maintained during the planning period.
4. Ongoing coordination with the California Department of Housing and Community Development to ensure continued compliance.
5. The City Should increase its Inclusionary Housing Ordinance from 10% to 15% to ensure that affordable housing is concurrently being built on opportunity sites to prevent more No Net Loss situations.
Costa Mesa's housing challenges require durable and proactive plaru'iing solutions. The numbers presented in the staff report demonstrate that this amendment has significant consequences for total capacity and for lower-income site adequacy. We urge the Commission to proceed with caution and to ensure that restoration of lower-income housing capacity occurs concurrently and transparently We look forward to working with the City of Costa Mesa to support the creation of affordable housing that meets the needs of our community. If you have any questions, please feel free to 2 638
contact me at (949) 250-0909 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Cesar Covamibias
Executive Director
639
PARTIDA, ANNA
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Sue Lester <[email protected]>
Monday, February 23, 2026 2:15 PM
MARTINEZ, DAVID; DICKSON, ROBERT; ROJAS, JOHNNY;
[email protected]; VALLARTA, ANGELY; ZICH, JON
PARTIDA, ANNA
All Planning Commissioners re: CM Women's Club (CMWC) Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
It is my intention to attend tonight's Planning Commission Meeting, however, I may not be able to make it in time. I would like this to be included as a part of the record in my absence pertaining to Item 1. under Public Hearings - Housing Element (2021-2029) Sites Rezoning
My letter is to support a letter written by Sandi Scheafer to the City if of Costa Mesa and its Planning Commission on behalf of the CMWC, to have the Costa Mesa Women's Club Property, located at 610 W.l8th Street in Costa Mesa, removed from the list of "Opportunity Sites in the Housing Sites Element." At the last planning commission meeting, prominent families/business entities were successful in having their properties removed from the list. While I acknowledge the importance of the invaluable financial contributions these entities have and continue to contribute to our community, they are not the only ones making significant contributions.
The CM Women's Club has been in existence for roughly 115 years, Although their contribution to our community has been different than that of the wealthy and powerful, it isn't any less valuable to the parts of the community it has and continues to serve. Located on the Westside, an area that is historically underserved and underrepresented, it serves as a safe place to meet, celebrate, and come together for a variety of reasons and the common good of families, b usinesses, groups, and organizations throughout our city. Safe, inclusive, welcoming locations like this are needed now more than ever!
As a member of the CMWC for almost ten years, I can attest to the good work being done by this wonderful, multigenerational women's organization. The CMWC raises money for local charities, volunteers time and resources to support a multitude of local worthwhile organizations and events across and beyond our city's borders.
Why should this property be removed from your list?
1. The Women's Club has no intention of selling or redeveloping this property.
2. By rezoning this property and including it on your list for "opportunity sites for housing" would be deliberately misleading because it is NOT available.
3. You will essentially be painting a huge target on this property and the backs of these fine ladies to then be pursued and hounded by unscrupulous land and real estate developers and self serving elected officials trying to get
their hands on this property... and yes, this has already happened more than once.
The CMWC deserves your support and for you to respect their wishes for their own property. Don't turn your back on 115 years worth of service and support to this community. The Community and the CMWC deserves better.
Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration.
Respectfully,
1 640
Sue Lester
Costa Mesa resident/ community volunteer
CAUTION: This email originated from outside ofthe organization. Do not clickli-nks or open--attachmJenid unless you recognize the sender and know the contentis safe.Report any suspiciou s activities to% l - "
Jnformation TechnologyDepartment;
2 641
From: GREEN, BRENDA
To: PARTIDA, ANNA
Subject: FW: PC Hrg - 02-23-2026 - Public Comment - Public hearing item 1 Date: Monday, February 23, 2026 5:37:53 PM
Attachments: 02-23-2026 LT PC objecting to recd code amd per HE housing program (SENT).pdf Exhibit 1-5.pdf
image001.wmz
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
Respectfully,
Brenda Green
City Clerk
City Clerk’s Office |
(714) 754-5221
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626
As City Hall has reopened, we encourage the public to take advantage of our appointment system.
Appointments can be made at www.costamesaca.gov/appointments. Please note that It is required that all guests check in with our Concierge Staff, located on the 1st Floor Lobby, upon arrival at City Hall.
From: Christopher Brancart <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 11:34 AM
To: HALLIGAN, MICHELLE <[email protected]>; MCGILL, ANNA <[email protected]>; TAI, CARRIE <[email protected]>; CARON, MARTINA <[email protected]>; COLGAN, JULIE <[email protected]>; OOSTERHOF, NAOMI <[email protected]>; PARTIDA, ANNA <[email protected]>; CITY CLERK <[email protected]>; PLANNING INFO <[email protected]>
Subject:
PC Hrg - 02-23-2026 - Public Comment - Public hearing item 1
Please see the attached letter regarding tonight's public hearing before the Planning Commission, item 1, re code amendments to implement the City's Housing Element.
The exhibits referenced in the attached letter are submitted in a separate file, Exhibits 1-5.
Please post this comment and include it in tonight's hearing record.
Thank you.
--
Christopher Brancart
Brancart & Brancart
642
(650) 879-0141 (voice)
(650) 879-1103 (fax)
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please call me.
Thank you.
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. 643
BRANCART & BRANCART
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Christopher Brancart P. O. BOX 686 Telephone (650) 879-0141 Elizabeth Brancart PESCADERO, CA 94060 Facsimile (650) 879-1103 www.brancart.com
Street Address
8205 Pescadero Road
Loma Mar, California 94021
February 23, 2026
Via Email and Facsimile
Michelle Halligan, Sr Planner
Anna McGill, Adv Planning Mgr
Carrie Tai, Director
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Fax: (714) 754-4856
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Jeffrey Harlan, Chair
Planning Commission
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Fax: (714) 754-5028
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Planning Commission Agenda: Public Hearing Item 1
Meeting: February 23, 2026
Missed Opportunity: Objections, Issues, and Concerns
Dear Gentlepersons:
On February 9, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and adopted a resolution recommending code amendments to implement the following Housing Programs pursuant to the City’s Sixth Cycle (2021–2029) Housing Element:
1. Program 2O (Definition of Single Housekeeping Unit): That the City will “review and revise the definition of ‘single housekeeping 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.”
644
Planning Commission
February 23, 2026
2. Program 2P (Group Homes): That the City will “review and adopt revisions to its zoning code applicable to group homes to affirmatively further fair housing and comply with fair housing laws per the [following] objective: review and revise the City’s zoning code and application procedures applicable to group homes to promote objectivity and greater approval certainty similar to other residential uses.”
3. Program 2N (Reasonable Accommodation): That the City will “review and adopt revisions to its Reasonable Accommodation process to be consistent with State and federal fair housing requirements.” As addressed in my last letter, dated February 9, 2026, the code amendments recommended in the Commission’s February 9th resolution do not meaningfully implement any of these three Housing Programs, as required under the City’s Sixth Cycle (2021–2029) Housing Element. For reference, a copy of my letter, dated February 9, is attached as Exhibit 1.
Tonight’s hearing misses an opportunity to address these deficiencies in that the Commission’s February 9th resolution fails to considered the sufficiency of the City’s implementation of Housing Programs 2N, 2O, and 2P in light of my last letter and the following materials that are directly related to this matter:
• HCD’s Group Home Technical Advisory, dated December 2022 (Exhibit 2);
• The Attorney General’s brief, filed June 29, 2023, analyzing the unlawful provisions in the City’s current group home regulations (Exhibit 3); and,
• HCD’s Letter, dated November 29, 2023 (Exhibit 4);
• The Settlement Agreement between Insight and the City, dated October 24, 2025 (Exhibit 5).
* * *
645
Planning Commission
February 23, 2026
The Ohio House and its residents urge the Planning Commission to review and revise its February 9th resolution recommending code amendment regarding Housing Programs 2N, 2O, and 2P in light of these authorities.
Thank you for your consideration.
/s/ Christopher Brancart
[email protected]
Enclosures: Exhibits 1-5
646
Exhibit 1
647
BRANCART & BRANCART
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Christopher Brancart P. O. BOX 686 Telephone (650) 879-0141 Elizabeth Brancart PESCADERO, CA 94060 Facsimile (650) 879-1103 www.brancart.com
Street Address
8205 Pescadero Road
Loma Mar, California 94021
February 9, 2026
Via Email and Facsimile
Michelle Halligan, Sr Planner
Anna McGill, Adv Planning Mgr
Carrie Tai, Director
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Fax: (714) 754-4856
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Jeffrey Harlan, Chair
Planning Commission
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Fax: (714) 754-5028
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Planning Commission Agenda Item PH-1
Meeting: February 9, 2026
Objections, Issues, and Concerns
Dear Gentlepersons:
I write on behalf of The Ohio House and its residents, along with present and former Group Home owners, operators, and residents to address several issues regarding Agenda Item PH-1 to be heard, considered and acted upon by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on Monday, February 9, 2026. Item PH- 1 asks the Planning Commission to approve a resolution recommending the adoption by the City Council of several code amendment purporting to implement specific housing programs set forth in the City’s Sixth Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element.
-1-
648
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
1. Issues Addressed in This Letter
This letter focuses exclusively on code amendments purporting to implement Housing Programs regarding the regulation of housing for persons with disability; specifically:
1. Program 2O (Definition of Single Housekeeping Unit): That the City will “review and revise the definition of ‘single housekeeping 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.”
2. Program 2P (Group Homes): That the City will “review and adopt revisions to its zoning code applicable to group homes to affirmatively further fair housing and comply with fair housing laws per the [following] objective: Review and revise the City’s zoning code and application procedures applicable to group homes to promote objectivity and greater approval certainty similar to other residential uses.”
3. Program 2N (Reasonable Accommodation): That the City will “review and adopt revisions to its Reasonable Accommodation process to be consistent with State and federal fair housing requirements.”
To implement these programs, the City proposes to amended the following provisions of the City’s zoning code (Title 13), set forth in Exhibit 3 in the Planning Commission Agenda Report:
4. Exhibit A: Chapter 1, Article 2, Definitions
5. Exhibit D: Chapter IV, Citywide Land Use Matrix
6. Exhibit H: Chapter IX, Article 15, Reasonable Accommodations
7. Exhibit K: Chapter XV, Group Homes; and,
8. Exhibit L: Chapter XVI, Group Homes in the R2-MD, R2-HD and R3 Residential Zones and the PDR-LD, PDR-MD, PDR-HD, PDR-NCM, -2-
649
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
PDC, and PDI (Planned Development Zones)
and the related Title 9's Group Home Operator’s Permit, set forth in Exhibit 5.
These code amendments fail to meet the requirements in Housing Programs 2N, 2O, and 2P, but also, if enacted as presently proposed, each amendment violates three federal laws – the Fair Housing Act, ADA, and Rehabilitation Act – and several state statutes, including the California Government Code §§ 12955, 65008, 8899.50, and 11135 as well as the California Constitution.
2. The Proposed Amendment of the Definition of Single
Housekeeping Unit fails to implement the requirements of the City’s Housing Program 2O and promise to violate federal and state fair housing laws.
The definition of Single Housekeeping Unit (SHU) is the pivotal zoning provisions that governs housing opportunities throughout Costa M esa’s residential districts. Among all Residential Uses listed in the City’s Land Use M atrix, CMMC TABLE 13-30, a Single Housekeeping Unit is the only use permitted of right in every residential districts. Thus, if the City chooses to classify an residential occupancy as a SHU, then that household may occupy any dwelling in Costa Mesa pursuant to the zoning code. If the City refuses to classify a residential occupancy as a SHU, then that household is prohibited from the City’s residential districts unless specially or conditionally permitted by the City or compelled by state statute.
The City proposes to implement Housing Plan Program 2O (“Definition of Single Housekeeping Unit”) by amending the current definition of Single Housekeeping Unit as follows:
-3-
650
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
We urge the Planning Commission to reject the resolution recommending the adoption of the proposed amended definition of Single Housekeeping Unit (SHU) because it fails to implement Housing Program 2O, invites unlawful and arbitrary enforcement, and violates state and federal fair housing statutes. a. The Proposed SHU Definition Perpetuates The City
Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities
The City last amended its SHU definition in 2014 as part of Ordinance 14- 13, the City’s sweeping revision of its zoning code to compel the closure of existing group homes in R1 (SFR) districts – and to prohibit any new group homes there – unless the household qualified for issuance of a specially use permit. (This same framework was enacted by the City in 2015 to group homes in the City’s MFR districts, as discussed below.) A fundamental, necessary condition of the City’s discriminatory zoning restrictions enacted under Ordinance 14-13 was the simultaneous adoption of the current SHU definition. Given its inclusion in Ordinance 14-13, it should come as no surprise that the City repeatedly has admitted that the purpose of the current SHU definition was to exclude group homes from the definition and privilege afforded households classified as SHUs. -4-
651
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
To achieve this result, the City includes a facially discriminatory presumption, a list of subjective, standardless criteria (carried forward in the proposed amendment), and several of observable indicia “that a household is not operating as a single housekeeping unit,” including more than one rental agreement, private, separate entrances, separate food storage and refrigerators.
The proposed amendment deletes the facially discriminatory presumption but also deletes the only objective, observable standards (locks, entrance, refrigerators) in the pivotal provisions. While those observable indicia were enacted for a discriminatory purpose, they at least had the virtue of being an objective standard that could be applied to readily observable conditions (lock, entrance, refrigerators). Once observable conditions are stripped from the definition, the proposed amendment devolves into a series of necessary conditions lacking objective standard and impossible to apply without invading a household’s constitutionally protected privacy.
The upshot is chilling: If applied as written, there are few if any households that could qualify as SHUs. Worse still, the proposed definition commits the City to police personal relationship among every dwelling’s occupants and to monitor the domestic affair of every household in Costa M esa. b. The Text and Terms of the Proposed Single Housekeeping Unit Definition Offends Common Sense, Valid Zoning Principles, and Fair Housing Laws
The proposed SHU amendment lacks valid, measurable, discernable, objective standards to determine whether a household qualifies as a SHU.
Moreover, even if it provided valid standards, its application depends on the City’s observations and determination of the nature and quality of personal relationships amongst household members and their domestic affair within the privacy of their dwellings. In sum, the proposed SHU definition is useless in application, invalid on its face, and unconstitutional in effect. 1
1 There are several ways to assess the efficacy of a zoning definition. We can disaggregate its terms into necessary and sufficient conditions. We can evaluate whether its intention (what it connotes) aligns with its extension (what it denotes). But under any test, the ultimate question is whether the text provides objective standards that can be consistently applied to observable facts reflecting conditions that endure over time. Thus, most zoning regulation concern the physical -5-
652
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
As drafted, the proposed definition consists of a series of necessary conditions regarding personal relationships that each occupant must satisfy and several domestic affairs that each occupant must perform. Each of these conditions is necessary. In other words, if the City decides that any one occupant fails to met any one of the following conditions, then the household is disqualified as a Single Housekeeping Unit:
Single housekeeping unit. The occupants of a dwelling unit have [1] established ties and [2] familiarity with each other, including joint [3] use of and [4] responsibility for common areas, which includes [5] interaction with each other, [6] shared meals, [7] household activities, and [8] expenses and responsibilities; where [9] residency is mutually agreed by all residents, is [10] not transitory in nature and the residential activities of the household are conducted on a [11] not-for-profit basis.
A close examination of these necessary conditions demonstrates why the proposed definition is not only profoundly flawed for purported purpose (implementing Program 2O), but also wholly dependent on the City violating the California Constitution, fair housing law, and sound zoning principles. as built environment or readily observable externalities. The proposed amended SHU definition meets none of these criteria under any framework.
-6-
653
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
No. Necessary
Condition
Condition’s
Objective
Standards
Application Can City Lawfully
Observe and Verify
Facts to Determine
Condition
01 Established
Ties between
each occupant
with each other
occupant.
No, lacks
objective
criteria
measuring
quality or
quantity
a. Necessary condition
must exist throughout the
every persons occupancy
at any point in time.
b. To determine whether
household’s “established
ties” are sufficient, each
one-to-one relationship
amongst occupants must
be evaluated by the City;
thus, in a six member
household, there are 15
unique relationships to
be evaluated. C(n,r)[i.e.,
“n chose 2"].
Yes, for some households,
but only by proxy, limiting
Establish Ties to
relationships defined by
law (e.g., consanguinity),
and thereby discriminating
against non-traditional
families.
No, this conditions lack
any objective criteria;
moreover, this condition
involves personal
relationships that are
inherently difficult to
observe and assess since
relationships transpire
within sphere of
constitutionally protected
privacy
02 Familiarity
between each
occupant with
each other
occupant.
No, id. Id. No, this conditions lack
any objective criteria;
moreover, this condition
involves personal
relationships that are
inherently difficult to
observe and assess since
relationships transpire
within sphere of
constitutionally protected
privacy
-7-
654
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
No. Necessary
Condition
Condition’s
Objective
Standards
Application Can City Lawfully
Observe and Verify
Facts to Determine
Condition
03 Joint use of . . .
common areas
Yes, in part,
because -
unlike other
conditions -
common areas
are observable.
No, since use
lacks objective
criteria
measuring
quality or
quantity
Id. No. This condition lack an
objective standard;
moreover, it occurs within
the privacy of dwelling.
04 Joint . . .
responsibility
for common
areas
No, lacks
objective
criteria
measuring
quality or
quantity
Id. No. This condition lack an
objective standard;
moreover, it occurs within
the privacy of dwelling.
05 Interaction
with each other
No, id. Id. No, this conditions lack
any objective criteria;
moreover, this condition
involves personal
relationships that are
inherently difficult to
observe and assess since
relationships transpire
within sphere of
constitutionally protected
privacy
-8-
655
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
No. Necessary
Condition
Condition’s
Objective
Standards
Application Can City Lawfully
Observe and Verify
Facts to Determine
Condition
06 Shared meals No, id. Id., but measured by
participate rate of each
occupant. (i.e., Assume
five occupant and five
"household activities,"
the City must examine
each occupants
participation rate in a
total of 25 activities.
Cartesian Product (mxn)
No. The scope, frequency,
and participation rate
transpires within the
privacy of dwelling
07 Shared . . .
household
activities
No, id. Id.,
No. This condition lacks
an objective, reliable
standard. Moreover,
participation of domestic
activities transpires within
the privacy of dwelling.
08 Shared . . .
expenses
No, Id. Yes, with an
administrative subpoena.
No, unless the City obtains
an administrative subpoena
to obtain detailed
statements of household
expenses and contributions
by each member of the
household
-9-
656
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
No. Necessary
Condition
Condition’s
Objective
Standards
Application Can City Lawfully
Observe and Verify
Facts to Determine
Condition
09 Residency is
mutually
agreed by all
residents
No, Id., unless
condition is
intended to
empowers any
occupant at the
time to bar any
prospective
occupant or
oust any
existing
occupant from
a household,
regardless of
that occupant's
age or
maturity,
consensus of
the other
occupants, or
the basis for
the preclusion
or ouster.
Id. Possibility, but if and only
if the City obtains
confirmation from each
occupant who occupied a
dwelling during its
purported status as a SHU.
10 not transitory
in nature
No., Id. No, without a duration of
occupancy specified, this
necessary condition
cannot applied.
No, unless the City obtains
an administrative
subpoena, permitting the
City to lawfully review
records or compel
statements that establish
the date each occupant
joined a household. This
information, however, is
meaningless without a
temporal criterion.
-10-
657
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
No. Necessary
Condition
Condition’s
Objective
Standards
Application Can City Lawfully
Observe and Verify
Facts to Determine
Condition
11 residential
activities of the
household are
conducted on a
not-for-profit
basis
No, Id. Yes, with an
administrative subpoena,
but if and only if the City
can verify that the
housing provider is
either is incorporated as a
nonprofit or operates at a
loss and that each
occupant, regardless of
age, infirmity, or
capacity pays an equal
share of the housing
expense
No, unless the City obtains
an administrative
subpoena, permitting the
City to lawfully obtain
records showing that a
housing provider is a
nonprofit or operates at a
loss and detailed financial
records reflecting
household expenses and
contributions by each
occupant.
Does the proposed SHU definition provide with the City’s zoning and code enforcers (as well as its citizens) with robust, objective standards that can be reliably applied to readily observable facts reflecting conditions that endure over the lifetime of a household? The answer is obvious no. W orse, if you assume that the proposed definition means what it says, and its conditions were uniformly applied to the wide variety of household that exist in Costa M esa2, very few of those households could qualify as Single Housekeeping Unit. W orse still, under the proposed definition, the City is committed to policing the personal relationship and domestic affairs of its citizens, an undertaking that is as unpopular as it is unconstitutional.
We urge the Planning Commission to reject the resolution recommending the adoption of the proposed SHU definition.
3. The proposed amendments to zoning regulations governing group homes fail to implement the objective of the City’s Housing Program 2P, perpetuate discrimination against disabled persons, and promise to violate federal and state fair housing laws.
2 Please refer to the City’s demographic profile in the City’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element. -11-
658
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
The City proposes to implement Housing Plan Program 2P (“Group Homes”) by not making any substantive changes to its current group home regulations, codified as CMMC Title 13, Chaps. XV and XVI, and CMMC Title 9, Chap. II, Art. 23. See Meeting Packet, Exhibit 3. As a result, the City’s group home regulations continue to discriminate against housing for disabled persons, as reflected in Exhibit 1 hereto.
The only substantive change proposed by the City is to import the definition of “operator” into the definition of group home or sober living home. That amendment is deeply flawed and will not cure the problems with the City’s current group home regulations. The operator definition is standardless, circular, and assumes that landlords renting to non-disabled persons do not engage in placement, rule-setting, and behavioral oversight of their tenants— an demonstrably untrue assumption.
We urge the Planning Commission to reject the resolution recommending the adoption of the proposed amendments to the group home regulations because they are insufficient.
4. The proposed amendments to the City’s RA regulations fail to implement the requirements of the City’s Housing Program 2N, perpetuate discrimination against disabled persons, and promise to continue violating federal and state fair housing laws.
The City proposes to implement Housing Plan Program 2N (“Reasonable Accommodation”) by making modest changes to the existing regulation that fail to fulfill this Housing Program’s intent and continue a policy in violation of federal and state fair housing laws.
To implement Program 2N, the City must amend the current regulation to address each of the issues raised in DRC’s letter to the City dated January 12, 2026, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 2. In addition, the City must provide a cogent definition of “institutionalization” if it intends to apply that criterion as a basis for denying RA requests.
We urge the Planning Commission to reject the resolution recommending -12-
659
Planning Commission
February 9, 2026
adoption of the proposed RA regulation because it is insufficient.
Thank you for your consideration.
/s/ Christopher Brancart
[email protected]
-13-
660
1 Zoning regulations for unlicensed1 residential uses in Costa Mesa’s multi-family zoning districts
CMMC Regulations Governing
Residential Uses in City’s Multifamily
Districts
Sober Living Home2 Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Small < 3 rental
rooms
4 Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Use Definitions
Use defined based on disability status of
residents, CMMC 13-06
Yes, CC 96 Yes, CC 5 No, CC 3 No, CC 3 No CC 4
1 Licensed uses are subject to state-mandated zoning entitlements and restrictions. The Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMMC) defines these uses as Residential care facilities. A residential facility licensed by the state where care, services, or treatment is provided to persons living in a supportive community residential setting. Residential care facilities include, but may not be limited to, the following: intermediate care facilities for the developmentally disabled (Health & Safety Code §§ 1267.8, 1267.9);community care facilities (Health & Safety Code § 1500 et seq.); residential care facilities for the elderly (Health &Safety Code § 1569 et seq.); residential care facilitie s for the chronically ill (22 C.C.R. § 87801(a)(5); Health & Safety Code § 1568.02); alcoholism and drug abuse facilities (He alth & Safety Code §§ 11834.02— 11834.30); pediatric day health and respite care facilities (Health & Safety Code § 1760 et seq.); r esidential health care facilities, including congregate living health facilities (Health & Safety Code §§ 1265— 1271.1, 1250(i), 1250(e), (h)); family care home, foster home, group home for the mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped persons or dependent and neglected children (Wel. & Inst. Code §§ 5115—5120).” CMMC 13-06. 2Sober living home means a group home for persons who are recovering from a drug and/or alcohol addiction and who are considered handicapped under state or federal law. Sober living homes shall not include the following: (1) residential care facilities; (2) any sober living home that operates as a single housekeeping unit.” CMMC 13-06.
3Group home. A facility that is being used as a supportive living environment for persons who are considered handicapped under state or fede ral law. A group home operated by a single operator or service provider (whether licensed or unlicensed) constitutes a single facility, whether the facility occupies one (1) or more dwelling units. Group homes shall not include the following: (1) residential care facilities; (2) any group home that operates as a single housekeeping unit.” CMMC 13-06.
4 “Boardinghouse. A residence or dwelling, other than a hotel, wherein rooms are rented under two (2) or more separate written or oral rental a greements, leases or subleases or combination thereof, whether or not the owner, agent or rental manager resides within the residen ce. Boardinghouse, small means two (2) or fewer rooms being rented. Boardinghouse, large means three (3) to six (6) rooms being rented. Boardinghouses renting m ore than six (6) rooms are prohibited.” CMMC 13-06.
5 “Dwelling, multi-family “Dwelling, multi-family” or “multi- family dwelling” is a building or buildings of permanent character placed on one (1) lot which is designed or used for residential occupancy by two (2) or more families.” CMMC 13-06. 6 “CC #” refers to page numbers in the excerpt of the current Costa Mesa Municipal Code [as of 05/09/2021], attached to this Table for reference. -14-
661
2 CMMC Regulations Governing
Residential Uses in City’s Multifamily
Districts
Sober Living Home2 Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Small < 3 rental
rooms
4 Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Use defined based on nature of the
disability of dwelling’s residents, CMMC
13-06
Yes, CC 9 No, CC 5 No, CC 3 No, CC 3 No CC 4
Permitted Zoning District
Permitted in Residential Zoning District,
CMMC 13-30, 13-204
No, CC 31 No, CC 31 Yes, CC 31 Yes, if pre-
existing, CC 54;
No, if new, CC 31
Yes, CC 31
Permitted in Multifamily Zoning Districts
(R2-MD, R2-HD, R3), CMMC 13-30
No, CC 31 No, CC 31 Yes, CC 31 Yes, if pre-
existing, CC 54;
No, if new, CC 31
Yes, CC 31
Permitted in Planned Development
Residential Districts (PDR-LD, PDR-MD,
PDR-HD, PRD-NCM, PDC, PDI), CMMC 13-
30, 13-204
No, CC 31 No, CC 31 Yes, CC 31 Yes, if pre-
existing, CC 54;
No, if new, CC 31
Yes, CC 31
Permitted in Institutional & Recreational
(I&R) Zoning District [intended for
“recreation, open space, health, public
services,” 13-20(i), CC 17]
Yes, CC 31 Yes, CC 31 No, CC 31 No, CC 31 No, CC 31
Specially or Conditionally Permitted in
Institutional & Recreational (I&R) Zoning
District [intended for “recreation, open
space, health, public services,” 13-20(i),
CC 17]
NA, CC 31 NA, CC 31 No, CC 31 No, CC 31 No, CC 31
Nonconforming Use Status
Existing uses required to apply for
Special or Conditional Use Permit to
Yes, CC 67, 59 Yes, CC 67, 59 No, CC 54 No, CC 54 NA, CC 31 -15-
662
3 CMMC Regulations Governing
Residential Uses in City’s Multifamily
Districts
Sober Living Home2 Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Small < 3 rental
rooms
4 Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
continue existing use, 13-324, 13-
207.1 versus 13-204, 13-30
Separation Requirement
Separation requirement imposed on
existing uses, 13-322, 13-323, 13-324
versus 13-30, 13-204, 13-207.1
Yes: At least 650
feet between
dwelling and any
group home, sober
living home or
state-licensed drug
and alcohol
treatment facility.
CC 66-67
Yes: At least 650
feet between
dwelling and any
group home, sober
living home or state-
licensed drug and
alcohol treatment
facility. CC 66-67
No, CC 54 No, CC 54 NA, 13-30
Separation requirement imposed on new
uses, 13-322, 13-323, 13-324 versus 13-30
fn 7
Yes: At least 650
feet between
dwelling and any
group home, sober
living home, or
state-licensed drug
and alcohol
treatment facility.
CC 66-67
Yes: At least 650
feet between
dwelling and any
group home, sober
living home, or state-
licensed drug and
alcohol treatment
facility. CC 66-67
Yes: Small
boardinghouses
shall locate at
least six
hundred fifty
(650) feet from
any other small
boardinghouse.
CC 49
Yes: Large
boardinghouses
shall be located
at least one
thousand (1,000)
feet away from
any other
boardinghouse.
CC 49
NA, 13-30
Dwelling Operator’s Permit Required
Owner or operator of dwelling must
obtain an “Operator’s Permit,” CMMC 13-
323, 9-372, or meet same conditions for
Yes, CC 67, 69
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
Yes, CC 67, 69 [CUP];
Yes, CC 66, 61-63
[SUP]
No No No
-16-
663
4 CMMC Regulations Governing
Residential Uses in City’s Multifamily
Districts
Sober Living Home2 Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Small < 3 rental
rooms
4 Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Operator’s Permit under SUP
requirements, 13-322, 13-311
Owner or operator of dwelling must
obtain an “operator’s permit” as a
condition to qualify for a conditional use
permit, CMMC 13-323, 9-372, or meet
same conditions for Operator’s Permit to
qualify for SUP, 13-322, 13-311
Yes, CC 67, 69
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
Yes, CC 67, 69 [CUP];
Yes, CC 66, 61-63
[SUP]
No No No
Permit Application Requirements
Permit Application: Required to list
applicant/operator’s every general
partner and every owner with controlling
interest in corporation. CMMC 13-311(a)
+ 9-374(a) versus CMMC 13-29(a) + City
Form 09/2019
Yes, CC 61, 69;
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
Yes, CC 61, 69; [CUP];
Yes, CC 66, 61-63
[SUP]
No, CC 22 No, CC 22 No, CC 22
Permit Application: Required to provide
permit history or operation of similar use
at any time anywhere in the United
States. CMMC 13-311(a) + 9-374(a)
versus CMMC 13-29(a) + City Form
09/2019
Yes, CC 61, 69;
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
Yes, CC 61, 69; [CUP];
Yes, CC 66, 61-63
[SUP]
No, CC 22 No, CC 22 No, CC 22
Permit Application: Required to provide
copy of rules governing conduct of
residents occupying dwelling. CMMC 13-
311(a) + 9-374(a) versus CMMC 13-29(a)
+ City Form 09/2019
Yes, CC 61, 69;
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
Yes, CC 61, 69; [CUP];
Yes, CC 66, 61-63
[SUP]
No, CC 22 No, CC 22 No, CC 22
-17-
664
5 CMMC Regulations Governing
Residential Uses in City’s Multifamily
Districts
Sober Living Home2 Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Small < 3 rental
rooms
4 Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Permit Application: Required to identify
the name, address, telephone, CDL of
onsite dwelling manager. CMMC 13-
311(a) + 9-374(a) versus CMMC 13-29(a)
+ City Form 09/2019
Yes, CC 61, 69;
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
Yes, CC 61, 69; [CUP];
Yes, CC 66, 61-63
[SUP]
No, CC 22 No, CC 22 No, CC 22
Permit Application: Required to provide
document reflecting criteria for
acceptance of resident in dwelling.
CMMC 13-311(a) + 9-374(a) versus CMMC
13-29(a) + City Form 09/2019
Yes, CC 61, 69;
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
Yes, CC 61, 69; [CUP];
Yes, CC 66, 61-63
[SUP]
No, CC 22 No, CC 22 No, CC 22
Permit Application: Required to provide
blank copies of all forms that residents of
dwelling are required to complete.
CMMC 13-311(a) + 9-374(a) versus CMMC
13-29(a) + City Form 09/2019
Yes, CC 61, 69;
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
Yes, CC 61, 69; [CUP];
Yes, CC 66, 61-63
[SUP]
No, CC 22 No, CC 22 No, CC 22
Permit Notice Requirements, July 2017
(17-05) - October 2018 (18-06) time
period
Public notice of hearing on application for
special use permit, CMMC 13-311(b)
versus CMMC 13-29(c) [07/2017-
09/2018]
Notice to be mailed
to the owner of
record and
occupants of all
properties within
five hundred
(500) feet of the
location of the
group home.
Notice to be mailed
to the owner of
record and
occupants of all
properties within
five hundred
(500) feet of the
location of the group
home.
Notices of the
hearing shall be
mailed to all
property
owners within
a five hundred-
foot radius of
the project site
Notices of the
hearing shall be
mailed to all
property owners
within a five
hundred-foot
radius of the
project site
Notices of the
hearing shall
be mailed to
all property
owners within
a five
hundred-foot
radius of the
project site
Occupancy limit on number of
residents per dwelling
-18-
665
6 CMMC Regulations Governing
Residential Uses in City’s Multifamily
Districts
Sober Living Home2 Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Small < 3 rental
rooms
4 Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Occupancy limitation City Housing
Element
City Housing Element State Housing
Law/UHC
State Housing
Law/UHC
State Housing
Law/UHC
On-Site Manager Requirements
Dwelling must have a 24/7 onsite
manager. CMMC 13-311(a)(4) + CMMC 9-
274(b)(1) versus State Housing Law
Yes, CC 62, 70 Yes, CC 62, 70 No, State
Housing Law
No, State
Housing Law
No, State
Housing Law
Vehicle Restrictions
Each dwelling resident limited to one
vehicle that must be used as resident’s
primary form of transportation, 13-
311(a)(5) + CMMC 9-274(b)(2)
Yes, CC 62, 70 Yes, CC 62, 70 No No No
Resident Parking Restrictions
Each dwelling resident must park her
vehicle on dwelling premises or within
500 feet of dwelling, 13-311(a)(5) +
CMMC 9-274(b)(2) versus CMMC Title 10,
Ch X (Stopping, Standing and Parking)
Yes, CC 62, 70 Yes, CC 62, 70 No No No
Eviction requirements
Landlord/operator must notify resident’s
emergency contact, OCHA OC Links
Referral Line, and Costa Mesa’s Network
for Homeless Solutions before an evicting
resident, CMMC 13-311(a)(10) + 9-
374(b)(6)
Yes, CC 62, 70 Yes, CC 62, 70 No No No
Landlord/operator must provide
transportation to alternative housing to
any resident evicted from dwelling,
CMMC 13-311(a)(11) + 9-374(b)(7)
Yes, CC 62, 70 Yes, CC 62, 70 No No No
-19-
666
7 CMMC Regulations Governing
Residential Uses in City’s Multifamily
Districts
Sober Living Home2 Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Small < 3 rental
rooms
4 Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Landlord/operator must maintain eviction
records for one year resident’s eviction
from dwelling, CMMC 13-311(a)(12) + 9-
374(b)(8)
Yes, CC 62, 70 Yes, CC 62, 70 No No No
Regulation of Residents within
Dwelling
Each resident of dwelling must actively
participate in a legitimate self-
improvement program (e.g., 12-step
program), CMMC 13-311(a)(14)(i) + 9-
374(b)(10)(i)
Yes, CC 63, 71 No No No No
Landlord/operator must maintain records
showing that resident is actively
participating in a legitimate self-
improvement program (e.g., 12-step
program), CMMC 13-311(a)(14)(i) + 9-
374(b)(10)(i)
Yes, CC 63, 71 No No No No
Landlord/operator must promulgate a
rule warning that if a resident refuse to
actively participating in a legitimate self-
improvement program (e.g., 12-step
program), then the resident may be
evicted. CMMC 13-311(a)(14)(i) + 9-
374(b)(10)(i)
Yes, CC 63, 71 No No No No
Landlord/Operator must prohibit
residents from use of any non-
prescription drugs. CMMC 13-
311(a)(14)(ii) + 9-374(b)(10)(ii)
Yes, CC 63, 71 No No No No
-20-
667
8 CMMC Regulations Governing
Residential Uses in City’s Multifamily
Districts
Sober Living Home2 Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Small < 3 rental
rooms
4 Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Landlord/operator must evict any
resident caught using any non-
prescription drug. CMMC 13-
311(a)(14)(ii) + 9-374(b)(10)(ii)
Yes, CC 63, 71 No No No No
Landlord/operator must promulgate a
good neighbor policy directing residents
“to be considerate of neighbors, including
refraining from engaging in excessively
loud, profane or obnoxious behavior that
would unduly interfere with a neighbor’s
use and enjoyment of their dwelling
unit.” CMMC 13-311(a)(14)(vi) + 9-
374(b)(10)(v)
Yes, CC 63, 71 No No No No
Landlord/operator must promulgate
written protocol for onsite manager to
follow in response to a neighbor’s
complaint. CMMC protocol for 13-
311(a)(14)(vi) + 9-374(b)(10)(v)
Yes, CC 63, 71 No No No No
Owner, Landlord, Operator, and
Employee Qualification Requirements
Owner, landlord, or operator of a
dwelling is barred from obtaining a
Special or Condition Use Permit for that
dwelling if she was terminated from a job
for sexual harassment, embezzlement, or
illegally furnishing alcohol within two
years of applying to the City for that
zoning permit. CMMC 13-311(b)(2), 9-
374(e)(2) versus 13-29(g)(2)
Yes, CC 63, 71 Yes, CC 63, 71 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 -21-
668
9 CMMC Regulations Governing
Residential Uses in City’s Multifamily
Districts
Sober Living Home2 Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Small < 3 rental
rooms
4 Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Owner, landlord, or operator of a
dwelling is barred from obtaining a
Special or Condition Use Permit for that
dwelling if she employs any person who
was terminated from a job alcohol for
sexual harassment, embezzlement, or
illegally furnishing alcohol within two
years of applying to the City for that
zoning permit. CMMC 13-311(b)(2), 9-
374(e)(2) versus 13-29(g)(2)
Yes, CC 63, 71 Yes, CC 63, 71 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 Owner, landlord, or operator of a
dwelling is barred from obtaining a
Special or Condition Use Permit for that
dwelling if she was convicted or pleaded
nolo contendere to any PC 290 sex
offense or PC 667.5 felony within 10 years
of applying to the City for that zoning
permit. CMMC 13-311(b)(2), 9-374(e)(2)
versus 13-29(g)(2)
Yes, CC 63-64, 71-72 Yes, CC 63-64, 71-72 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 Owner, landlord, or operator of a
dwelling barred from obtaining a Special
or Condition Use Permit for that dwelling
if she employs any person who was
convicted or pleaded nolo contendere to
any PC 290 sex offense or PC 667.5 felony
within 10 years of applying to the City for
that zoning permit. CMMC 13-311(b)(2),
9-374(e)(2) versus 13-29(g)(2)
Yes, CC 63-64, 71-72 Yes, CC 63-64, 71-72 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 -22-
669
10 CMMC Regulations Governing
Residential Uses in City’s Multifamily
Districts
Sober Living Home2 Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Small < 3 rental
rooms
4 Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Owner, landlord, or operator of a
dwelling barred from obtaining a Special
or Condition Use Permit for that dwelling
if he was convicted or pleaded nolo
contendere to any PC 290 sex offense or
PC 667.5 felony within 10 years of
applying to the City for that zoning
permit. CMMC 13-311(b)(2), 9-374(e)(2)
versus 13-29(g)(2)
Yes, CC 63-64, 71-72 Yes, CC 63-64, 71-72 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 Owner, landlord, or operator of a
dwelling barred from obtaining a Special
or Condition Use Permit for that dwelling
if she employs any person who was
convicted or pleaded nolo contrendere to
any PC 451 arson offense or furnishing
any controlled substance within 7 years of
applying to the City for that zoning
permit. CMMC 13-311(b)(2), 9-374(e)(2)
versus 13-29(g)(2)
Yes, CC 63-64, 71-72 Yes, CC 63-64, 71-72 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 Owner, landlord, or operator of a
dwelling barred from obtaining a Special
or Condition Use Permit for that dwelling
if she is in recovery from abuse of drugs
or alcohol and has been abstained for less
than one year before applying to the City
for that zoning permit. CMMC 13-
311(b)(6), 9-374(e)(2) versus 13-29(g)(2)
Yes, CC 64, 72 No No, CC 25 No, CC 25 No, CC 25
-23-
670
LEGAL ADVOCACY UNIT
1831 K Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
Tel: (916) 504-5800
Fax: (916) 504-5801
TTY: (800) 719-5798
Intake Line: (800) 776-5746
www.disabilityrightsca.org
January 12, 2026
VIA EMAIL
Kimberly Hall Barlow
Jones Mayer
3777 N. Harbor Blvd.
Fullerton, CA 92835
[email protected]
RE: Costa Mesa’s Proposed Revisions to RA Ordinance
Dear Ms. Barlow:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on Costa Mesa’s proposed revisions to the City’s reasonable accommodation ordinance pursuant to the settlement agreement in the Insight v. Costa Mesa case.
In your December 19, 2025 email to us, you said that Costa Mesa was proposing to delete subsection (7) of Section 13-200.62(f) of the City’s reasonable accommodation ordinance. You explained that the deletion is proposed because “it is operationally difficult for staff or the applicants to make this determination given lack of information and the difficulties in ensuring that any facilities adequately allow individual(s) with said disability(ies) to live in a residential setting. Furthermore, this subsection is unnecessary given the other provisions of the Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance.” We support the deletion of subsection (7) from Section 13- 200.62, which requires a finding that “the existing supply of facilities of a similar nature and operation in the community is sufficient to provide individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to live in a residential setting.”
-24-
671
January 12, 2026