Agenda packet — Costa Mesa City Council, September 1, 2026 (part 4 of 6)

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 C-220
799
January 12, 2026

Page 3 of 7 ends

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 authorizes the City to deny a reasonable 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 13-200.62(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 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 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 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 C-221
800
January 12, 2026

Page 4 of 7 ends

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 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 similar 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 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 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.

C-222
801
January 12, 2026

Page 5 of 7 ends

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 13-200.62(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 “[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 C-223
802
January 12, 2026

Page 6 of 7 ends

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 illness, and the ways that staying at Insight’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 13-200.62(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. 2015); 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 C-224
803
January 12, 2026

Page 7 of 7 ends

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” (§ 13-200.62(g)(2)) or “create an institutionalized environment due to the number of and distance between facilities that are similar in nature or operation” (§ 13-200.62(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 accommodation request. These are examples, and not an exhaustive list, 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.

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 of Autumn Elliott

Jia Min Cheng
Managing Attorney
Disability Rights California

C-225
804
Summary of Development Services Director decisions on reasonable accommodation applications submitted by group homes subject to Zoning Chapter XVI, CMMC § 13-323

App
No.

(RA
application
predates
650 conflict)

[Sum 465 /
City 5074]

[Sum 466 /
City 5075]

[Sum 465 / City 5074]
NA (RA application predates 650 conflict)

[Sum 465 / City 5074]
8/29/
2016

Grant
PA-
16-06
Pacific
Shores
NA

(None
specified)
NA

(Omitted
from
director
letter)

[Sum 468 /
City 6208]

[Sum 469 / City 6209]

[Sum 468 / City 6208]
3/29/
2016

Deny
PA-
16-12
Clean
Path
Recovery
650ft
separation
[Sum 471 /
City 17506]

[Sum 471 /
City 17506]

[Sum 471 / City 17506]

[Sum 472 / City 17507]: “Your request to
process one CUP application for two
properties at the subject location may
allow a CUP to be granted to enable Clean
Path Recovery to continue to operate in
compliance with the CMMC at both of the
subject properties. While this action might
allow one or more disabled persons to
enjoy the use of these dwellings, I do not
find that the request is necessary to allow
one or more disabled persons to enjoy the
use of a dwelling within the City.”
10/12/
2016

Deny
C-226
805
App
No.

[Sum 475 /
City 17640

[Sum 475 / City 17640

[Sum 476 / City 17641]: “Your request to
process one CUP application for two
properties at the subject location may
allow a CUP to be granted to enable Clean
Path Recovery to continue to operate in
compliance with the CMMC at both of the
subject properties. While this action might
allow one or more disabled persons to
enjoy the use of these dwellings, I do not
find that the request is necessary to allow
one or more disabled persons to enjoy the
use of a dwelling within the City.”
10/12/
2016

Deny
PA-
16-15
Casa Capri
Recovery
650ft
separation
[Sum 478 /
City 6425]

[Sum 479 /
City 6426]

[Sum 479 / City 6426]

[Sum 479 / City 6426]: “Your request
establishes that the requested
accommodation (waiver of the 650’
separation requirement) may allow a CUP
to be granted to enable Casa Capri
Recovery to continue to operate in
compliance with the CMMC at Its current
location. In theory, this would allow one or
more disabled persons to enjoy the use of
this dwelling. However, I do not find that
the request is necessary to allow one or
more disabled persons to enjoy the use of
a dwelling within the City.”
5/11/
2016

Deny
C-227
806
App
No.

[Sum 482 /
City 6665]

[Sum 482 / City 6665]

[Sum 482 / City 6665]: “Your request
establishes that the requested
accommodation (waiver of the 650’
separation requirement) may allow a CUP
to be granted to enable So Cal Recovery to
continue to operate in compliance with
the CMMC at its current location. While
this might allow one or more disabled
persons to enjoy the use of this dwelling, I
do not find that the request is necessary to
allow one or more disabled persons to
enjoy the use of a dwelling within the
City.”
5/18/
2016

Deny
PA-
16-25
North-
bound +
Raw
650ft
separation;
grandfather;
other

[Sum 485 /
City 6955]

[Sum 486 / City 6956]

[Sum 486 / City 6956]: “Your request
establishes that the requested
accommodation (waiver of the 650’
separation requirement) may allow a CUP
to be granted to enable some of these
properties to continue to operate in
compliance with the CMMC at their
current locations. While this might allow
one or more disabled persons to enjoy the
use of one of these dwellings, I do not find
that the request is necessary to allow one
or more disabled persons to enjoy the use
of a dwelling within the City.”
6/2/
2016

Deny
C-228
807
App
No.

[Sum 489 /
City 7529]

[Sum 489 /
City 7529

[Sum 490 / City 7530]

[Sum 490 / City 7530]: “Your request
establishes that the requested
accommodation (waiver of the 650’
separation requirement) may allow a CUP
to be granted to enable some of these
properties to continue to operate in
compliance with the CMMC at their
current locations. While this might allow
one or more disabled persons to enjoy the
use of one of these dwellings, I do not find
that the request is necessary to allow one
or more disabled persons to enjoy the use
of a dwelling within the City.”
6/2/
2016

Deny
PA-
16-32
North-
bound +
Raw
650ft
separation;
grandfather;
other

[Sum 493 /
City 8167]

[Sum 494 / City 8168]

[Sum 494 / City 8168]: “Your request
establishes that the requested
accommodation (waiver of the 650’
separation requirement) may allow a CUP
to be granted to enable some of these
properties to continue to operate in
compliance with the CMMC at their
current locations. While this might allow
one or more disabled persons to enjoy the
use of one of these dwellings, I do not find
that the request is necessary to allow one
or more disabled persons to enjoy the use
of a dwelling within the City.”
6/2/
2016

Deny
C-229
808
App
No.

[Sum 497 /
City 8796]

[Sum 498 / City 8797]

[Sum 498 / City 8797]: “Your request
establishes that the requested
accommodation (waiver of the 650’
separation requirement) may allow a CUP
to be granted to enable some of these
properties to continue to operate in
compliance with the CMMC at their
current locations. While this might allow
one or more disabled persons to enjoy the
use of one of these dwellings, I do not find
that the request is necessary to allow one
or more disabled persons to enjoy the use
of a dwelling within the City.”
6/2/
2016

Deny
PA-
16-34
North-
bound +
Raw
650ft
separation;
grandfather;
other

[Sum 501 /
City 9123]

[Sum 502 / City 9124]

[Sum 502 / City 9124]: “Your request
establishes that the requested
accommodation (waiver of the 650’
separation requirement) may allow a CUP
to be granted to enable some of these
properties to continue to operate in
compliance with the CMMC at their
current locations. While this might allow
one or more disabled persons to enjoy the
use of one of these dwellings, I do not find
that the request is necessary to allow one
or more disabled persons to enjoy the use
of a dwelling within the City.”
6/2/
2016

Deny
PA-
16-35
North-
bound +
Raw
650ft
separation;
grandfather;
other

[Sum 505 /
City 9557]

[Sum 506 / City 9558]

[Sum 506 / City 9558]: “Your request
establishes that the requested
6/2/
2016

Deny
C-230
809
App
No.

RA
Applicant
Type of RA
Request
Finding: RA
Requested
by Disabled
Individuals?
Finding: RA
Imposes No
Undue
Burden?
Finding: RA Will Not
Result in Direct Threat
to Health or Safety or
Property Damage?
Finding: RA is Necessary to Provide
Disabled Individuals with Equal
Opportunity?
RA
Decision
Date
Director’s
RA Decision
accommodation (waiver of the 650’
separation requirement) may allow a CUP
to be granted to enable some of these
properties to continue to operate in
compliance with the CMMC at their
current locations. While this might allow
one or more disabled persons to enjoy the
use of one of these dwellings, I do not find
that the request is necessary to allow one
or more disabled persons to enjoy the use
of a dwelling within the City.”
PA-
16-37
North-
bound +
Raw
650ft
separation;
grandfather;
other

[Sum 509 /
City 10009]

[Sum 510 / City 10010]

[Sum 510 / City 10010]: “Your request
establishes that the requested
accommodation (waiver of the 650’
separation requirement) may allow a CUP
to be granted to enable some of these
properties to continue to operate in
compliance with the CMMC at their
current locations. While this might allow
one or more disabled persons to enjoy the
use of one of these dwellings, I do not find
that the request is necessary to allow one
or more disabled persons to enjoy the use
of a dwelling within the City.”
6/2/
2016

Deny
C-231
810
App
No.

[Sum 513 /
City 10704]

[Sum 514 / City 10705]

[Sum 514 / City 10705]: “Your request
establishes that the requested
accommodation (waiver of the 650’
separation requirement) may allow a CUP
to be granted to enable some of these
properties to continue to operate in
compliance with the CMMC at their
current locations. While this might allow
one or more disabled persons to enjoy the
use of one of these dwellings, I do not find
that the request is necessary to allow one
or more disabled persons to enjoy the use
of a dwelling within the City.”
6/2/
2016

Deny
PA-
16-39
North-
bound +
Raw
650ft
separation;
grandfather;
other

[Sum 517 /
City 11402]

[Sum 518 / City 11403]

[Sum 518 / City 11403]: “Your request
establishes that the requested
accommodation (waiver of the 650’
separation requirement) may allow a CUP
to be granted to enable some of these
properties to continue to operate in
compliance with the CMMC at their
current locations. While this might allow
one or more disabled persons to enjoy the
use of one of these dwellings, I do not find
that the request is necessary to allow one
or more disabled persons to enjoy the use
of a dwelling within the City.”
6/2/
2016

Deny
C-232
811
App
No.

[Sum 521 /
City 11911]

[Sum 522 / City 11912]

[Sum 522 / City 11912]: “Your request
establishes that the requested
accommodation (waiver of the 650’
separation requirement) may allow a CUP
to be granted to enable some of these
properties to continue to operate in
compliance with the CMMC at their
current locations. While this might allow
one or more disabled persons to enjoy the
use of one of these dwellings, I do not find
that the request is necessary to allow one
or more disabled persons to enjoy the use
of a dwelling within the City.”
6/2/
2016

Deny
PA-
16-41
Casa Capri
Recovery
650ft
separation
[Sum 524 /
City 12395]

[Sum 525 /
City 12396]

[Sum 525 / City 12396]

[Sum 525 / City 12396]: “Your request to
waive the 650 foot separation
requirement may allow CUPs to be
granted to enable Casa Capri Recovery to
continue to operate In compliance with
the CMMC at the subject properties. While
this action might allow one or more
disabled persons to enjoy the use of one of
these dwellings, I do not find that the
request Is necessary to allow one or more
disabled persons to enjoy the use of a
dwelling within the City.”
6/10/
2016

Deny
C-233
812
App
No.

[Sum 528 /
City 12769]

[Sum 528 / City 12769]

[Sum 528 / City 12769]: “Your request to
waive the 650 foot separation
requirement may allow CUPs to be
granted to enable Windward Way
Recovery to continue to operate in
compliance with the CMMC at the subject
properties. While this action might allow
one or more disabled persons to enjoy the
use of one of these dwellings, I do not find
that the request is necessary to allow one
or more disabled persons to enjoy the use
of a dwelling within the City.”
6/10/
2016

Deny
PA-
16-43
Wind-
ward Way
Recovery
650ft
separation
[Sum 530 /
City 12966]

[Sum 531 /
City 12967]

[Sum 531 / City 12967]

[Sum 531 / City 12967]: “Your request to
waive the 650 foot separation
requirement may allow CUPs to be
granted to enable Windward Way
Recovery to continue to operate in
compliance with the CMMC at the subject
properties. While this action might allow
one or more disabled persons to enjoy the
use of one of these dwellings, I do not find
that the request is necessary to allow one
or more disabled persons to enjoy the use
of a dwelling within the City.”
6/10/
2016

Deny
C-234
813
App
No.

[Sum 534 /
City 13150]

[Sum 534 / City 13150]

[Sum 534 / City 13150]: “Your request to
waive the 650 foot separation
requirement may allow CUPs to be
granted to enable Casa Capri Recovery to
continue to operate In compliance with
the CMMC at the subject properties. While
this action might allow one or more
disabled persons to enjoy the use of one of
these dwellings, I do not find that the
request Is necessary to allow one or more
disabled persons to enjoy the use of a
dwelling within the City.”
6/10/
2016

Deny
PA-
16-63
Insight 650ft
separation
[Sum 536 /
City 15377]

[Sum 537 /
City 15378]

[Sum 538 / City 15379]

[Sum 537 / City 15378]: “The application
established that the waiver of the
separation requirements would allow one
or more disabled individuals to enjoy the
subject dwelling. However, approval of the
request is necessary to allow one or more
disabled individuals to enjoy the use of a
dwelling in the City.”
4/5/
2019

Deny
PA-
17-10
Ohio
House
650ft
separation;
grandfather

[Sum 543 /
City 13547]

[Sum 544 /
City 13548]

[Sum 544 / City 13548]

[Sum 543 / City 13547]: “The application
established that the waiver of the
separation requirement would allow one
or more individuals who are recovering
from drug and alcohol abuse to enjoy the
use of these dwellings. However, approval
of the request is not necessary to allow
one or more individuals who are
11/27/
2017

Deny
C-235 814
App
No.

C-236
815
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.

C-237
816
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 C-238
817
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
C-239
818
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
C-240
819
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

C-241
820
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
C-242
821
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
C-243
822
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 C-244
823
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 C-245
824
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

C-246
825
From: Russell Toler
To: HALLIGAN, MICHELLE; CITY CLERK
Subject: NWWAB Comments for August 17 PC Meeting
Date: Monday, August 17, 2026 11:50:24 AM
Hello NWWAB Team,
Thank you again for all of the work that's gone into these revisions. I think the ODS has improved, and I appreciate the team's willingness to thoughtfully consider public comments.

I think I’ve said everything I want to say in previous letters, so I’ll only mention a few items that I think actually make a difference and can be updated without too much work.

Façade Design B.2
Some façade standards are still not reflecting the intent well:
“Discourage blank walls”
The exceptions to blank walls in B.2(e)2 and C.8(b)2.b completely swallow the standard. Blank walls are allowable as long as they plant some Boston Ivy, paint a mural, or screw in some lattice. Does this mean that, north of the 405, podium buildings could have exposed garage bases rather than being wrapped with leasable space? Such a building would kill the lively streets envisioned throughout the document.
“Reflect the eclectic character of the built environment” Buildings are rarely described as “eclectic” (maybe Jeff Shelton’s buildings in Santa Barbara, though those are absolutely not the result of design codes).

People describe the Eastside as eclectic because all the buildings were designed and built by different people at different times. People who say they like this sort of eclecticism are in favor of variety and the coexistence of different styles and tastes in a given area. This is in contrast to the bland housing tracts in south OC. When people say they like eclectic neighborhoods, I don't think they're imagining the sort of façade breaks and modulations these standards require on each building. Just because every other city has these standards doesn’t mean we have to. In fact, I would wager that if you showed 100 Costa Mesans a set of buildings with these sorts of breaks and modulations and another set with buildings that are coherent and simple, most C-247
826
would prefer the latter. As a side note, I think B.2(b)1 should explicitly state that it does not apply to townhouse projects.

Street-Facing vs. Interior-Facing Units
Section B.3(d)3 may be sufficient if the intent of the standard is truly understood by all parties. But I’ll reiterate my fear: that projects site new buildings to face a new internal street and back up against the existing street. I understand that there is a 48-inch limit on walls along the street, but that is likely an easy standard to justify an exception for once everyone understands that these will protect someone’s backyard.

Other than that, I think this is a great code, especially given that it’s only 25 pages. Some of the concerns I’ve mentioned elsewhere remain (the inherent design issues with townhouse projects and the fact that this is the only type of development feasible and likely under our proposed density maximums south of the 405, etc.). But you’ve clearly read through the public’s comments and made meaningful and thoughtful changes where needed.

Thanks!
Russell Toler
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.

C-248
827
From: George Sakioka
To: HARLAN, JEFFREY; ZICH, JON; KLEPACK, KAREN; ROJAS, JOHNNY; VALLARTA, ANGELY; MARTINEZ, DAVID;

DICKSON, ROBERT
Cc: TAI, CARRIE; MCGILL, ANNA; CARON, MARTINA; YEAGER, CHRISTOPHER; HALLIGAN, MICHELLE; Mark Sakioka; CMeany; Forbes, Amy R.; ELesk
Subject: Study Session - (NWWAB) Zoning Code Amendment Items Date: Sunday, August 16, 2026 9:04:14 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Dear Chair Harlan and members of the Costa Mesa Planning Commission, We are looking forward to Monday’s Planning Commission meeting. Our team is in the process of reviewing the updated NWWAB documents that were released at the end of last week, and we applaud the City’s efforts to adopt clear, consistent, usable standards that will lead to high-quality, well-designed housing, to serve Costa Mesa for generations to come.

We have not had a chance to review the complete package of documents, but at a high level, we think it is important that the final approvals incorporate some flexibility to address the needs of larger scaled master planned development, and we hope the Planning Commission will consider some changes to ensure consistency across various plans and zoning requirements.

1. Open Space. The draft Mixed-Use Overlay District (MUOD) standards require that 30% of each lot be kept as usable open space. We appreciate the City’s commitment to open space and believe that well designed and substantial open space is a critical element of a successful housing project.

However, the City
has also set goals for development of a significant amount of new housing. As a practical matter, the open space goals may make it impossible to accomplish the City’s housing goals. We suggest the City consider additional flexibility in both the minimum amount of open space required and in the types of spaces that are recognized as open space, particularly on Housing Element sites.

2. Streets. The City’s Objective Design Standards require that all private streets be designed to meet the same standards as publicly dedicated local or collector public streets.

This standard would require streets that are at least 60’ wide. In the context of a larger scale master planned community this mandate will result in streets that prioritize automobiles over a pedestrian’s neighborhood experience.

We suggest that, so long as internal streets within a master planned community meet fire department and safety requirements, they could be allowed to have different street standards.

3. Future Meetings with Staff. We appreciate all of staff’s efforts over the last few months and look forward to meeting with them later this week to discuss the updated documents, including the points above, as well as to review the C-249
828
practicalities of some of the design mandates. Our goal is to be able to implement the City’s hard work in the context of a vibrant master-planned neighborhood in North Costa Mesa that is a place we can all be proud of.

We look forward to working with all of you soon.

Best always,

George

George M.K. Sakioka
Sakioka Company, LLC

14850 Sunflower Avenue
Santa Ana, CA 92707
714-545-8611
[email protected]

NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in this communication (and any attachments) is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, your disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately, then delete this communication and any attachment.

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.

C-250
829
From: Casey Griffin
To: MCGILL, ANNA; Jennifer Farrell - Rutan ([email protected]); Dave Wilson ([email protected]) Cc: HALLIGAN, MICHELLE; INLOES, DANIEL; TAI, CARRIE
Subject: RE: 2850 Harbor
Date: Sunday, August 16, 2026 7:41:35 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
image009.png
image010.png
FYI

I fill forward a revised version of this email to the Public Comments email address provided in the Agenda.

Thank you

From: Casey Griffin
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2026 4:08 PM
To: MCGILL, ANNA <[email protected]>; Jennifer Farrell - Rutan ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Dave Wilson ([email protected]) <[email protected]> Cc: HALLIGAN, MICHELLE <[email protected]>; INLOES, DANIEL <[email protected]>; TAI, CARRIE <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 2850 Harbor

Anna and Carrie,

I plan on attending Monday night and look forward to seeing you then.

In short, my concern with the proposed 30 du/ac maximum density is that it may unintentionally make redevelopment of the property financially infeasible, particularly if the City’s objective is to encourage projects that utilize the State Density Bonus and provide a meaningful affordable housing component.

As I’m sure you are aware, the
economics of an affordable housing component depend heavily on the market-rate units within the project. Those market-rate units effectively support the cost of delivering the affordable units.

At a base density of only 30 du/ac, I am concerned
there simply are not enough market-rate units to make a quality mixed-income project economically viable.

Based on our preliminary analysis, I believe a density in the 60+ du/ac range would provide a much more realistic opportunity to support the level of affordable housing the City is seeking while also encouraging actual redevelopment of the site.

C-251
830
I also believe the higher density is more appropriate from a land-use and urban- planning perspective. Harbor Boulevard is one of Orange County’s major commercial and transportation corridors and, in my view, is precisely where the City should be concentrating additional housing density. A project limited to 30 du/ac could ultimately be significantly under-scaled for such a prominent location and inconsistent with the character and intensity of other developments the City has already approved along Harbor Boulevard, including Lux Costa Mesa.

My concern is that by setting the
base density too low, the City could inadvertently accomplish the opposite of what the overlay is intended to achieve: rather than facilitating new housing and affordable units, the economics may discourage property owners from pursuing redevelopment altogether.

For that reason, I would encourage the City to consider increasing the allowable base density to at least 60 du/ac.

Doing so would improve the economic feasibility of
redevelopment, create greater opportunity for affordable housing, and establish a scale of development that I believe is more appropriate for the long-term vision of Harbor Boulevard.

Please feel free to call me with any questions. I appreciate the opportunity to provide input and look forward to seeing you Monday night.

Casey

From: MCGILL, ANNA <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2026 12:25 PM
To: Casey Griffin <[email protected]>; Jennifer Farrell - Rutan ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Dave Wilson ([email protected]) <[email protected]> Cc: HALLIGAN, MICHELLE <[email protected]>; INLOES, DANIEL <[email protected]>; TAI, CARRIE <[email protected]> Subject: Re: 2850 Harbor

Hi Casey (and thanks Carrie for the introduction),

As Carrie mentioned below, the density ranges along Harbor for Measure K sites (non-Housing Element sites) is 30 du/acre. I've included a map that more clearly illustrates the density ranges. As Carrie noted, please attend the NWWAB study session next Monday (8.17).

In the meantime, feel free to reach out to Michelle/myself if you have specific questions about your property or potential uses of State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) to increase the project density.

Thanks,

Anna McGill, AICP
Planning Manager- Advanced Planning & Housing
C-252
831

Community Development Department (formerly known as the Economic and Development Services Department)
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626 |
Cell: (949) 922-6964 Direct: (714) 754-5609

"The City of Costa Mesa serves our residents, businesses and visitors while promoting a safe, inclusive, and vibrant community."

City Hall is open to the public 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and alternating Fridays, except specified holidays. Appointments can be made online at www.costamesaca.gov/appointments.

From: TAI, CARRIE <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2026 11:44 AM
To: Casey Griffin <[email protected]>; INLOES, DANIEL <[email protected]>; MCGILL, ANNA <[email protected]>; HALLIGAN, MICHELLE <[email protected]>
Cc: Jennifer Farrell - Rutan ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Dave Wilson ([email protected]) <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 2850 Harbor

Hi Casey,

Yes, the density ranges across the NWWAB effort is 30-60 du/ac and I mentioned they were different across the different corridors. The density ranges are largely dependent on available infrastructure, and parcel sizes.

Yes, the ranges on Harbor appear to be 30
du/ac. One path is to explore density bonus options, which opens the door to higher density and also provides waivers and concessions.

I am also connecting you with our Advanced Planning team, Michelle and Anna, here, who are overseeing the NWWAB effort and can provide guidance on how to direct comments. There is a study session on this Monday at Planning Commission and as we C-253
832
mentioned, the packet was just posted. https://costamesa.legistar.com/View.ashx? M=A&ID=1436219&GUID=7764137B-AF15-4922-8FC5-93FCC2FD99EB

Carrie Tai, AICP
Director
City of Costa Mesa | Community Development Department
(714) 754-5270
77 Fair Drive | Costa Mesa | CA 92626

“The City of Costa Mesa serves our residents, businesses and visitors while promoting a safe, inclusive, and vibrant community.”

Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank you.

From: Casey Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2026 11:18 AM
To: TAI, CARRIE <[email protected]>; INLOES, DANIEL <[email protected]>
Cc: Jennifer Farrell - Rutan ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Dave Wilson ([email protected]) <[email protected]>
Subject: 2850 Harbor

Carrie and Daniel,

I reached out to our hotel partner in Las Vegas, and they expect to provide their C-254
833
feedback by the end of next week. I will share that with you as soon as I receive it.

Separately, I wanted to follow up on the MUDO density discussion. You mentioned a potential range of 30–60 du/ac; however, based on our review of the information available on the website, it appears the maximum density may actually be at the lower end of that range—approximately 30 du/ac. Can you confirm whether we are interpreting that correctly?
If so, I think there may be a compelling case for
reconsidering the allowable density along Harbor Boulevard. A maximum of 30 du/ac seems quite low given the scale, visibility, and importance of the Harbor Boulevard corridor, particularly when compared with the density and character of other projects along Harbor, such as Lux Costa Mesa.

If the MUDO standards are still being finalized, is there an opportunity to increase the allowable density along Harbor Boulevard—potentially closer to the upper end of the 30–60 du/ac range? Doing so could encourage higher-quality projects, make redevelopment more economically viable, and create a more cohesive development pattern along the corridor.

If there is still an opportunity to influence the density standards, we would very much like to discuss it with you.

Thank you,

Casey

Casey Griffin
Logan Asset Management
30262 Crown Valley Pkwy., Suite B-410
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
(949) 503-3400 ext 2
(949) 307-6883 cell
http://www.loganam.com
C-255
834
Real Estate Broker
CA license #00840708

Privileged And Confidential Communication.

This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.

C-256
835
From: Austin Mattison
To: HALLIGAN, MICHELLE
Subject: Re: Comment on the NWWAB plan
Date: Monday, August 10, 2026 4:59:44 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Yes
Best,
Austin
On Tue, Aug 4, 2026 at 4:56 PM HALLIGAN, MICHELLE
<[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Austin,

Did you intend the email below to be a public comment on the Neighborhoods Where We All Belong Draft Program Environmental Impact Report or for a future Planning Commission meeting about Neighborhoods Where We All Belong?

Michelle Halligan
Senior Planner
City of Costa Mesa | Community Development Department
(formerly Economic and Development Services)
77 Fair Drive 2nd Floor| Costa Mesa | CA 92626 | (714) 754- 5608

“The City of Costa Mesa serves our residents, businesses and visitors while promoting a safe, inclusive, and vibrant community.”

PleASe ConSiDer tHe environMent beFore Printing tHiS eMAil. tHAnk you.

Hi Michelle,
Please pass these comments on to the Planning Commission, City Council, and the Mayor:

Mayor Stephens, Council Members, and Planning Commissioners, My name is Austin Mattison, and I am a resident of West Costa Mesa. While I agree that C-257
836
Costa Mesa must address housing needs—and I support thoughtful redevelopment—I am deeply concerned about the current "Neighborhoods Where We All Belong" proposal. As written, this plan disproportionately places the city's housing burden onto West Costa Mesa.

This directly contradicts the core intentions of the State's Housing Element guidelines, which mandate that high-density rezoning be concentrated near major transit corridors and transportation centers, not tucked away into established, independent neighborhoods. By forcing it here, the proposal risks undermining the exact qualities that make our community one of the most unique, livable areas in Orange County.

But this
is not another NIBMY email; we need more affordable housing. The problem only focuses on compliance, meanwhile ignoring aspects that will create huge future livability issues.

The City's vision heavily promotes mixed-use development as a tool to create walkable neighborhoods. However, the economic reality is very different. Because residential development yields the highest returns, developers naturally prioritize housing over retail.

Consequently, projects advertised as "live-work" often deliver little to no meaningful commercial space. I see this firsthand as a resident of the Lighthouse development, where not a single one of the 40+ units is occupied by a commercial business today.

West Costa Mesa already possesses authentic walkability along 19th Street and Placentia Avenue, where residents can easily walk to grocery stores, coffee shops, restaurants, and entertainment venues. These organic, local businesses cannot simply be engineered later through design guidelines or ground-floor retail mandates. In fact, replacing these commercial properties with high-density residential projects will reduce walkability by forcing residents to drive farther for daily necessities.

Furthermore, this plan seriously underestimates the importance of "third places"—the informal gathering spaces that build community, culture, and social connection. West Costa Mesa’s character was built by artists, musicians, entrepreneurs, and small businesses, not by luxury apartment projects.

Local institutions like the Quonset Hut Village on 17th Street, The Wayfarer, the Tiki Bar, Wilson Coffee, MoonGoat, Eagle & Pig, and Trenta are not accidental. They exist because West Costa Mesa has historically offered older commercial buildings, industrial spaces, and modest strip centers that remain affordable enough for independent businesses to survive and grow. This is the exact environment where legendary Costa Mesa brands like Volcom and RVCA got their start.

The economics of the proposed rezoning place these invaluable community assets at immense risk. When investors can replace aging commercial properties with high-density luxury apartments, culture and creativity cannot compete with those financial returns. Over time, the artist villages, local music venues, and independent markets will disappear, replaced by high-return projects that contribute nothing to our culture.

Housing units alone do not create community; third places do. If every aging shopping center and industrial building becomes housing, we may meet state housing targets while simultaneously destroying the very ingredients that make Costa Mesa a desirable place to live.

If the City moves forward with these zoning changes, I respectfully ask that four revisions C-258
837
be considered:

1. Provide stronger protections for existing neighborhood-serving retail centers that offer daily necessities. Don't create food deserts and more car trips.

2. Require meaningful, economically viable commercial space within mixed-use developments, rather than allowing token retail components that remain permanently vacant.

3. Identify and protect cultural, artistic, and entertainment uses that contribute directly to Costa Mesa's identity.

4. Evaluate the cumulative impacts of commercial and industrial land conversion on neighborhood livability, walkability, entrepreneurship, and culture—not just housing production.

Cities must evolve, but housing alone does not make a great city. The question before you should not just be how many units we can build, but what kind of city will remain once they are built. Once our unique character, local businesses, and authentic culture are lost, they cannot be rebuilt. If this plan goes forward unaltered, it will strip away the soul of our neighborhood and leave us looking no different than the endless housing of Yorba Linda or the sterile blandness of Aliso Viejo. Costa Mesa is better than that, and we can do better than this plan. I urge you to revise this proposal to protect our neighborhood-serving retail and creative spaces before they are gone for good.

Thank you for your consideration,
Austin Mattison
West Costa Mesa Resident

C-259
838

Glossary of Housing Terms
Appendix D
Element
Update
839

Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms D-1
Glossary of Housing Terms
Above-Moderate-Income Household. A household with an annual income usually greater than 120% of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest availab le legibility limits established by the U.S. Department of housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) : Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) is a legal requirement that federal agencies and federal grantees further the purposes of the Fair Housing Act. AFFH means "taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome pat terns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.

Apartment. An apartment is one (1) or more rooms in an apartment house or dwelling occupied or intended or designated for occupancy by one (1) family for sleeping or living purposes and containing one (1) kitchen.

Assisted Housing . Generally multi -family rental housing, but sometimes single -family ownership units, whose construction, financing, sales prices, or rents have been subsidized by federal, state, or local housing programs including, but not limited to Federal state, or lo cal housing programs including, but not limited to Federal Section 8 (new construction, substantial rehabilitation, and loan management set -asides), Federal Sections 213, 236, and 202, Federal Sections 221 (d) (3) (below -market interest rate program), Federal Sections 101 (rent supplement assistance), CDBG, FmHA Sections 515, multi -family mortgage revenue bond programs, local redevelopment and in lieu fee programs, and units developed pursuant to local inclusionary housing and density bonus programs.

Below-Market-Rate (BMR). Any housing unit specifically priced to be sold or rented to low - or moderate- income households for an amount less than the fair -market value of the unit. Both the State of California and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development set standards for determining which households qualify as “low income” or “moderate income.” (2) The financing of housing at less than prevailing interest rates.

Build-Out. That level of urban development characterized by full occupancy of all developable sites in accordance with the General Plan; the maximum level of development envisioned by the General Plan.

Build-out does not assume that each parcel is developed to include all floor area or housing units possible under zoning regulations.
840

Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms D-2
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) . A grant program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on a formula basis for entitled communities and administered by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for non -entitled jurisdictions. This grant allots money to cities and counties for housing rehabilitation and community development, including public facilities and economic development.

Condominium. A structure of two or more units, the interior spaces of which are individually owned; the balance of the property (both land and building) is owned in common by the owners of the individual units. (See “Townhouse.”)
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) . A term used to describe restrictive limitations that may be placed on property and its use, and which usually are made a condition of holding title or lease.

Deed. A legal document which affects the transfer of ownership of real estate from the seller to the buyer.

Density Bonus. The allocation of development rights that allow a parcel to accommodate additional square footage or additional residential units beyond the maximum for which the parcel is zoned, usually in exchange for the provision or preservation of an amenity at the same site or at another location.

Density, Residential . The number of permanent residential dwelling units per acre of land. Densities specified in the General Plan may be expressed in units per gross acre or per net developable acre.

Developable Land. Land that is suitable as a location for structures and that can be developed free of hazards to, and without disruption of, or significant impact on, natural resource areas.

Down Payment. Money paid by a buyer from his own funds, as opposed to that portion of the purchase price which is financed.

Duplex. A detached building under single ownership that is designed for occupation as the residence of two families living independently of each other.

Dwelling Unit (DU). A building or portion of a building containing one or more rooms, designed for, or used by one family for living or sleeping purposes, and having a separate bathroom and only one kitchen or kitchenette. See Housing Unit.

Elderly Housing . Typically, one - and two -bedroom apartments or condominiums designed to meet the needs of persons 62 years of age and older or, if more than 150 units, persons 55 years of age and older, and restricted to occupancy by them.

Emergency Shelter. A facility that provides immediate and short -term housing and supplemental services for the homeless. Shelters come in many sizes, but an optimum size is considered to be 20 to 40 beds.

Supplemental services may include food, counseling, and access to other social programs. (See “Homeless” and “Transitional Housing.”)
841

Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms D-3
Extremely Low -Income Household. A household with an annual income equal to or less than 30% of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.

Fair Market Rent . The rent, including utility allowances, determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for purposed of administering the Section 8 Program.

Family. (1) Two or more persons related by birth, marriage, or adoption [U.S. Bureau of the Census]. (2) An Individual or a group of persons living together who constitute a bona fide single -family housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit, not including a fraternity , sorority, club, or other group of persons occupying a hotel, lodging house or institution of any kind [Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, General Plan Guidelines].

General Plan . A comprehensive, long -term plan mandated by State Planning Law for the physical development of a city or county and any land outside its boundaries which, in its judgment, bears relation to its planning. The plan shall consist of seven required elements: land use, circulation, open space, conservation, housing, safety, and noise. The plan must include a statement of development policies and a diagram or diagrams illustrating the policies.

Goal. A general, overall, and ultimate purpose, aim, or end toward which the City will direct effort.

Green Building. Green or sustainable building is the practice of creating healthier and more resource - efficient models of construction, renovation, operation, maintenance, and demolition. (US Environmental Protection Agency)
Historic Preservation. The preservation of historically significant structures and neighborhoods until such time as, and in order to facilitate, restoration and rehabilitation of the building(s) to a former condition.

Historic Property. A historic property is a structure or site that has significant historic, architectural, or cultural value.

Household. All those persons—related or unrelated—who occupy a single housing unit. (See “Family.”) Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) . The State agency that has principal responsibility for assessing, planning for, and assisting communities to meet the needs of low -and moderate-income households.

Housing Element. One of the seven State-mandated elements of a local general plan, it assesses the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community, identifies potential sites adequate to provide the amount and kind of housing needed, and co ntains adopted goals, policies, and 842

Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms D-4
implementation programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. Under State law, Housing Elements must be updated every five years.

Housing Payment . For ownership housing, this is defined as the mortgage payment, property taxes, insurance, and utilities. For rental housing this is defined as rent and utilities.

Housing Ratio . The ratio of the monthly housing payment to total gross monthly income; also called Payment-to-Income Ratio or Front-End Ratio.

Housing Unit. The place of permanent or customary abode of a person or family. A housing unit may be a single-family dwelling, a multi -family dwelling, a condominium, a modular home, a mobile home, a cooperative, or any other residential unit considered real property under State law.

Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of (HUD) . A cabinet -level department of the federal government that administers housing and community development programs.

Implementing Policies. The City’s statements of its commitments to consistent actions.

Implementation. Actions, procedures, programs, or techniques that carry out policies.

Infill Development. The development of new housing or other buildings on scattered vacant lots in a built- up area or on new building parcels created by permitted lot splits.

Jobs-Housing Balance. A ratio used to describe the adequacy of the housing supply within a defined area to meet the needs of persons working within the same area. The General Plan uses SCAG’s definition which is a job total equal to 1.2 times the number of housing units within the area under consideration.

Land Use Classification. A system for classifying and designating the appropriate use of properties.

Live-Work Units. Buildings or spaces within buildings that are used jointly for commercial and residential purposes where the residential use of the space is secondary or accessory to the primary use as a place of work.

Low-Income Household. A household with an annual income usually no greater than51% -80% of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.

Low-income Housing Tax Credits . Tax reductions provided by the federal and State governments for investors in housing for low-income households.

Manufactured Housing. Residential structures that are constructed entirely in the factory, and which since June 15, 1976, have been regulated by the federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards 843

Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms D-5
Act of 1974 under the administration of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (See “Mobile home” and “Modular Unit.”)
Mixed-Use. Properties on which various uses, such as office, commercial, institutional, and residential, are combined in a single building or on a single site in an integrated development project with significant functional interrelationships and a coherent physica l design. A “single site” may include contiguous properties.

Moderate-Income Household. A household with an annual income usually no greater than 81% -120% of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.

Monthly Housing Expense. Total principal, interest, taxes, and insurance paid by the borrower on a monthly basis. Used with gross income to determine affordability.

Multiple Family Building. A detached building designed and used exclusively as a dwelling by three or more families occupying separate suites.

Ordinance. A law or regulation set forth and adopted by a governmental authority, usually a city or county.

Overcrowded Housing Unit. A housing unit in which the members of the household, or group are prevented from the enjoyment of privacy because of small room size and housing size. The U.S. Bureau of Census defines an overcrowded housing unit as one which is occupied by more than one person per room.

Parcel. A lot or tract of land.

Planning Area. The area directly addressed by the general plan. A city’s planning area typically encompasses the city limits and potentially annexable land within its sphere of influence.

Policy. A specific statement of principle or of guiding actions that implies clear commitment but is not mandatory. A general direction that a governmental agency sets to follow, in order to meet its objectives before undertaking an action program. (See “Program.”)
Poverty Level. As used by the U.S. Census, families and unrelated individuals are classified as being above or below the poverty level based on a poverty index that provides a range of income cutoffs or “poverty thresholds” varying by size of family, number of children, and age of householder. The income cutoffs are updated each year to reflect the change in the Consumer Price Index.

Program. An action, activity, or strategy carried out in response to adopted policy to achieve a specific goal or objective. Policies and programs establish the “who,” “how” and “when” for carrying out the “what” and “where” of goals and objectives.
844

Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms D-6
Redevelop. To demolish existing buildings; or to increase the overall floor area existing on a property; or both; irrespective of whether a change occurs in land use.

Regional. Pertaining to activities or economies at a scale greater than that of a single jurisdiction and affecting a broad geographic area.

Regional Housing Needs Assessment. A quantification by the local council of governments of existing and projected housing need, by household income group, for all localities within a region.

Rehabilitation. The repair, preservation, and/or improvement of substandard housing.

Residential. Land designated in the General Plan and zoning ordinance for building consisting of dwelling units. May be improved, vacant, or unimproved. (See “Dwelling Unit.”) Residential Care Facility. A facility that provides 24-hour care and supervision to its residents.

Residential, Multiple Family. Usually three or more dwelling units on a single site, which may be in the same or separate buildings.

Residential, Single-Family. A single dwelling unit on a building site.

Retrofit. To add materials and/or devices to an existing building or system to improve its operation, safety, or efficiency. Buildings have been retrofitted to use solar energy and to strengthen their ability to withstand earthquakes, for example.

Rezoning. An amendment to the map to effect a change in the nature, density, or intensity of uses allowed in a zoning district and/or on a designated parcel or land area.

Second Unit . A self -contained living unit, either attached to or detached from, and in addition to, the primary residential unit on a single lot. “Granny Flat” is one type of second unit.

Section 8 Rental Assistance Program. A federal (HUD) rent-subsidy program that is one of the main sources of federal housing assistance for low -income households. The program operates by providing “housing assistance payments” to owners, developers, and public housing agencies to make up th e difference between the “Fair Market Rent” of a unit (set by HUD) and the household’s contribution toward the rent, which is calculated at 30% of the household’s adjusted gross monthly income (GMI). “Section 8” includes programs for new construction, existing housing, and substantial or moderate housing rehabilitation.

Shared Living Facility . The occupancy of a dwelling unit by persons of more than one family in order to reduce housing expenses and provide social contact, mutual support, and assistance. Shared living facilities serving six or fewer persons are permitted in all residential dis tricts by Section 1566.3 of the California Health and Safety Code.
845

Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms D-7
Single-Family Dwelling, Attached . A dwelling unit occupied or intended for occupancy by only one household that is structurally connected with at least one other such dwelling unit. (See “Townhouse.”) Single-Family Dwelling, Detached . A dwelling unit occupied or intended for occupancy by only one household that is structurally independent from any other such dwelling unit or structure intended for residential or other use. (See “Family.”)
Single Room Occupancy (SRO). A single room, typically 80-250 square feet, with a sink and closet, but which requires the occupant to share a communal bathroom, shower, and kitchen.

Subsidize. To assist by payment of a sum of money or by the granting to terms or favors that reduces the need for monetary expenditures. Housing subsidies may take the forms or mortgage interest deductions or tax credits from federal and/or state income taxes, sale, or lease at less than market value of land to be used for the construction of housing, payments to supplement a minimum affordable rent, and the like.

Substandard Housing. Residential dwellings that, because of their physical condition, do not provide safe and sanitary housing.

Supportive Housing. Housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 53260(d), and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community. “Target population" means adults with low incomes having one or more disabilities, including mental illness, HIV or AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic health conditions, or individuals eligible for services provided under the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act and may, among other populations, include families with children, elderly persons, young adults aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans, or homeless people. [California Health and Safety Code Sections 50675.14(b) and 53260(d)] Target Areas . Specifically, designated sections of the community where loans and grants are made to bring about a specific outcome, such as the rehabilitation of housing affordable by Very -Low and Low - income households.

Tax Increment . Additional tax revenues that result from increases in property values within a redevelopment area. State law permits the tax increment to be earmarked for redevelopment purposes but requires at least 20 percent to be used to increase and improve the comm unity’s supply of very low - and low-income housing.

Tenure. A housing unit is owner-occupied if the owner or co-owner lives in the unit, even if it is mortgaged or not fully paid for. A cooperative or condominium unit is owner-occupied only if the owner or co-owner lives in it. All other occupied units are classified as renter-occupied including units rented for cash rent and those occupied without payment of cash rent.
846

Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms D-8
Townhouse . A townhouse is a dwelling unit located in a group of three (3) or more attached dwelling units with no dwelling unit located above or below another and with each dwelling unit having its own exterior entrance.

Transitional Housing. Shelter provided to the homeless for an extended period, often as long as 18 months, and generally integrated with other social services and counseling programs to assist in the transition to self-sufficiency through the acquisition of a stable income and permanent housing. (See “Homeless” and “Emergency Shelter.”)
Undevelopable. Specific areas where topographic, geologic, and/or superficial soil conditions indicate a significant danger to future occupants and a liability to the City.

847

Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms D-9
Acronyms Used
ACS: American Community Survey
BMPs: Best Management Practices
CALTRANS: California Department of Transportation
CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act
CHAS: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
CIP: Capital Improvement Program
DDS: Department of Developmental Services
DIF: Development Impact Fee
DU/AC: Dwelling Units Per Acre
EDD: California Employment Development Department
FAR: Floor Area Ratio
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency
HCD: Department of Housing and Community Development
HOA: Homeowners Association
HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development
LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission
MFI: Median Family Income
NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
RTFH: Regional Task Force on the Homeless
RTP: Regional Transportation Plan
SCAG: Southern California Association of Governments
SPA: Sectional Planning Area
STF: Summary Tape File (U.S. Census)
TOD: Transit-Oriented Development
TDM: Transportation Demand Management
TSM: Transportation Systems Management
WCP: Water Conservation Plan

848
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2026-24

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY 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 (PCTY-26-0030) TO ADD ADDITIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT SITES TO THE

SITES INVENTORY AND ASSOCIATED REVISIONS

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 (PCTY-26-0030) to identify and add additional Housing Element Opportunity Sites to the Housing Element Candidates Sites Inventory in order to achieve capacity sufficient to meet the Sixth Housing Element Cycle (2021-2029) Regional Housing Needs Allocation, following no net loss findings made by the City Council on March 17, 2026, and honor requests made by property owners to either be removed or added to the Housing Element Sites Inventory following the March 17, 2026 City Council public hearing as well as incorporate associated revisions; and 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 that city's jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa was assigned an allocation of 11,760 housing units as its share of the regional housing needs assessment (RHNA for the Sixth Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65350 et. seq., this Housing Element Update constitutes a General Plan Amendment; and 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 and again on March 17, 2026 by Resolution No. 2026-07 to remove 17 Housing Element Opportunity Sites and add two sites-both within the boundary of Resolution No. PC-2026-24 Page 1 of 404
ATTACHMENT 2
849
Measure K-to the Housing Element Candidates Sites Analysis at the request of the respective property owners; and
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2026, the Attorney General of California, filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint For declarative and injunctive relief, ordering the City to adopt a compliant Housing Element and complete necessary rezoning of Housing Element Inventory sites within 120 days and to ensure that the City's Sixth Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element meets the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation goals, as determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the revision to the Housing Element of the General Plan, including identifying adequate sites to maintain capacity to meet RHNA, as well as the addition and removal of Housing Element Opportunity Sites- within the boundary of Measure K-to the Housing Element Candidate Sites Analysis at the request of the respective property owners, may significantly impact any agency or special district within or abutting the City of Costa Mesa and does constitute a major amendment to the General Plan within the meaning of Government Code Section 65352; and
WHEREAS, this amendment to the Housing Element is necessary to identify and add additional Housing Element Opportunity Sites to the Housing Element Candidates Sites Inventory in order to achieve capacity sufficient to meet the Sixth Housing Element Cycle (2021-2029) Regional Housing Needs Allocation, following no net loss findings made by the City on March 17, 2026, and honor requests made by property owners to either be removed or added to the Housing Element Sites Inventory; and WHEREAS, nonvacant sites in the City continue to be redeveloped for housing, Housing Element Sites have been analyzed for redevelopment potential, and therefore existing development is not presumed to impede additional residential development; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on August 17,2026, with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; and
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 Resolution No. PC-2026-24 Page 2 of 404
850
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, and the action to add/remove Housing Element sites falls within the capacity studied under this MND and MMRP; and
WHEREAS, on July 1, 2025, a new statutory CEQA exemption, Public Resources Code Section 2'l080.085(a) (adopted by SB 131) 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; and
WHEREAS, 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, and are therefore are statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21 080.085(a), an therefore additional environmental review is not required for this amendment to the Housing Element; and
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 after 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, and direct staff to incorporate minor revisions in response to the California Department of Housing and Community Development comments and the public review period, prior to City Council consideration and adoption.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon the activity as described in the staff report, and compliance of all applicable federal, state, and local 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 Resolution No. PC-2026-24 Page 3 of 404
851
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 I 7th day of August, 2026.

Je arlan. Chair
Costa Mesa Planning Commission
Resolution No. PC-2026-24 Page 4 of 404
852

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-2026-24 was passed and adopted at a special meeting of the City of Costa Meisa Planning Commission held on August 17, 2026, by the following votes:

AYES: Harlan, Andrade, Klepack, Martinez, Rojas
NOES: Zich, Dickson
ABSENT: None
ABST AIN: None
rie cretary
Costa Mesa Planning Commission
Resolution No. PC-2026-24 Page 5 of 404
853

PLEASE NOTE, EXHIBIT A – HOUSING ELEMENT
2021-2029 CAN BE FOUND ONLINE WITH THE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON 8/17/2026.
854
I
in
:E u
::,
Slater Ave
;;; ,- q, 0
New\\0�
II' ✓qrdines
Ellis Ave
Garfield Ave
Yorktown Ave
pqcifr le Coast Hwy
W Ba/boa Blvd
SOURCE: City of Costa Mesa, Orange County Sanitation District, Open Street Map 0 0.5
---�=-�:=1 Miles

0.25 'l!'latner Ave
W Segerstrom Ave
tJ'I in
en 3: ., C:
-�C/1
"iii ::,
u.
!:(? <J)
Cliff Dr
WCoastHW'/ a
[�
"iii
t
et::
<J)
f
-- WWarnerAve ---
!
w Oyer Rd E Dyer Rd
in � ., 3: 0
<J)
Big Ca0,: 9>�
in
C:
"iii
::;;
<J)
., .,
.c E
�
Bison Ave
D Costa Mesa City Boundary
D Parcel Boundaries
D Housing Element Parcel
� New Housing Element Parcel
D Measure K Sites
Housing Element Opportunity Sites
Neighborhoods Where We All Belong Zoning Updates and Housing Element Implementation ATTACHMENT 3
855
Ta
sk
Reduce Pollution
Exposure
Provide Safe &
Sanitary Homes
Enhance Community
Assets
Increase Physical
Activity
Ensure Access to
Healthy Foods
Address
"Compounded" Risks
Promote Civic
Engagement
Policy
Housing Goal #1: Preserve and enhance the City’s existing housing supply.

Policy CON-2.A.9: Encourage waste management programs that promote waste reduction and recycling to minimize materials sent to landfills. Maintain robust programs that encourage residents and businesses to reduce, reuse, recycle, and compost, prioritizing education programs directed toward designated environmental justice communities.

HOU-1.2: Mi
nimize the displacement risk for existing residents when considering approval of future redevelopment and public projects.

HOU-1.3: Pri
oritize enforcement of City regulations regarding derelict or abandoned vehicles, outdoor storage, substandard or illegal construction and establish regulations to abate blighted or substantially unmaintained properties, particularly when any of the above is deemed to constitute a health, safety, or fire hazard.

HOU-1.4: Es
tablish housing programs and code enforcement as a high priority and provide adequate funding and staffing to support those programs.

Hous
ing Goal #2: Facilitate the creation and availability of housing for residents at all income levels and for those with special housing needs.

HOU-2.1: Fa
cilitate the development of housing that meets the needs of all segments of the population including affordable housing and households with specialized needs.

HOU-2.2: Promote the use of State density bonus provisions to encourage the development of affordable housing for lower and moderate-inco me households, as well as senior housing through the dissemination of informational materials and discussions with project applicants.

HOU-2.3: Monitor the implementation of the City’s ordinances, codes, policies, and p
rocedures to ensure they comply with State requirements for “reasonable accommodation” for disabled persons and all fair housing laws.

HOU-2-4: Encourage housing programs and future actions that address the need for affordable housing options as well as the housing needs of Costa Mesa’s senior resident population and the large households population.

Housing Goal #3: Identify adequate, suitable sites for residential use and development to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) at all income levels and promote a range of housing types to meet the needs of all segments of the Costa Mesa community.

Housing Goal #4: Provide housing opportunities to residents of all social and economic segments of the community without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability/medical conditions, national origin or ancestry, marital status, age, household composition or size, source of income, or any other arbitrary factors.

HOU-4.1: Support equal housing opportunities as expressed in Federal and State fair housing laws.

City of Costa Mesa
Environmental Justice Policies: HOUSING ELEMENT

EJ TOPICS
-4-
Attachment 4
856
HOU-4. 2: Promote actions and programs that provide fair housing and counseling services and other housing assistance programs for all Costa Mesa residents in an effort to remove barriers and promote access to affordable housing in the City as funding is available.

H
OU-4.
3: Encourage and support the construction, maintenance and preservation of residential developments which will meet the needs of families and individuals with specialized housing requirements, including those with developmental disabilities.

HOU-X.X: Promote community involvement in the development and implementation of housing programs and actions. Outreach should facilititate participation of residents within designated environmental justice communities.

Existing Policy
Revised Policy
New Policy
-5-
857
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - CALIFORNIA HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov

August 21, 2026

Anna McGill, Planning Manager
Advanced Planning and Housing Division
Economic and Development Services Department
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, Ca 92626

Dear Anna McGill:

RE: City of Costa Mesa 6
th Cycle (2021-2029) Amendments to the Housing
Element and Rezones

Thank you for submitting the City of Costa Mesa’s (City) draft amendment to the housing element that was received on June 24, 2026 along with revisions received on August 20, 2026. The revisions were posted and made available to the public for seven days prior to review. In addition, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) received Ordinances Title 13 and 9, revisions to the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan and the Mixed-Use Overlay District, including proposed revisions, and various other documents (Rezoning Documents). These Rezoning Documents are intended to make zoning available to accommodate the regional housing need allocation (RHNA). HCD also received public comments from Disability Rights, the Public Interest Law Project, and the Law Office of Autumn Elliott, pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c). Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, HCD is reporting the results of its review.

On May 9, 2023, HCD found the adopted housing element met the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq). However, the housing element could not be found in substantial compliance until the City has adopted and completed the necessary rezones to accommodate the RHNA and comply with various statutory requirements. This draft amendment does not impact HCD’s May 9, 2023, finding that the element meets statutory requirements. However, the element still cannot be found in substantial compliance until the City has adopted the draft amendments and completed necessary rezones to meet all statutory requirements and make zoning available to accommodate the RHNA. In accordance with recently amended state law, detailed below, the adopted housing element will substantially comply with State Housing Element Law only after rezoning is complete and all draft amendments are adopted, submitted to, and approved by HCD.

858
Anna McGill, Planning Manager

Page 2 ends

Pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), a jurisdiction that did not adopt a compliant housing element within one year from the statutory deadline cannot be found in compliance until rezones to make prior identified sites available or accommodate a shortfall of sites, pursuant to Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c) (1) (A) and Government Code sections 65583.2, subdivision (c) (h) and (i), are completed. As this year has passed and rezones have not been completed, the City is out of compliance and will remain out of substantial compliance until the rezoning has been completed. HCD recognizes the City’s considerable rezoning efforts related to meetings its RHNA leading up to April 2026. However, the loss of sites led to insufficient capacity to accommodate the RHNA and as a result, the element still cannot be found in substantial compliance. At the same time, HCD has reviewed the Rezoning Documents, including proposed revisions and draft amendments with additional sites related to accommodating the RHNA. As proposed, the Rezoning Documents and additional sites (including zoning for the Fairview Developmental Center) meet statutory requirements and will be sufficient to accommodate the RHNA. Future scheduled hearing (e.g., September 1, 2026 and September 15, 2026) regarding adoption of the amendment and rezoning additional sites and the Fairview Developmental Center will facilitate meeting these requirements. The element can be found in substantial compliance once the draft amendments are adopted and the additional sites and zoning for the Fairview Developmental Center are completed.

As a reminder, the City’s 6th cycle housing element was due October 15, 2021. As of today, the City has not completed the housing element process for the 6th cycle. HCD urges the City to expeditiously move forward with rezoning the additional sites, including zoning related to the Fairview Developmental Center, adoption of the draft amendments and submit all necessary documents to HCD to obtain substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law.

Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Commenters on this review provided meaningful suggestions. HCD encourages the City to continue working with organizations and other members of the public, including commenters on this housing element review, throughout the remainder of the review process and planning period. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.

859
Anna McGill, Planning Manager

Page 3 ends

For your information, the element relies on nonvacant sites to accommodate 50 percent or more of the housing needs for lower-income households, which triggers requirements to make findings based on substantial evidence that the existing use is not an impediment and will likely discontinue in the planning period. Absent findings (e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional residential development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA. HCD has reviewed the findings recommended by the Planning Commission and these findings are sufficient but must still be adopted by the City Council.

Pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, subdivision (b), the City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD when preparing the sites inventory and submit an electronic version of the sites inventory. While the City has submitted an electronic version of the sites inventory, since changes have occurred to prior submittals, any future re-adopted version of the housing element must also submit the electronic version of the sites inventory.

Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant, the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program, and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.

For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation at:
https://www.lci.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html.

HCD recognizes the dedication of you and planning staff throughout the housing element update and review. HCD looks forward to receiving the City’s adopted housing element and remaining rezones and welcomes the opportunity to provide technical assistance as the City completes its rezoning. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Jose Armando Jauregui at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
860

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 26-387 Meeting Date: 9/1/2026
TITLE:

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY’S INTENT TO OVERRULE THE ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION’S INCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION FOR THE CITY OF COSTA MESA

NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE WE ALL BELONG ZONING UPDATES AND HOUSING ELEMENT

IMPLEMENTATION
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT/PLANNING

DIVISION
PRESENTED BY: MICHELLE HALLIGAN, SENIOR PLANNER/ ANNA MCGILL,

ADVANCED PLANNING MANAGER
CONTACT INFORMATION: MICHELLE HALLIGAN, (714) 754-5608
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Conduct a public hearing and adopt a Resolution regarding the City’sintent to overrule the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission’sinconsistency determination for the City of Costa Mesa Neighborhoods Where We All Belong Zoning Updates and Housing Element Implementation.

2. Direct City staff to forward the Resolution to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), and after 45 days, schedule a City Council public hearing to consider overruling ALUC’s determination.

Page 1 of 1 ends

861

Page 1 of 9 ends

City of Costa Mesa
Agenda Report

77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Item #: 26-387 Meeting Date: 09/01/2026
TITLE: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY’S INTENT TO OVERRULE THE ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION’S INCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION FOR THE CITY OF COSTA MESA

NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE WE ALL BELONG ZONING UPDATES AND HOUSING ELEMENT

IMPLEMENTATION

DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT/ADVANCED PLANNING DIVISION

PRESENTED BY: MICHELLE HALLIGAN, SENIOR PLANNER AND ANNA MCGILL, PLANNING

MANAGER

CONTACT INFORMATION: MICHELLE HALLIGAN, (714) 754-5608
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Conduct a public hearing and adopt a Resolution regarding the City’s intent to overrule the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission’s inconsistency determination for the City of Costa Mesa Neighborhoods Where We All Belong Zoning Updates and Housing Element Implementation.

2. Direct City staff to forward the Resolution to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), and after 45 days, schedule a City Council public hearing to consider overruling ALUC’s determination.

APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT:

This is a City-initiated activity.

BACKGROUND:

Pursuant to Public Utilities Code (PUC) section 21676(b), when a jurisdiction proposes a substantial amendment of a general plan or specific plan, or the adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation within the planning boundary established by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), the City must refer the proposed action to the ALUC to determine whether the action is consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). If the ALUC determines that the action is inconsistent with the AELUP, the City may overrule the Commission by a two-thirds vote of the City Council. State law indicates that the ALUC serves as a limited “advisory body” and therefore the Costa Mesa City Council has the final authority to make land use decisions in the City.

In the 6th Cycle Housing Element planning period, the City of Costa Mesa was challenged wi th the highest Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) in the City’s history, as well as being limited to making zoning and land use changes within the boundaries of Measure K. Neighborhoods Where We All Belong Zoning Updates and Housing Element Implement ation (NWWAB) is the City of Costa Mesa’s name for an effort to allow residential and mixed-use development on Measure K sites (all 862

Item #: 26-387 Meeting Date: 09/01/2026

Page 2 of 9 ends

Housing Element sites except for the Fairview Developmental Center site are within Measure K), and implement numerous Housing Element programs. NWWAB includes amendments to the Zoning Code, several General Plan elements, and specific plans to encourage and facilitate residential and mixed-use residential development. While no direct development is proposed as part of NWWAB, the amendments would apply the Mixed-Use Overlay District (MOUD) to approximately 1,000 Measure K sites. Development would occur when property owners choose to redevelop or develop their properties. More information on the NWWAB community visioning process can be found at www.costamesaneighborhoods.com.

Proposed regulations would require project applicants utilizing the MUOD to supply a noise study prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer. Applicable MUOD projects include those abutting a freeway or within the Airport Planning Area, as defined by the AELUP for John Wayne Airport (JWA).

The noise study must certify compliance with CMMC Title 13, Chapter XIII (Noise Control) and the AELUP. MUOD projects on properties located within the Airport Planning Area, as defined by the AELUP for JWA, must comply with applicable requirements of the AELUP, unless overruled pursuant to state law.

On July 16, 2026, ALUC considered the NWWAB scope and determined the scope to be inconsistent with the AELUP on a 7-0 vote. The ALUC staff report noted that the project was inconsistent with five AELUP sections: 1) 2.1.1 Aircraft Noise, 2) 2.1.2 Safety Compatibility Zones, 3) 3.2.1 General Policy, 4) 3.2.3 Noise Impact Zone “1”, and 5) 3.2.5 Runway Protection Zone. The conclusion of the report stated that “The Project would allow new residential and mixed-use development within the 65-and- above dBA CNEL for JWA; within Safety Zones 1, 2, 3 and 6; and would continue to allow development that would exceed the obstruction imaginary surfaces for JWA (North Costa Mesa Specific Plan).”

• ALUC staff report:
https://files.ocair.com/media/2026-
07/3.%20Costa%20Mesa%20Neighborhoods%20Where%20We%20All%20Belong.pdf?Versi onId=6jZGsJl76e_E.Bz3H5OvuD9j7Jk37tb.

ALUC Overrule Process

To overrule the ALUC inconsistency decision regarding the NWWAB Zoning Updates and Housing Element Implementation, the City Council must make two findings, with an affirmative two-thirds vote, that the project is consistent with the purposes of PUC Division 9, Part 1, Chapter 4, Article 3.5 as stated in section 21670. If the City Council makes these findings, the City is required to provide ALUC a notice of the intent to overrule the ALUC inconsistency determination with the applicable PUC findings at least 45 days prior to the City’s final decision to overrule ALUC. Overruling an ALUC inconsistency determination also requires two public hearings: one hearing for the City Council to resolve to notify ALUC of its intention to overrule the ALUC decision, and a second public hearing for the City Council to consider any additional ALUC comments and adopt the findings to overrule the ALUC determination.

ALUC may provide comments to the City upon receiving the notice and findings. The City must include the ALUC comments in the public record of any final decision to overrule ALUCs determination.

863

Item #: 26-387 Meeting Date: 09/01/2026

Page 3 of 9 ends

ANALYSIS:

NWWAB Parcels as Related to the AELUP

NWWAB proposes to amend and apply the MUOD to most Measure K sites. This would enable housing and mixed-use development on over 1,000 properties to help address the local, regional, and statewide housing crisis. To safeguard against compatibility issues with JWA, the proposed MUOD amendment includes two airport related regulations:

• Applicable MUOD projects shall be subject to a noise study prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer. Applicable MUOD projects include those abutting a freeway or within the A irport Planning Area, as defined by the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. The noise study shall certify compliance with CMMC Title 13, Chapter XIII (Noise Control) and the AELUP.
• MUOD projects on properties located within the Airport Planning Area, as defined by the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport, shall comply with applicable requirements of the AELUP, unless overridden per State law.

Of the 1,079 parcels within the boundaries of Measure K, only 16 sites are wholly or partially within the 65 dBA CNEL contour (only 1.5 percent of NWWAB sites). Following the July 16, 2026, ALUC meeting, City staff adjusted the scope of the NWWAB project to not apply the MUOD to non- Housing Element Measure K sites within the 65 A-weighted decibels Community Noise Equivalent Level (dBA CNEL) contour.

One Housing Element site, located at 1400 Bristol Street, remains within the contour. This site is currently under construction for a motel conversion project to convert existing motel rooms into 78 single-room occupancy units (76 very-low income and 2 manager’s units). This project is anticipated to complete construction in August 2026. The affordable housing units support the City’s obligation to satisfy its 6
th Cycle Housing Element RHNA of 11,760 units, of which 2,919 units must be affordable to very low-income households. It is appropriate and necessary for the City to encourage and facilitate the development of housing, including lower and moderate- income housing, to meet State law.

Implementation of the 6th Cycle Housing Element, including implementing Measure K, is required to ensure the provision of adequately zoned land to accommodate the largest RHNA in Costa Mesa history, the City’s share of regional growth, and to comply with State Housing Law. Additionally, as a motel conversion site, this project is within an existing building does not add any additional height, square footage or lot coverage to the existing site.
.
• A 1,000-square-foot corner of one Measure K property is located within Safety Zone 1, and one property is within Safety Zone 2. The City proposes to address this issue by not applying the MUOD to those properties.

• There are Measure K properties, including one Housing Element site, located in Safety Zone 3 where the Handbook states to “Allow infill at the average of surrounding residential area.” The City proposes to address this issue by modifying the project to not apply the MUOD to non- Housing Element Measure K sites within Safety Zone 3.

864

Item #: 26-387 Meeting Date: 09/01/2026

Page 4 of 9 ends

• There are non-Housing Element Measure K properties located within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. Again, the City proposes to address this issue by not applying the MUOD to those properties.

• The North Costa Mesa Specific Plan allows building heights up to 315 feet, which could exceed the obstruction imaginary surfaces for JWA. NWWAB proposes a maximum building height of 108-feet in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan area and would not exceed the obstruction imaginary surfaces for JWA.

• Approximately 140 Measure K sites (including Housing Element sites) are located in Safety Zone 6, where the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook allows residential development without a maximum density. California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook:
https://dot.ca.gov/-
/media/dot-media/programs/aeronautics/documents/californiaairportlanduseplanninghandbook- a11y.pdf

Following the ALUC meeting, City staff adjusted the proposed scope of the NWWAB project to not apply the MUOD to Measure K sites within the 65 dBA CNEL contour around the airport (except the Homekey motel conversion site on Bristol), Safety Zone 1, Safety Zone 2, and non-Housing Element Measure K sites in Safety Zone 3. The City has diligently addressed ALUC’s recommendations from the July 16, 2026, meeting, where feasible.

Overrule Findings

The two required overrule findings pursuant to PUC section 21670 are shown in bold below, followed by the City’s justification to overrule.

PUC Overrule Finding No. 1- Provide for the orderly development of areas surrounding airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems.

PUC Finding No. 1 justification for overrule:

Section 2.1.1 of the AELUP establishes community CNEL guidance. The AELUP defines noise exposure in the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour as “High Impact” while also identifying residential uses as “conditionally consistent” in the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. The AELUP does not prohibit residential uses in the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour; it requires residential uses to have insulation or other systems to bring sound attenuation to no more than 45 dB indoors.

The Noise Element of the City’s General Plan includes several policies to address potential airport/residential noise impacts.

Item #: 26-387 Meeting Date: 09/01/2026

Page 5 of 9 ends

• N-1.5: Apply the standards contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations as applicable to the construction of all new dwelling units. • N-1.6: Discourage sensitive land uses from locating within the 65 CNEL noise contour of John Wayne Airport. Should it be deemed by the City as appropriate and/or necessary for a sensitive land use to locate in the 65 CNEL noise contour, ensure that appropriate interior noise levels are met and that minimal outdoor activities are allowed.
• N-1.7: Support alternative methods for the reduction of noise impacts at John Wayne Airport while continuing to maintain safety and existing limitations on aircraft daily departures. • N-2.1: Require the use of sound walls, berms, interior noise insulation, double-paned windows, and other noise mitigation measures, as appropriate, in the design of new residential or other new noise-sensitive land uses that are adjacent to arterials, freeways, or adjacent to industrial or commercial uses.
• N-2.4: Require that all proposed projects are compatible with adopted noise/land use compatibility criteria.
• N-2.6: Allow a higher exterior noise level standard for infill projects in existing residential areas adjacent to major arterials if it can be shown that there are no feasible mechanisms to meet the exterior noise levels. The interior standard of 45 dBA CN EL shall be enforced for any new residential project.

The City’s Land Use Element includes Policy LU-3.17: New residential developments within the 60 dB CNEL noise contour of the airport shall provide designated outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft.

The proposed MUOD amendment includes two airport related regulations:

• Applicable MUOD projects shall be subject to a noise study prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer. Applicable MUOD projects include those abutting a freeway or within the Airport Planning Area, as defined by the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. The noise study shall certify compliance with CMMC Title 13, Chapter XIII (Noise Control) and the AELUP.
• MUOD projects on properties located within the Airport Planning Area, as defined by the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport, shall comply with applicable requirements of the AELUP, unless overridden per State law.

The NWWAB effort will p rovide for orderly
development in areas surrounding JWA and elsewhere in Costa Mesa. Therefore, the City is able to make the finding to overrule the ALUC inconsistency determination in regard to PUC Finding No. 1.

Item #: 26-387 Meeting Date: 09/01/2026

Page 6 of 9 ends

Amendment utilized contemporary modeling (FAA Integrated Noise Model Version 7.0d) to describe how dBA CNEL noise contours have decreased in size. EIR No. 617 explained that “one of the most important factors in generating accurate noise contours if the collection of accurate operational data.”

PUC Overrule Finding No. 2- Protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.

PUC Funding No. 2 justification for overrule:

Safety Compatibility Zones of the AELUP recommend which land uses are acceptable in various JWA environments. As indicated in the above section entitled “Justification for overrule,” the City’s Noise Element Policies adequately address the public exposure to excessive noise.

As originally proposed, of 1,079 sites within the Measure K boundary, an approximately 1,000-square- foot corner of one Measure K property is located within Safety Zone 1, one parcel is within Safety Zone 2, and seven other parcels are within Safety Zone 3. After the July 16, 2026, ALUC meeting, the City modified the project to not apply the MUOD to properties in Safety Zone 1, Safety Zone 2, and non- Housing Element Measure K properties in Safety Zone 3.

With the project modification, the MUOD would only be applied to one site (1400 Bristol Street) within Safety Zone 3. The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook states that Safety Zone 3 can “allow infill at the average of surrounding residential area.” Th e one NWWAB site that remains in Safety Zone 3 is an existing two-story motel that was recently converted to very low income single- room occupancy units. As previously stated herein, the very low- income affordable housing units support the City’s obligation to satisfy its 6th Cycle Housing Element RHNA of 11,760 units, of which 2,919 units must be affordable to very low-income households. It is appropriate and necessary for the City to encourage and facilitate the development of housing, including lower and moderate- income housing, to meet State Housing Law. Implementation of the 6th Cycle Housing Element, includi ng implementing Measure K, is required to ensure the provision of adequately zoned land to accommodate the largest RHNA in Costa Mesa history, the City’s share of regional growth, and comply with State Housing Law.

The NWWAB project will apply the MUOD to Measure K sites within Safety Zone 6, where the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook establishes a maximum density of “no limit” and an average number of people per gross acre of “no limit.”

The ALUC staff report concludes that the application of the MUOD to sites south of JWA along Bristol Street could have maximum heights that “would come very close” to penetrating the JWA transitional surface of 92 feet but would “not penetrate the Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces for JWA.” The City is no longer proposing to apply the MUOD to sites on Bristol Street between Santa Ana Avenue and City of Newport Beach City Limits. Additionally, the City of Costa Mesa General Plan includes policies regarding airport and land use compatibility including:

Item #: 26-387 Meeting Date: 09/01/2026

Page 7 of 9 ends

provided by State/federal agencies, the filing of a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (FAA Form 7460- 1) shall be required prior to r eview and consideration of the proposed development.” Land Use Element (page LU-18) refers to the threshold stated above. It shall be amended to refer to Filing FAA Form 7460-1 Notice of Construction and Alteration, and not to Form 7480-1.

• Policy LU-3.15. The City will ensure that development proposals, including the construction or operation of a heliport or helistop comply fully with permit procedures under State law, including referral of the project to the ALUC by the applicant, and with all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration, ALUC, and Caltrans, including the filing of Form 7480-1 (Notice of Landing Area Proposed) with the FAA. This requirement shall be in addition to all other City development requirements.

• Policy LU-3.16. The City shall refer certain projects to the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, as required by section 21676 of the California Public Utilities Code to determine consistency of the project(s) with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport.

Additionally, the MUOD includes regulations to address potential airport-related conflicts such as:

• MUOD projects on properties located within the Airport Planning Area, as defined by the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport, shall comply with applicable requirements of the AELUP, unless overridden per State law.

AELUP as related to the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan

At the July 16, 2026, meeting, ALUC expressed that the heights allowed in the existing North Costa Mesa Specific Plan permit a maximum building height that could result in building construction which exceeds the 206-foot JWA Imaginary Horizontal Surface. ALUC’s determination of inconsistency is not based on proposed regulations in the NWWAB MUOD, but rather existing provisions of the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. NWWAB would apply the MUOD, with a maximum building height of 108 feet in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan area, to Measure K sites. This is a lower maximum building height than allowed in the specific plan. Should a property owner choose to develop via the provisions of the MUOD instead of the specific plan, the development would not exceed the obstruction imaginary surfaces.

In 2007, the City submitted a project for ALUC consideration that included a mixed-use development with both hotel and residential uses (The Wyndham Hotel and High Rise Residential Project) in the South Coast Plaza Town Center area. This area already contains Plaza Tower and Center Tower which exceed 20 stories. The project included a General Plan Amendment, a Specific Plan Amendment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), a Final Master Plan and a proposed subdivision. The ALUC determined that the project and the General Plan/Specific Plan amendments were inconsistent in regard to the inclusion of height standards that penetrate the AELUP horizontal imaginary surface, and the City subsequently overruled the ALUC determination. The City’s overrule finding was based on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) findings that the then proposed building height of 304 feet AMSL “would not adversely affect air safety” and the FAA subsequently issued a “no hazard determination.”
Additionally, the FAA conditioned that any future buildings proposed in this area with height proposed above 173 feet above grade level would require a specific determination of “no hazard” by the FAA in order to move forward. This requirement is included in the height standards of the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. Therefore, potential safety risks associated with future construction on the five Housing 868

Item #: 26-387 Meeting Date: 09/01/2026

Page 8 of 9 ends

Element sites in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan area are addressed by the FAA requirement and the Specific Plan requirements. It should be noted that the AELUP declares the FAA as the authority to determine impacts on airport or aeronautical operations. It is inappropriate for the ALUC to make a secondary finding of inconsistency for the same issue. Based on the above facts, the City is justified in making the finding to overrule the ALUC inconsistency determination in regard to PUC Finding No. 2

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution indicating its intent to overrule the ALUC finding of inconsistency in regard to the City’s NWWAB Zoning Updates and Housing Element Implementation. The recommended action would authorize staff to formally provide notice to the ALUC pursuant to Public Utilities Code s ection 21676(b) of the City’s intention and to move forward with scheduling a second public hearing.

ALTERNATIVES:

If the City Council is in agreement with the proposed amendments to the NWWAB effort, as described in this staff report, the Council must adopt the attached Resolution related to the Council’s intent to overrule the ALUC determination. Alternatively, the City Council could opt to modify the Housing Element to remove the aforementioned site within Safety Zone 3 from the Housing Element. However, given that the property was recently converted from a motel to very low-income housing to help address local and State housing goals, removing it from the Housing Element and the MUOD is not recommended by staff. The City Council could also modify the Housing Element to indicate that the City will amend the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan to lower the maximum building height elevations at the aforementioned candidate sites to below 206 feet AMSL, which would also address ALUC’s concern.

Staff does not recommend this course of action as the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan’s height standards are appropriate, have already been found by the FAA to pose no hazard to air safety , and would reduce longstanding development capacity including accommodating housing at various income levels.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The recommended action to overrule the determination of the ALUC is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), because it is not a “project” within the meaning of CEQA and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3).

An Initial Study and Notice of Preparation, Notice of Availability, and Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) were prepared for the NWWAB Zoning Updates and Housing Element Implementation. The Draft PEIR is a high-level environmental review of this large-scale action to apply the MUOD to Measure K sites including Housing Element sites. The Draft PEIR identified that the future development on parcels located within the Safety Zones may have to reduce height or density in order to be found in compliance with the AELUP on a project level. This would result in a less than significant impact, with no mitigation required. Staff’s proposal to remove these properties from the MUOD would further reduce any potential for impacts. The Draft PEIR public comment period took place from June 16, 2026, through August 3, 2026. The preparation of responses to comments and the Final PEIR is in progress.

869

Item #: 26-387 Meeting Date: 09/01/2026

Page 9 of 9 ends

All applicable environmental documents referenced above (IS/NOP, NOA and Draft PEIR) are available on the following City webpage:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/government/departments-and-divisions/economic-and-development- services/planning/environmental-notices-and-reports

FISCAL REVIEW:

There are no fiscal impacts associated with this action.

LEGAL REVIEW:

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

PUBLIC NOTICE:

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

1. On-site posting. A public notice was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website on Friday, August 21, 2026.

2. Newspaper publication. A public notice was published once in the Daily Pilot newspaper on Friday, August 21, 2026.

Any public comments received for the September 1, 2026 City Council meeting, may be viewed at this link: CITY OF COSTA MESA - Calendar (legistar.com)

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

The proposed overrule of ALUC’s inconsistency determination for the NWWAB effort supports the City Council goal of “Diversity, stabilize and increase housing to reflect community needs.”

CONCLUSION:

Section 4.3 of the AELUP and section 21676(b) of the California Public Utilities Code (CPUC) require the City to submit specific amendments and projects to the ALUC for a determination of consistency with the AELUP. On July 16, 2026, the ALUC conducted a public hearing to consider NWWAB, and found the project to be inconsistent with the AELUP. ALUC’s staff report is provided as Attachment 2. State law indicates that the ALUC serves as a limited “advisory body” and therefore the Costa Mesa City Council has the final authority to make land use decisions in the City. The NWWAB effort includes applying the MUOD to most Measure K sites and related amendments to specific plans and General Plan elements to encourage and facilitate housing and mixed-
use development, and obtain compliance with State
Housing Law. Staff recommends the City Council adopt a Resolution directing staff to formally initiate overrule of the Orange County ALUC’s determination for NWWAB. A letter to ALUC to initiate the overrule process is provided as Attachment 3.

870
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2026- xx Page 1 of 10

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-xx

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

CALIFORNIA, RELATED TO THE INTENT TO OVERRULE THE ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION’S DETERMINATION THAT THE CITY OF COSTA MESA’S NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE WE ALL BELONG ZONING UPDATES

AND HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE JOHN

WAYNE AIRPORT ENVIRONS LAND USE PLAN

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

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; and WHEREAS, California Government Code s ection 65358(a) authorizes the City Council to amend the General Plan if it is deemed to be in the public interest; and WHEREAS, the General Plan is a long- range, comprehensive document that serves as a guide for the orderly development of the City of Costa Mesa; and WHEREAS, by its very nature, the General Plan is subject to update and revision to account for current and future community needs; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Element is one of the seven State- mandated General Plan chapters or “elements” and is a component of the City of Costa Mesa 2015- 2035 General Plan; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 65580, et sec. (State Housing Element Law) requires each city and county to adopt a housing ele ment that identifies and analyzes existing and projected housing needs within their jurisdiction and prepare goals, policies, programs, quantified objectives, and sites to further the development, improvement, and preservation of housing; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 65588 requires that local governments review and revise the Housing Element of their comprehensive General Plans not less than once every eight years , and the California Legislature identifies overall housing goals for t he State with the goal of ensuring every resident has access to housing and a suitable living environment; and
871
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2026- xx Page 2 of 10

WHEREAS, the City’s Sixth Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element was adopted by the Costa Mesa City Council on February 1, 2022, through Resolution N o. 2022-06 and amendments adopted on November 15, 2022, through Resolution No. 2022- 67, and as revised on March 1, 2023, to incorporate non-substantive changes as authorized by the City Council, and as recently amended on March 17, 2026, through Resolution No. 2026-11 whereby 17 Housing Element Opportunity Sites were removed from the sites inventory and two were added; and
WHEREAS, Costa Mesa has identified additional Housing Element Sites utilizing properties that are eligible for rezoning through the cit ywide voter initiative, known locally as Measure K, and the “Neighborhoods Where We All Belong” (NWWAB) planning effort to implement several Housing Element implementation programs; and WHEREAS, the NWWAB planning effort includes amendments to the City’s General Plan Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Noise, Community Design, and Open Space and Recreation Elements, amendments to the Newport Boulevard Specific Plan, North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, and One Metro West Specific Plan to reflect the application of the MUOD to Measure K sites, and amendments to various sections of Title 13 of the Zoning Code, and the rezoning of over 1,000 properties identified as Measure K sites; and
WHEREAS, California Public Utilities Code section 21676(b) requires the City of Costa Mesa to refer an amendment of the City’s general plan or specific plan, or the adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation within the planning boundary established by the Air port Land Use Commission (ALUC) pursuant to section 21675 to the ALUC for their consideration; and
WHEREAS, at a duly -noticed public hearing on July 16, 2026 , the ALUC reviewed NWWAB planning effort and found the proposed a mendments to be inconsistent with the AELUP on a 7-0 vote; and
WHEREAS, following the ALUC public hearing, City of Costa Mesa staff modified the location of the application of the Mixed- Use Overlay District to no longer include non-Housing Element Measure K properties located within John Wayne Airport Safety Zones 1-3 nor within the 65 dBA CNEL contour;
872
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2026- xx Page 3 of 10

WHEREAS, one Housing Element Site is located in Safety Zone 3, and was recently converted from a motel to a very low income single- room occupancy use that is part of the City’s strategy to address housing needs and comply with State Housing Law, and is not proposed to be removed from the Housing Element; WHEREAS, NWWAB will apply the MUOD to applicable Measure K sites within Safety Zone 6 and according to the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, Safety Zone 6 has a maximum density of “no limit;”
WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa General Plan, Zoning Code, and North Costa Mesa Specific Plan include policies for compatibility with the AELUP; WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa does not waive any objection to and/or right to challenge any f ailure by the ALUC to proceed in the manner required by law, including but not limited to, Public Utilities Code s ections 21670 through 21679.5, related to its above referenced July 16, 2026, finding of inconsistency; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Utilities Code sections 21670 and 21676, the City of Costa Mesa may, after a public hearing, propose to overrule the ALUC by a two- thirds vote of the City Council, if the Ci ty of Costa Mesa makes specific findings that the proposed project is consistent with the purposes of section 21670; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on September 1, 2026 , the Costa Mesa City Council took action to notify the ALUC of the Cit y’s intent to overrule ALUC’s Determination of Inconsistency for the NWWAB planning effor t; in addition, the Costa Mesa City Council previously overruled the ALUC for its Sixth Cycle Housing Element on November 15, 2022, through Resolution No. 2022-68.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:

BE IT RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa City Council is notifying the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission of the City’s intent to overrule the ALUC Determination that the NWWAB planning effort is inconsistent with the John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa City Council does hereby approve to be forwarded to ALUC the proposed findings in support of the City’s intent to overrule the ALUC Determination as shown in Exhibit A, FINDINGS and directs staff to 873
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2026- xx Page 4 of 10

forward a letter to ALUC indicating that the City’s intent to override ALUC’s Determination is inconsistent with the AELUP. The letter shall include the proposed findings in support of the City’s intended action.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any section, di vision, 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 1st day of September, 2026.

_____________________________
John Stephens, Mayor

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

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

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss

CITY OF COSTA MESA )

I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that th e above and foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 202 6-xx and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 1
st day of September, 2026, by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
874
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2026- xx Page 5 of 10

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 1st day of September, 2026.

___________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk
875
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2026- xx Page 6 of 10

Exhibit A

FINDINGS

The Costa Mesa City Council makes the following findings pursuant to section 21670 of the Public Utilities Code as follows:

A. Finding No. 1: It is in the public interest to provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this State and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems.

Justification for overrule: Section 2.1.1 of the AELUP establishes community CNEL guidance. The AELUP defines noise exposure in the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour as “High Impact” while also identifying residential uses as “conditionally consistent” in the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. The AELUP does not prohibit residential uses in the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour; it requires residential uses to have insulation or other systems to br ing sound attenuation to no more than 45 dB indoors.

The Noise Element of the City’s General Plan includes several policies to address potential airport/residential noise impacts.

• N- 1.1: Enforce the maximum acceptable exterior noise levels for residential areas at 65 CNEL.
• N- 1.4: Ensure that appropriate site design measures are incorporated int o residential developments, when required by an acoustical study, to obtain appropriate exterior and interior noise levels. When necessary, require field testing at the time of project completion to demonstrate compliance. • N- 1.5: Apply the standards contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations as applicable to the construction of all new dwelling units. • N- 1.6: Discourage sensitive land uses from locating within the 65 CNEL noise contour of John Wayne Airport. Should it be deemed by the Ci ty as appropriate and/or necessary for a sensitive land use to locate in the 65 CNEL noise contour, ensure that appropriate interior noise levels are met and that minimal outdoor activities are allowed.
• N- 1.7: Support alternative methods for the reducti on of noise i mpacts at John Wayne Airport while continuing to maintain safety and existing limitations on aircraft daily departures.
• N- 2.1: Require the use of sound walls, berms, interior noise insulation, double-paned windows, and other noise mitigation measures, as appropriate, in the design of new residential or other new noise- sensitive land uses that are adjacent to arterials, freeways, or adjacent to industrial or commercial uses.
876
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2026- xx Page 7 of 10

• N-2.4: Require that all proposed projects are compatible with adopt ed noise/land use compatibility criteria.
• N-2.6: Allow a higher exterior noise level standard for infill projects in existing residential areas adjacent to major arterials if it can be shown that there are no feasible mechanisms to meet the exterior noi se levels. The interior standard of 45 dBA CNEL shall be enforced for any new residential project.

The City’s Land Use Element includes Policy LU -3.17: New residential developments within the 60 dB CNEL noise contour of the airport shall provide designated outdoor s ignage informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft.

The proposed MUOD amendment includes two airport related regulations:

• Applicable MUOD projects shall be subject to a noise study prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer . Applicable MUOD projects include those abutting a freeway or within the Airport Planning Area, as defined by the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for J ohn Wayne Airport. The noise study shall certify compliance with CMMC Title 13, Chapter XIII (Noi se Control) and the AELUP.
• MUOD projects on properties located within the Airport Planning Area, as defined by the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport, shall comply with applicable requirements of the AELUP, unless overridden per State law.

Following the ALUC meeting, City staff adjusted the proposed scope of the NWWAB project to remove non- Housing Element M easure K sites within the 65 dBA CNEL contour around the airport, Safey Zone 1, Safety Zone 2, and Safety Zone 3 from the MUOD. By modifying the scope of the application of the MUOD, the City has diligently addressed airport noise while also pursuing compliance with State Housing Law. The NWWAB effort will provide for orderly development in areas surrounding JWA and elsewhere in Costa Mesa. Therefore, the City is able to make the finding to overrule the ALUC inconsistency determination in regard to PUC Finding No. 1.

Additionally, the CNEL noise contours of the AELUP Master Plan were established in 1985. Advances in aircraft te chnology, including quieter fleets, warrant study and subsequent revisions to the noise contours. The Noise Chapter of EIR No. 617 for the 2014 John Wayne Settlement Agreement Amendment utilized contemporary modeling (FAA Integrated Noise Model Version 7.0d) to describe how dBA CNEL noise contours have decreased in size. EIR No. 617 explained that “one of the mos t important factors in generating accurate noise contours if the collection of accurate operational data.”

877
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2026- xx Page 8 of 10

B. Finding No. 2 : It is the purpose of t his article to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to t he extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.

Justification for overrule : Safety Compatibility Zones of the AELUP recommend which land uses are acceptable in various JWA environments. As indicated in the above section enti tled “ Justification for overru le,” the City’s Noise Element Policies adequately address the public exposure to excessive noise.

As originally proposed, of 1,079 sites within the Measure K boundary, an approximately 1,000-square-foot corner of one Measure K property is located within Safety Zone 1, one parcel is within Safety Zone 2, and seven other parcels are within Safety Zone 3. After the July 16, 2026 ALUC meeting, t he City modified the project to not apply the MUOD to properties in Safety Zone 1, Safety Zone 2, and non- Housing Element Measure K properties in Safety Zone 3.

With the project modification, the MUOD would only apply to one site (1400 Bristol Street) within Safety Zone 3. The California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook states that Safety Zone 3 can “allow infill at the average of surrounding residential area.” The Housing Element site that remains in Safety Zone 3 is a two- story motel that was recently converted to very low - income single-room occupancy units. As previously stated herein, the very low-income affordable housing units support the City’s obligation to satisfy its 6th Cycle Housing Element RHNA of 11,760 units, of which 2,919 units must be affordable to very low -income households. It is appropriate and necessary for the City to encourage and facilitate the development of housing, including lower and moderate- income housing, to meet State Housing Law. Implementation of the 6th Cycle Housing Element, including implementing Measure K, is required to ensure the provision of adequately zoned land to accommodate the largest RHNA in Costa Mesa history, the City’s share of regional growth, and comply with State Housing Law.

The ALUC staff report concludes that the application of the MUOD to sites south of JWA along Bristol Street could have maximum heights that “would come very close” to penetrating the JWA transitional surface of 92 feet but would “not penetrate the Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces for JWA.” The City is no longer proposing to apply the MUOD to sites on Bristol Street between 878
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2026- xx Page 9 of 10

Santa Ana Av enue and City of Newport Beach City Limits. Additionally, the City of Costa Mesa General Plan includes policies regarding airport and land use compatibility including:

• LU-3.14: Certain development proposals which may inc lude the construction or alteration of structures more than 200 feet above ground level may require filing with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) pursuant to federal and State law. If a filing requirement is determined to be necessary in accordance with the procedures provided by State/federal agencies, the filing of a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (FAA Form 7460-1) shall be required prior to review and consideration of the proposed development. ” Land Use Element (page LU-18) refers to the threshold stated above. It shall be amended to refer to Filing FAA Form 7460- 1 Notice of Construction and Alteration, and not to Form 7480-1.

• Policy LU-3.15. The City will ensure that development proposals, including the construction or operation of a heliport or helistop comply fully with permit procedures under State law, including referral of the project to the ALUC by the applicant, and with all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration, ALUC, and Caltrans, including the filing of Form 7480- 1 (Notice of Landing Area Proposed) with the FAA. This requirement shall be in addition to all other City development requirements.

• Policy LU-3.16. The City shall refer certain projects to the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, as required by Section 21676 of the California Public Utilities Code to determine consistency of the project(s) with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport.

Additionally, the MUOD includes regulations to addr ess potential airport - related conflicts such as:

At the July 16, 2026 meeting, ALUC expressed that the heights allowed in the existing North Costa Mesa Specific Plan permit a maximum building height that could result in building cons truction which exceeds the 206-foot JWA Imaginary Horizontal Surface. ALUC’s determination of inconsistency is not based on proposed regulations in the NWWAB MUOD, but rather existing provisions of the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. NWW AB would apply the MUOD, with a maximum building height of 108 feet in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan area, to Measure K sites. This is a lower maximum building height than allowed in the specific plan. Should a property 879
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2026- xx Page 10 of 10

owner choose to develop via the provisions of the MUOD instead of the specific plan, the development would not exceed the obstruction imaginary surfaces.

In 2007, the City submitted a project for ALUC consideration that included a mixed-use development with both hotel and residential uses (The Wyndham Hotel and High Rise Residential Project) in the South Coast Plaza Town Center area. This area already contains Plaza Tower and Center Tower which exceed 20 stories. The project included a General Plan Amendment, a Specific Plan Amendment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), a Final Master Plan and a proposed subdivision. The ALUC determined that the project and the General Plan/Specific Plan amendments were inconsistent in regard to the inclusion of height standards that penetrate the AELUP horizontal imaginary surface, and the City subsequently overruled the ALUC determination. The City’s overrule finding was based on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) findings that the then proposed building height of 304 feet AMSL “would not adversely affect air safety” and the FAA subsequently issued a “no hazard determination.” Additionally, the FAA conditioned that any future buildings proposed in this area with height proposed above 173 feet above grade level would require a specific determination of “no hazard” by the FAA in order to move forward. This requirement is included in the height standards of the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. Therefore, potential safety risks associated with future construction on the five Housing Element sites in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan area are addressed by the FAA requirement and the Specific Plan requirements. It should be noted that the AELUP declares the FAA as the authority to determine impacts on airport or aeronautical operations. It is inappropriate for the ALUC to make a secondary finding of inconsistency for the same issue. Based on the above facts, the City is justified in making the finding to overrule the ALUC inconsistency determination in regard to PUC Finding No. 2
880

AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION

FOR ORANGE CO UNTY
3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 • 949.252.5170 fa x: 949.252.6012 AGENDA ITEM 3
July 16, 2026
TO: Commissioners/ Alternates
FROM: Julie Fitch, Executive Officer
SUBJECT: City of Costa Mesa Request for Consistency Determination of Neighborhood s Where We All Belong Zoning Updates and Housing Element Implementation Background
In March 2022, the City of Costa Mesa submitted its 2021-2029 6th Cycle Housing Element Update to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for a consistency review. The Housing Element Update identified 99 potential future candidate housing sites within five Focus Areas. The Commission found the Housing Element Update inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport ( AEL UP for JWA) based mainly on the maximum height of proposed sites in North Costa Mesa area of Focus Area 2 that would penetrate the 206-foot horizontal surface for JW A. See Attachment 1 for location of Housing Element Focus Area 2.

Proposed Project
The City is now submitting the Neighborhoods Where We All Belong Zoning Updates and Housing Element Implementation ("Project") for an ALUC consistency review. The City proposes to apply an overlay to increase housing and mixed-use development capacity and to amend related documents for consistency, clarity, and compliance with State law. The proposed Project would implement portions of the City's Housing Element by applying an updated Mixed-Use Overlay District (MUOD) to selected parcels ("Measure K" sites) throughout the City. This would allow for future residential and mixed-use development in areas currently designated as Commercial and Industrial within the JW A Notification Area. See Attachment 2 for project sites. The Project includes the following:

Zoning Code Amendments
Proposed amendments to Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13, Article 11 Mixed Use Overlay District (MUOD) which would increase/change the allowable densities and building heights on ATTACHMENT 2
881
Agenda Item 3 - Costa Mesa Neighborhoods Where We All Belong July 16, 2026

Page 2 ends

most Measure K properties, including Housing Element sites. Other Zoning Code amendments are proposed such as changes to planning application processing, definitions, site improvements, etc.

General Plan Amendments
The City's submittal indicates that proposed General Plan amendments include amendments to the Housing Element and Land Use Element which would change land uses by adding the Mixed-Use Overlay District (MUOD) to numerous sites throughout the City. The proposed amendments to the Noise, Circulation, Community Design, and Open Space and Recreation Elements would remove references to Urban Plans and Master Plans for mixed-use development (the City will be utilizing the MUOD and objective design standards); remove references to districts to reduce confusion with actual land use or zoning districts; and other text edits for clarity and consistency.

Specific Plan Amendments
There are three specific plans that would be amended to incorporate the application of the MUOD to Measure K sites, including Housing Element sites.
• The Newport Boulevard Specific Plan encompasses properties fronting the east side of Newport Boulevard between Mesa Drive and 19th Street. The proposed amendment would claiify that the MUOD provides additional development opportunities on Measure K sites and that properties listed in the Housing Element would be developed according to the Housing Element-related provisions of the MUOD, except where the specific plan allows greater capacity.
o The North Costa Mesa Specific Plan covers approximately 423 acres in northeast Costa Mesa. The proposed amendment would clarify that the MUOD is applicable to Measure K sites and that properties listed in the Housing Element would be developed according to the Housing Element-related provisions of the MUOD, except where the specific plan allows for greater building height or capacity.
111 The One Metro West Specific Plan establishes standards for one 15.23-acre site on Sunflower A venue at Cadillac A venue in far northwest Costa Mesa. This property is in the proposed Housing Element amendment. The proposed amendment would clarify that the Housing Element-related provisions of the MUOD are applicable to the property, except where the specific plan allows for greater height or capacity.

The City anticipates scheduling the following Public Hearings:

September 14, 2026 Planning Commission
October 6, 2026 City Council
882
Agenda Item 3 -- Costa Mesa Neighborhoods Where We All Belong July 16, 2026

Page 3 ends

AELUP for JWA
Regarding Aircraft Noise Impacts
The Project would allow future residential and mixed-use development on sites within the JWA 65-and-above dBA CNEL noise contours by applying the MUOD. These sites are just south of Bristol Street and west of the Golf Course. Attachment 3 shows the proposed land uses in relation to the JW A noise contours.

As stated in AELUP for JWA Section 3.2.3 Noise Impact Zone "1" - High Noise Impact (65 dB CNEL and above), "the ALUC does not support residential development within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour." The section further states that residential units in this area are inconsistent unless it can be shown conclusively that such units are sufficiently sound attenuated for present and projected noise exposures so as not to exceed an interior standard of 45 dB CNEL, and may require the dedication of an avigation easement for noise to the airport proprietor. Section 3 .2.3 also conditions that all residential units are to be indoor-oriented to preclude noise impingement on outdoor living areas.

The City's submittal identifies existing and proposed policies and zoning requirements related to aircraft noise. The Land Use Element includes the following policy:
111 LU-3.17: New residential developments within the 60 dB CNE'L noise contour of the airport shall provide designated outdoor signage informing the public of the presence c~foperating aircraft.

The Noise Element includes the following policies:

G N-1.1: Enforce the maximum acceptable exterior noise levels/or residential areas at 65 CNEL.
111 N-1.4: Ensure that appropriate site design measures are incorporated into residential developments, when required by an acoustical study, to obtain appropriate exterior and interior noise levels. When necessary, require field testing at the time o,f project completion to demonstrate compliance. • N-1.6: Discourage sensitive land uses from locating within the 65 CNEL noise contour of John Wayne Airport. Should it be deemed by the City as appropriate and/or necessary for a sensitive land use to locate in the 65 CNEL noise contour, ensure that appropriate interior noise levels are met and that minimal outdoor activities are allowed.

The proposed MUOD includes additional airport-related standards for future projects within the Airport Planning Area. Section 13-83. l 1.5(c) requires applicable MUOD projects located within the Airport Planning Area to prepare a noise study by a qualified acoustical engineer. The noise study would be required to certify compliance with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13, Chapter XIII, Noise Control, and the AELUP for JWA. This chapter also states that MUOD projects on 883
Agenda Item 3 -- Costa Mesa Neighborhoods Where We All Belong July 16, 2026

Page 4 ends

properties located within the Airport Planning Area shall comply with applicable requirements of the AELUP for JWA, unless overridden by the City Council.

While the City's General Plan and Zoning Code include policies related to noise, the Project would allow future residential and mixed-use development within the 65 and above dBA CNEL contour for JWA. The proposed reliance on future acoustical studies and project-level review does not remove the underlying AELUP incompatibility issues associated with new residential uses in Noise Impact Zone 1 (65 dBA and above), nor does it "conclusively" ensure that all appropriate sound attenuating mitigation measures will be implemented.

Regarding Height Restrictions
As shown in Attachment 4, the Project would apply to sites within the JWA Notification Area.

The MUOD would allow maximum building heights of 60 to l 08 feet for sites designated as residential or mixed-use depending on the applicable MUOD density tier and location. Non residential buildings would be limited to 40 feet in height.

The MUOD would also apply to selected propeiiies within the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan area where the existing maximum heights are up to 315 feet (with an FAA determination of no hazard). The MUOD would provide an optional route for residential/mixed-use projects within the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, so it does not preclude City approval of projects within the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan with those maximum heights. See Attachment 5 for Table 2 Maximum Building Heights for the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan.

Attachment 6 shows the proposed MUOD maximum heights in relation to the obstruction surfaces for JWA. The project sites closest to JWA (south of Bristol) are located within the transitional surface for JWA. With approximate ground elevation of 30 feet and proposed MUOD maximum heights of 60 feet above ground level in that area, the maximum height allowed project height of 90' AMSL would come very close to penetrating the JW A transitional surface of 92 feet AMSL.

While the MUOD project sites would not penetrate the Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces for JW A, the underlying heights for the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan would penetrate the obstruction surfaces as indicated in the March 2022 ALUC Inconsistent finding for the Housing Element Update.

The City's Land Use Element includes the following airport-related policies addressing height and FAA notification.
" LU-3.13: Prohibit the construction o.fbuildings or structures that would present a hazard to air navigation, as determined by the Federal Aviation Administration. • LU-3.14: Development proposals that include construction or alteration of structures more than 200 feet above ground level, or that otherwise require filing with the Federal Aviation Administration and Airport Land Use Commission pursuant tofederal and State law, shall comply with applicable.filing requirements. 884
Agenda Item 3 Costa Mesa Neighborhoods Where We All Belong July 16, 2026

Page 5 ends

Iffiling is required in accordance with State or federal agency procedures, a Notice ofProposed Construction or Alteration, FAA Form 7460-1, shall be filed prior to review and consideration ofthe proposed development.

Development under the MUOD, or under the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, would be required to file FAA Form 7460-1 and comply with applicable FAA and ALUC review requirements if the development exceeds applicable FAA notification criteria or otherwise triggers Part 77 review.

Note that Section 2.1.3 of the AELUP for JWA states:
"A Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation does not automatically equate to a Consistency detennination by the ALUC. The FAA may also conclude in their aeronautical study that a project is an Obstruction but not a Hazard to Air Navigation.

The Commission may find a project Inconsistent based on an Obstruction detennination."
Regarding Safety Zones and Flight Tracks
Attachment 7 shows the Project in relation to the Safety Zones for JWA. Portions of the MUOD area would be located within Safety Zones 2, 3, and 6, with a small part of one parcel located within Safety Zone 1 - Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). The RPZ is the "very close final approach or depaiiure" for aircraft and has a "very high risk level." As indicated in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, all structures and residential land uses in this area should be prohibited.

Safety Zone 2 is the Inner Approach/Departure Zone where aircraft are flying at low altitudes on final approach and departure. The Handbook indicates avoiding residential uses except as infill in developed areas and limiting nonresidential uses to activities that attract few people. The Handbook states that assembly uses, children's schools, large daycare centers, hospitals, nursing homes, stadiums, group recreational uses, and hazardous uses should be prohibited.

The MUOD would also apply to areas located within Safety Zones 3 and 6. Safety Zone 3 is the Inner Turning Zone, where residential uses should be limited to very low densities, and higher intensity non-residential uses should be avoided. Safety Zone 6 is the Traffic Pattern Zone, where residential uses are generally allowed, but overflight should be considered. Attachment 8 includes JW A Flight Tracks for three separate days in June 2026. As shown on the illustration, the area south of Bristol Street included in the MUOD ( allowing residential uses) is subject to numerous general aviation flights at altitudes between 400 and 800 feet. See Attachment 9 for Safety Zone inforn1ation provided in the Handbook.

AELUP for Heliports
The City's Land Use Element allows for the development of heliports and includes Policy LU- 3 .15, which requires development proposals involving a heliport or helistop to comply with State permit procedures, including referral to ALUC by the applicant, and with conditions imposed or recommended by FAA, ALUC, and Caltrans.
885
Agenda Item 3 - Costa Mesa Neighborhoods Where We All Belong July 16, 2026

Page 6 ends

Environmental Compliance
The City has prepared a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the Neighborhoods Where We All Belong Zoning Updates and Housing Element Implementation effort. The Draft PEIR is currently available for public review and comment, and the public comment period ends August 3, 2026.

Conclusion
ALUC staff has reviewed the proposed Project, including amendments to the Zoning Code, General Plan (including the Noise Element and Land Use Element), and three Specific Plans with respect to compliance with theAELUP for JWA, including review of noise, height, and safety. The Project would allow new residential and mixed-use development within the 65-and-above dBA CNEL for JW A; within Safety Zones 1, 2, 3 and 6; and would continue to allow development that would exceed the obstruction imaginary surfaces for JW A (North Costa Mesa Specific Plan).

Attachment 10 contains excerpts from the City of Costa Mesa submittal for the Project. The Draft Housing Element, Zoning Code Updates and other Project materials can be found on the City 's website: https ://www.costamesaneighborhoods.com/
Recommendation
That the Commission find the proposed City of Costa Mesa Neighborhoods Where We All Belong Zoning Updates and Housing Element Implementation inconsistent with the AELUP for JWA per:

1. Section 2.1.1 Aircraft Noise, because aircraft noise from airports may be incompatible with the general welfare of inhabitants within the vicinity of an airport;

2. Section 2.1.2 Safety Compatibility Zones, because the purpose of the Safety Zones is to support continued airport use and operation by establishing compatibility and safety standards to promote air navigational safety and reduce potential safety hazards for persons living, working, or recreating near JW A;

3. Section 3.2.1 General Policy, because within the boundaries oftheAELUP , land uses may be found inconsistent if they place people so that they are affected adversely by aircraft noise or concentrate people in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents;

4. Section 3.2.3 Noise Impact Zone "1" - High Noise Impact, because the AELUP does not support residential development within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour and finds residential units inconsistent unless they are sufficiently sound attenuated to meet the 45 dB CNEL interior standard and sufficiently indoor oriented to preclude noise impingement on outdoor living areas;
886
Agenda Item 3 - Costa Mesa Neighborhoods Where We All Belong July 16, 2026
Page7

5. Section 3.2.5 Runway Protection Zone "RPZ," Extreme Crash Hazard, because only airport-related uses and open space uses, including agriculture and certain types of transportation and utility uses, are permitted, and no buildings intended for human habitation are permitted in the RPZ.

Respectfully submitted,
0'JJ~
Julie Fitch
Executive Officer
Attachments:

1. Housing Element Focus Area 2

2. Project Sites

3. JWA Noise Contours

4. JWA Notification Area

5. NCMSP Table 2 Maximum Heights

6. Proposed Maximum Heights/JW A Obstruction Surfaces

7. JW A Safety Zones

8. JWA Flight Tracks

9. Safety Zones - California Airport Land Use Handbook

10. Excerpts from Costa Mesa Submittal
887

RECEIVED
Mar02 2022
Focus Area 2, Map A: North Costa Mesa, Sakioka Lot 2, and SoBeca - Safety Zones Distance from inner limit (206)
to the outer limit (406)
........ City Boundary
Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces
---• Safety Zone Rwy 1R & 19L
Safety Zone Rwy ll & 19R
Specific Plan
CJ
-
-
CJ
-
19West
Fairview Developmental
Harbor Mixed-Use
MesaWes t
North Costa Mesa - HR
North Costa Mesa - SL2
I j North Costa Mesa
- SoBECA
~
1-z w
~
I
0 <r:
t= <r:
888
WWamerAve
Slater Ave
~
"'q>rdioes
;;;
i•
~
"'
;;;
j
"'
E Dyer Rd
"'
MacArthur Blvd
GarOeldAve
Yorktown Av e
D Costa Mesa City Boundary
l - Parcel Boundaries
D Housing Element Opportunity Siles'
D Measure KSiles
·Housit1g Element sites shown reflecl the Sites
Inventory of the Dtaft Updated Housing Element
dated June 22 2026 and a,e subfed lo change
SOURCE: City of Cosla Mesa, Orange County Sanitation District. Open Street Map 0 15 05DUDEK ! "-~=-'--a:1M les Neighborhoods Where We All Belon ATTACHMENT 2 889
Note: County Unincorporated areas are shown in white.

Composite contour fromJohn Wayne Airport Impact Zones
John Wayne Airport Project
Case-1990 and 2005
LEGEND (see section 2.2.1)

CERTIFICATION
-65- CNEL CONTOUR Adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County -•-• RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE
I----- -••-" CITY BOUNDARIES
. _.. ,...
- AIRPORT BOUNDARIES ATTACHMENT 3
890
AELUP Notification Area for JWA
ATTACHMENT 3
Note : County Unincorporated areas are shown in white.

FAR PART 77
Notification Area for John Wayne Airport: 20,000' Radius at 100: 1 Slope LEGEND

CERTIFICATION
20,000'Radius Adopted by lhe Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County

CITY BOUNDARIES
AIRPORT BOUNDARIES0 D~XIOOt«o!«IO l!iOO
;; Stole In f"eel
ATTACHMENT 4 Date
891
~ --
Costalvfesa North Cost a Mesa Specific Plan
Table 2- Maximum Building Heights
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan

SUB-AREA MAXIMUM BUILDING
2HEIGHT 1•
NOTES
AREA 1
Home Ranch
Varies See Exhibit 11 b.

AREA2
Metro Pointe
30 feet-north of South
Coast Drive (approx. 2
stories)
90 feet-south of South
Coast Drive (approx. 6
stories)
Current development agreement allows buildings up to 15 Buildings above 173 feet in height will require a
determination of no hazard by the FAA.

AREA3
South Coast
Plaza and
Crystal Court
85 feet (approx. 4 stories) None
AREA4
SCP Town
Center
315 feet ( approx. 25 stories) Buildings above 173 feet in height will require a determination of no hazard by the FAA.

AREAS
The Lakes
Mid-rise Residential-90 feet
(approx . 6 stories)
High-rise Residential - 280
feet (approximately
26 stories) Commercial-
110 feet (approximately 11
stories)
Buildings above 173 feet in height will require a
determination of no hazard by the FAA.

AREA6
South Coast
Metro
Varies-See Table 6B. Buildings above 173 feet in height will require a determination of no hazard by the FAA.

Buildings which encroach into the setback for Anton
cannot exceed 30 feet (approx. 2 stories) within the
AREA 7
Sakioka Lot 1
60 feet (approx. 4
stories)
Buildings which encroach into the setback for Anton Blvd. and/or Sakioka Dr. cannot exceed 30 feet (approx. 2
stories) within the setback area.

AREAS
Sakioka Lot 2
North of collector street- 60
feet ( approx.4 stories)
South of collector street- 120
feet (approx. 8 stories)
Buildings above 161 feet in height will require a
determination of no hazard by the FAA.

Buildings which encroach into the setback for Anton
cannot exceed 30 feet (approx. 2 stories) within the
setback area.

1. All building height measurements reference the height above grade- not mean sea level.

2. The maximum building heights specified in this Specific Plan shall continue to apply to a property unless specifically superseded by a MUOD project wl=!eA a 1i!F91:19R¥ ewAeF sl=!eeses ta e:xeFGise , as aQQlicable. If the MUOD provisions of Article 11 (Mixed-Use Overlay District) of Chapter V (Development Standards) of Title 13 (Planning and Development) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code..film!y_on a qualifying property, iA wAiGA sase the hiqher heiqht limit as between the MUOD and this Specific Plan shall apply.

Updated February 2001 ; November 2001 ; January 2007 ; November 2007 ; March 2026 27 ATTACHMENT 5
892
Note: County Unincorporated areas are shown in white.

FAR PART 77
John Wayne Airport Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces

LEGEND CERTIFICATION
~ Adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County 0 OX! XNX1 lOOO 40X1 SJOO 7500
!:iOO Scale In Feet -••-• CITY BOUNDARIES
- AIRPORT BOUNDARIES
ATTACHMENT 6
893
ATTACHMENT 15
-D JWA Obstruction Contour
Costa Mesa City BP oundary
arcel Boundaries
Proposed Max B • •D 60 feet u1l dmg Height
D 72 feet
108 feet
Slater Ave
;;;
,:
~
"'
MacArthu °' '81.~()'
- EllisAve
"' 1'!
~
Garfield Ave
Yorktown Ave
r"'•c-,,
~
~
" ' 1
WWilson St
L ~ ~
'7 ~ /
:1~~
;!
6 '
reposed AGL: 60'
o~I height: 90'
a 77 Surface: 91 .96'
!?;"
eJ,-4,,t!':;.
<SI
SOURCE· Cit~;::~:;~-;;:'-!:_a.'li(LU_'h_~1/A. y of Costa Mesa 2025. a esa
Maximum BUI·1ct·mg Height
, o City of Costa Mesa 894
John Wayne Airport Safety Zone Reference Map
..-::-, SAFETY COMPATIBILITY ZONES FOR RUNWAY 2L & 20R IA MEOIUMLEGEND L....:::......J GENERAL AVIATION RUNWAY AS DESCRIBED IN THE CALWORNIA AIRPORT LANO USE PLANNING HANDBOOK. JANUARY 2002 EDITION)1. RUNWAY PRO JECTION ZONE ..-::-, SAFETY COMPATIBILITY ZONES FOR RUNWAY 2R & 20L (A SHORT 2. IN NER APPROACH / DEPARTURE ZONE L....:::......J GENERAL AVIATION RUNWAY AS DESCRIBED IN THE CALIFORNIA AIRPORT LANO USE PLANNING HANDBOOK, JANUARY 2002 EDITION)3 INNER TURNING ZONE

4. ou-rn APPROACH / DEPARTURE ZONE CERTIFICATION
5 S IDELINE ZONE Adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County 6 TRAFFIC PAIIERN ZONE
. --.. -
ATTACHMENT 7
895
:/' •
011
1 J O H N WAY N E
E :: AIRPORT John Wayne Airport Access & Noise Office
r, - ORANGE COUNTY 1 /fo\l..-
John Wayne Airport Altitude Analysis
Tuesday, June 9, 2026
551 Operations
Altil.ude (I\)
■ <401 h
■ 401-801 ft
■ 801-1201 h
■ 1201 - 1601 ft
0 1601 - 2001 ft
• >20011t
ATTACHMENT 8
896
.... ' 0
;~ ~\ JOHN WAYNE
::: =- AIRPORT John Wayne Airport Access & Noise Office r,l _.,. ORANGE COUNTY
/fl) \' •
John Wayne Airport Altitude Analysis
Thursday, June 11 , 2026
662 Operations
Source: John Wayne Airport, Orange County
Alibde(ft)
• <101 ft
• 101 ·801 ft
• 801 - 1201 ft
• 1201- 1601 ft
0 1601 • 2001 ft
• >2001 ft
2 897
::;'' .. °.1.t, JOH N WAY N E
E ::: AIRPORT John Wayne Airport Access & Noise Office
r ,( - ORANGE COUNTY
IFO\l...-
John Wayne Airport Altitude Analysis
Saturday , June 13, 2026
516 Operations
Miltd!(R)
■ <401 It
■ 401-801 ft
■ 801 - 1201 ft
■ 1201 - 1601 ~
0 1601 - 2001 It
■ >200m
3 898
4 DEVELOPING AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIB ILITY POLICIES
Nature of Risk
■ Normal Maneuvers:
• Aircraft on very close final approach or departure - very high risk ■ Altitude
• Less than 200 feet above runway
■ Common Accident Types
• Arrival : Downdrafts and wind gusts. Low glide paths
• Departure: Runway overruns, aborted takeoffs and engine failures ■ Risk Level
• Very high
■ Percentage of near-runway accidents in this zone: 20% - 21 %

SHORT FINAL
Basic Compatibility Policies
■ Normally Allow
• None
■ Limit
• None
■ Avoid
• Nonresidential uses except if very low intensity in character and confined to the outer sides
• Parking lots, streets, roads
■ Prohibit 6 6
• All new structures and residential land uses
■ Other Factors
• Airport ownership of property encouraged
5 5• Uses on airport property subject to FAA standards
Refer to Chapter 3 for dimensions.

Maximum Residential Densities Maximum Nonresidential
Intensities
Maximum Single Acre
Average number of dwelling units
per gross acre
Average number of people
per gross acre
2x the Average number of people
per gross acre
Rural 0 0 - See Note A 0
Suburban 0 0 - See Note A 0
Urban 0 0-See Note A 0
Dense Urban 0 0 - See Note A 0
Note A: Exceptions can be permitted for agricultural activities, roads, and automobile parking provided that FAA criteria are satisfied.
4 FIGURE 48
Safety Zone 1 - Runway Protection Zone ATTACHMENT 9
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook 4-20
899
DEVELOPING AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY POLICES 4
Nature of Risk
■ Normal Maneuvers
• Aircraft overflying at low altitudes on final approach and straight-out departures
■ Altitude
• Between 200 and 400 feet above runway
■ Common Accident Types
• Arrival: Similar to Zone 1, aircraft under-shooting approaches, forced short landings
• Departure: Similar to Zone 1, emergency landing on
straight-out departure
■ Risk Level
• High
• Percentage of near-runway accidents in this zone: 8% - 22% FINAL APPROACH Basic Compatibility Policies
■ Normally Allow
• Agriculture; non-group recreational uses
• Low-hazard materials storage, warehouses
• Low-intensity light industrial uses; auto, aircraft, marine repair services
■ Limit
• Single-story office buildings
• Nonresidential uses to activities that attract few people ■ Avoid
• All residential uses except as infill in developed areas 6 • Multi-story uses; uses with high density or intensity • Shopping centers, most eating establishments
■ Prohibit
• Theaters, meeting halls and other assembly uses
• Office buildings greater than 3 stories
• Labor-intensive industrial uses
• Children's schools, large daycare centers, hospitals , Refer to Chapter 3 for dimensions. nursing homes
• Stadiums, group recreational uses
• Hazardous uses (e.g. abovegroun d bulk fuel storage)
4 6
5 5
Maximum Residential Densities Maximum Nonresidential
Intensities
Maximum Single Acre
Average number of dwelling units
per gross acre
Average number of people
per gross acre
2x the Average number of people
per gross acre
Rural See Note A 10 - 40 50-80
Suburban 1 per 1 0 - 20 ac. 40-60 80 -120
Urban 0 60 - 80 120 - 160
Dense Urban 0 See Note B See Note B
Note A: Maintain current zoning if less than density criteria for suburban setting .

Note B: Allow infill at up to average intensity of comparable surrounding uses .

FIGURE 4C
Safety Zone 2 - Inner Approach/Departure Zone
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook 4-21
900
4 DEVELOP ING AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY POLICIES
Nature of Risk
■ Normal Maneuvers
• Aircraft-especially smaller, piston-powered aircraft- turning base to final on landing approach or initiating turn to en route direction on departure
■ Altitude
• Less than 500 feet above runway, particularly on landing ■ Common Accident Types
• Arrival : Pilot overshoots turn to final and inappropriately cross controls the airplane rudder and ailerons while attempting to return to the runway alignment causing stall , spin, and uncontrolled crash • Departure: Mechanical failu re on takeoff; low altitude gives pilot few options on emergency landing site; or, pilot attempts to return TURNING TO FINALto airport and loses control during tight turn ■ Risk Level
• Moderate to high
• Percentage of near-runway accidents in this zone: 4% - 8% Basic Compatibility Policies
■ Normally Allow
• Uses allowed in Zone 2
• Greenhouses, low-hazard materials storage, mini-storage, warehouses
• Light industrial, vehicle repair services
■ Limit
• Residential uses to very low densities
• Office and other commercial uses to low intensities
■ Avoid 6
• Commercial and other nonresidential uses having higher usage intensities
• Building with more than 3 aboveground habitable floors • Hazardous uses (e.g., aboveground bulk fuel storage)
■ Prohibit
• Major shopping centers, theaters, meeting halls and other assembly facilities
• Children's schools, large daycare centers, hospitals, Refer to Chapter 3 for dimensions . nursing homes
• Stadiums, group recreational uses
4 6
5 5
Maximum Residential Densities Maximum Nonresidential
Intensities
Maximum Single Acre
Average number of dwelling units
per gross acre
Average number of people
per gross acre
3x the Average number of people
per gross acre
Rural See Note A 50- 70 150 - 210
Suburban 1 per 2 - 5 ac. 70-100 210 - 300
Urban See Note B 100 - 150 300 - 450
Dense Urban See Note B See Note B See Note B
Note A: Maintain current zoning if less than density criteria for suburban setting .

Note B: Allow infill at up the average of surrounding residential area .

FIGURE 40
Safety Zone 3 - Inner Turning Zone
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook 4-22
901
DEVELOPING AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY POLICES 4
Nature of Risk
■ Normal Maneuvers
• Aircraft within a regular traffic pattern and pattern entry routes ■ Altitude
• Ranging from 1,000 to 1,500 feet above runway
■ Common Accident Types
• Arrival: Pattern accidents in proximity of airport
• Departure: Emergency landings
■ Risk Level
• Low
• Percentage of near-runway accidents in this zone: 18% - 29% (percentage is high because of large area encompassed)

IN TRAFFIC PATTERN
Basic Compatibility Policies
■ Normally Allow
• Residential uses (however, noise and overflight impacts should be considered where ambient noise levels are low)
■ Limit
• Children's schools, large day care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes
• Processing and storage of bulk quantities of highly hazardous materials
■ Avoid
• Outdoor stadiums and similar uses with very high intensities ■ Prohibit
• None
6 5 5
Refer to Chapter 3 for dimensions.

Maximum Residential Densities Maximum Nonresidential
Intensities
Maximum Single Acre
Average number of dwelling units
per gross acre
Average number of people
per gross acre
4x the Average number of people
per gross acre
Rural No Limit - See Note A 150 - 200 600- 800
Suburban No Limit - See Note A 200- 300 800 -1 ,200
Urban No Limit - See Note A No Limit - See Note B No Limit - See Note B Dense Urban No Limit - See Note A No Limit - See Note B No Limit - See Note B Note A: Noise and overflight should be considered .

Note B: Large stadiums and similar uses should be avoided.

FIGURE 4G
Safety Zone 6 - Traffic Pattern Zone
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook 4-25
902
1 ECONOMIC & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
June 24, 2026
Ms. Julie Fitch
Executive Officer
Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County
3160 Airway Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Sent via email to: Julie Fitch, JFitch@ocair .com and ALUCinfo@o cair .com RE: Review of the Neighborhoods Where We All Belong Zoning Updates and Housing Element Implementation for Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Consistency, City of Costa Mesa
Dea r Ms. Fitch,
Please consider this application to determine consistency between the proposed Neighborhoods Where We All Belong Zoning Updates and Housing Element Implementation effort and the AELUP for John Wayne Airport (JWA) . Neighborhoods Where We All Belong (NWWAB) is the City of Costa Mesa's initiative to encourage and facilitate housing development . It is not a development project . The City proposes to apply an overlay to increase housing and mixed-use development capacity, as well as amend related documents for consistency, clarity, and compliance with State law . Attachment 1 includes the completed ALUC Submittal Form for the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code, General Plan, and specific plans.

Project Background and Location
The City's State-mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 2021-2029 Planning Period is 11,760 units, including 2,919 units for very low income households, 1,794 low income, 2,088 moderate income, and 4,959 units for above moderate income households. This is the largest RHNA in Costa Mesa history. The previous RHNA was two units, one very low and one low (a 587,900 percent change). To accommodate this historically high RHNA, the City proposes to use an overlay on non-residential parcels where rezoning and land use changes are allowed without a citywide vote.

In 2016, Costa Mesa voters approved voter-initiated Ballot Measure Y, which established a requirement for a citywide vote before approving zoning or land use changes that would 77 FAIR DRIVE, POST OFFICE BOX 1200, COSTA MESA CA. 92628-1200 Building Safety Division (714) 754-5273 Community Improvement Division (714) 754-5638 Housing & Community Development (714) 754-4870 Plann ing Division (714) 754-5245 www.costamesaca.gov
ATTACHMENT 10 903
2 ECONOM IC & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
result in more than 40 new housing units or more than 200 new daily trip ends, among other thresholds . To date, no development applicant has completed the citywide vote under Measure Y.

In 2022, Costa Mesa voters approved City -initiated Ballot Measure K, which exempted specific commercial and industrial parcels from Measure Y. Measure K enables the City to amend zoning and land uses in those non -residential areas, without another citywide vote.

The subject effort, NWWAB proposes actions to facilitate housing and mi xed-use development on Measure K parcels . All Housing Element sites, except th e Fairvi ew Developmental Center Specific Plan (FDCSP) site, are within Measure K.

The entire NWWAB effort Planning A rea encompasses 1,353 acres of Measu re K par cels generally located along major thoroughfares including but not limited to Harbor Boulevard, Newport Boulevard, Bristol St reet, Placent ia Avenue, 19th Street, 18th Street, 17th Street, Baker Street, and most prop erties north of Interstate 405 (1 -405) . Existing uses are gen erally characterized by urban commercial and industrial development . See Attachment 2, NWWAB Planning Area and Attachmen t 3, Notification Area .

Project Description
NWWAB would create development capa city to meet and exceed the RHNA by applying an updated Mixed-Use Overlay Distric t to Measure K sites, including all but one Housing Element site . There are various sub-areas within the MUOD with specified maximum densities and building heights . While no direct development is proposed as part of NWWAB, the application of the overlay to Measure K sites would allow for futu re residential and mi xed-use development in the Planning Area. Implementation would occur as prope rty owners choose to redevelop over several decades. The Draft Program Environmental Impact Report assumes a horizon year of 2056 .

The NWWAB effort will facilitate housing and mixed -use development through amendments to the Zoning Code, General Plan, and specific plans.

Proposed Zoning Code Amendments
Proposed amendments Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13, Article 11 Mixed Use Overlay District (MUOD) would increase the allowable densities and building heights on most Measure K properties, including Housing Element sites. See Attachment 4, Draft Zoning Code Amendments. The following compatibility standards are proposed in the MUOD :
• Applicable MUOD projects shall be subject to a noise study prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer. Applicable MUOD projects include those abutting a freeway or within the Airport Planning Area, as defined by the Airport Environs Land Use Plan 2! Page
904

ECONOM IC & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
(AELUP) for John Wayne Ai rport .The noise study shall certify compliance with CMMC Title 13, Chapter XIII (Noise Control) and the AELUP.
• MUOD projects on properties located within the Airport Planning Area, as defined by the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport, shall comply with applicable requirements of the AELUP, unless overridden by the City Council.

Proposed Amendments to the Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13, Chapter V, Article 2, Residential Common Interest Developments identify that the City may apply conditions of approval requiring "written notice of the existing noise or odor use within the development and a specific radius be distributed to prospective purchasers or tenants. Written notice shall be provided at least fifteen (15) days prior to the close of escrow or within three (3) days of executing a rental or lease agreement for tenants, whichever is longer ." Additionally, the City could accept "upgraded windows and exterio r door s for noise reduction and energy conservation." See Attachment 4.

Other Zoning Code amendments are proposed that do not impact building height, such as changes to planning application processing, definitions, site improvements, etc.

Proposed General Plan Amendments
The proposed General Plan amendments are technical in nature and not comprehensive updates. Amendments to the Housing Element are proposed to identify specific sites with the capacity to address the RHNA and identify implementation progress. In the draft amendment, the City provides an update to Housing Element Program 3H : Analyze the Potential of Establishing an Overlay to Permit Residential Uses in the Airport Industrial Area .

The amendment includes the City's determination that allowing residential uses in the industrial area immediately west of JWA would not be appropriate .

Only the proposed amendments to the Housing Element and Land Use Element would change land use. The draft amendments to the Housing Element and Land Use Element are provided in Attachments 5 and 6, respectively. Text being added is underlined and text being removed is stI uck ti ii ougl 1.

The proposed limited amendments to the Noise, Circulation, Community Design, and Open Space and Recreation Elements, would remove references to Urban Plans and Master Plans for mi xed-use development (the City will be utilizing the MUOD and objective design standards), remove references to districts to reduce confusion with actual land use or zoning distr icts, and other simple text edits for clarity and consistency. The proposed amendments to the Noise Element and other elements are provided for reference in Attachment 7. Text being added is underlined and text being removed is stI uck ti ii ougl 1.

The City of Costa Mesa Land Use Element includes the following relevant policies:
3I Page
905

ECONOM IC & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
LU-3.14: Certain development proposals which may include the construction or alteration of structures more than 200 feet above ground level may require filing with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) pursuant to federal and State law. If a filing requirement is determined to be necessary in accordance with the procedures provided by State/federal agencies, the filing of a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (FAA Form 7460 -1) shall be required prior t o review and consideration of the proposed development." Land Use Element (page LU-18) refers to the threshold stated above . It shall be amended to refer to Filing FAA Form 7460 -1 Notice of Construction and Alteration, and not to Form 7480 -1.

LU-3.15 : The City will ensu re that development proposals, including the construction or operation of a heliport or helistop comply fully with permit procedures under State law, including referral of the project to the ALUC by t he applicant, and with all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration, ALUC, and Caltrans, including the filing of Form 7480 -1 (Notice of Landing Area Proposed) with the FAA. This requirement shall be in addition to all oth er City development requirements.

LU-3.16: The City shall refer certain projec t s to th e Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, as required by Section 21676 of the California Public Utilities Code to determine consistency of the project(s) with the Airport Environ s Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport .

LU-3.17: New residential developments within the 60 dB CNEL noise contour of the airport shall provide designated outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft .

The City of Costa Mesa Noise Element includes the following relevant policies :

N-1.1: Enforce the maximum acceptable exte rior noise levels for residential areas at 65 CNEL .

N-1.4 : Ensure that appropriate site design measures are incorporated into residential developments, when required by an acoustical study, to obtain appropriate exterior and interior noise levels. When necessary, require field testing at the time of project completion to demonstrate compliance.

N-1 .6: Discourage sensitive land uses from locating within the 65 CNEL noise contour of John Wayne Airport . Should it be deemed by the City as appropriate and/or necessary for a sensitive land use to locate in the 65 CNEL noise contour, ensure that appropriate interior noise levels are met and that minimal outdoor activities are allowed . 4j Page
906

ECONOMIC & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
N-1. 7: Support alternative methods for the reduction of noise impacts at John Wayne Airport while continuing to maintain safety and existing limitations on aircraft daily departures .

Proposed Specific Plan Amendments
There are three specific plans that are proposed to be amended to acknowledge the application of the MUOD to Measure K sites, including Housing Element sites. These are not comprehensive amendments . Changes are targeted to address this specific issue efficiently. • The Newport Boulevard Specific Plan encompasses properties fronting the east side of Newport Boulevard between Mesa Drive and 19th Street. The proposed amendment would clarify that the MUOD provides additional development opportunities on Measure K sites and that properties listed in the Housing Element would be developed according to the Housing Element -related provisions of the MUOD, except where the specific plan allows greater capacity . • The North Costa Mesa Specific Plan covers appro ximately 423 acres in northeast Costa Mesa . The proposed amendment would clarify that the MUOD is applicable to Mea sure K sites and that properties listed in the Housing Element would be developed according to the Housing Element-related provisions of the MUOD, except where the specific plan allows for greater building height or capacity. • The One Metro West Specific Plan establishes standards for one 15.23-acre site on Sunflower Avenue at Cadillac Avenue in far northwest Costa Mesa . This property is in the proposed Housing Element amendment . The proposed amendment would clarify that the Housing Element -related provisions of the MUOD are applicable to the property, except where the specific plan allows for greater height or capacity .

Excerpts of the draft amendments to three specific plans are provided in underline and strikethrough format in Attachments 8, 9, and 10.
3 Applicable Sections of the CEQA documentation
The Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the project is linked below .

Please see Draft PEIR Vol. IV Section 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Vol. V Section

4.11 Land Use and Planning, and Draft PEIR Vol. V Section 13 Noise . Excerpts specific to noise and land use planning are provided in Attachment 11 . The Draft PEIR public comment period ends August 3, 2026 . Note that the Draft PEIR Hazards section will need to be revised in the Final PEIR to address the two parcels within Safety Zones 1 and 2. A portion of APN 119 -401 -03 is within Safety Zones 1 and 2, and APN 119-401-03 intersects with Safety Zone

2. Additionally , the Land Use section will need to be updated in the Final PEIR to clarify that SI Page
907

ECONOMIC & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Hou sing Element sites north of 1-405 with a maximum den sity of 90 units per a cre can achieve heights of 108 feet via the M UOD.

Draft PEIR: https ://www.costamesaca .gov/government/departments-and divisions/economic -and -development -services/planning/environmental -notices -and reports
4 Public Hearing Schedule
The City anticipa tes taking the project to the Plann ing Commission on September 14, 2026 and to the City Council on October 6, 2026.
5 CNEL Contour and Noise Mitigation
The City of Costa Mesa wa s challenged with th e highest RHNA in th e City's history as well as being limited to making zoning and land use change s within the boundar ies of Mea sure K.

There are 17 Measur e K sites who lly or partia lly with in the 65 dBA CNEL noise contou r. As part of th e amended MUOD, the Project wou ld autho rize increase s in maximum permitted building heights on 12 of th e 17 sites. The remaining Measure K parce ls with proposed height increases are located within the 60 dBA CN EL contour or less than 60 dBA CNEL . As described in the Draft PEIR, Measure K sites w ithin the JWA 65 dBA CNEL contour wou ld be subject to the AELUP's noise compat ibility requirements and the City's Noise Element compatibility framework . Future residentia l development on these sites wou ld be required to d e monstrate compl iance with t he State interior no ise standard of 45 dBA CNEL and with the City's exter ior noise compatibi lity criteria through acoustical ana lysis, building design measures , and site planning . Project implementation via the amended M UOD wou ld require a noise study fo r future development projects abutting a freeway or within the Airport Influence Area, as defined by the AELUP for Jo hn W ayne A irport. The noise stud y would certify comp liance with the City 's Noise Ordinance and be consistent with requirements in the AELUP for Joh n Wayne Airport.

Table 1. NWWAB Planning Area Parcels within the 65 CNEL Contour or Higher Existing Proposed
APN Zone GPLU Max. Height Max. height CNEL ll 19R lR 19L 119-401-04 C2 GC 30 60 70-75 1 6
119-401-03 C2 GC 30 60 70-75 2 6
119-401-01 C2 GC 30 60 65-70 3 6
119-401-02 C2 GC 30 60 65-70 3
119-401-05 PDC GC No Max. 60 65-70 3 6
119-401-06 PDC GC No Max. 60 65-70 3 6
427-165-07 Cl GC 30 60 65-70 3
6I Page
6 6
908

ECONOM IC & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMEN T
Existing Proposed
APN Zone GPLU Max. Height Max. height CNEL 1L19R 1R19L
119-200-14 C2 GC 30 60 65-70 3
11 -200-36 PDC GC No Max. 60 3
427-165-06 Cl GC 30 60 6
427-362-06 Cl GC 30 60 65-70 6
427-362-07
119-200-13
Ct
C2
GC
GC
30 30
60 60
65-70
65-70
6 6
439-312-10 Cl GC 30 60 65-70 6
439-312-11 Ct GC 30 72 65-70 6 -
410-441-13 PDC ucc 60-120 108* 60-65 6 6
410-441-16 PDC ucc 180 72 60-65 6 6
*Site APN 410-441 -13 could be deve loped via t he pro posed M UOD with a maximum building heig ht of 108 feet or via t he Nort h Costa Mesa Specific Plan with a maximu m heig ht of 120 feet.

See Attachments 4, 7, 11, and 12 for noi se rel ated policies and regulat ions. Noise contours are id entified in Attachment 13.
6 Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)
Please see Attachment 14 for a map of Land Use and JWA Safety Zone s. 7 Imaginary Surfaces Height Restriction Zone
Th e Project Area includes sites across the City of Costa Mes a. Ground elevation near JWA rang es from appro ximat ely 28 to 36 feet. As proposed, the maximum allowable building heights enabled by the MUOD south of 1-405 range from 60 to 72 feet. The maximum allowabl e building heights enab led by the MUOD north of 1-405 range from 60 to 108 feet .

Note that some North Costa Mes a Specific Plan sites within Measure K already have established allowab le heights up to 120 fee t. The MUOD is an overlay and would not remove the existing right to dev elop to heights approved in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan . See Attachment 15 for proposed maximum heights in the MUOD and Obstruction Contou rs.

If you have any comments or questions, please contact the project planner, Michelle Halligan , Senior Planne r, at (714) 754 -5608 or Michelle .Halligan@costamesaca .gov.

Sincerely,
~+f~
Michelle Halligan, Senior Planner
7 j Pag e
909

ECONOM IC & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ATTACHMENTS:
1 Completed ALUC Submittal Forms and Checklists
2 NWWAB Planning Area
3 Notification Area
4 Draft Zoning Code Amendments
5 Draft Housing Element Amendment Excerpt
6 Draft Land Use Element Amendment
7 Draft Noise, Circulation, Community Design, and Open Space and Recreation Element Amendments
8 Draft Newport Boulevard Specific Plan Amendment
9 Draft North Costa Mesa Specific Plan Amendment Excerpt 10 Draft One Metro West Specific Plan Amendment Excerpt 11 Draft PEIR Excerpts
12 Zoning Code Noise Control
13 Land Use and Noise Contours
14 Proposed Land Use and JWA Safety Zones
15 Proposed Maximum Heights and Obstruction Contours
8I Page
910
ATTACHMENT 1

AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION

FOR ORANGE COUNTY

SUBMITTAL FORM
□ GENERAL PLAN· □ SPECIFIC PLAN - ~ ZONING CODE

1. Name of City or County: City of Costa Mesa

2. Contact Information - Name/Title Michelle Halligan, Senior Planner Agency: City of Costa Mesa
Address: 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone/email: {714) 754-5608 [email protected]

3. Airport Planning Area(s):
1:2'.l John Wayne Airport □ Fullerton Municipal Airport □ JFTB -· Los Alamitos

4. Item being submitted for review (submit each on a separate form): Name of General Plan Element, Specific Plan or Planned Community: Neighborhoods Where We All Belong Zoning Updates

5. Scheduled date of Planning Commission Public Hearing: 9/14/2026

6. Tentative date of City Council/Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: 10/6/2026

7. Requested date of ALUC Review July 16, 2026.

Complete submittals must be received by the first day of the month to be considered for the next meeting date.

8. Does the item submitted propose a change of land use or heights within the airport Notification/Planning Area*? □ No (skip items# 9-12). IZl Yes (continue below).

9. Does the item propose a change of land use within the IZJ60 CNEL or IZJ65 CNEL noise contours of the airport(s)*? Please attach an exhibit showing location(s) of the proposed new uses in relation to noise contours.

10. Are noise policies or mitigation measures identified in the proposed item or elsewhere in the General Plan? No 1:2'.l Yes - Please attach pages with current (and proposed if applicable) noise policies/mitigation measures highlighted.

11. Does the item submitted propose a change of land use within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ}, Clear Zone (CZ), or Airport Safety Zones of the airport*'? □ No IZl Yes - Please attach exhibit showing location(s) of proposed uses.

12. Does the item submitted propose a change of height within the Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces*? □ No IZl Yes

13. Please indicate current existing maximum heights range from 30 ft to no maximum and proposed range of 60 to 108 depending on location (for projects opting to use the Mixed-Use Overlay District) maximum heights allowed.

Continued on next page.
911

Page 2 ends

SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: General Plan· Specific Plan • Zoning Code ~ Cover letter on City/County letterhead.
~ Completed Submittal Form.
~ Link to existing Zonine Code https://ecode360.com/42616379 and proposed See Attachments for the proposed Zoning Code updates, including the MUOD, or download them from https://www.costamesaneighborhoods .com/draftzoningupdates General Plan Element, Specific Plan or Zoning Code for this submittal. ~ Attachment showing proposed changes to General Plan Element, Specific Plan or Zoning Code Section(s) with strikethrough/underline.
~ Exhibit showing location(s) of propo sed new uses within the Notification Area/Planning Area for airport(s) .
~ Exhibit showing location(s) of proposed new uses in relation to noise contours for airport(s) . ~ Exhibit showing location(s) of proposed new uses in relation to Airport Safety Zones. ~ Exhibit showing location(s) of proposed new uses in relation to the Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces.
~ Attachment showing current and propose d noise policies/mitigation measures. ~ Explanation of how the General Plan, Specific Plan, or Zoning Code address the AELUP standards for noise impact, safety compatibility, and height restriction zones.

The draft Zoning Code amendmen t t o Title 13, Chapter C, Article 11, Mixed-Use Overlay District establishes compatibility standards for projects within the JWA Planning Area/AELUP. The draft amendment to Title 13, Chapter V, Article 2, Residential Common Interest Developments includes allowances for noise related conditions of approval in Westside Costa Mesa.
~ Describe height and density changes in cover letter and attach pages of General Plan, Specific Plan and/or Zoning Code where maximum heights are specified. ~ Provide information regarding CEQA compliance.
* For airport planning/notification areas, noise contours, safety zones and obstruction imaginary surfaces see Appendix D of the applicable Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) at:
https://www.ocair.com/about/admin istration/airport-governance/commissions/airport -land-use commission/
Noise sensitive uses include but are not limited to community facilities such as: churches, libraries, schools, preschools, day-care centers, hospitals, and nursing/convalescent homes.

Mail or Email Submittal Form, Checklist and attachments to: Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, Attn : Executive Officer, 3160 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 I Phone: (949) 252-5170 ALUCinfo@ocair .com

08.26.25 912

AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION

FOR ORANGE COUNTY

SUBMITTAL FORM
181 GENERAL PLAN· □ SPECIFIC PLAN· □ ZONING CODE

1. Name of City or County: City of Costa Mesa

2. Contact Information - Name/Title Michelle Halligan, Senior Planner Agency: City of Costa Mesa
Address: 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone/email: (714) 754-5608 [email protected]

3. Airport Planning Area(s):

C2:l John Wayne Airport □ Fullerton Municipal Airport □ JFTB - Los Alamitos

4. Item being submitted for review (submit each on a separate form): Name of General Plan Element, Specific Plan or Planned Community: Housing, Land Use, Noise, Circulation, Community Design, and Open Space and Recreation General Plan Elements

5. Scheduled date of Planning Commission Public Hearing: 9/14/2026

6. Tentative date of City Council/Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: 10/6/2026

7. Requested date of ALUC Review July 16, 2026.

Complete submitta/s must be received by the first day of the month to be considered for the next meeting date.

8. Does the item submitted propose a change of land use or heights within the airport Notification/Planning Area*? □ No (skip items# 9-12). IZl Yes (continue below).

10. Are noise policies or mitigation measures identified in the proposed item or elsewhere in the General Plan? □ No ISl Yes - Please attach pages with current (and proposed if applicable) noise policies/mitigation measures highlighted.

11. Does the item submitted propose a change of land use within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ), Clear Zone (CZ), or Airport Safety Zones of the airport*? □ No IZl Yes - Please attach exhibit showing location(s) of proposed uses.

12. Does the item submitted propose a change of height within the Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces*? D No IZl Yes

Continued on next page.
913

Page 2 ends

SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: General Plan • Specific Plan • Zoning Code Cover letter on City/County letterhead.
~ Completed Submittal Form.
~ Link to existing https ://www.costamesaca.gov/government/departments-and divisions/economic-and -development-services/planning/general-plan/2015 -2035-general plan and proposed See the attachments or download them from https://www.costamesaneighborhoods.com/draftzoningupdates General Plan Element, Specific Plan or Zoning Code for this submittal.

Attachment showing proposed changes to General Plan Element, Specific Plan or Zoning Code Section(s) with strikethrough/underline.

Exhibit showing location(s) of propos ed new uses within the Notification Area/Planning Area for airport(s).

Exhibit showing location(s) of proposed new uses in relation to noise contours for airport(s) .

Exhibit showing location(s) of proposed new uses in relation to Airport Safety Zones.

Exhibit showing location(s) of proposed new uses in relation to the Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces.

Attachment showing current and proposed noise policies/mitigation measures.

Explanation of how the General Plan, Specific Plan, or Zoning Code address the AELUP standards for noise impact, safety compatibility, and height restriction zones.

The Housing Element includes Program 3H to analyze establishing an overlay on industrial sites adjacent to the airport. The City determined that the area is not suitable for housing.

The Land Use Element includes policies LU -3.14, 3.15, 3.16 and 3.17 regarding compatibility between development and JWA/ALUC/AELUP. The Noise Element includes policies N-1.1,

1.4, 1.6, and 1.7 regarding acoustical studies and airport compatibility. ~ Describe height and density changes in cover letter and attach pages of General Plan, Specific Plan and/or Zoning Code where maximum heights are specified. ~ Provide information regarding CEQA compliance .
*For airport planning/notification areas, noise contours, safety zones and obstruction imaginary surfaces see Appendix D of the applicable Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) at:
https ://www.ocair.com/about/administration/airport-governance/commissions/airport -land-use commission/
Mail or Email Submittal Form, Checklist and attachments to: Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, Attn: Executive Officer, 3160 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 I Phone: (949} 252-5170 [email protected]

08.26.25 914

Page 3 ends

Noise sensitive uses include but are not limited to community facilities such as: churches, libraries, schools, preschools, day-care centers, hospitals, and nursing/convalescent homes.

Mail or Email Submittal Form, Checklist and attachments to : Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, Attn: Executive Officer, 3160 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 / Phone: (949) 252-5170 [email protected]

08.26.25 915

AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION

FOR ORANGE COUNTY

SUBMITTAL FORM
□ GENERAL PLAN ·181 SPECIFIC PLAN· □ ZONING CODE

1. Name of City or County: City of Costa Mesa

2. Contact Information - Name/Title Michelle Halligan, Senior Planner Agency: City of Costa Mesa
Address: 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone/email: (714) 754-5608 [email protected]

3. Airport Planning Area(s):

ISi John Wayne Airport □ Fullerton Municipal Airport D JFTB - Los Alamitos

4. Item being submitted for review {submit each on a separate form): Name of General Plan Element, Specific Plan or Planned Community: Amendments to the Newport Boulevard Specific Plan, North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, and One Metro West Specific Plan.

5. Scheduled date of Planning Commission Public Hearing: 9/14/2026

6. Tentative date of City Council/Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: 10/6/2026

7. Requested date of ALUC Review July 16, 2026.

Complete submitta/s must be received by the first day of the month to be considered for the next meeting date.

8. Does the item submitted propose a change of land use or heights within the airport Notification/Planning Area*? D No (skip items# 9-12). IZI Yes (continue below).

9. Does the item propose a change of land use within the i:gj60 CNEL or IZl65 CNEL noise contours of the airport(s)*? Please attach an exhibit showing location(s) of the proposed new uses in relation to noise contours.

10. Are noise policies or mitigation measures identified in the proposed item or elsewhere in the General Plan? □ No ISi Yes - Please attach pages with current (and proposed if applicable) noise policies/mitigation measures highlighted.

11. Does the item submitted propose a change of land use within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ), Clear Zone (CZ), or Airport Safety Zones of the airport*? □ No IZI Yes - Please attach exhibit showing location(s) of proposed uses.

12. Does the item submitted propose a change of height within the Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces*? D No IZI Yes

Continued on next page.
916
ATTACHM ENT 5

DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT EXCERPT
City of Costa Mesa
Housing Element
2021-2029
ADOPTED FEBRUARY 2022
Draft Amendments - June 22, 2026
917
same type in the same zone. Government Code Section 65651(a) also requires permanent supportive housing to be permitted by-right in zones where mult i-fam ily and mixed-use development is permitted, including non-residential zones permitt ing multi-family uses if they meet the Government Code Section requirements . In March 2026 the City adopted -revisions to the municipa l code consistent with 5tate lawState Law.

Objectives:
• Amend the Zoning Code to include transitional and permanent supportive housing i,•,i'ithin the City's land use matril( in compliance with Senate Bill 2 and Go1,iernment Code Section 65651 • Monitor the inventory of sites appropriate to accommodate transitional and supportive housing. • Proactively engage relevant organizations to meet the needs of persons experiencing homelessness and extreme ly low-income residents.

Timeframe: €Completed ey March 2026DeceFAber 2024.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind/HOME -ARP
PROGRAM 2K: Planning Application Fees
Residential developers are subject to a variety of fees and exactions to process permits and provide necessa ry services and facilities as allowed by State lawState Law. Development fees are necessary to imp lement planning, zoning and building safety laws and to provide the public services and infrastructure necessary to serve City residents. This program seeks to avoid application fees creating constraints to the development of affordable housing and to reduce development costs in other ways, where possible.JD.

March 2026, the City adopted revisions to the z~oning Ccode, creating by-right permit processing for qualifying residential developments , reducing the overall timing and cost associated with development.

Objectives:
• Review planning application fees, with a special focus on the density bonus fee, and update the fee(s) to avoid creating a constraint to the development of affordable housing.

Timeframe:Completed March 2026 To be coFApleted by DeceFAber 2024€i.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind/Genera l Fund
PROGRAM 2L: Development of Housing for Extremely Low and LoweF-lncome Households The City recognizes the importance of supporting the development of housing for low and extremely low income households. It is a primary goal of the Housing Element to increase the feasibility of development of housing for extremely low and low income households. In March 2026, the City approved revisions to the z~oning Ccode to include a zoning overlay that creates new opportunit ies for housing to be developed by-right, especially those developments with units affordable to lower income households.

Objectives:
• Subsidize up to 100 percent of the City's application processing fees for qualifying developments where all units are affordable to 80 percent AMI or lower, as funding is available. 4-10 Chapter 4: Housing Plan
918
PROGRAM 3C: Update the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
The Nort h Costa Mesa Specific Plan is an existing specific plan located north of the 405 Freeway, containing a mixture of residential, commerc ial, office, and cultur al/arts uses. Development in t his area is typically of higher densities/intensities than other areas in Costa Mesa. This area is a key component of the City's sites strategy for future housing growth.

The City will complete the required zoning code/Specific Plan amendments to update the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan based on the sites analysis to permit residential development at an allowable density up to 90 dwelling units per acre. Through this program, the City will modify development standards to promote residential development at the allowable density . These updates may include amending the boundar y of the Specific Plan area as well as revising development standards . The number of housing units able to be developed in th ese areas is determined by the density. This program modifies densities within the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan to accommodate the assumptions within the Housing Element. As part of this effort, in April 2026, the City approved an amendment to the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan to rezone the Housing Opportunity sites and to meet all by right requirements pursuant to California Gov Code 65583 (h & i). The City will further amend the specific plan to accommodate additional residential and mixed-use development capacity as part of a greater citywide effort to implement Measure K.

Objectives:
• Complete the requ ired zoning code/Specific Plan amendments to update the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan based on the sites analysis to permit residential development at an allowable density of up to 90 dwelling units per acre. The City will update standards which apply to the entirety of the specific plan area, including the 16 sites totaling apprm<imately 70.75 acres that are identified within the sites inventory list. 6,435 units identified within the ~Jorth Costa Mesa Specific Plan across all income leYels are identified to meet the City's shortfall in units. As noted in the program, development capacity is determined by density so effective ly there are no total unit caps within the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. Rezoning has been will be completed to meet al l by right requirements pursuant to California Gov Code 65583(h & i) nmeframe: Completed March 2026 To Be coFAslel:ea BY \tViRl:er 2025DeceFABer 2026.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: State and Federal Gra nt Funds (e.g. SB2 LEAP funds), In Kind, General Fund PROGRAM 3D: Update the City' s Urban Plans and Overlays The City has adopted Urban Plans and overlays that apply to specific planning areas and corrid ors within th e City. These plans are intended to encourage compatible development through modified development standards and guidelines specific to a loca lized area of the City .

The City will complete the required z~oning ~Eade amendments to update rescind the existing Urban Plans and update the Overlays based on the sites analysis to permit residential development at the densities identified in the candidate housing sites analysis. These updates may include amendi ng the boundary of the Specific Plan area as well as revising development standards . Densities for residential development +R the separate Urban Plans and OYerlays Jre ant icipated to differ depending on the surrounding context and are li sted in Appendix B. Based on City Council's concerns with displacement of long term tenants and to 4-16Chapter 4: Housing Plan
919
and mal~e adjustments to accommodate a potential shortfa ll if determined necessary (i. e. additional incentives for ADU development or identificati on of adequate sites to meet the City's identified unaccommodated need).

Timeframe: Monitoring program {completed) created by Winter 2025. Re¥iews conducted every two years throughout the planning period, and potential adjustments made 1A1ithin sii< months.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind
PROGRAM 3N: Candidate Sites Used in Previous Housing Elements Pursuant to State Housing law, candidate sites identified in this Housing Element to accommodate a portion of the City's low- and very low-income RHNA that were identified in previously adopted Housing Elements must be rezoned to allow residential use by right at specified densities for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordab le to lower income households. By right shall mean the jurisdiction may not require a Conditional Use Permit or other discretionary, local-government review or approval that would constitute a "project", except if the project requires a subdivision; however, the City may impose objective design review standards on projects.

The City has identified as part of this Housing Element updated vacant and nonvacant sites that were used in previous Housing Elements to meet the current RHNA need. This can be found in Table B-6 in Appendix B .
.!.o._April 2026, the City approved an amendment to the Zoning Code to amend an overlay for by right housing for applicable projects on sites used in previous Housing Elements, consistent with the objectives of this program.

Objectives:
• Place a housing overlay zone over all nonvacant sites included in a prior Housing Element and all vacant sites included in two or more consecutive planning periods that permits by right housing development for projects that meet the requirements of State housing law (Gov Code Section 65583.2{c).

Timeframe: Completed March 2026 To be completed by 1Ninter 2025.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind
PROGRAM 30: Water and Sewer Resources
Pursuant to Chapter 727, Statues of 2005 (SB 1087), the City of Costa Mesa is required to deliver its adopted Housing Element and any amendments thereto to local water and sewer service providers . This legislation allows for coordination between the City and water and sewer providers when considering approval of new residential projects . Additionally, cooperation with loca l service providers will support the prioritization of water and sewer services for future residential development, including units affordable to lower -income households.

Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-24
920
A. Sites Analysis Overview
The Housing Element is required to identify potential candidate housing sites by income category to meet the City's RHNA Allocation. The sites identified within the Housing Element represent the City of Costa Mesa's ability to plan for housing at the designated income levels within the 6th housing cycle planning period (2021-2029). As described in this appendix, the realistic development capacity for each site was reduced to 80% of maximum allowable density while some sites included additional deductions based on the site location and other depends largely on its location within the City, a specific plan or urban plan area as Vv'ell as known development factors including land use controls, site improvement requirements, infrastructure access and property owner input. property owner input. 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-~, which identifies each candidate housing site within Costa Mesa's site's 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 this information is included within the Housing Resources section {Chapter 3) of Costa Mesa's 2021-2029 Housing Element.

Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-1
921
Table B-2_1: Summary of RHNA Status and Sites Inventory Very Low
Income• Low Income Moderate
lncom~
Above
Moderate
Income
Total
RHNA (2021-2029) 2,919 1,794 2,088 4,959 11,760
Cred it Towards RHNA~
GeAstH:1EteEl iA PFejeEtieA
PeFieEl (BegiA5 :h:1Ae 39, wn)
274
-3-
195
-±9
79 _9
95 _&
643
-3-9
Remaining Unmet RHNA 2,645
9±6
1,599
~
2,009
~
4,864
4,%±
11, 117
~
l:aFge Sites
J;aiP,1iew Qe~•ele13FAeAtal GeAteF ~ ~ e9G e9G ~
~a l,iel,a bet ~ ~ w ~ 900 ~
FleFAe RaAER ~ ±1-0 ~ ~ ~
~eAieF GeAteF Fle1::1siAg PFsjeEt 4G ~ G g w
PaEifiE ,11,Fts Pla~a aAEl +ewA
feffief
,g :;;:;.. ,g 4W ~
+etal PeteRtial Gapaeity l:aFge
Sites 1,009 ~ 1,084 ~ 6,310
Overlays and, Specific Plans, aRd YFbaR PlaRs
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan 1,352
±_,~
1,352
e%
1,543
~
3,367
~
7,614
~
SoBECA blFeaA Pia A Sub-Area 199
~
200
+G
240
±4±
536
~
1,175
~
Mesa West Bluff blFeaA PlaA
Sub-Area
146
~
145
±G9
167
~
514
~
972
±;G-7-±
19 West blFeaA PlaA Sub-Area 135
~
135
e4
122
~
346
~
738
e4G
Harbor Blvd Mi*eEl blse-
G>reflay
193
:;;:;..g
194
~
261
~
666
+:I-&
1,314
~
NewQort Blvd Sub- Area 92 93 98 272 555
Fairview DeveloQmental Ce nter Q 920 690 690 2300
One Metro West Q 106 Q 851 957
Total Potential Capacity for the
RHNA-(Overlays and S~ecific 2,117
1,909
3,145
1,089
3,121
~
7,242
~
15,625
~Plans) G\leFla>;s, Speeifie PlaRS,
aRd YFbaR PlaRs
PFejeeted ADY GeRStR:letieR
PFejeEteEl ,t\Qbl GeAstF1::1EtieA 9+ -l-e& ±±+ & -3-9±
Sites IR•.ieRter:y +etal RHNA Ca~acity
Total Units toward s RHNA 5,731
-3-;-G±§_±;&l-9
3,200
~
7,337
&,9-79
16,268
~
{includes Credit towards RHNA
+ Overlays and S12ecific Plans)
Total CaQacity over RHNA + 1,018 +1,112 +2,378 +4,508
Buffer +stal Ga13aeitv Q.,.eF 21%
~
±W%
53%
~
48%
-1-&±-%
38%
~RFl~l,t\ GategeFies
B-5Appendi x B: Sites Analysis
922
yet "approved"; projects that are "approyed" but no building permits haYe been issued or applied for; and other housing projects that City staff is working on in partnership with other entities or agencies to deYelop housing resources in the City .
.!.._SeRior MousiRg Project at tAe SeRior CeRter (JaFRboree MousiRg ENA) On July 21, 2020, the City Council approYed an E>Eclusi•,ie ~Jegotiating Agreement (E~J/\) with Jamboree Housing Corporation in determining the feasibility, and potential terms , for the right to acquire a long term leasehold interest in an approximately 0.90 acre portion of the parking lot at the Senior Center property to develop a senior housing project. The conceptual density study plans enYisioned the potential for 60 senior affordable dwelling units at the site . /\n application for an Urban Master Plan Screening for the proposed project was submitted in ~Joyember 2021 and staff continues to work with the applicant to bring the project forward for a decision . • This site hes been desiqneted es e J-401:1sinq fler:nent site end hos been r:no~<ed to the sites m,,,entorv.
• Urban Plan Screening Project (1711 & 1719 Pomona Avenue) OR No•.ieFRber 16, 2021, tAe City CouRcil coRsietereet aR UrbaR PlaR ScreeRiRg of a Master PlaR request for eigAt li•.iei4,vork 1,mits OR a 0.46 acre lot. Tt:ie proposeet Master PlaR iRcluetes a eteviatioR request froFR tAe UrbaR PlaR's li•.ie,'work staRElarets for FRiRiFRUFR lot si2:e. Tt:ie urbaR plaRRiRg screeRiRg process is tt:ie City's first stage of ete11elopFReRt review for projects proposea iR FRiMeEI use overlay Elistricts. Tt:ie CouRcil geRerally supporteet tAe project's coRcept, iRcluEliRg tt:ie request for a ete11iatioR froFR FRiRiFRUFR lot si2:e aREI provieteet tAe applicaRt guietaRce for tAe project proposal to iRcluete iR a future applicatioR for PlaRRiRg CoFRFRissioR coRsieteratioR. This site hes been designated es e J=lousinq fler:nent site end hes been r:noved to the sites in·,,entorv
• UrbaR PlaR ScreeRiRg Project (1540 Superior AlleRue) On January rn, 2022, the City Council is scheduled to consider an Urban Plan Screening request for nine liYe/work units on a 0 .4 4 acre lot. The Urban Plan screening process is the City's first stage of development reYiew for projects proposed in mi>Eed use oYerlay 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 .

This site hes been desiqneted es e J-4O1:1sinq f.ler:nent site end hes been r:no·,,ed to the sites inventor~'- .!.._ORe Metro '.Vest (1683 SuRflower tweRue) The proposed project is a mixed use deYelopment and consists of residential, specialty retail, creatiYe 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 creati>,ie 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 ma>Eimum building height of seYen stories; one stand alone office building up to four stories in height; tenant serving commercial retail space integrated into one of the residential structures; open space; landscaping; streetscape improYements; and a Class I bike trail system on Sunflower J\yenue providing access to the Santa Ana RiYer Trail. The project was approved by City Council in 2021. The project includes 10 percent (106 units) of the residential dNelopment 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 ¥, as codified in Article 22, Chapter IX of Title 13 (Zoning) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. Pursuant to Measure¥, after final approYal by the City Council, including all CEO/', review, the Yoters must then approYe the Project. • This site hos been desiqneted es e J-4O1:1sinq f..ler:nent site end hos been r:noved to the sites /AVentOF','.

Appendix B: Sites Ana lysis B-10
923
Figure B-1: Housing Element Sites {All Incom e Categories) D Current Housing Element Site
D Proposed New Housing Element Site
LJ City Boundary
Parcel Boundary
SOURCE CrtyofCosta Mesa 2025 Open Stre<tMap20t9 Figure B-1 ~ n o 2,000 4000 Housing Element Sites
Costa Mesa • J ---=== '"' City of Costa Mesa
Appendix B: Sites Analysis 8-13
924
O<,(Al\1~
~~
6thCosta Mesa Housing Element .{: .',,;~ .; i) Cycle-2021-2029 ~ ~:. ~ ·...,,,v--......
~"..Poi ~\~...

0.5 Sites Inventory
I
2Miles
LEGEND
40 du/ac
- 41 du/ac - SO du/ac
- 51 du/ac - 60 du/ac
- 61 du/ac - 90 du/ac
Flgwre 8 ~: Map efbaA&laate MewslAg Sites !S•t 1,eAIAg) Appendix B: Sites Analysis 8-14
925
I

0.5 2Miles
LEGEND
-•-City Boundary
Specific Plan
airview Developmental
arbor Mixed-Use
esa West
orth Costa Mesa - HR
orth Costa Mesa - SL2
orth Costa Mesa
oBECA
Appen dix B: Sites Analysis 8-15
926
Figure B 2: Map of candidate I-lousing Sites (SoBECA Focus) Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-16
927

2. Selection of Sites - Redevelopment of Non-Vacant Sites for Residential Uses
The City of Costa Mesa has identified sites with sufficient capacity to accommodate its 2021-2029 RHNA.

In total, 169 parcels have been identified across a range of zones, specific plan areas and overlay districts.

Rezoning Status: As of April 2026, the City completed the required rezoning of all Housing Element sites at the densities specified in Table B-8 to permit residential development, as reflected in Resolution No. 2026- 11, 2026-12. in compliance with Government Code§ (65583 and 65583.2 (cl]. Accordingly, Program 3C (Update the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan), Program 3D (Update the City's Urban Plans and Overlays) and Program 3N (Candidate Sites Used in Pervious Housing Elements) have been completed.

A. Overview
All identified sites have been evaluated to determine the extent to which on-site uses are likely to redevelop within the planning period. The analysis found that a number of existing uses -(identified in Table B-8) are either permanently closed or available for lease. Many of the uses are in multi-tenant commercial centers with one ownership and most show little to no evidence of recent investment or redevelopment.

When assuming the potential for low/very low-income development on non-vacant parcels, -state law requires that the City analyzes the following:
• Analysis of leases where possible, 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,
• Record of converting existing uses to higher density residential uses, • 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 to 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 lease agreements or other contractual agreements amongst parties because they are private documents . Therefore, the City has conducted an analysis to identify sites that show characteristics indicating they are likely to redevelop within the planning period, including past performance, an on-the ground existing use analysis and a market analysis to understand cost of land, construction, and development trends in Costa Mesa.

To identify sites with existing uses that have the potential to redevelop into housing or that the existing use will not be an impediment to additional redevelopment, the City developed objective redevelopment criteria based on characteristics observed in sites that have successfully redeveloped into housing during the current and prior planning cycles. After applying these criteria and confirming suitability, the City conducted (and is continuing to conduct) outreach to property owners, developers, and the broader B-17Appendix B: Sites Analysis
928
two dedicated stakeholder meet ings and workshops focused specifica lly on the candidate sites, allowing for more in-depth discussion of site-specific conditions, constra ints, and opportunities.

Where the City received explicit property owner requests to include a site or documented developer int erest, this information is noted alongside the respective site in the inventory . 2026 Housing Element Rezone:

In addition to property owner notification, the City cond ucted targeted out reach throughout the rezoning process, including public workshops and informational meetings designed to inform bot h affected stakeholders and the broader community. These workshops provided an opportu nity for part icipantsto ask questions, express concerns, and offer feedback on proposed zoning changes and development assumptions. Through this expanded out reach effort, the City was able to furt her the sites inventory effective ly incorporating community and stakeholder feedback to ensure that the rezoning program and 2026 housing element amendment reflect& both community priorit ies, and realistic development conditions .

1. Redevelopment of Non V-acant Sites lor Residential Uses The City of Costa Mesa does not have sufficient vacant land avai lable to accommodate fifty percent of their low/very low income RH~J/\. 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 1Nhich will be added when those Urban Plans are amended as part of ProsraFl'ls 3B and 3C.

As the City cannot accommodate SO percent of the low/very low income RH~J/\, 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 m<isting uses to higher density residential uses, • Current market demand for the m<isting use,
• Development trends and market conditions, and
• Regulatory or other incentives to encourage redevelopment. le95e ARe/ysis
r><isting lease agreements on infill and non vacant properties present a potential impediment that may preven t 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 agreeme nts or other contractual agreements amongst parties because they are private documents .

Therefore, the City has conducted an analysis to identify sites that show characteristics indicating they are likely to redevelop within the planning period, including past performance, an on the ground existing use analysis and a market analysis to understand cost of land, construction, and de1t'elopment trends in Costa ~
Appendix 8: Sites Analysis 8-25
929
• 20% of units available to residents in the moderate-income category • 40W% 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 the se affordability assumptions and has included a 38% buffer 37% buffer on the total number of units to assist in accommodating potential differences in future housing development. This buffer is to accommodate the potential that sites may develop for 100% nonresidential uses, however recent development within Costa Mesa has indicated that is unlikely. Additionally, all housing element sites have been rezoned pursuant to meet the performance standards required as part of Government code section 65583.2, subsection (h)(l)(B) requiring that 100 percent residential uses are permitted on all housing element sites and that mixed-use projects must be provide at least 50 percent of the total floor area as residential uses.

As such, 100 percent nonresidential development is not allowed on the sites identified for the housing element.

The City has a record of approving residentia l and mixed-use development on previously non-residential sites. The following developments have all occurred recently within the City's urban plans, specific plans, overlays, or on non-residentially zoned sites. Many of these are described in more detail in Table B~. • 2277 Harbor Blvd- Previous motel use that underwent a rezone from Cl to PDR-HD and developed as a fully residential project with 200 apartment units. • 671 W 17th Street - Previous industrial brownfield site in the Mesa West Bluff Urban Plan which developed as a fully residential project with 177 live/work units. • 1620 and 1644 Whittier Avenue - Previous industrial use in the Mesa West Bluff Urban Plan which developed as a fully residential project with 89 live/work units. • 1500 Mesa Verde East Drive-Commercially zoned parcel along Harbor Boulevard which developed as a fully residential project with 215 senior apartments. • Brickyard East and West - Previous industrial warehouse uses along Placentia Avenue which developed as a fully residentia l project with 29 townhouse units.

Consistent with local housing market trends data presented earlier in this appendices, the City of Costa Mesa is seeing an increase in residential development and rarely receives requests for fully non-residential uses in the area identified within the candidate housing sites analysis.

The City has established goals and programs within the Housing Element aimed at identifying funding opportunities and partnering with the development commun ity 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 shortfa ll 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 requ ired to identify additional sites and has analyzed additional potential housing sites within the Housing Elem ent's environmental clearance document.

There are several candidate housing sites in which the affordability assumptions differ from those presented above. Those sites include:

B-52Appendix B: Sites Analysis
930
• 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 zea units which are all affordable at the lower income leve ls. • 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. the lo
• Herne Ranch. 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 a¥ailable to residents at 1 ... 1er income le¥els. 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.

4.!l_ Specific Plan, Urban Pl-an, and Overlays
At the time the 6th Cycle Housing Element was originally adopted, Costa Mesa implemented zoning regulations through a combination of base zones, overlay zones, urban plans, and specific plans. Urban plans were adopted as standalone documents outside the Zoning Code that provided supplemental development standards. The Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan, 19 West Urban Plan, Mesa West Bluffs Urban Plan, and SoBECA Urban Plan, along with the Harbor Mixed-Use Overlay, established additional regulations applicable to specific areas of the City in addition to base zones and specific plans, resulting in a complex regulatory framework.

The City approved the rezone and application of Mixed-Use Overlay District on Housing Element Sites in April 2026. As identified in Programs 3B and 3C, of the Housing Plan (Chapter 4), the City proposes to rescind the urban plans, and established objective development standards for those sites through amending the Mixed-U~se Overlay District and other parts of the Zoning Code. Additionally, the City modified relevant existing Specific Plans, to accommodate the RHNA. The densities identified in Table B-8 reflect the revisions made to these areas to permit residential development at a higher densities. As of April 2026, the City has rezoned all sites identified in the housing element consistent Government Code§ [65583 and 65583 .2 (c)).
• ~iorth Costa Mesa Specific Plan • Residential G•,i.inership Urban Plan • 19 \!Vest Urban Plan {Propose to Remo.,,e)
• SoBff/\ Urban Plan • Residential lncenti.,,e G1,erlay • Mesa IA£est Blu# Urban Plan • 1-larbor Mi1Eed Use G¥erlay These areas, with the mEception of the Residential Gwnership Urban Plan, which is proposed to be remo¥ed, will be modified through Programs 3B through 3C to permit residential development at or above the default Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-53
931
+a~I• B i, 51tes ta ~""'"'•date Gest,;i Meso 2Q21 2Q29 RMtw\ f'!e te: J:h 's HIB'-e ·s se:rt-ed .tw 1:r1q 'q1,je ·rJe r:i t;J:e {UA 'Ef ""e IQ{ J:h e tJn ·qt.e 'rkqt;fi e & e e e5tsSl5 hed st t G'e Beg ·r:ir:i: ·Rg sf r'1ie s·te5 9RG~ rs ·s pr;eGess. $o rn e site5 • •e re cesno ed ss psr:t ~J tq e &'Rs ½i s 's sri d-sites •e ce net cin1o1FA'1 e ed ts et s•R c0Rt .% it)rfs r rf:1e esFRr.:~11:1R 'E-J, snd stqe r users, •heR refcrr' qg ts speeif."e sites. .._.. ~AIIN ~
Ill ....... 0-.. ~
111M

1.11111
-
GeuMII
Dllllllll
s,e9llla
PlaM
s..
(All ~,~,c:-.
,...,,....
1111
Miell
lolNtl
0,,..
,...

VNII
Very
lolw l.ew M.I ,._.-~ I N-. EIM"I
lwlllllftt
SF
MM
lwllllawl
,--MR ""o..,i..i ~
ineh:,el iAg Feia il,
iAB1:1stria l, Business paFI~.
anel reside nt ial 1:1 ses.
+he site is direetl•1
aeijaeent to retail anB
effiees s13 aees to the
est, P1eEli1:1 Ff1 Qensity
Resi ~eaiial l!e """"'"'l
to tRe east, EB Ff1FAe eia l
to tRe so1:1th anel a
81:1 siness ee Ate i;lp est
eU:iee to tA e ner:1: R.

Table S-S: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA No te: This toble is sorted by unique identifier (Unique ID}.

Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites. - -u,,i,..

I) NN
-
Zip
Clodo
~
-
..., Land
u..

0..-,
lDrq.,..,_
Spodllc °"""""' Pion
~
MU00
-
Min.

Donllty
,.......,_., -
Mu.

Donolty
,.......,_., - -(-t -
~
-- -Clpodly
- -Clpodly - -Clpodly
-
TOIOI
(apodtJ
~ _, " 0mlplod LV -.u-- Ownallllp(~9-J
1 m,
Qa1;
62 lW.
== = If Mf =
!l2!lh
=...._, ~ ;iQ
=
~ ll!li. Q ~
221
lli
-
e, WI,
=
~niiilfd li!C2lf'1-Qm:: Mr:1[2
=
l
m,
= 71
~
~ = s;i; !J. =
!l2!lh
= "'-·
~ 2Q ~ ~ .I!! !1. ~ ill e,
=
lLlfil Qtfi,r:lm~lal 2m,r: 12!..!ildioB
with surfa~ li!arkins !Ql
l
m,
= 75 = = = s;i; !J. =
!l2!lh
= "'-·
~ 2Q l!.2Z ~ :.z u ll §2 e, ZZli ll.ID B~liUilCJOl :tlitb IICH: 1i!iU:lsin11 12!.
!
m,
= 76
mil
= = s;i; !J. =
!l2!lh
=...._. ~ 2Q l.!Z ~ Zl1 ~ Zl w. 11 llli
=
Pe21i!r:OV ind!..!dr:s l2d11in11 and
sycfig; li!atklog
:i
m,
~
01 = ~ = If Mf =
!l2!lh
= "'-·
~ 2Q w ~ il ~ il 1Q! e, ~ lW§ IOdlilSldal l lillbl lnd!i.!Slrlill Wilb ilS!Jcf3'fli!ild!loBl2l
li
m,
~
02 ~
~
Ave = If Mf Ml1Ql1
!l2!lh
= ...._. 1Q 2Q w ~ i1 i1l1 §l ill e, ill! Q.lli IOd!.IHda!lliBbl lndYndal :tti1b I :i!..!di,r: li!ildliOB 121
z
m,
~
Q]_
1ill.

I2!2nl2 w,v = If Me =
!l2!lh
=...._, ~ 2Q U2 ~ il li !! 12§ e, !Zli =
l!ld!i!Sldilllisbl !!ldl.lSldal :tr:ilb ii
SMtfi,r:li!ilctins 121
I
m,
~
11 1Zl!Q
sunflower = If Mf =
!l2!lh
= ...._,
~ 2Q .uJ. 1nl!!W!i.'1 Zl 1§. Zl 1§!! e, D l!.12!
todMsSdal l ma □ Yfi'1M[i!ls -
Sb!ttt:C22Wl~ICfb2YSf: !.!Sf:
w;tt.~ .. -,.. ..... ,1, 1,.,. lot .

Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-99
932
Table 8-8: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA Note: This table is sorted by unique identifier (Unique ID).

Some sites were removed as pan of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continu ity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites. - -
IJftlqllO
I)
--
Zip
0>do
~
-
Pion Lind
IJIO -...-
Zorq
~
o..rloyor
Spoclllc
Pion
~
MUOD
-
Min.

Donllty
(unllr/lCIW)
-
Donllty
--
,.....,..,.1 -
$Ila
(aae)
-.,.,.,,._.,, lnmmo
-Copocfty -Clpoclly - -Clpoclly -
TOIII
Clpodty
_,.,_
c:11111-. " 0a:uplOCI LV -..u-- OWnnllp(~s.)
i
ill,
ill,
ll
illl!
~
1M
i.Zlli lf Mf Ml!Ql)_
ll2llh
= Mw
.ll! iQ Ui lrlSWldiJ §I H ]!}. ill A ~ lLl§§
~XIJ:ll!JB Mi~ iDSil!i!g!:
~ir!:b'1!.IK i!lsi::tt:r22m i1Dsl
lisbl m10Y!!s;S1uio1 !ill~ :tt:~b I
surface oarklne lot.
.IQ = !l!1:
59 ilill!a
-
i.Zlli ~ fl1!; Ml12ll.
ll2llh
= M-a
.ll! iQ i.lQ fi!illn& ill ill ~ ill t llli ~ fi!kl!llJol 11 l!1:
ill:
40 = ~ i.Zlli llt tl Ml12l! WA .ll! .§2 ~ >2llllllfilW .1§. ~ lZ il A .mi Q.ZZl! t12 mm s: r,iill!.1K ~!lb I gci~
lb c!.I ;tt:jagg~ iDd J: !.l cfi:!.!:
oari<in11 lot
12 424~
202-
02 719W
19th St 92627 G Cl MUOO 19West 20 50 1.29 Commercial 15 10 26 51 C 18% SmaU commercial uses in a
strip mall center.

Approximately half of the
parcel is surface parking and
property abuts a major
transportation corridor (19th
Street), Shopping Center
shows no recent sign of
renovation .
13 424-
202·
03 707W
19th St 92627 G Cl MUOO 19West 20 50 2.00 Commercial 23 15 41 79 C 19% Existing single-use grocery
store with large surface
parking lot. Potential to
redevelop for mixed-use
adjacent to major
transportation corridor (19th
Street).
14 424-
211·
01 695W
19th St 92627 G Cl MUOO 19West 20 50 2.66 Commercial 70 0 0 70 B 11% Approved lower-income Senior
Center Housing project in the
parking lot (the Senior Center
would remain) .
ll =
16 424-
281-
20 1710
Pomona
Ave
92627 LI MG MUOO 19West 20 50 1.08 Industrial 12 8 23 43 B 30% Existing self-storage facility in
close proximity to new
residential uses and major
transportation corridor (17th
Street) .
17 424-
281-
21 670W
17th St 92627 LI MG MUOO 19 West 20 50 1.06 Industri al 12 8 22 42 A 21% Existing 2-story office and
commercial uses in close
proximity to new residential
uses and major transportat ion
corridor l17th Streetl.
1B
424-
281-
22 660W
17th St 92627 LI MG MUOO 19West 20 50 2.22 Industrial 26 17 45 88 B 30% 1.520 Existing selr-storage facility and
light industrial/commercial use
in close proximity to new
residential uses and major
transportatio n corridor (17th
Street\.
19 425·
431-
02 1680
Superior
Ave
92627 G Cl MUOO 19 West 20 50 2.11 Commercial 25 16 43 84 0 22% Existing hotel use wit h large
surface parking lot. Property is
directly adjacent to Newport
B-100Appendix B: Sites Analysis
933
Table 8-8: Sites to Aca>mmodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA Note: This table is sorted by unique identifier (Unique ID).

Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain conti nuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites. -
unlquo
II
--
Zip
COdo
~
-
Pion land
-u.
~
2'onq
~
OVorloy or
5poclllc
Pion
~
MUOO
--
Min.
-(unltr/ocni)
-
Mox.
-(unltr/ocni)
-
,,_I
(oc,al - -..

UN/V-.cr lncomo --COpldty -Clpoclly
- -Clpodty
-
l ocal
Clpoclly
-..-_, "0auplld I.V l!ldltlnlU-Dolal awn.,hlp ,~-,
Bouleva rd and next to new
multi -famlly development.
20 425-
431-
03 1666
Superior
Ave
92627 A LI MG MUOD 19West 20 50 0.29 Industrial 3 2 6 11 B 23% Lot consolidation info: This site
is comprised of 4 parcels
eq uat ing 1.7 acres and are
contiguous. Collection of
existing warehouse and
Industrial uses adjacent to new
multi -family development . Th e
Housing El ement anticipates
this property may be
redeveloped with adjacent
uses as indicated in this table.

SCHWARTZ PAUL D 2007 TR
21 425-
431·
04 116 E
16th St
126 E
16th St
92627 A LI MG MUOO 19 West 20 50 0.73 Industrial 8 5 16 29 B 35% Lot consolidation info: This site
is comprised of 4 parcels
eq uating 1.7 aaes and are
contiguous .

Collection of existin g
wareho use and industrial uses
adjacent to new multi •family
developme nt. The Housing
El ement anticipates thi s
property may be redeveloped
with adjacent uses as indicated
in this table .

SHEEHAN MICHAEL W TR
22 425·
431·
05 92627 A LI MG MUOO 19West 20 50 0.42 Industrial 4 3 9 16 B 48% Lot consolidatio n info : This site
is comprised of 4 parcels
equati ng 1.7 aaes and are
contiguous. A vehicle repair
facility developed with older
and randomly located
structure s. The Housing
Element anticipates thi s
property may be redevel oped
with adjacent uses as indicated
in this table. Th e exist ing
collection of vehicular repair
and vehicle storage buildings
are located across 16th Street
from approximate ly 60
afford able modular / mobile
home residential unit s and also
located in close proximity to
more t han one-hundred multi·
story residential loft units
located on 17th Street.
126 PROPERTIES LLC
B-101Appendix B: Sites Analysis
934
U.:-1 - --
Zip ~
Codo
-
425- 126 E23 431- 16Th St 92627 A
06 425- 1601
24 431- Newport I 92627
07 Blvd
.li1:

G=ln I m ll I .m:
...il...
.li1:
l§ I .m: I .;:s, I m !2
-
ill:
•=s, I .illl§zz I ill:
il
ill: ~
ll I = ~ I m n ~
ill: .illQ
Z2 I lli:
-
1m l M
22 .l!!l!l!
Table B-8: Sites t o Aax>mmodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA Note: This tob/e is sorted by unique identifier {Unique ID).

Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites. -
-Lind Zorq
U• .,._,
~
G Cl
Cl
I.I ~
I.I ~
i;i; g,
!K lJ.
l& lJ.

OWrtoy or
Spoclllc
""" ~
M UOD
MUOO
.Ml!Q.ll.
.Ml!Q.ll.

MUOD
.Ml!Q.ll.
.Ml!Q.ll.

MUOD
--
19West
19 West
SQBilll
SQBilll
~
-
.l!!l!l!
-
.l!!l!l!
Min. Max. '-IDonllty Don,lty
- -.
- - ,....., ~,.......,_., ,......,,..,.,
20 50 0.35 Commercia l
20 50 0.79 Com mercial
-2 §2
=
lllll!lll!liJ
-2 §2 Ul ~
1Q §Q ~ Commercial
-2 SQ i&Z I ~
-2 N .l.2Z ~
-- - -- -- -1 T-1-..-I" 1
Copodly Copocay 1,_,,. Copodly _, 0a:uplod
Copodly
4 2 8 14 I B 27%
16 31 22%
ll 12 1l! a ~
~ l§ .. m I!, ~
li i .1& ~ I!, ~
l§ ll zz .§§ ~ llli
l§ ll ll §l ~ 2li
LV
!!.ID I
~
Q.lli
=
l..222
-.u..0o1a1
Lot consolidation info: This si te
is com prise d of 4 parcels
equating 1.7 acres and are
contiguous. Collection of
existing warehouse an d
industrial uses adjacent to new
multi-fami ly development , The
Housing Element anticipates
this property may be
red eve loped with adjacent
uses as indicated in this table.

Collection of existing
warehouse and indu strial uses
ad jacent to new multi -family
development. Th e Housing
Element anticipates thi s
property may be redeveloped
with adjacent uses as ind icated
in this table .

The site is develoced for lisht
Industrial use SUPPOrtlOB
manufacturing fabrication
and Industrial service
funrtlnn i:

Peveloomentlnterest orovided
in wdtins Iwo·storv
office/medical building of
about 18 133 scuare feet The
site is cyrreotlv configured as a
Oex office/medical office
buildins and surface parking
lot The carcet is located in a
dense commercial corridor
near SR-73and the 1-405
Surfaceoarking1ot
Lot consolidation info ·This site
indudes 3oarcels au
contisuous with each other aH
under com mon ownership
Pevelooer interest - 2 7
acres/67 units for sare -
Commerdal / automotiye
facility. The larger 2480-2490
Harbor Blvd site is listed as a
retail/ auto dealersbip_p.!9_p_e_rtv
Owr.1hlp ,~-i
126 PROPERTIES LLC

EDEN BAY PROPERTIES LLC
B-102Appendix B: Sites Analysis
935
unique
I>
Ml
.ll
ll
ll
~
~
APN
lfr
491-
lQ
lfr
I ill:
ll
lfr
I IDc
!2
file
I lM1:
l21
file
I lM1:

Ql
file
I lM1:
!U
file
~ 12:
-
=
Zip
0ldo
Harbor I 92626
Wllll
=
-
22ill
Wllll
= ~ iZlli
=
-
l!Zfil
Wllll
= Mm.C!lllu: 22ill
Wllll
~
Mmrl!ll!! lliZ§
Wllll
=
-
22ill
fil!l!
Conoaldoad
-
M
M
l
Table B-8: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA Note: This table is sorted by unique identifier (Unique ID}.

Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbe red to retain contin uity for the community and other users when referri ng to specific sites. -
-land
u.
~
g
s.s;
s.s;
jf
jf
jf
jf
1olq
~
g
Q,
Af
Mf
Mf
Mf
Mf
0Wrio¥or
Spedllc
l'lln
Dollp.-
MUOO
M!!Q.12
M!!Q.12
=
M!!Q.12
=
M!!Q.12
MUDD
--
-Wllll
-
~
!!2!!h
= I
MID.
ll2all
= MID.
ll2all
= I
MID.
ll2all
~
MID.
ll2all
= I
Mlli
Min.

DoNlty
-,.......,,.,.1
lQ
lQ
lQ
lQ
lQ
1Q
lQ
I
I
Mu.

Dollllty
-
(unlll/lcr9)
Ml
12 12
ll2
ll2
ll2
ll2
,_ 1-. 1,=Size ~ 0opodty(oawl
Q,,ll Commercial 1
l = l ~ I ~
..u l ~ I .§2
ui. I ln2l!>l!W I ~
I ljl I lnl!l!>lrw I il
I .ill I ln2l!>l!W I ll
I = I lnl!!illm! I §!
-1~-.., lncomo
0opodty 0opodty
Q
I l I I
I § I ~
I il I 2§
I ll I §
I ~ I ;z
I il ~
I
I
I
I
I
Total
0opodty
ll
ill
.ill.
.122
ill
ill
I
I
I
I
I
I
~1"_, Oa:uplod
f 21!
~ I Qli
!l I Qli
!l I mi
!l I ~
il I .ru,
!l I .ru,

1.V -..u..-
wit h e)(isting automotive
jmprovements service bavs
offices vard area and C·l
~
Lot consglidation info· This slte
lodudes 3carcels an
contiguous with each other all
under commonownership
Devetooer interest -orooosin&

0.123 I lot consolidation for 2.7
I M1l
I M2!1
I Mll
I Ul21
I l1..lli
1=
acres/67 ynitS for sale
Pevelooed with avacant
commercial retail £auto saiesl
building and surface parking
le!
Lot consglidation jnfo· Jhjs site
indudes 3oarcels an
contiguous with eachother an
undercom mon ownership
Develooer interest - 2 Z
acres/67 units for sate Corner
tot on the corner of Harbor
Blvd and fair Pr Pevelooed
with avacant commercial retail
fauto sates\ building and
.fillfil.~
Entitled Proiect-Meritage
Homes La[Ke office/soecialrv
cam our former broadcasting
facilitv .

Industrial / warehouse-flex
UK· parcel includes a large
surfact earkins lot
Jndustdal / warebouse-Oex
use ·also associated with exotic
auto saleti/showroom activitv
The rectansutar rot lodudes an
Industrial/ warehouse/ li@bt
industrial buildlnB with
,.-r,..•fated surface oarkln11.

Property Includes an low·dse
industrial/office flex building
with asurface Parking lot
Lot consotidation info· this site
contains two oarcels one
Parcel that is 2 9 acres and one
parcel that is o014 These two
oarcels are contiguous making
uo the ueater site The site
ewn..hlp (COnmlldoliod-)

EDEN BAY PROPERTIES LLC

MAC ARTHUR BUSINESS PARK LLC
B-103Appe ndix B: Sites Analysis
936
Ufllquo
I)
!I
ll
ll
~
2i
39 40
41 Al'N
= !Ml:

Q§
= I !Ml:

Q!i
!12:

I .w:
l§
!12:

I .w:
ll
!12:

I lll:
2Z
141-
361·
06 141-
361-
11 141-
361-
21 -
ill1
-
Blvd
all
-
fill<!
=
Zip
Oodo
I =
I =
~ l lliZZ I
~
Zfil
.M<.wl12l1 [ lliZZ
~
=.M<.wl12l1 [ lliZZ I
~
2706
Harbor I 92626
Blvd
2666
Harbor I 92626
Blvd
2790
Harbor 1 92626
Blvd
Table 8-8: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA Note: This toble is sorted by unique identifier /Unique ID}.

Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the com munity and other users when referri ng to specific sites. -~ 1 -Lllnd I Zanq
- u . ~
~
If Mf
If I Q.

I ~ i;z
~ I i;z
I ~ I i;z
G I C1
G Cl
Cl
I
I
I
I
I
Olw1oyor
Speclllc
Pion
~
Ml1Ql1
Ml1Ql1
Ml1Ql1
Ml1Ql1
Ml1Ql1
MUOO
MUOD
MUOO
MU0D
--
-= ~
l ~ I
--
I ";n 1
--
l ~ I
1";n 1
--
I Harbor
Blvd
-
I Harbor
Blvd
Ha rbor
Blvd
Min.

Donllty
-(unlll/la'I )
.z2
.z2
.z2
.z2
.z2
20 20
20 I
I
MIX.

Donolty
-,......,..,.,
!1l!
!1l!
,2
,2
,2
50 50
50 hral I -. I,:
- ~ Clpodly(acnol

2.21 llli1lW!iil
l = l ~ I zz
I ll.12 f =,w f 1
[ !!M [ =.n=w l !

2..z2 =,i,J

0.68 I Commercia l

2.41 I Commerci al 28

0.75 I Comm ercial
I
-
Income
Clpodly
2 ll
l
l
l
19 I
-- , T otal I~1 " - Clpodly _, 0auplod
Clpodly
l e, 2li
zz I ~ I Q I !Zli
! ~ I ~ I .lli
; I ll I t I m
1 2 t .zlli
14 27 22%
49 96 34%
15 30 25%
LY -.u..-
contains two multi-tenant
lodustcialtcommercial buildinn
with associated surface carkln@
around the bulldlngs.

Lot consolidation Info·this site
contains two parcels om::
parcel that Is 2-9 acres and one
that Is o014 These two parcels
Q.220 I are tsmtiguous making UP the
greater site. A small triangular
Parcet that is cart of a larger
develooment and assumed to
I =
I !ill!
[ 2.122
J.IB1
Hotel/motet Building is
currentlv occupied bv a three
storv motel Site lodudes
wrapped surface parking .

The site is comprised of 3
parcels equating 1-1 acres that
are contiguous Existing uses
indude boat repair and suct:ace
parkina
Commercial use · cannabis
retail storefront Jhe site iS
comodsed of 3parcels
eauating 11 acres and are
contiBuous The small
commercial retail building is
surrounded bv surface parking
nn ~c:..i.d.fi
Gas station use The site is
compri5~d of 3parcels
eauating 11 acres and are
contiguous Prooeav currentlv
ooerates as a ns station with
$_V~na
Mixed us building wit h first
fl oor reta il an d offices
Former Ace Hard ware store,
now for lease after Ace went
ou t of business. Large big box
stru cture with surface parking
along a major transportati on
corri dor ! Harb or Blvd)
Mixed use buildin g with retail
and offices on fir st fl oor an d
offices on 2nd and 3rd fl oor.

Building is partially vaca nt with
large surface parking lot
own..hlp(~-,
COUNTY SAN[ATJON

FRANK THOMAS ETHE FRANK
f8M1l.LlB!ill
illJ.N.MABISl'.

COSTA MESA INVESTMENTS LLC
6-104Appe ndix B: Sites Analysis
937
Table 8-8: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA Note: This table is sorted by unique identifier (Unique ID).

Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the commun ity and other users when referr ing to specific sites. lJnlquo
D NH
-
Zip
0ldo
~
-
-!Md
Uoo -
~
ZOrq
~
Oworllyor
Sjllcft:

Pion...,_,
MUOO
-
Min.

Donolty
(~ -
Max.

Donolty
,..,..,...., -
.......

Size
(ocnsl
-..

Uoo/VKrDf
--
Copodl'/
- -Clpoclly
- -,,_,,. -Copodl'/
Total
Clpoclly
~ _, " 0c<:uplod LV -.u-11a11 --(Clonloldoad9al
adjacent to major
transportation corridor
(Harbor).
42 141-
361-
22 2750
Harbor
Blvd
92626 G Cl MUOO Harbor
Blvd 20 so 1.71 Commercial 20 13 35 68 C 13%
Existing older commercial
shopping center adjacent to
major transpor tation corridor
(Harbor). Uses range from
commercial to office and
restaurants. Large surface
parkinR.lot.
43 141·
361-
23 2730
Harbor
Blvd
92626 G Cl MUOO Harbor
Blvd 20 so 0.68 Commercial 8 5 14 27 C 33%
Existing older commercial
shopping center adjacent to
major transportation corridor
(Harbor). Uses range from
commercial to office and
restaurants. Large surface
pa rkin11: lot.
44 141-
361-
27 2710
Harbor
Blvd
92626 G Cl MUOO Harbor
Blvd 20 so 0.67 Commercial 7 5 14 26 C 25%
Existing older commercial
shopping center adjacent to
major transportation corridor
(Harbor). Uses range from
commercial to office and
restaurants. Large surface
parkin1tlot.
45 141-
361-
28 2706
Harbor
Blvd
92626 G Cl MUOO Harbor
Blvd
-
20 so 0.97 Commercial 11 7 20 38 C 28%
Vaca nt box store and surface
parking lot. Building is
currentl y for lease.
ti = 2il:
l1Z
lliZ
~
-
!fill> !f .Me = = Mm
-
ZQ ~ lJl !!ll!lWri,! ll li ll ~ !!,
= =
Qffi!',;!:; and war!:;hQUS!:; ~[!as;!:;
e:[2'1:f::m'.im;;l!ii!d!i::1i~2:S:2!l'.
2ffis;;flligh! ioduitrial fle,c
buildlnir with surface oarkinir,
!i = .121:

Qi
=
=.i!l
-
!fill> !f fl11 = = Mm.
-
ZQ ~ l& l&lnllllliiil il il il w A .22li 2.2M BS:1iillliBb1 iDd!.!itdil !.IS: wilb i1itBS:1Yrfil:g[!arkinglQl •
~ = 11.Z:.
ll
llii
l!2Yillll
!1:ili
!fill> !f .Me = = Mm
ZQ ~
=
!!ll!lWri,! J§ il .a§ .ill. A .ms l2JMli Lisbl indyttdi1:ll2tf£ !.IR wilb surfag; g:arking lot.
,jQ = 11.Z:.
li = ~ !fill> !f .Me = -= Mm
-
ZQ ~ U1 !!ll!lWri,! 12. ~ ll -12! !!, llli l1.fil
Qf!i,s: l ,2rommiil 2ffis;s:

D:~!i::12'1:~ wiit:i ii: ~2:il2rt
::i:11Z§ 1g fi 2ffi,s: byildiDB QD
i Z Z1·1!,;[S: 1iis: w~b it 1Ym,s:
,.,1,i,jna Int
~ = 11.Z:.
lZ
Jill.
lildiJlll
~
!fill> !f .Me = = Mm.

ZQ ~ u.. l&lnllllliiil ~ zz ti ill. A .mi Q.A!!§ LIBbS iad1i1nciil&:ttl,s: !ill!: Wilb 1!.!Cll~'1:MtiaBl2l
B-105Appendix B: Sites Analysis
938
1 Table 8-8: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA Note: This table is sorted by unique identifier (Unique JD).

Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered co retain continuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites. - --
uni,..

I)
--
Zip
Cado
~
-
1'1111 Lind
u..
~
2'anllW
~
o,.,toy or
Spldllc
l'lln
~
MU00
--
Min.

Donllly
lunllr/lcnl -
Max.

Donllly
lunllr/lcnl - """"' 51111
1-->
-.
~ Income --Copoclty Cllpldt'(
-
,,_,,. -Cllpldt'(
Total
Copoclty
--- " 0calplod LV -.u-- Ownwlhlp~--
52 419-
031-
08 2200
Harbor
Blvd
92627 G Cl MUOO Harbor
Blvd 20 so 0.75 Commercial 9 6 15 30 C 0%
Surface parking lot within large
retail shoppin g center.

Potential for mixed-use
redevelopm ent. Retail center
has major big box tenants
which have permanently
dosed, leaving an excess of
surface oarkimz.
53 419-
031-
09 2200
Harbor
Blvd
92627 G Cl-S MUOD Harbor
Blvd 20 so 4.35 Commercial 70 31 73 174 C 156%
Form er K-Mart box store which
has permanently dosed.

Shoppin g center is adjacent to
mult i-fa mily residential an d
may redevelop for mixed- use.

White the data shows a high
development usage, this
t enant soa ce remains vacant.
~
!12'
l2l:
lZ
= ~
-
llill fil: ~ .Ml1Ql)_
--
ZQ fill l,Q2 ~ l! ! ll 1! ~ 1lli 2M§
8YU!:·[!:li1!:g !.IK:i: lm;!yg:iag ii
s;a r ~1h il!lg 1urfii;i:: lHJrking
12!.
55 NOT "<m
57 422-
021-
09 2131
Harbor
Blvd 92627 G C2 MUOO
Harbor
Blvd 20 so 0.83 Com mercial 9 6 18 33 C 15%
Auto parts store, retail store,
and pet grooming store, with
large surface parlcing area
adjacent to major
t ransportation corri dor (Harbor
Blvd\,
58 422·
091-
11 2075
Harbor
Blvd 92627 G C2 MUOD
Harbor
Blvd 20 so 0.63 Commercial 7 s 13 25 C 9%
Tools and equipment rental
yard adjacent to major
transpo rtatio n corridor (Harbor
Blvdl,
59 422-
091-
12 2069
Harbor
Blvd 92627 G C2 MUOO
Harbor
Blvd 20 so 0.54 Commercial 6 4 11 21 C 17%
Auto repair shop with large
yard adjacent to major
transportation corrid or (Harbor
Blvd).
60 me
11£
18 =
w,u
- .,.,. IP MP Mllnn
ll2!!h
~
M-• 20 9C ,,, '"""""'' 32 16 M Bl A ""

1.000
Li&b! imh.11ttii1ll2ffis;1:: wilb i!
... ~.......... ,.,.
61 422·
091·
14 2049
Harbor
Blvd 92627 0 G C2 MUOO
Harbor
Blvd 20 so 0.54 Commercial 6 4 11 21 C 16%
Th e sit e Is compri sed of 2
parcels equatin g approximate ly

0.7 acres and are contig uous.

Auto repair shop with large
yard adjacent to major
tran sportation corridor (Harbor
Blvdl, BOUKATHER,GEORGE A TRUST
103
ID;
221,
16 =Charle St .,.,, 0 GC C2 Mllnn •lvd
-
20 so 018 f'.nmmPrrla1 2 1 4 z ~
"'"
0730
Ill!: 1il!: 1 i;2m'1[b:!:g gf Z
'1s! ' §;!:l:i:!:SZ!iliUl!lSil'1'1[!2lSimi!1!:lll
QZiUi!l;:i:illlg:il~l:;!2 □ 1iB!.!!i?!l:i:
f11ini ng !.!!l!:·:i:120! :i;l(!i,1'1;1,1[!: Q!J
ite rMemb lin a live-work use. KILLIAN HELENA W TRUST
8-106Appendix 8: Sites Analysis
939
--- - - - - - - - -- -- ----- - - -
Tobie 8-8: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA Note: This tob/e is soned by unique identifier /Unique ID).

Some sites were removed as pan of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites. unique
I)
--
Zip
0xlo
0lnloldolad
-
- Lind
UN -
~
lorq
~
ov.toyor
~
l'tlln
~
MUCO
-
Min.

Donllly
,~,-
Mox.

DoNlty
(unllr/lCl'e)
- -(oaw) -
~
--
--
Income
Capodty Clpoclly --
lnmmo --Capodty
TDIII
Copoclty
-..-_, " Oa:uplld LV -.u-- 0wnonhlp (Cllnloldolad->
Pyb;t1, rf"1:~i ,1ani!Y th!:
,m;i~Cb'. H ,12m[m:a;ii1!
62 422·
091·
24 2015
Harbor
Blvd 92627 G C2 MUDD
Harbor
Blvd 20 so 0.62 Commercial 7 4 13 24 C 29%
Auto rela ted uses including car
repair and car wash uses
adjacent to major
transportation corridor (Harbor
Blvd\.
63 422-
091·
26 2007
Harbor
Blvd 92627 G C2 MUDD
Harbor
Blvd 20 so 0.83 Commercial 9 6 18 33 8 31%
Self-storage facility with
surface parking lot and access
to major transportatio n
corridor (Harbor Blvd).
64 422·
101-
03 1989
Harbor
Blvd 92627 G C2 MUOO
Harbor
Blvd 20 50 0.56 Commerdal 6 4 12 22 C 2%
Truck rental yard which rs
largely a paved surface paO:ing
lot with a small building. Site is
adjacent to major
transportation corridor {Harbor
81vdl.
65 422·
101-
06 1974
Charle St 92627 G C2 MUOO
Harbor
Blvd 20 so 0.53 Commercial 6 4 11 21 A 27%
Existing low-intensity light
industrial and warehouse uses.
66 422·
193-
23 2215
Harbor
Blvd 92627 G C2 MUOO
Harbor
Blvd 20 so 0.58 Commercial 6 4 13 23 C 41%
Aging furniture store structure
with surface parking lot
adjacent to major
transportatio n corridor (Harbor
Blvd).
67 422-
193-
24 2205
Harbor
8/vd 92627 G C2 MUOO
Harbor
Blvd 20 so 0.58 Commercial 6 4 13 23 C 32%
Aging motel use with large
surface parking lot adjacent to
major transporta t ion corridor
/Harbor Blvd\.
68 422-
282·
11 2044
Placentia
Ave 92627 LI MG MUOO
Mm
West
Bluff 20 40 1.18 Industrial 11 7 19 37 B 41%
Auto repair shop and light
industrial uses with surface
parking adjacent to recently
developed townhouses an d
apartments. Building shows
litt le shi:n of recent renovation.
69 422·
291·
04 2066
Placentia
Ave 92628 LI Cl MUOO
Mesa
West
Bluff 20 30 1.85 Commercial 17 8 19 44 8 108% 0.270
self-storage facility - adjacent
to recently developed
townhouses and apartments .

Building shows little sign of
recent renova t ion.
70 422-
291-
05 2065
Placentia
Ave 92627 LI MG MUOO
Mesa
West
Bluff 20 40 0.92 Industrial 8 5 16 29 8 47%
Self-storage facility adjacent to
recently developed
townhouses and apartme nts.

Building shows little sign of
recent renovation.

Appendix 8: Sites Analysis 8-107
940
Table 8--8: Sites to Aa:ommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA Note: This table is sorted by unique identifier {Unique ID}.

Some sites were removed as pan of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites. -
Dwno¥or Min. Max. Plrtlll
-- - -
Unlq&IO NH
-
z-. ~ """'land ~ ~ MUDD Dotlllt'( Dotlllt'( Sim -.. Income ,_ - TOIII DowloprlWlt
" I.V -.u-- Owrw1hlp~_,I) Codi
-
u. ~ Pion
- - -
u./V- lncomo Clpoclly ~ 0a:uplod
~ ~ (unllr{ocn) (unllr{ocn) (cw) Clpoclly Clpoclly Clpoclly Existing office/light industrial
422- 2051 Me,a uses adjacent to recentl y
291- Placentia West developed townhouses and
71 06 Ave 92627 LI MG MUOD Bluff 20 40 0.92 Industrial 8 5 16 29 A 13% aoartments, Warehouses with large surface
parking lot. Two buildings on
the site. Adjacent to recently
422- 1987 Mesa developed townhouse s and
301- Placentia West apartments. Building shows
72 01 Ave 92627 LI MG MUOO Bluff 20 40 2.31 In dustrial 21 14 38 73 A 30% little sii:10 or recent renovation. = l!2llh
.w: =
~ LiB!ll indugcia l£2ffis;e with
7' ,. ··-····-
0 '"26 IP MP M'"'D M-a 20 90 ,,. lnd11ctria 36 18 ,. ., . '"" n4,n • •• -4... ~ .., n:irt.ina Int . 422· 2101 Mesa Restaurant with lar11:e surface
454- Placentia West parkin11: lot. Potentia l for
74 28 Ave 92627 LI MG MUDD Bluff 20 40 0.91 Industrial 8 5 16 29 C 10% mixed-use develon ment. 75 NO
""'
424- Me,a
061- 859W West Auto repair shop with surface
76 03 18th St 92627 LI MG MUDD Bluff 20 40 0.81 Industria l 7 5 13 25 C 38" oarkinR lot. 424- Me,a
061· 851W West Auto body shop with lar11:e
77 04 18th St 92627 LI MG MUOD Bluff 20 40 1.79 Industrial 17 11 29 57 C 26% surfaceoarki no: lot. =
ill}. l!2llh
.w: ~
=
lnshi1nc!i1!l2!ti,!:: Wilh ii H!rfi!s;!::
,. ,n W•• .,,,, IP MP ""no "-a 20 90 '·--·--··· 32 16 ,, ., . '4~ "'" .......,..

Single-story wareho uses with
large surface parking lot and
424- 1791 Me,a drive aisles. Five buildi ngs on
061- Placentia WeS1 the site which show little sign
79 05 Ave 92627 LI MG MUOO Bluff 20 40 4.27 Industrial 40 27 69 136 B 31% of recent renovatio n. = lli2 l!2llh
.w: Sunflower ~ ba!:Bt ind!,!S!rii!l£12gistig fas;ilitll 80 ,n Av• "'"26 ,, MP MUOO M~, ,o 90 6.64 lndu trial 190 95 ,., 47' . 4'" n ,., wi ha u~--- arld n .. l"'t
Single-story warehouses wit h
large surfa ce parking lot and
424- 1751 Mesa drive aisles. Seven buildings on
061- Placentia West the site which show little sign
81 06 Ave 92627 LI MG MUOO Bluff 20 40 4.70 Industrial 45 30 75 150 8 32% of recent renovation. !ll:.
ill,
=
B!::lili! ,2mm5::rs;;ii!I s;;5::0U:c w[lb
., 10 D,i.+ ...l<:t •2•'6 r.r r, M"M <n8FC4 ,n .,, 043 CommN ial 8 4 8 ,n . - n4• • , in .. 1-•
!ll:. L2i ,2ai2lidU!2 0 la!2· Ibii ii!!::
ill:. Z§llmr l!:!d!1Hl!::rt~Ril[s;!::li i!II
., n, 5, .,,,, K GC C2 M""D ,..,,. 20 60 n.2s l'nm mPrdal 4 2 ~ 12 A '"" ··- rnn i-··-··~ .. .l•h p3...&. - •h- PRn,.rrr "' Appendix B: Sites Analysis B-108
941
lJnlquo
I) APN
il!lc
ID:

I
il!lc
ID:
47 0
418-
162·
I
illc
IDc
illc
.ill:
~
illc
--
=-
A'1.e
Zip
Cado
I 92626 I
1 Q)!.)!.
lli.l!mr
s I =
2968
Randolph
Ave I 92626
= I 91.m I
l m.. l
.2lli
Bristo!St I 9li26 I
ill: I mz ~ Brn1ill! l illl2 1
!ll:
u llli: I = ll Bristol 5t. I 92626
ax..
-
K
l
l
ti
ti
Table B-8: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA Note: This table is sorted by unique identifier (Unique ID).

Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continu ity far the community and other users when referring to specific sites. -- LindUN
Dollpllon
LI
II
GC
LI
fil:
§.C
fil:

GC
GC
I
lriw
~
MG
MG
r,
MG
..i
Cl
sZ
C2
CL
I
OVortoyor
si,oclllc:

Pion
~
M\/_Qj)_
MI/ OQ
M UQO
MUOO
M!.!QQ
M_11nn
MUOD
M11nn
M11nn
MUOO
-
1= 1
<oRFCA
SnB•CA
SoBECA
SoBECA
c;..Q_IU'('A
<:..ai: rA
c;.nR F(' A
c;.nRFC_A
Min.

Donllty
-
(unlto(acr9)
2Q
20 20
20 20
2Q
20 20
2Q
I
MIX.

DwllltY
-
(unlto(acr9)
22 60
60 60
6Q
fill
60 22
,2
I
-1-.1•=- u.,v_.,,, 0lpoclty(oawl
Q.1§ l ill1l!lllii!J I li
n_,s lndustri;il .

0.49 c-- - ---i 1 .

0.72 Industrial 10
=
~al 5
n_~c; I C.2.m..IDfilQal 6
nu I r-nmmPrrl;at a
n._!J I r ... - - .., .-1 .. 1
•
n., \J,.,-., .. t 4
--Clpoclly
--1 Total
- ClpocllyClpoclly
I l I § 17
' • 17
4 ,n 23
6 18 34
2 .Ii _U
3 7 .I.Ii
~ s. 2l
4 8 2Q
2 __l2_
~ 1 " ~ 0a:ll!>lod LV -.u- -
A I
A
A
A
t,
A
A
t,
_a_
27% I 0.200
'""
n 1••
34" , 4,n
78% 0.400
16% 0.099
Developed with acommercial
buildins with surface oarkinB
Lot consolidationinfo· I bis site
indudes 4oarcels an
contiguous with each other
Pa rcer includes alight
industna1/com mercia1 building
an~n11:lot
Lot consolidation info ·This site
indudes 4 parcels an
contiguous with each other
The site contai ns a sinRle·storv
liRht industrial/office building
with a surface Parking lot
Lot consolidation jnfo·This site
indudes 4 parcels au
contiguous with each other
Existing use is aformer Ras
station and surface parjcjng.

Warehouses with surface
parking lot. Site is within the
SoBECA Urban Plan
redevelopm ent area.

Lot consolidation Info· Ibis site
Includes 2parcels all
contisuous wi th each other
The property is arestaurant
withsurfaceoarkin11:.

Lot consolida tion info· This si te
includes 2parcels all
contisuous wi th each other
ProPertv indudes fast food
restaura nt with surface
20% I 0.155 I llillin•.

The site is comPrised of2
Parcels ecuatinR aooroximatelv
O 8 acres and are contisuous
The site contains asinsle·storv
commercial buUdins and a
37% I 0.344 I surface oarkinll lot.

Retail/ oom mercial use The
site is oomcrised of 2 Parcels
eauatlns ap oroxi matelv O 8
25% I O.J.18 I .K[fi_a_nrl ;a rp
lll> 0.000
Deve tooment interest orovided
in wdtinR histing use is a
Owr-,Hp(CO,..--i
<:nai:rb. fARTNERS U C
Jqn RANDOLPH LLC
THR IFTY QII r-n
TK BURGERS Ill INC
WALTON JAMES WTRU<rr
r,r,-u ro r nn,r R TRIJc;.T
BFCM lLC
B-109Append ix B: Sites Analysis
942
Table B-8: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA Note: This table is sorted by unique identifier /Unique ID).

Some sites were removed as pan of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites. -
Ovorlo\'or Min. Mu.
- -- - =--1 TOIII 1----1 " IU.:-1NN
-
z-. ~ l'lln Lind 1'NIIIW si,oclllc MUOO Donllty Donllty Size -.. Income -
LV I ICDdo
-
UN ~ Pion
- - -
~ ,,_,,. Clpoc:ltr - Oa:uplod -..u-- Owrwlhlp(~-i
~ .,...,_ [IOlitwacra) Cunb/acnl c-i ClpocKy Clpoc:ltr ClpocKy -
ilii
-- -
Reua Fae\@" - :;w"aee eafli" ,, ,
11< I Gl
- = "'
C>. MOOG
- ,., 50
= -
~
'
~ .0
' -
o..<l9 ....
!12'
l21c lli.l!Y ~ Office buildins with a surface
:lJ. I 08 Wil<=n"<.t .,,,, GC Cl u"nn Blvd 20 30 no r---•--'•' 10 5 11 ,. t '"" o,,s naritlno Int
R~ta urant wit h large surface
419- 2150 parking lot adjacent to major
171· Harbor Newpo rt transportatio n corridor (Harbor
95 I 58 Blvd 92627 G Cl M UOO Blvd 20 so 1.17 Commercial 13 9 24 46 C 17% 0. 180 Blvd). l2~el21i!mea1 lals::[en 12c~ld1::d
i!l ;ttdliDI t11ini □ 1 l,m:: Iii
!12' .wl! v1aa1 li1b1 m1mi1 fi'1Md □ s
I ~
.!:11.ct!Qr ~ ~uildins 1nd n!di&!: i;iarkinB
9J; Rlvd .,.,, G Cl Munn Blvd 20 50 n1• ('_nmm..rd:11 12 l,I 1_4 'iQ C '"" """ lot I
!12'
=
1:!t~hzgms:al ials:~:U gr2vis;fs:;s;!:
=
l1ill12i: ~ ic :ttiiUDB ~.!!lnlaB ,12mm!i:rs.ii!I

21. I os Blvd .,6,, GC Cl MUOO Blvd io so 1 57 Comm .. r j:il ),5 7 ),6 38 ~ Qli ~ ~e:r wit!:! suctai;:t ~arking. 420-
OU· 2476 Harbor
98 I 16 Markln 92626 MUC l&R·MLT MUOO Blvd 20 60 108.91 Mixed Use 920 690 690 2.300 N/A N/A N/A Fairview Oeveloomental Center 424- 1730 Mesa Warehouses wit h surface
281- Pomona West parking lot. One building on
99 I 01 Ave 92627 LI MG M UOO Bluff 20 40 0.99 Industri al 9 6 16 31 8 22% t he sit e.

I 424- 424 Mesa Warehouses wit h la rge surface
281- Pomona West parking lot. One building on
100 I 19 Ave 92832 LI MG MUOO Bluff 20 40 1.19 Industrial 11 7 20 38 B 30% the site.

I 424- Mesa Large single-story self-storage
281- 660W West facility adjacent to existing
101 I 23 17th St 92627 LI MG MUOO Bluff 20 40 2.26 Industrial 21 14 37 72 8 41% multi-fa mily resident ial.

I La rge single-story self-storage 424- 1882 M esa
321- Whittier West facility adjacent to exis ting
102 17 A,e 92627 MOR MG MUOO Blu ff 20 40 1.08 Commercial 10 6 18 3 4 8 32% mult l-famll resi denti al. tnsfyUrii!I l i!l.!12 b2!b! !im: with
= =
_M..,_ i! H!lll~ l;!ild!iDB 121 Bstias;!i:nl
ill: flillnli! .!/llil Uz liY:!i:lW2[t i!Dd 2lh!i:r
104 I 02 Ave 92627 LI MG MUOO Bluff ~ ~ 0.93 Industrial _l! 2 l1 ~ ~ s..s~ = residential develo~ment.

I
-- -1- 1-:= - -
1,u•!i!~lfi! 11i!!IIH! ba d !i! ~!: ilh i!
-= li Ml;
"""" ...... .;i ~
"""' ............ ...,. ~ .. ,. ~ '"""
~
I I
IDs!:IUl[!i!l l.!i!::i wisbii null,!::
= =
Mm
ill: flillnlii .!/llil l;!ilci!iDB 121 Bsth1s;!::D112
106 I os Ave .,.,, LI MG M11nn Rluff 20 'IQ UR lodu<tnal 1? a 19 44 8 "" n " " •... r• ·-· 8-110Appendix 8: Sites Analysis
943
lJnlqllo
I)
109
Al'N
422-
=
= ~
l!
-
=flis;Wii
Zll2
flis;Wii
~
Zip
0odo
I 92621
I = I
I 92627
-1 ilii
- f!m!!lio:ii!! I iii et/!:._ 1,.,.,.,
= = ~ flillnlii
lll I 6 V I =z l
= = ifr flis;Wii
~
We lli.'tl!
_m_ I 18 17th St 92627
ill
~ I 1Zll= f2m2nill AY£ I 02621
~
-
f
f
l
l
I
Table B-8: Sites t o Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA Note: This table is sorted by unique identifier {Unique ID).

Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites. -- LandUN
~
LI
1K
'ls
JIG
.'ls
LI
LI
I
ZonlrW
~
MG
Q.
g
..
g,
Ml;
MG
I
I
I
a-loyo,
$jlodllc
l'llln
---
MJ!QQ
Ml!Ql)_
MUOO
UUOQ
MUOD
Ml!Ql)_
Munn
I
MUOO
-
Mesa
Ywl
8ll!.(!
Mm
Ywl
l!llllf
19 W~t
...........

I 19West I
Mm
Ywl
muff
MID.

Ywl
R!uff
I
I
Min.

DINlty
-
,...,.,.,_ )
2Q
2Q
lQ
;!G
m
2Q
2Q
2Q
I
I
I
Mu.

Donllty
-,.....,.....)
!l1
so
SQ
62 SQ
SQ
!l1
!l1
-1 _.,. ,,:Size IJN/V-.:/ COpodO/(oaw)

0.92 1.. rl,,r ♦ rl<>I 11
n .,i;; I r...... ,....~,.;,.1
~ I Commercial
,,_., I - ,
I QM I Commercial I I
I z..s I t2rnm<r,i,1 I 2l!
I IM I lnl!!illri,J I !
n .,, I r ....... ..... ~...i.sl 1
-,=--lncamo ,_
Clpodly Capodty
s 13
2 4
i! ~
I , I § I
I li I ,l1 I
I i I ! J
0 3
Total
Clpodly
22 lQ
!1
_li_
l&
Tl.
lQ
i
I
I
I
~
~
.I!
I!
a
8 I!
.ll
~
"Oa:uplod LV
45% I o.330
-.u-o..11
Industrial uses with a surface
oarkioB lot Adiacent to
Toe site is comorised of 4
oarceis eouatio& aooroximatelv
1,4acres and are contigyous .

The site is currentlv occuoied
bv arestaurant uses within a
!!li 0.139 I with surface oa rkin'1.

The site is comprised of 4
Parcels eouating aooro>cimatelv
1-4acres and are contiguous
Existing use is a!igbt industdal
building with asurface oarking

11.% = I J.Q!,
lRe s·te ·s 6BR1E1Fisea ef4
UF§els !!QYBfRg HSFQli°!!'!atel
1 4 aeres aRII aFe eeR~igueus
Jeefleeee\a·Rsasmall
iRffy51ra1 1oe EB B" @Fe·ar
Rwihfeg ·1h swffilee ea Wee
0e'aeent§eresiBeAfal
~ I Q,.,c;.iul ~
.ill, I 0.19s
Qli I 0.000
ru. I o.~89
40% I n.~i:.h
The site is comorised of 4
pa rcels eauating approximately
14 acres and are contiguous
Commercial/office sPace with a
surface Parking lot The building
aooeao to be rurrentlv vacant
Adiacent to resideotlal
~nnmP nt
Developer interest in
residentia l development
Existing use is commerdal with
~nelot.

Developer interest in
residential uses. Existing uses
are Industrial including auto
repair and asurtace Parkins
loL
Lot consolidation info:This site
Is made up of two parcels
under common ownership and
contiguous and is an entitled
project Ibis is an entitled
Prolect across 424-081-21 and
424-081-22 Uve Wads
Development The site is
developed with an existios
Ownonhlp (CloNolldol,od Sim)
,,...,,..a rn

FUNDING CAPITAL CORP LLC

PACIFIC DIVERSIFIED LIC
DI 111nr:an1 10 PR0f_FRT1Fc:; 11 C
B-111Appendix B: Sites Analysis
944
Ulllquo
ID
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
-
~
=I
~
ill:

I Q1
~
ill:
--
Zip
0ode
·=· I=I = ~
= I= I
= ~
I.llill l
l= I
l= I
~
-
j
Q
Q
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table B-8: Sites t o Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA Note: This table is saned by unique identifier (Uniq ue ID).

Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not re numbered to retain contin uity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites. --~nd
U•
Dllll!10llon
11 fil;_
L!
11 Q!
Q!
I
I
I
Zonq
~
M§
Q.
.Mli
.Mli
Cl
Cl
I
I
I
I
0¥111o\'or
Spoclllc
l'lln
~
.Ml!Q!)_
.Ml!Q!)_
Mt!Qll
Ml!Q.11.

MllQQ
.Ml!Q!)_
I
MUOO
-
Mm
Ywl
Bluff I
Illi'i.e.>.l I
I lli'i.e.>.l I
1~ 1
I~ IBlvd
I ~
Blvd I
Min.

Denllty
-
(UIIIIWacro)
.1Q
2Q
2Q
22 2Q
2Q
I
I
I
I
Mu.

Donolty
-
(unlll/lCl'O)
.12
,2
.l2
30 .l2
.l2
Pln:el
Sia,_, ---. 1,-lbol'loaonc:Y Clpoclty
Q,_ll I ~I I 1
I .i& 1~ 1 l;!
l = l ~ I 2
I QM I l&!D.!!llliiil I 3.

I 1.0, I i:_Q!llIDllii>) I 2
l = l ~ I !
-1~- ,_
Clpoclty Clpoclty
I Q I ;! I
I ~ I ~ I
I 2 I 22
I l I i
I l I li I
I ! I 11
l !
Total
Clpoclty Dwllo..-,tl"Cloalllcallon Oocuplod LV -.u..c.1 industrial building and
associated surface Parkins
The ccooertv Is occuoied bv
commercial and auto uses.
lot con5olidati9n info : This Site
is made UP of two pa rcels
under common ownership and
contisuous and is an entitled
oroiect This is an entitled
project across 424-081·21 and
424-081·22 Live Wgds
Peveroomeot The site is
develooed with an existing
o.-lhlp(Qx..-.i_,
1 I ~
sing le-story commercial/Jisht
industrial building and
associated surface paQCing The
property is OCCUPied bY
~ I Q,Qm I commercial and auto uses. p & PGROUP LLC
11 I ~ l!l,
22 I B I =
2 I .a 25%
~ __l________.a_ I 1:uo.i.
21 I ~ I 100%
.l!l I Q fil.li

0.000
I Q.100
I 0 . .1-1,
I o.&60
I 0.240
I !HBO
Se~tv
Pevelooment interested
provided in writing 20 units
histing development is alisht
industrial/office building with a
surface oarkins lot
The site is comprised of2
parce1s ecuating approximately
.2 acres and are cooti'"'"".,
Entitled Proiect-Live Work
The site is comprised of 2
oarcels ecuatiog aPoroximatetv
12 acres and are contiguous
Former auto reoair bulldiog
:mnf':.i[S_JQ_hP v:101nt
r-nmmf'rrial{Hgbt industrial u.se.

The site is comorised of4
parcels equating 0.9 acres and
are contiguous Commercial
building with asurface parking

SHARE OUR SELVES CORP

LEV DTDIICT
tot tocated aioos a one
directional tw2:1aoe stretch of
Newport Boulevard I P&CPROSPERITY PROPERTIES LLC
8-112 App endix 8: Sites Analysis
945
u,:-INII
-
Zip
Clodo
!2§: .ill!
.ill: IW'.t02l1
=
!2§: 2l2m
ll1:
~ l=z ll:U I 2l!
!2§: I = = ~ ru. f _Ql_ l!IYl! I =
!2§: lffi!
= ~ l= I
l=z l
Table IHI: Sites to Acccmmodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA Note: This table is sorted by unique identifier /Unique ID).

Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites. -CONolclad - Lind Zorq
- Ulo
~
~
:; Q! g,
:; I Q! I g, I
:; I Q! I J;l.

I Q! I g, I
I Q! I g, I
R Cl! Cl
]! I Q! I g, I

B I CR Q I
Spoclllc MUDD Don,lty DonlllY Sia -,_ Income lncomo -1 Total 1~1 " I LVo..rioyor I I Min. IMax. IPln:al I 1--1-1 -~ SUl>Na (=) (=) (ac,w) u./V__,, Cllpodly Cllpodty = Clpodty _, 0cQlplod MliQl) I~
Blvd I 2-0 I J!1 l llli l '2!n.mlliiil l l I Q I 1 I ! I & I 60% I o.93-0 MliQl) 1~ 1 2Q I 1Q I 2.12 I =i=w I l I ~ 1 .. I ! I
'
I 79% I o.aso
MliQl) 1~ 1 2Q I 1Q I Q.li l ~ I l I Q __ , .. .. I
'
I
"'"
I 0.060
MliQl) I~
Bl vd I 20 ill) = I l&!!!.mllii!I I :; I z I j I ll I__-----'_ I 18% I n .1RO MliQQ l ~ I 2Q Ml i& I '2!n.mlliiil I ll I 2 I li al! & I !)% I o_ooo -.u..Dobil
The site is comprised of 4
oarcels eauatins o 9 acres and
are contiguous Commercial
use and 5urtace parking lot
rocated along aone
directional two-lane stretch of
The site is comorised of 4
parcels eauating O 9 acrM and
are contiguou s. Commercial
bulldin@ and asurface oarkln&
rot located along aone
directional two-lane stretch of
,rd
The site Is comPrised of 4
Parcels eouatinR O 9 acres and
ace contiguous Vacant
commercial buildins and
, 1ot.
vacant commercial buildins
with asurface Parkins lot
located along aone
directional two-rane stretch of
N_~oortRt'l11l,.,v.1rrt
1-P~
Th e site is comprised of8
parcels eouating 2oacres and
are contiguous . The property is
developed with an auto·
oriented commercial building
located along aone
directional two-lane stretch of
_Munn
IW'.t02l1
Blvd ZQ 30 Q,lZ 1 ~1 2 1 3 i _.&__ ss% I 0.111 I ~-.

Ml.!QQ I
IW'.t02!1
Bl vd I 20 ;Ml I 0,12 I ~ I l I Q I
Ml.!QQ I ~
Blvd I 2Q 1Q I o.3s l ~ I 1 I l I
1 ~ I &_
! I .L_L______u,_
I ~% I n,,c;,
.... I o_no
The site Is comprised of 8
parcels eouaUng 2 0 acres and
are contiguous The site is
developed with an auto
oriented commerdal building
and surface parkins lot located
along aone:directional two-
lane stftlch of Newport
Boulevard Adiacent to
!
The site ts comprised of 8
parcels eouatiog 2 o acres and
are cootisuous The site
0wnonhlp ICONolclad _,
Mnl I S:R 1nR~S:N & ICIM.11.
11nr.:AIE: .PAUL D TD r rtT
T.11.1 AD N TAMAR CORf

HAMPTQNJQHN H TRUST
AD~YrADITAI -"lE.r:IT:!J.BF II('
DAt .ll..tfll.A.ri l~DDV f"I TDI ICT
8-113Appendix B: Sites Analysis
946
Table B-8: Sites t o Aca>mmodate Costa Mesa 2021·2029 RHNA Note: This table is sorted by unique identifier {Unique ID).

Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain conti nuity for the comm unity and other users when referring to specific sites. ~ Unlquo
I) APN
-
Zip
0>do
~
-
l'lon Lind -Ua
~
Zorq
~
OWl1oyO<
Spodllc
l'lon
~
MUOD
--
Min,
-(Lllltt/lCl'I)
-
Mu.
-(unlll/lCl'II -
l'ln:al
51111
(aaw)
Exlollrw
Uta/V-.ctC
IIncome -lpodty -,1ncDrno
Clpodty
Total
Income I.V E)dstqU..~Clpodty -..-I"~ 0a,uplod
Clpodty
ow-lhlp (Cala>lldoood_,
building with surface parking
located along aone:
directionar two-lane stretch ot
Newport Boulevard. Adjacent
to reside ntial development
~= 131 04

1.1ill.
!illW!llIBl.\!Q I ll§ZZ R CB Cl MUDD
~
Blvd 2Q ilQ □- 1! Mm_@d Us~ 1 Q
The site is comerised of 8
parcels equating 2-0acres 3nd
are oooti@uous The site is
deveiooed with acommercial
building located along a one
directional two-lane stretch ot
Newooa Boulevard Adjacent
2 3_ t 77"-' I n on:i; I tn residential develocm•nt ,.,,.,,...,,~IIC:T ~= ill ~
ill.c l= I
1 .12l!! ~ Blvd
= ~
I 92627 B tB Ct MUOO
~
Blvd 2l1 ilQ n 1q I r:nmmPrd:tl 1 Q
The site is comocised of 8
oarceis eauating 2oacres and
are contiguous The site is
developed with acommercial
building and surface pa rking lot
along aone--directional two-
lane stretch of Newoort
Boulevard Adfacent to
3_ _i ,nm~ "" .. l P.6.1.6.Nll.6.N
I •2•21 B CR Cl MUOO
~
Blvd 2Q ilQ 0.44 I Commercial ~ l
The site is comcrised of 8
oarcels eauatln& 2 o acres and
are contiguous The site
contains an older two·storv
commercial building located
along aone-directfooa r two-
1ane stretch of Newoort
Boulevard Adiacent to
i Ml. ~ m I lllQ I ruls1<nll Dii l ll!iJJAN.JfRRY_O_IRUSIm l!!i ill.c
.ill:
137 13
ill.c
138 l =16
I
~
Ga.-
.a. I ..

Blvd
= ~ Rlvn
lliQ
~
Blvd
.aQ;
--
1filU I
92627
"""
B I
R
tB I
CR
..

Cl I
Cl
PG!
Ml.!Ql1
MUOO
-
I~
Bl vd I
~ I
~ -Mes>
2l1
io
~
ilQ I
Ml I
...
iuz
0,19
1-1
I ~ I
I ~ercial
-
z I
J l I
I I
-
l I
0 I
I
-
The site is comorised of 8
oarcels eouatin& 2 o acres and
are contl&uous The site
contains acommercial building
aiong aone-directional two
lane stretch of Newoort
Boulevard.Adjacent to
~A~; ....... ti.i!.! I 2 I t I 101% I 1.0,0
The site is comorised of 8
oarcels eouatin@ 2oacres and
are contiguous Existing
com mercial use along aone
directional two-lane stretch of
Newoort Boulevard Adiacent
3 ~ I ~ I :m, I !lc2._8Q to residential developpent
l;J( SfRg s·Rgle 518 "', l'g t,1
iR1h1 s~ r'al{effiee wses SR la rge
site +he,il', has Feeei ea
I I A I ....- -
D ... , ... ~111AN JERRY QTRUST
AOYAMA ROSAL~
B-114Append ix B: Sites Analysis
947
Table B-8: Sites to Aa:ommodate Costa Mesa 2021· 2029 RHNA Note: This table is sorted by unique identifier {Unique ID}.

Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites. -
a-tr, or Min. Mu.
- - - -U.:-1- I - Ic:. Ia..::-1 ~~
Zolq S!ldlc MUDD
- - - -.. Income
- -
Total ~
" ~1 -..u-~ I OWnn,lp (~Sb,)
~ Pion
-- - -
~ ,_ Clpodty ~ Oa:uplod
~ ~ (UIIIIWaaW) (unlll/acn ) (...-.) Clpodty C'lpodly Clpodty reSe elep"1e11t eru~e site fer
Feside11tial1:1ses.

Existing single-story light
industrial/office uses on large
site. The City has received
139- 1575 North interest in the potential future
031- Sunflower Costa redevelopment of the site for
134 42 Ave 92626 IP MP MUOO Mesa 20 90 8.03 Industrial 173 115 290 578 A 51% residentia l uses.

Sofia University site (former
Whittier Law Sch ool site) with
large surface parking lot and
largely und erdeveloped land.

The City has received Interest
139-1
3333
I92626J
No rt h in the potential futu re
031· Harbor Costa redevelopment of th e site for
135 I 67 Blvd IP MP MUOD Mesa 20 90 10.00 Industrial 216 144 360 720 A -
residential uses.

Ih!:: 1itt i1 i;:Qmli!r!l!::s! of ~
li!iUs;:!::li !::l:Uili11iDI Q~ i1S:~I i! Dd
ar!:: ~!JtiB!.!2!.li !rr~!.l lild;i
i hi!li!!::d li! MS:!::l l2Siil!::d i!IQ DBi
2!l!:::s!i[!::s:li2Dil tlz'.2: lilD!::
nt!::1'11 Qf N!::W122tl QQ !.1 1!::~i rd
Ill!: !::!!:iiliDB s!!::~l21i!ID!:: Dl ii i1D
m !lie ! = I Il ~ . ~illl1 !1 I CB I &l I ,M!.lQQ 1 ~ 1 20 111 I w eomme ,dal I 4 I 2 I 4 lQ I & I lZli I I 2ffi,~ 2y;j~iDB iD~ v~bi, I~
1 1
ilQTiB!:: ,Mi i!ii!::Ol 12 [!::iii;i!::Oliil
Ml1 dexe1oement !KFDA ROY
Ill!: 1il!:: i1 S:Q!llli!Ci!!::s! !i!f Z
li!i!:r!;~Ji !::gYi! ling 12 Q2i!'1:!::i
i!Ds! ar!J: s;2oliB!i!2Yi f!!:ini os
i,m:: ti i! ga1 ili!li20 l!i!S:i!l!::2 2n i!
2nt:s;tirts;:Si2oal ~!i!:li!D!:
!lie
~ I ,mil I I I 1~ 1 I I l==w l I I I I I I I
1tt!:1s;:b 2t N!::W122tl QQyli::va rs;!
2Zl:. Mii!,t!Jll2ri::ils;!tolii!I
I,[ Q! Q.
= 29 ,!l QM ! 2 ! lQ t 28% Q.21ll ~ I BERMAN BRYAN ATRUST 9 627 4
410- 14850 North Costa North
441· Sun flowe r Mesa Costa
144 17 Ave 92626 ucc POC S ecificPla n Mesa 20 90 30.93 Vacan t 360 240 600 1,200 A 1% otential to redeve lo .

Appendix B: Sites Analysis B·llS
948
Table 8--8: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA Note: This table is sorted by unique identifier (Unique ID}.

Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites. -
Ovor1oyor Min. Max. l'on:el - -
- -Unique APN
-
Zip ~ l'lln Land -... Speclllc MUDD Dorlllty Dollllty
- -.. Income
- -
Total Dowlopmont
" LV fl<IIIIIIIU-Dololl Ownnllp (COnmllclolad-i
I) Oodo
-
Uto ~ Pion
-- - -
UN/Voanr:t Income Clpodl'( _, Oa:uplod
~ ~ (unll>/.... 1 1un11>1--1
,__, ~ Clpodl'(
~
Large surface parking lot.

Analysis assumes only
redevelopment of the surface
parking lot area. The City has
discussed the potential future
410- North Costa North redevelopment of this site for
501· 589 Anto n Mesa Costa high-density residential uses 145 31 Blvd 92626 ucc PDC Specific Plan Mesa 20 90 3.39 Commercial 73 48 123 244 A 0'/4 wit h the nro---· owner.

Existing light
industrial/brewery wi th large
418- 2957 surface parking lot. Site is
161- Randolph within the SoBECA Urban Plan
146 06 Ave 92626 LI MG MUOD SoBECA 20 60 0.72 Industrial 10 6 18 34 A 43% redevelo nment area.

Tire shop with large surface
418- parking lot. Site is within the
163- 2064 SoBECA Urban Plan
148 05 Bristol St 92626 G Cl MUOD SoBECA 20 60 1.47 Commercial 21 14 35 70 A 24'/4 redevelonment area. lot consolidation info: This
parcel is contiguous with two
other parcels and ha s two
owners. The total 3 parcels PURCIUY GAY WHEELER equate to 1.8 acres. School 418- yard for learning center . Site Is
171· 752Saint within the SoBECA Urban Plan
149 02 Clair St 92626 B G C2 MUOO SoBECA 20 60 0.26 Commercial 3 2 7 12 A 3'/4 redevelonment area.

Lot consolidation info: This
parcel is cont iguous with two
other parcels and has two
owners . The total 3 parcels
equate to 1.8 acres. Restaurant PURCllLY GAY WHEELER TR and barbershop. Site is
418· anticipated to redevelop with
101· 1491 Harbor adjacent parcels as shown in
164 03 Baker St 92626 8 G Cl MUDD Blvd 20 50 1.27 Residential 15 10 25 50 A 6'/4 this table. lot consolidation info: This
parcel is contiguous wit h two
other parcels and has two
owners. The tota l 3 parcels
equate to 1.8 acres. histing
learning center use. Site is
418- anticipated to redevelop with
171· 754Sa int adjacent parcels as shown in
169 01 Clair St 92626 B G C2 MUOO SoBECA 20 60 0.27 Residenti al 3 2 8 13 A 25'/4 this table . 766 ST CLAIR LLC Gym with large surface parking
418· lot. Site is within the SoBECA
191· 766Sa int Urban Plan redevelopment
150 04 Clair St 92626 G C2 MUOO SoBECA 20 60 0.67 Commercial 9 6 17 32 A 34% area.

Small strip mall wi th large
418-
surface parking lot. Site is
202- 845 Baker
withi n the SoBECA Urban Plan
151 01 St 92626 G Cl MUOD SoBECA 20 60 0.87 Commercial 12 8 21 41 A 25'/4 rede velooment area.

B-116Appendix B: Sites Analysis
949
Table B-8: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RH NA Note: This table is sorted by unique identifier (Unique ID).

Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites. -
ow.toyor Min. Max. l'lrcll - - -
Above
Unlquo NH
-
Zip ~ -Lind Zol,q Spoc:fflc MUOO Donllty Dollllty
- -. ,_ lnc:omo
-
Total
--- " ILV -..u-- Ownonhlp ,~-i., Coda
-
Ua ~ 1'1111
- - -
~ ,_ Copoclty C1oaltlcatlon Occuplod
~ ~ ,......,.... ) (unllr/lcre) ,--i Copoclty Copoclty capodty lot consolidation info: This
parcel is contiguous with other
pa rcel, a total of0.9 acres an d
is under the same ownership.

Nightclub wit h large surface
418· parking lot. Site is within the
202- 841 Baker SoBECA Urba n Plan
152 02 St 92626 D G Cl MUOD SoBECA 20 60 0.33 Com mercial 4 3 8 lS A 36% redevelonme nt area. BAKER STREET PROPERTIES U C Lot consolidat ion info:

Nightclub wit h large surface
418- parking lot. Site is within the
202- 841 Baker SoBECA Urba n Plan
153 03 St 92626 D G Cl MUOO SoBECA 20 60 0.60 Commercial 8 s 15 28 A 27% redeve loom ent area. BAKER STREIT PROPERTIES UC Strip mall wi th large surface
418· parking lot. Site is within the
202· 801 Baker SoBECA Urba n Plan
154 04 St 92626 G Cl MUDD SoBECA 20 60 0.86 Commercia l 12 8 21 41 A 33% redeve lo oment area.

Lot consolidation info: This site
is made up of 2 parcels that are
contig uous, under common
ownership and equate to 0.76
418- acres. Surface parking lot. Site
202· 2969 is within the SoBECA Urba n
155 OS Centurv Pl 92626 E LI Cl MUDD SoBECA 20 60 0.09 Commercia l l 0 3 4 A 10% Plan redevel ooment area. ECHAN BARBARA TRUST Lot consolidation info: This site
is made up of 2 parcels that are
contiguous, under comm on
ownership and equate to 0.76
acres. Gym wit h large surface
418- parking lot. Site is with in the
202- 2969 SoBECA Urban Plan
156 06 Centurv Pl 92626 E LI MG MUOD SoBECA 20 60 0.68 Industrial 9 6 17 32 A 37% redevelooment area. ECHAN BARBARA TRUST Electrical equipment
418- manu factu re/distrib utor. Site is
202· 2959 within the SoBECA Urban Plan
157 07 Centurv Pl 92626 LI MG MUOO SoBECA 20 60 0.50 Industrial 7 4 13 24 A 37% redevelo oment area.

Coworking office with large
418- surface parking. Site is within
202· 2942 the SoBECA Urban Plan
158 10 Centurv Pl 92626 LI MG MUOO SoBECA 20 60 0.87 Industrial 12 8 21 41 A 30% redevelonment area. 418- Warehouse with large yard.
202· 2952 Site is within the SoBECA Urban
1S9 11 Centurv Pl 92626 LI MG MUOO SoBECA 20 60 0.90 Industrial 12 8 23 43 A 35% Plan redevelo oment area.

Auto repair shop with surface
418- parking. Site is wi thin the
202- 2972 SoBECA Urban Plan
160 12 Century Pl 92626 LI MG MUDD SoBECA 20 60 0.94 Industrial 13 9 23 45 A 35% redevelooment area. 418· Warehouse with large yard.
202- 2972 Site is within the SoBECA Urban
161 13 Centurv Pl 92627 LI MG MUDD SoBECA 20 60 0.91 Industrial 12 8 23 43 A 37% Plan redeve lopment area. 8-117Appendix B: Sites Analysis
950
Table 8-8: Sites to Accommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA Note: This table is sorted by unique identifier (Unique ID).

Some sites were removed as port of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain conti nuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites. - -...

I> APN
-
Zip
0ldo
~
-
Pion Lind
Uoo
~
Zanq
~
Dwrt./or
Spoclllc
l'lln
~
MU0D
--
IOI.

Donllly
llllllls/ocnll -
Mu.

Donllly
(unllo(acn)
-
(-=-I
- -.
u.{Yoant,f -Cllpocltf
- -Clpodty
- -,_ -~
Totll
Clpodty
Dowllopnwit_, " 0a:uplod IY EldllqU-Dolall 0Wnnllp~9-)
162
418-
202-
14 76 5 Ba ker
St 92627 G C2 MUOO SoBECA 20 60 0.67 Commercial 9 6 17 32 A 46% Existin g auto repair shop use.

Site Is within the So BECA Urban
Plan redeveloom ent area.
163
418-
101-
OS
1425
Ba ker St 92627 G Cl MUOD
Harbor
Blvd 20 so 1.90 Comm erci al 22 15 39 76 C 24%
Existing auto dealer wi th large
surfa ce parkini;i:.
165
424-
202·
01 745W
19th St 92628 G Cl MUOO 19West 20 so 0.63 Residenti al 7 s 13 25 C 29% Strip mall with surface parkin g
lot adjacent to major
transportat ion corridor (19th
St.). Site has the pot ential to
redevelOD for mixed-use.
166
41().
481-
OS
3201 Park
Center Dr 92628 H CAC TC
North Costa
Mesa
Specifi c Plan
North
Costa
Mesa 20 90 6.27 Commercial 55 37 94 186 A 17%
Lot consolidat ion info : This site
is made up of two parcels
under common own ership and
contig uous. Pacific Arts Center
property. Se e analysis in
Appendix B for addition al
informati on on pote ntial to
redeveloo. THE 1RVINE COMPANY LLC
167
41().
491-
07 601 Anton
Blvd 92626 H CAC TC
North Costa
Mesa
Soecifi c Plan
Nort h
Costa
Mesa 20 90 12.07 Commercial 104 69 176 349 A 25%
Lot consolidatio n info: This site
Is made up of two parcels
und er common ownership and
contiguous. Pacifi c Art s Center
property . See analysis in
Appendix B for additional
information on potential to
redeveloD, THE IRVJN ECOMPANY LLC
168
41().
501·
25 545 Anton
Bl vd 92626 ucc POC
North Costa
Mesa
Soecifi c Plan
North
Costa
Mesa 20 90 2.57 Comme rcial 74 55 56 185 A 20%
Small comm ercia l out parcel
uses. Surface parkin g lot.

Property owner has Indicat ed
Interest In redevelopin g th e
si te for residenti al uses.
170
ill
!2§:
=01
~
ill;
li
lli2
&ll!ll2l1
Blvd
1!!l!2
~
=
.,.,, CR
~
R?-Hn
Q.

MUOO
Ml!2l1
&ll!ll2l1
Blvd 20 ,Q
li2
o.•1 Hot t/MotPI ~
§I
4 10 23 oa 89% 0.7"'
Exi1tlng uu: !1 i! m2t1:t with
a1w,1: 12:iCtiOB 12,il!Clil s112ag ii
Qnt;:s;tirf;:i;IjQnal ~2:lant
1trft!2J Qf NfWeQ~ e:gulrvarn
Miiln□ i 12 [t1i!;l1:aliill
d•velonm•nt
.um ~ lQ U2 ~ :;Q il ill l1 llli lUZl1
,a1i11,s;t Pc2i1:g t:12m1:k1:~
m211:1 ,2a:i1:e1!2a 12 2§
11i112:12:2cl~1: 12~!:c la,2rnt:: 1,1ai11
ilad 2 i1!;llil!li2ail 1i1ai11 1Sa2~a
ill A~!i!O Bi:i!:C A12:Ul[D!CD11
B-118Appe ndix B: Sites Analysis
951
Table B-8: Sites t o Accommod at e Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA Note: This tob /e is sorted by unique identifier (Unique ID}.

Some sites were removed as part of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continu ity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites. -
0¥ortll'( or
TI - I -- Ir:.1 con::-I"""i:
nd ZonJrw SpcJIJc
~
-~ ~
~1 l=I II~
ill.Yi.
lll illhl1 l.! M§ Ml!QQ.
!1l!:.
ll1c
=1n I 09 Bristol 92626 GC Cl MUDD
I
!Z2,
= =
I
~
=
l.! M§ Ml.!QQ
!1l!:.
l22c1~1 Ifil___L___.IQ_ ':!!ill 92626 I I.I I M§ I Ml.!Ql) lli
illc I =~ ~
lZ Jl!Y.d I 92627 GC Cl M I IQn
illc llli
~ ~ I I I I177 18 Blvd 92627 y ill' g MUOD
'='
y I g I g_ I MUO_O
MUOD Denllly Denllly 51a EJdlllrW ~ lncomo -1 Total IDovolopmoc,t I " I LV I
Min. IMu. 1-
1 1 ILowor 1-1-
SUl>MI ,.=.., ,=, (oaw) IM/V--.ct C,,poclty a,podly = Clpodty _, 0cEuplod E)d,lq u- 0ml
Mm
West
aMf I
~I
.Mru.
;y..i
I.fil!!ff
l ~I
~
R,!y_d
I
Newport I
Blvd
I~,
.!llild
2Q I ~
ZQ I Ml
2Q I ~
2Q ~
2Q lt!
ZQ I Ml
20 I 30
I ill. I Industrial I lZ I Q I
I 1.69 I Commercial I 6 I 0 I
I= I Industrial I 1 I Q I
I Mo I ~ I lZ ~ I

1.12 I Cornm..!ill.i.al 3
I 0.01 I Q!m mjtr_tjfil I 0 I 0 I
I= I ~ I Q I Q I
il :;JI I .I!
3A I ~ I ~
1ft I -2 I .I! J
ill. I ill I i; I
ll .. i;
0 I Q I ~
l I l I i;
=
34%
34%
53%
35%
~
~
IM2

0.71 QJ
I ~6<!
Development interest provided
in writing bv orooertv owner
Building age - 1985· Existing
industria l use· auto related
YID.

Develooment interest orovided
in writing by property owner.

Commercial office use/
general office building with
surfacePI1.r.~~
Development interest provided
in writing bv orooeav owner
General industrial use
Development interest Provided
in writin@ by property owner.

Industrial/ bus dea lership
auto related uses sales
leasing service and trainin@
use.
pevelopment interest provided
in writin@ bv orooectv owner
Parcels are conti@uous and
have Potential fo r lot
consolidation Commerdal
reta il / shooPin@ center use
The broader Prooertv includes
Sites 176·179 for 1770--1784
Newoort Blvd includes retail/
shoooiog center / storefront
Prooertv and avacant oarkin@

2.58 I garage 6 840 SF
,~
I NI~
Development interest orovided
in writing bY orooeav owner
Parcels are contiguous and
have ootential for lot
consoHdalion Commercial
retail/ shoooing center use
The broader property includes
Sites 176·179 for 1770--1784
Newport Blvd incjudeS retail/
shopping center/ storefront
property and avacant parking
~rage 6840 SF.

Develooment interest orovided
in writing bv property owner
parceis are contiguous and
have ootential for lot
consolidation Commercial
retail/ shoppjng center u(P
ew-.hlp(ClonloldoladSbl)
Prince Capital
~
~
B-119Appendix B: Sites Analysis
952
Table 8-8: Sites t o Aa:ommodate Costa Mesa 2021-2029 RHNA Note: This table is sorted by unique identifier (Unique ID}.

Some sites were removed as port of the analysis and sites were not renumbered to retain continuity for the community and other users when referring to specific sites. -
Unlquo
I) APN
-
Zip
0ldl
~
-
-Lind
U•
...-
lDl1IIW.,..,_
O..W,or
--~ -
MU0D
--
Min.

Donllly
(1111111/ocral -
Ma.
-,......,...., - -,-(ocrwl --u.,v_.,,, ,,=0lpodty
-,..:-
0lpodty
::._,_
0lpodty
Total
0lpodty ~1_, "Oa:uplod LY flllllllwU.o..11 0wnn11p~-,
To g broader property incfudes
Sites 176·179 foe 1770-1784
Newoort Blvd indudes retail/
shopping cent er / storefro nt
orocertv and avacant oarkinR
t:. RIIQSF
lZ.2
~ =
.lJ!
lmtQ2!l1~
Blvd I 92627 _;L __ll>. _il MliQI)
lmtQ2!l
B~ 2l1 ;IQ 0.07 I Com mPrd :11 Q Q l l t /:YA NIA I
Development interest provided
in writins bv prooertv owner
Parcels are contl@uous and
have potential for lot
consolidation Commercial
retail/ shoooing centeruse
The broader crooertv i0 dudes
Si tes 176-179 for 1770-1784
Newoort Blvd iodudes retail/
shopplo scenter / storefront
orooertv and avacant oarkins
ur_aire. 6.840 SF.
~
B-120Appendix B: Sites Analysis
953

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
77 FAIR DRIVE, POST OFFICE BOX 1200, COSTA MESA CA. 92628-1200 Building Safety Division (714) 754-5273 Community Improvement Division (714) 754-5638 Housing & Community Development (714) 754-4870 Planning Division (714) 754-5245 www.costamesaca.gov
1 | Page
S
eptember 2, 2026
Ju
lie Fitch, Executive Officer
Orange County Airport Land Use Commission
John Wayne Airport
3160 Airway Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
S
ent via certified mail and electronic mail to: [email protected] and [email protected] S
ubject: Neighborhoods Where We All Belong Zoning Updates and Housing Element Implementation – Notice of Intent to Overrule the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission
D
ear Ms. Fitch:

O
n September 1, 2026, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa (City) adopted Resolution No. 2026-XX (Resolution) to notify the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and the Aeronautics Program, Division of Transportation Planning at Caltrans , of the City’s intent to overrule the ALUC’s determination that the Neighborhoods Where We All Belong Zoning Updates and Housing Element Implementation is inconsistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. The Resolution, which is attached to th is letter, includes specific findings that were made during the public hearing to consider overruling the ALUC’s determination . This letter and the Resolution have also been forwarded to the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics.

Pu
rsuant to Section 21676(b) of the Public Utilities Code, ALUC may provide comments to the City within 30 days. Comments should be sent to:

M
ichelle Halligan, Senior Planner
City of Costa Mesa
Community Development Department
77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
ATTACHMENT 3
954

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

2 | Page

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at [email protected] or (714) 754-5608.

Sincerely,

Michelle Halligan, Senior Planner

Attachment: Resolution No. 2026-XX

955

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 26-369 Meeting Date: 9/1/2026
TITLE:

ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 13 (PLANNING, ZONING, AND

DEVELOPMENT), OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE UPDATING LAND USE

CLASSIFICATIONS FOR VARIOUS NON-RESIDENTIAL USES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED

TO, PERSONAL SERVICES, ARTISAN STUDIO, ACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT USES, EVENT

CENTERS AND ASSEMBLY USES, FITNESS USES, AND OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL USES AND STANDARDS- ZONING CODE AMENDMENT PCTY-26-0001
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - PLANNING

DIVISION
PRESENTED BY: AMBER GREGG, CONTRACT PROJECT MANAGER, AND

MARTINA CARON, PLANNING MANAGER
CONTACT INFORMATION: AMBER GREGG, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 2026-XX, approving revisions to Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code (Zoning Code) to update land use classifications for various non- residential uses including but not limited to, personal services, artisan studio, active entertainment uses, event centers and assembly uses, fitness uses, and other non-residential uses and standards.

Page 1 of 1 ends

Costa Mesa City CouncilSeptember 1, 2026

Costa Mesa City Council
September 1, 2026