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

CITY OF COSTA MESA
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AUTHORITY*
Agenda
City Council Chambers
77 Fair Drive
6:00 PMTuesday, September 1, 2026
*Note: All agency memberships are reflected in the title "Council Member" The City Council meetings are presented in a hybrid format, both in-person at City Hall and virtually via Zoom Webinar.

Closed Captioning is available via the Zoom option in English and Spanish.

Los subtítulos están disponibles a través de la opción Zoom en inglés y español.

TRANSLATION SERVICES AVAILABLE / SERVICIOS DE TRADUCCIÓN DISPONIBLE Please contact the City Clerk at (714) 754-5225 to request language interpreting services for City meetings. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make arrangements.

Favor de comunicarse con la Secretaria Municipal al (714) 754-5225 para solicitar servicios de interpretación de idioma para las juntas de la Ciudad. Se pide notificación por lo mínimo 48 horas de anticipación, esto permite que la Ciudad haga los arreglos necesarios.

Members of the public can view the City Council meetings live on COSTA MESA TV (SPECTRUM CHANNEL 3 AND AT&T U-VERSE CHANNEL 99) or
http://costamesa.granicus.com/player/camera/2?publish_id=10&redirect=true and online at youtube.com/costamesatv.

Page 1 of 13 ends

1 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda September 1, 2026
Members of the public are welcome to speak during the meeting when the Mayor opens the floor for public comment. There is no need to register in advance or complete a comment card. When it's time to comment, line up at one of the two podiums in the room and wait for your turn. Each speaker will have up to 3 minutes (or as directed) to address the City Council.

All attendees must remain seated while in the chamber until instructed by the Presiding Officer to approach and line up for public comment. To ensure safety and maintain order during the proceedings, standing or congregating in the aisles or foyer is strictly prohibited.

To maintain a respectful and orderly atmosphere during the meeting, attendees shall refrain from using horns or amplified speakers. Signs and props may be brought into the Chamber, provided they do not exceed 11 inches by 18 inches in size and do not hinder the visibility of other attendees. The possession of poles, sticks, or stakes is strictly prohibited.

Further information regarding the City's regulations on addressing the City Council and expected conduct during meetings are available at the following links.

Title 2: Administration
§ 2-61: Conduct while addressing the council.
https://ecode360.com/42609578
Title 2: Administration
§ 2-64: Disorderliness by members of the audience.
https://ecode360.com/42609598
The public may participate via the Zoom option.

Zoom Webinar:

Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/88327991501?pwd=bKKnH8ZDiAjZoMJYF13CL0vsHygLNz.1 Or sign into Zoom.com and “Join a Meeting”
Enter Webinar ID: 883 2799 1501/ Password: 351550
• If Zoom is not already installed on your computer, click “Download & Run Zoom” on the launch page and press “Run” when prompted by your browser. If Zoom has previously been installed on your computer, please allow a few moments for the application to launch automatically.
• Select “Join Audio via Computer.”
• The virtual conference room will open. If you receive a message reading, “Please wait for the host to start this meeting,” simply remain in the room until the meeting begins.
• During the Public Comment Period, use the “raise hand” feature located in the participants’ window and wait for city staff to announce your name and unmute your line when it is your turn to speak. Comments are limited to 3 minutes, or as otherwise directed.

Page 2 of 13 ends

2 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda September 1, 2026
Participate via telephone:

Call: 1 669 900 6833 Enter Webinar ID: 883 2799 1501/ Password: 351550 During the Public Comment Period, press *9 to "raise your hand" and to be added to the queue to speak and wait for city staff to announce your name/phone number and press *6 to unmute your line when it is your turn to speak. Comments are limited to 3 minutes, or as otherwise directed.

Note, if you have installed a zoom update, please restart your computer before participating in the meeting.

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

Any written communications, photos, or other materials for copying and distribution to the City Council that are 10 pages or less, can be e-mailed to [email protected], submitted to the City Clerk’s Office on a flash drive, or mailed to the City Clerk’s Office. Note that records submitted by the public will not be redacted in any way and will be posted online as submitted, including any personal contact information. Comments received by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting will be provided to the City Council, made available to the public, and will be part of the meeting record.

All pictures, PowerPoints, and videos submitted for display at a public meeting must be previously reviewed by staff to verify appropriateness for general audiences. No links to YouTube videos or other streaming services will be accepted, a direct video file will need to be emailed to staff prior to each meeting in order to minimize complications and to play the video without delay. The video must be one of the following formats, .mp4, .mov or .wmv. Only one file may be included per speaker for public comments, for both videos and pictures. Please e-mail to the City Clerk at [email protected] NO LATER THAN 12:00 Noon on the date of the meeting. If you do not receive confirmation from the city prior to the meeting, please call the City Clerks office at 714-754-5225.

Items submitted for the overhead screen should be 1 page and provided to the City Clerk no later than 15 minutes prior to the start of the meeting.

Please know that it is important for the City to allow public participation at this meeting. If you are unable to participate in the meeting via the processes set forth above, please contact the City Clerk at (714) 754-5225 or [email protected] and staff will attempt to accommodate you. While the City does not expect there to be any changes to the above process for participating in this meeting, if there is a change, the City will post the information as soon as possible to the City’s website.

Note regarding agenda-related documents provided to a majority of the City Council after distribution of the City Council agenda packet (GC §54957.5): Any related documents provided to a majority of the City Council after distribution of the City Council Agenda Packets will be made available for public inspection. Such documents will be posted on the city’s website and will be available at the City Clerk's office, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626.

Page 3 of 13 ends

3 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda September 1, 2026
All cell phones and other electronic devices are to be turned off or set to vibrate. Members of the audience are requested to step outside the Council Chambers to conduct a phone conversation.

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

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

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

For your convenience, a binder of the entire agenda packet will be at the table in the foyer of the Council Chambers for viewing. Agendas and reports can be viewed on the City website at https://costamesa.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx. Las agendas y los informes se pueden ver en español en el sitio web de la Ciudad en
https://www.costamesaca.gov/trending/current-agendas/spanish-city-council-agendas.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Assistive Listening headphones are available and can be checked out from the City Clerk. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (714) 754-5225. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II].

En conformidad con la Ley de Estadounidenses con Discapacidades (ADA), aparatos de asistencia están disponibles y podrán ser prestados notificando a la Secretaria Municipal. Si necesita asistencia especial para participar en esta junta, comuníquese con la oficina de la Secretaria Municipal al (714) 754-5225. Se pide dar notificación a la Ciudad por lo mínimo 48 horas de anticipación para garantizar accesibilidad razonable a la junta. [28 CFR

35.102.35.104 ADA Title II].

Page 4 of 13 ends

4 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda September 1, 2026

REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AUTHORITY SEPTEMBER 1, 2026 – 6:00 P.M.

JOHN STEPHENS
Mayor

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

ARLIS REYNOLDS LOREN GAMEROS Council Member - District 5 Council Member - District 2

JEFF PETTIS MIKE BULEY Council Member - District 6 Council Member - District 1

KIMBERLY HALL BARLOW CECILIA GALLARDO-DALY City Attorney City Manager

CALL TO ORDER

NATIONAL ANTHEM AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

MOMENT OF SOLEMN EXPRESSION
[Per Council Policy 000-12, these presentations are made by community volunteers stating their own views. The City Council disclaims any intent to endorse or sponsor the views of any speaker.]

ROLL CALL

CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT
PRESENTATIONS:

1. Recognition of Newport-Mesa Girls Softball 12U Silver All-Star Team

2. Hunger Action Month 2026 Proclamation
PUBLIC COMMENTS – MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
Comments on Presentations and Consent Calendar items may also be heard at this time. Comments are limited to 3 minutes, or as otherwise directed.

Page 5 of 13 ends

5 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda September 1, 2026

COUNCIL MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS Each council member is limited to 3 minutes. Additional comments will be heard at the end of the meeting.

1. Council Member Pettis

2. Council Member Buley

3. Council Member Gameros

4. Council Member Marr

5. Council Member Reynolds

6. Mayor Pro Tem Chavez

7. Mayor Stephens
REPORT – CITY MANAGER
REPORT – CITY ATTORNEY

CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be acted upon in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the City Council, staff, or the public request specific items to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.

1. PROCEDURAL WAIVER: WAIVE THE FULL READING OF ALL

ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
26-389
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council and Housing Authority approve the reading by title only and waive further reading of Ordinances and Resolutions.

2. READING FOLDER 26-390
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council receive and file Claims received by the City Clerk and authorize staff to reject any and all Claims: Paul Beckett, Kathleen DeVine, Trinh Pham Kiem, Gustavo Ortiz, Raymundo Ortiz, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Teresa Rescalvo De Ortiz), State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Ellie Savee).

Page 6 of 13 ends

6 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda September 1, 2026

3. ADOPTION OF WARRANT RESOLUTION 26-353
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council approve Warrant Resolution No. 2759.

1. Summary Check Registration 7-14-2026

2. Summary Check Registration 7-23-2026

3. Summary Check Registration 7-30-2026

4. Summary Check Registration 8-7-2026

5. Summary Check Registration 8-13-2026
Attachments:

4. MINUTES 26-391
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council approve the minutes of the special closed session and study session of May 13, 2025, townhall meeting of October 15, 2025, and the regular meetings of June 16, 2026, July 21, 2026, and August 4, 2026.

1. 05-13-2025 Draft Minutes

2. 10-15-2025 Draft Minutes

3. 06-16-2026 Draft Minutes

4. 07-21-2026 Draft Minutes

5. 08-04-2026 Draft Minutes
Attachments:

5. AUTHORIZE THE USE OF SOURCEWELL PUBLIC SECTOR

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH FONROCHE

LIGHTING AMERICA FOR THE PURCHASE OF SOLAR LIGHTING

EQUIPMENT FOR THE JOANN AND CORNERSTONE BIKE TRAILS
26-379
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Authorize the use of Sourcewell, Cooperative Agreement No. 041525-FNR with Fonroche Lighting America, valid until July 22, 2029, for the purchase of solar lighting equipment for the Joann and Cornerstone Bike Trails.

2. Authorize the purchase of lighting equipment for the Joann and Cornerstone Bike Trails for $116,152 through Fonroche Lighting America.

3. Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute the necessary agreement and future authorized amendments to the agreement.

1. Fonroche Lighting Design and CostAttachments:

Page 7 of 13 ends

7 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda September 1, 2026

6. CALTRANS SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING GRANT

PROGRAM AWARD
26-380
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Adopt the proposed Resolution No. 2026-XX, accepting the Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant.

2. Authorize an appropriation increase to both the revenue and expenditure in the amount of $297,500 for the grant in the State Grant Fund (Fund 231).

1. Proposed Resolution No. 2026-xxAttachments:

7. ACCEPTANCE AND ALLOCATION OF CANNABIS TAX FUND GRANT

PROGRAM FUNDS TO ENHANCE TRAFFIC SAFETY
26-382
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Approve the proposed Resolution No. 2026-XX, which ratifies and accepts a grant award from the State of California - California Highway Patrol (CHP) for the Cannabis Tax Fund Program (CTFGP) and authorizes the City Manager or designee to execute the grant documents, including the Grant Agreement, and accept and administer the grant.

2. Approve revenue and expense appropriations in the amount of $92,160 respectively, for the 2026-27 CHP CTFGP Grant in the State Grant Fund (Fund 231).

1. FY26-27 CTFGP Grant Agreement

2. Resolution No. 26-XX Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program Attachments:

AT THIS TIME COUNCIL WILL ADDRESS ANY ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT

CALENDAR
------------------------------END OF CONSENT CALENDAR-------------------------------

Page 8 of 13 ends

8 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda September 1, 2026
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(Pursuant to Resolution No. 05-55, Public Hearings begin at 7:00 p.m.)

1. CONTINUATION REQUEST OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE ECONOMIC AND
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR ’S DECISION TO DENY A

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST TO DEVIATE FROM

CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE TO OPERATE A
SOBER LIVING HOME. OPERATED BY THE OHIO HOUSE AT 115

EAST WILSON STREET, UNITS A THROUGH E
26-392
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council continue the open public hearing to the October 20, 2026, meeting, pursuant to the applicant’s request.

2. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN

AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE SIXTH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT
(2021-2026) OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA GENERAL PLAN
(PCTY-26-0003) TO ADD ADDITIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT

OPPORTUNITY SITES, ASSOCIATED REVISIONS (INCLUDING

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POLICIES), AND DETERMINE THE

AMENDMENTS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER

THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
26-385
RECOMMENDATION:

The Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2026-XX to approve a General Plan Amendment to amend the City of Costa Mesa Sixth Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element of the City’s General Plan to add additional Housing Element Opportunity Sites needed to maintain Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) capacity, remove certain Housing Element Opportunity Sites, adopt associated revisions (including environmental justice policies) and the associated Environmental Quality Act environmental determination (Attachment 1).

Agenda Report

1. Draft City Council Resolution
Exhibit A Public Hearing Draft Housing Element

2. Planning Commission Resolution

3. Revised Measure K Sites and Housing Element Opportunity Sites Map

4. Housing Element EJ Policies Update Summary

5. HCD Letter August 21 2026
Attachments:

Page 9 of 13 ends

9 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda September 1, 2026

3. 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
26-387
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.

Agenda Report

1. City Council Resolution - ALUC

2. ALUC Staff Report NWWAB

3. Letter to ALUC
Attachments:

Page 10 of 13 ends

10 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda September 1, 2026
OLD BUSINESS:

1. 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
26-369
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.

Agenda Report

1. City Council Draft Ordinance

2. Exhibits A-G, Clean

3. Exhibits A-F, Strikeout For Reference Only
Attachments:

NEW BUSINESS: (Next Page)

Page 11 of 13 ends

11 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda September 1, 2026

1. ADOPTION OF THE AGREEMENTS FOR SUCCESSOR MEMORANDA

OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA
(CITY) AND THE COSTA MESA POLICE ASSOCIATION (CMPA), THE

COSTA MESA POLICE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (CMPMA) ,

THE COSTA MESA CITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (CMCEA) AND

THE CONFIDENTIAL UNIT AND THE ADOPTION OF

ACCOMPANYING SALARY RESOLUTIONS, AND CMCEA ANNUAL

COMPENSATIONS UPDATES
26-396
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Approve and Adopt Agreement for Successor MOU between the City of Costa Mesa and CMPA (Attachment 1).

2. Approve and Adopt Agreement for Successor MOU between the City of Costa Mesa and CMPMA (Attachment 2).

3. Approve and Adopt Agreement for Successor MOU between the City of Costa Mesa and CMCEA (Attachment 3).

4. Approve and Adopt Resolution Number 2026-XX revising the pay ranges for CMPA (Attachment 4).

5. Approve and Adopt Resolution Number 2026-XX revising the pay ranges for CMPMA (Attachment 5).

6. Approve and Adopt Resolutions Number 2026-XX and 2026-XX revising the pay ranges for CMCEA (Attachments 6 and 7).

7. Approve and Adopt Resolution Number 2026-XX revising the pay ranges for the Confidential Unit (Attachment 8).

8. Approve and Adopt Resolution Number 2026-XX revising the pay ranges for Deputy Police Chief (Attachment 9)

9. Approve and Adopt Resolution Number 2026-XX revising the pay ranges for Police Recruit (Attachment 10).

10.Approve and Adopt Resolution Number 2026-XX revising the pay range for Reserve Senior Public Safety Dispatcher (Attachment 11).

11.Authorize the City Manager and members of the City ’s Negotiation Team to execute the Memoranda of Agreement documents.

Page 12 of 13 ends

12 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY*
Agenda September 1, 2026

1. CMPA MOU 2026-2028

2. CMPMA MOU 2026-2028

3. CMCEA MOU 2026-2028

4. CMPA Salary Resolution Jul 26 Jan 27 Jul 27 Jan 28

5. CMPMA Salary Resolution Jul 26 Jan 27 Jul 27 Jan 28

6. CMCEA Salary Resolution Jul 26

7. CMCEA Salary Resolution Jul 27

8. CON Salary Resolution Jul 26 June 27

9. Exec Salary Resolution Jul 26 Jan 27

10. PT Resolution

11. Police Recruit Resolution Jul 26 Jan 27 Jul 27 Jan 28 Attachments:

ADDITIONAL COUNCIL /BOARD MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND

SUGGESTIONS

ADJOURNMENT

Page 13 of 13 ends

13 CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 26-389 Meeting Date: 9/1/2026
TITLE:

PROCEDURAL WAIVER: WAIVE THE FULL READING OF ALL ORDINANCES AND

RESOLUTIONS
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council and Housing Authority approve the reading by title only and waive further reading of Ordinances and Resolutions.

Page 1 of 1 ends

14 CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 26-390 Meeting Date: 9/1/2026
TITLE:

READING FOLDER
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office/City Clerk’s Division RECOMMENDATION:

Page 1 of 1 ends

15 CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 26-353 Meeting Date: 9/1/2026
TITLE:

ADOPTION OF WARRANT RESOLUTION
DEPARTMENT: FINANCE DEPARTMENT
PRESENTED BY: MARK KHOU, BUDGET & PURCHASING MANAGER
CONTACT INFORMATION: MARK KHOU, BUDGET & PURCHASING MANAGER AT (714) 754-5241
RECOMMENDATION:

City Council approve Warrant Resolution No. 2759.

BACKGROUND:

In accordance with Section 37202 of the California Government Code, the Director of Finance or their designated representative hereby certify to the accuracy of the following demands and to the availability of funds for payment thereof.

FISCAL REVIEW:

Funding Payroll Register No. 26-14 On Cycle for $4,059,516.21, No. 26-14 “A” Off Cycle for $1,648.40, No. 26-15 On Cycle for $4,467,765.37, No. 26-15 “A”Off Cycle for $4,616.51, No. 26-16 On Cycle for $4,346,495.52, and No. 26-17 On Cycle for 4,386,732.92, and City operating expenses for $10,248,800.94.

Page 1 of 1 ends

16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 49
50 51
52 53
54 55
56 57
58 59
60 61
62 63
64 65
66 67
68 69
70 71
72 73
74 75
76 77
78 79
80 81
82 83
84 85
86 87
88 89
90 91
92 93
94 95
96 97
98 99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 26-391 Meeting Date: 9/1/2026
TITLE:

MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office/City Clerk’s Division RECOMMENDATION:

Page 1 of 1 ends

111

Minutes – Special Closed Session and Regular Study Session – May 13, 2025 Page 1 of 4

MAY 13, 2025 - SPECIAL CLOSED SESSION - 4:00 P.M. - MINUTES

CALL TO ORDER – The Special Closed Session meeting was called to order by Mayor Stephens at 4:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present: Council Member Buley , Council Member Pettis, Council Member Marr, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Absent: Council Member Gameros.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Roberto Herrera, Resilience Orange County , thanked the previous City Manager and spoke in support of appointing Cecilia Gallardo-Daly as Interim City Manager.

CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:

1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6, (a) Agency Designated Representative: Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, Assistant City Manager Name of Employee Organization: Costa Mesa Police Association (CMPA)

2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6, (a) Agency Designated Representative: Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, Assistant City Manager Name of Employee Organization: Costa Mesa Police Management Association (CMPMA)

3. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6, (a) Agency Designated Representative: Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, Assistant City Manager Name of Employee Organization: Costa Mesa City Employees Association (CMCEA)

4. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6, (a) Agency Designated Representative: Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, Assistant City Manager Name of Employee Organization: Costa Mesa Confidential Unit

5. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION - ONE CASE
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2), Potential Litigation. 112

Minutes – Special Closed Session and Regular Study Session – May 13, 2025 Page 2 of 4

6. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957(b)(1) Title: Interim City Manager

City Council recessed at 4:05 p.m. for Closed Session.

Closed Session recessed to the Study Session at 5:10 p.m.

Closed Session resumed at 8:28 p.m. after the Study Session.

Closed Session adjourned at 10:40 p.m. and no reportable action was taken.

REGULAR STUDY SESSION MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
MAY 13, 2025 – 5:00 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER – The Study Session meeting was called to order by Mayor Stephens at 5:10 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Marr, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Absent: None.

STUDY SESSION ITEM:

1. FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 PROPOSED BUDGET STUDY SESSION

Presentation by Ms. Molina, Finance Director , Mr. Diminich, Finance Officer, Mr.

Sethuraman, Public Works Director , Ms. Reyes, Deputy City Manager , Ms. Tai, Economic and Development Services Director, Fire Chief Stefano, Assistant Fire Chief Pyle, Assistant Fire Chief Neal, Police Chief Lawrence, Mr. Ely, Information Technology Director, and Mr. Gruner, Parks and Community Services Director.

Public Comments:

Speaker, requested funding for Brentwood Park.

Roberto Herrera, Resilience Orange County, requested support for tenant protection programs.

Christian Lopez, Resilience Orange County, thanked City Council and staff for their work with the community , spoke on enhancing communication with the Spanish community, and publishing agendas earlier.

Angely Andrade spoke on park development on the Westside of Costa Mesa, spoke on annual investments in parks, and in support for green spaces. 113

Minutes – Special Closed Session and Regular Study Session – May 13, 2025 Page 3 of 4

Fischer Derderian, spoke in support of art in Costa Mesa, role of the Arts Commission, the Arts Master Plan, and revisiting the cannabis tax.

ACTION:

The City Council reviewed and offered comments and questions on the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Proposed All Funds Budget of $224.4 million, with a General Fund component of $186.9 million including:
• An update on the Fairview Developmental Center.
• Support for a Public Art Fund.
• Quarterly reports on crime data.
• A list of consultant contracts.
• Vacant positions and which positions are in the process of being filled. • The number of Cannabis stores currently open and information on taxes and revenues.
• Legal fees regarding sober living litigation.
• Skate Park project budgeting.
• Waiving the Capital Asset Needs Ordinance.
• Community outreach and engagement.
• Human Resources training budget.
• Utilizing street sweeping funds.
• Reducing water usage.
• The Arts and Culture Master Plan fund from Measure Q. • Legal fees.
• The halting of the Capital Asset Needs Ordinance for one year. • Review street sweeping.
• Tennis Center fees.

ADJOURNMENT – Mayor Stephens adjourned the Study Session at 8:28 p.m. and City Council recessed to Closed Session. Closed Session ended at 10:40 p.m., and no reportable action was taken.

114

Minutes – Special Closed Session and Regular Study Session – May 13, 2025 Page 4 of 4

Minutes adopted on this 1st day of September, 2026.

___________________________
John Stephens, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk

115

Minutes – Homeless Solutions Townhall October 15, 2025 Page 1 of 2

HOMELESS SOLUTIONS TOWNHALL MEETING
OCTOBER 15, 2025 – 5:30 P.M. - MINUTES

CALL TO ORDER - The Special City Council Homeless Solutions Townhall meeting was called to order by Mayor Stephens at 6:01 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Absent: Council Member Pettis and Council Member Reynolds.

SPECIAL BUSINESS ITEM: HOMELESS SOLUTIONS TOWNHALL MEETING

Presentations by Mr. Robbins, Neighborhood Improvement Manager, Mr. Macias, Code Enforcement Manager, Poli ce Captain Wadkins, Ms. Hall Barlow, City Attorney, and Ms.

Gallardo Daly, Interim City Manager.

Public Comments - On Matters Related to Homeless Solutions

Jim Fitzpatrick spoke on calls for service and finding meaningful solutions for homelessness.

Steve McNally spoke on the need for compassion, and how can the community support this effort.

Jenn Tanaka spoke on the 311 App, inquired on enforcement protocols potentially changing regarding homelessness, funding for housing, and Section 8.

Speaker, spoke on community improvement.

Mary Capalini thanked staff for their work, spoke on non- profits, funding, case managers, and those who are waiting for assistance.

Speaker, spoke on the requirements for assistance.

Paul Harker thanked staff for the programs to help those in need and ex pressed concern on attracting those who are not residents.

Geoff West thanked the City Council and Mr. Robbins for the good work they do.

Margaret Sharp spoke on affordable housing and Accessory Dwelling Unit’s.

116

Minutes – Homeless Solutions Townhall October 15, 2025 Page 2 of 2

ADJOURNMENT – Mayor Stephens adjourned the meeting at 8:06 p.m.

Minutes adopted on this 1st day of September, 2026.

___________________________
John Stephens, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk

117

Minutes – Regular Meeting June 16, 2026 Page 1 of 12

REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AUTHORITY JUNE 16, 2026 – MINUTES

CALL TO ORDER – The Closed Session meeting was called to order by Mayor Stephens at 4:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis (left at 11:10 p.m.), Council Member Reynolds (arrived at 4:10 p.m.), Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Absent: None.

PUBLIC COMMENTS – NONE.

CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:

1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6, (a) Agency Designated Representative: Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, City Manager Name of Employee Organization: Costa Mesa City Employees Association (CMCEA)

2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6, (a) Agency Designated Representative: Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, City Manager Name of Employee Organization: Costa Mesa Confidential Unit

3. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6, (a) Agency Designated Representative: Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, City Manager Name of Employee Organization: Costa Mesa Police Association (CMPA)

4. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6, (a) Agency Designated Representative: Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, City Manager Name of Employee Organization: Costa Mesa Police Management Association (CMPMA)

5. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: City of Costa Mesa v. Ohio House LLC
Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2020-01146835-CU-OR-CJC 118

Minutes – Regular Meeting June 16, 2026 Page 2 of 12

6. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: City of Costa Mesa v. Ohio House, LLC, a California limited liability corporation; Richard Perlin, Nancy Perlin, Dolores Perlin, and Brandon Stump as individuals, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2018-01006173-CU-OR-NJC

7. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, United States District Court, Central District of CA, Case No. 8:19 cv 01710 DOC (KESx)

8. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: Angela Vargas v. City of Costa Mesa; Jose Elias Gutierrez Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2024-01445829-CU-PA-CJC

9. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – INITIATION OF LITIGATION – ONE CASE
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(4), Potential Litigation.

City Council recessed at 4:02 p.m. for Closed Session.

Closed Session recessed to the open session at 5:55 p.m.

Closed Session resumed at 11:10 p.m., after the open session.

Closed Session adjourned at 11:39 p.m. and there was no reportable action taken.

CALL TO ORDER - The Regular Ci ty Council and Housing Authority meeting was called to order by Mayor Stephens at 6:02 p.m.

NATIONAL ANTHEM AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – A video was played of the National Anthem and the Mayor led the Pledge of Allegiance.

MOMENT OF SOLEMN EXPRESSION – Led by Council Member Marr.

ROLL CALL

Present: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Absent: None.

CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT – No reportable action was taken and will resume after the open session adjourns.

PRESENTATIONS:

1. Mayor Stephens presented a proclamation to Bryan Terry, OC Pride Executive Director in recognition of Pride Month.
119

Minutes – Regular Meeting June 16, 2026 Page 3 of 12

2. City Council recognized the Network for Homeless Solutions Team for Housing 500+ Individuals since 2019.

PUBLIC COMMENTS – MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA

Jay Humphrey, expressed thanks on the release of the Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) to the public for the Fairview P ark Developmental Center and the Neighborhoods Where We All Belong program, expressed concerns on the open space for public access, parking , density, and park space.

Speaker, spoke against Flock cameras and requested the audit logs.

Speaker, spoke against Flock cameras.

Allison Lin, spoke against Flock cameras and its potential violation of SB 34.

Speaker, spoke against Flock cameras.

Nic Vozenilek & Billy Erickson spoke on the Stem Drone Engineering Challenge, and spoke in support of the flying field at Fairview Park.

Speaker, spoke against Flock cameras.

Anne Stenton, Costa Mesa, spoke against Flock cameras.

Juana Trejo, spoke against Flock cameras.

Speaker, spoke against Flock cameras.

Speaker, expressed concerns on Flock cameras , and spoke on State housing laws regarding group homes.

Stephanie Cornwall, Costa Mesa, spoke against Flock cameras.

Andrew Barnes, Costa Mesa, praised the Songs in the Canyon event and requested bathroom amenities at the park.

Speaker, spoke against Flock cameras.

Nicole Pearson, spoke against Flock cameras.
120

Minutes – Regular Meeting June 16, 2026 Page 4 of 12

Priscilla Rocco, spoke against Flock cameras and against Harbor Soaring Society flying at Fairview Park.

Wendy Leece, Costa Mesa, spoke against Flock cameras.

COUNCIL MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS

Council Member Gameros spoke on the July 3
rd event at the Fairgrounds.

Council Member Marr spoke on the services provided by the Immigra nt Defenders Law Center and requested to agendize for discussion the Flock camera agreement.

Council Member Reynolds requested to agendize for discussion the Flock camera agreement , praised the Songs in the Canyon event , praised the Small Business Development Center program for their work, and spoke on a summer soccer camp at UC Irvine.

Council Member Pettis spoke on public comments and community participation and mentioned his monthly Eastside Exchange pop-up event will take place this weekend.

Council Member Buley praised the Songs in the Canyon event, spoke on attending the Goat Hill Lions Club event, and spoke on Flock cameras.

Mayor Pro Tem Chavez requested to agendize for discussion the Flock camera agreement.

Mayor Stephens praised the Songs in the Canyon event, spoke on attending ribbon cuttings at The Lab for The Rooted Home and The Fleuria, spoke on the July 3 rd event, and the Orange
County Fai r Opening Day is July 14 th, wished good luck to Jake Knapp playing in the US Open, and wished everyone a Happy Father’s Day.

REPORT – CITY MANAGER – Ms. Gallardo-Daly stated that the Flock camera discussion is scheduled for the July 21st City Council meeting.

Mayor Stephens clarified if the item would be a voting item or a presentation.

Ms. Gallardo-Daly confirmed the item will be on New Business and the City Council will be able to vote on the matter.

Council Member Marr clarified that the item should allow for potential cancellation and not just discussion.

Ms. Hall Barlow, City Attorney confirmed it will be agendized as requested.

Ms. Gallardo-Daly provided an update on the TeWinkle Lakes Project and the Ketchum-Libolt Park Restoration Project, and that Ivis Torres is the City Manager Leadership Award recipient for the month.

REPORT – CITY ATTORNEY – Ms. Hall Barlow noted she will be on vacation, and that Mr.

Preziosi will be available in her absence.

121

Minutes – Regular Meeting June 16, 2026 Page 5 of 12

CONSENT CALENDAR

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Marr/Mayor Stephens
MOTION: Approve the Consent Calendar except for item no. 5.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: None.

Abstain: Council Member Gameros recused himself on item 3 the Warrant Resolution due to his wife previously working for Priceless Pet Rescue.

Motion carried: 7-0

1. PROCEDURAL WAIVER: WAIVE THE FULL READING OF ALL ORDINANCES AND

RESOLUTIONS

ACTION:

City Council and Housing Authority approved the reading by title only and waived further reading of Ordinances and Resolutions.

2. READING FOLDER

ACTION:

City Council received and filed Claims received by the City Clerk and authorized staff to reject any and all Claims: Joseph Babazadeh, Kani Ponder.

3. ADOPTION OF WARRANT RESOLUTION

Council Member Gameros recused himself on this item due to his wife previously working for Priceless Pet Rescue.

ACTION:

City Council approved Warrant Resolution No. 2756.

4. MINUTES

ACTION:

City Council approved the minutes of the regular meeting of June 2, 2026.

6. FINAL MAP FOR TRACT NO. 19345 LOCATED AT 960 WEST 16TH STREET,

COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA

ACTION:

City Council approved the final map for Tract No. 19345, located at 960 West 16th Street, and authorized the signing of the map by the City Engineer and the City Clerk.

122

Minutes – Regular Meeting June 16, 2026 Page 6 of 12

7. AGREEMENT FOR HVAC MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS WITH SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC.

ACTION:

1. City Council a warded a Maintenance Services Agreement (MSA) to Siemens Industry, Inc. (Siemens), 6141 Katella Avenue, Cypress, CA 90630, in an amount ranging from $259,817 to $309,441 annually, for a not -to-exceed total of $1,152,678 over the four -year period for Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) maintenance and repair services for City Hall and the Police Department facilities based on pricing from Sourcewell Contract #080824-SIE.

2. Authorized a ten percent (10%) contingency annually for emergency response, special events, and other unforeseen repair costs.

3. Approved and authorized the City Manager and the City Clerk to execute a Maintenance Services Agreement (MSA) with Siemens Industry, Inc. (Siemens), 6141 Katella Avenue, Cypress, CA 90630 from July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2030, in substantially the final form as approved by the City Attorney.

ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR

5. ACCEPTANCE OF THE LIONS PARK PROJECTS, CITY PROJECT NO. 17-03

Presentation by Mr. Sethuraman, Public Works Director.

Public Comments: None.

MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Stephens/Mayor Pro Tem Chavez
MOTION: Approve staff recommendation.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 7-0

ACTION:

1. City Council a ccepted the work as complete, performed by Tovey/Shultz Construction, Inc., 18261 Collier Avenue, Unit A, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530, for The Lions Park Projects, City Project No. 17- 03, and authorized the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion.

2. Authorized the City Manager to release the Labor and Material Bond seven (7) months after the filing date and release the Faithful Performance Bond at the conclusion of the one- year warranty period. Retention monies have been released pursuant to Public Contract Code section 7107(c).

123

Minutes – Regular Meeting June 16, 2026 Page 7 of 12

-----------------------------------------END OF CONSENT CALENDAR---------------------------------------

City Council recessed into break at 8:03 p.m.

City Council reconvened at 8:15 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(Pursuant to Resolution No. 05-55, Public Hearings begin at 7:00 p.m.)

1. CONTINUATION REQUEST OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S

DECISION TO UPHOLD THE ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR’S DECISION TO DENY A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST

TO DEVIATE FROM CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE TO OPERATE A SOBER LIVING HOME AT 115 EAST WILSON STREET, UNITS A

THROUGH E

Public Comments: None.

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Marr/Mayor Pro Tem Chavez
MOTION: Approve staff recommendation.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 7-0

ACTION:

City Council continue d the open public hearing to the September 1, 2026, meeting, pursuant to the applicant’s request.

2. APPEAL AND AWARD A MAINTENANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR JANITORIAL SERVICES TO CCS FACILITY SERVICES - ORANGE COUNTY, INC.

Presentation by Mr. Bauer, Deputy Director of Public Works.

Presentation by the Appellant:

Scott Cooper, R utan & T ucker, representing Executive Facilities Services, Inc., requested City Council to reject all bids and re-advertise the RFP.

Mr. Jim Ferraro, Founder and Owner of Executive Facilities Services, Inc., expressed concerns on the integrity of the RFP process.

Public Comments: None.

124

Minutes – Regular Meeting June 16, 2026 Page 8 of 12

MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Pro Tem Chavez/ Council Member Marr MOTION: Approve staff recommendation.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 7-0

ACTION:

1. City Council denied Executive Facilities Services, Inc. appeal from the Purchasing Officer’s rejection of the bid protest filed against the proposed award to CCS Facility Services - Orange County, Inc.

2. Awarded the Maintenance Services Agreement (MSA) to CCS Facility Services - Orange County, Inc., 3001 Red Hill Avenue, Building #6- 220, Costa Mesa, CA 92628, for a period of two (2) years with the option for three (3) one- year renewal periods for janitorial services for City buildings, parks, and facilities in an annual amount not to exceed $577,973.

3. Authorized a ten percent (10%) contingency annually for emergency response, special events and other unforeseen costs, and approval for Consumer Price Index (CPI) escalation and de-escalation.

4. Authorized the City Manager or designee to execute the agreement and any future amendments to the agreement.

OLD BUSINESS: NONE.

NEW BUSINESS:

1. PROPOSED FIRST TIME HOMEBUYER PILOT PROGRAM FUNDED BY MEASURE

Q (RETAIL CANNABIS)

Presentation by Ms. Sa, Grant Administrator.

Public Comments:

Steve Smith, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition of the item.

Rick Huffman, spoke in favor of the idea and suggested surveying other cities and their programs.

Cynthia McDonald, Costa Mesa, spoke on the feasibility of the item.

Angely Andrade, spoke in support of the item.

125

Minutes – Regular Meeting June 16, 2026 Page 9 of 12

MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Stephens/Mayor Pro Tem Chavez
MOTION: Continue the item and return with information whether the ordinance should be amended along with staff direction for the pilot project.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION/SECOND: Council Member Buley/ Council Member Marr SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Defer the item to a Study Session prior to staff bringing back a formal consideration.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: Mayor Pro Tem Chavez.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 6-1

ACTION:

City Council deferred the item to a Study Session prior to staff bringing it back for formal consideration.

2. FAIRVIEW ROAD AND BELFAST AVENUE TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 26-03

Presentation by Mr. Nikoui, Senior Engineer.

Public Comments:

Cynthia McDonald spoke in opposition of the item.

Jay Humphrey spoke in opposition of the item.

David Martinez spoke in support of the item.

Rick Huffman spoke in opposition of the item.

Chris Cox spoke in support of the item.

Speaker, spoke in support of the item.

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Gameros/Mayor Stephens
MOTION: Approve staff recommendation.

Council Member Reynolds spoke on not support ing the motion, preferring to prioritize traffic-calming measures rather than installing a traffic signal.

126

Minutes – Regular Meeting June 16, 2026 Page 10 of 12

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Gameros/Mayor Stephens
MOTION: Approve staff recommendation.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Pettis , Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: Council Member Marr and Council Member Reynolds.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 5-2

ACTION:

1. City Council adopted plans, specifications, and working details for the Fairview Road and Belfast Avenue Traffic Signal Project, City Project No. 26- 03, and f ound the project categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

2. Rejected the apparent low bid submitted by Elecnor Belco Electric, Inc., 14320 Albers Way, Chino, CA 91710 as non-responsive.

3. Awarded a Public Works Agreement (PWA) for construction to the apparent second lowest bidder, Select Electric Inc., 1700 E. Via Burton , Anaheim, CA 92806, in the amount of $683,584, and authorized a ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $68,359.

4. Authorized the City Manager and the City Clerk to execute the PWA and any future amendments to the agreements within Council authorized limits.

3. AWARD OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR THE SENIOR

TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM

Presentation by Mr. Gruner, Parks and Community Services Director and Mr. Stoddart, Senior Recreation Supervisor.

Public Comments: None.

MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Pro Tem Chavez/Council Member Marr
MOTION: Approve staff recommendation.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Coun cil Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 7-0

127

Minutes – Regular Meeting June 16, 2026 Page 11 of 12

ACTION:

1. City Council a warded Professional Services Agreement (PSA) for the Senior Transportation Program with Orange County Yellow Management LLC (OCY) at 520 West Dyer Road, Santa Ana, California, 92707 with an annual amount not to exceed $200,000, for a period of three years effective July 1, 2026 - June 30, 2029; and

2. Authorized a ten (10%) percent contingency in the amount of $20,000 for unforeseen costs; and

3. Authorized the City Manager to execute the PSA and future amendments for this agreement within City Council authorized limits.

4. AWARD OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR THE ARTS AND

CULTURE MASTER PLAN UPDATE

Presentation by Mr. Gruner, Parks and Community Services Director.

Public Comments:

Speaker, spoke in opposition of the item.

MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Stephens/Council Member Gameros
MOTION: Receive and file the report and reject all bids.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION/SECOND: Council Member Marr/Mayor Pro Tem Chavez SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Direct staff to return with a r evised, more limited Request For Proposal, and target a budget closer to $60,000.

Council Member Marr amended the substitute motion as follows:

SUBSTITUTE MOTION/SECOND: Council Member Marr/Mayor Pro Tem Chavez SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Authorize the City Manager and Parks and Community Services Director to negotiate with the awardee to reduce the budget to below $100,000 with any remaining fund returning to the Arts Commission.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Me mber Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, and Mayor Pro Tem Chavez.

Nays:Mayor Stephens.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 6-1

ACTION:

City Council authorized the City Manager and Parks and Community Services Director to negotiate with the awardee to reduce the budget to below $100,000 with any remaining fund returning to the Arts Commission.

128

Minutes – Regular Meeting June 16, 2026 Page 12 of 12

ADDITIONAL COUNCIL/BOARD MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS – NONE.

ADJOURNMENT – Mayor Stephens adjourned the meeting to Closed Session at 11:10 p.m.

Closed Session adjourned at 11:39 p.m. and there was no reportable action taken.

Minutes adopted on this 1
st day of September, 2026.

___________________________
John Stephens, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk

129

Minutes – Regular Meeting July 21, 2026 Page 1 of 14

REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AUTHORITY JULY 21, 2026 – MINUTES

CALL TO ORDER – The Closed Session meeting was called to order by Mayor Stephens at 4:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gamer os (arrived 4:03 p.m.) , Council Member Marr (arrived 4:06 p.m.), Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds (arrived 4:08 p.m.), Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Absent: None.

PUBLIC COMMENTS – NONE.

CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:

130

Minutes – Regular Meeting July 21, 2026 Page 2 of 14

8. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: Disability Rights California, a California non-profit corporation v. City of Costa Mesa, Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, City Manager, and Costa Mesa City Council Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2026-01581983-CU-WM-CJC

9. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION - ONE CASE
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2), Potential Litigation.

Ms. Hall Barlow, City Attorney, requested to add two items to the closed session agenda that arose after the posting of the agenda.

10. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: Insight Psychology and Addiction, Inc. v. City of Costa Mesa, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 8:20 cv 00504 JVS JDE

11. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: People of the State of California, ex rel, Rob Bonta, California Department of Housing and Community Development v. City of Costa Mesa Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2026-01583941-CU-WM-CJC

MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Stephens/Mayor Pro Tem Chavez
MOTION: Add the two items requested by the City Attorney to the Closed Session agenda.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Pettis, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, and Council Member Reynolds.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 4-0
131

Minutes – Regular Meeting July 21, 2026 Page 3 of 14

City Council recessed at 4:03 p.m. for Closed Session.

Closed Session adjourned at 5:39 p.m. and there was no reportable action taken.

CALL TO ORDER - The Regular City Council and Housing Authority meeting was called to order by Mayor Stephens at 6:05 p.m.

NATIONAL ANTHEM AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – A video was played of the America 250 Choir singing America the Beautiful.

MOMENT OF SOLEMN EXPRESSION – Led by Pastor Phil Eyskens from Lighthouse Church.

ROLL CALL

Present: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Absent: None.

CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT – No reportable action was taken.

PRESENTATIONS:

The City Council recognized the Costa Mesa Little League Teams - the Minor B Brewers and the Superstars.

PUBLIC COMMENTS – MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA

Speakers in the Council Chambers:

Flo Martin, Costa Mesa, spoke about car collision data, applauded the P ublic Works Department for it’s safety projects, and noted that accidents have decreased drastically.

Larry Jones, Costa Mesa, spoke about State-required units to be developed , and expressed concerns regarding traffic, development, and parking.

Brandice Leger, Parks and Community Services C ommissioner, D istrict 2 , spoke on the ROCKS Program and expressed concerns regarding communications.

Speaker, spoke on safety concerns at the Hilton hotel.

Cristian Garcia Arcos, Parks and Community Services Commissioner, District 4, spoke on meeting with the Creek Team and expressed concern on destruction of local habitats.

Speaker from the Creek Team, spoke against the use of pesticides and expressed concern on destruction of local habitats.

Michael Rio, from the Creek Team, spoke against the use of pesticides and expressed concern on destruction of local habitats.

132

Minutes – Regular Meeting July 21, 2026 Page 4 of 14

COUNCIL MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS

Council Member Marr – None.

Council Member Reynolds praised the P ublic Works Department and for its safety projects, thanked the Creek Team for speaking and spoke on bringing forth a resolution in support of their work, provided an update on the Randall Preserve, and spoke on a Free Bike Repair event.

Council Member Pettis spoke on the J uly 3
rd event, attending the opening of the Orange
County Fair, and spoke on the Fairview Developmental Center Townhall meeting on Thursday, July 23rd at 6:00 p.m.

Council Member Buley recognized the Parks and Community Services Department for the July 3 rd event, and thanked the Police and Fire Departments for helping make the event happen.

Council Member Gameros spoke on reaching out to Director Gruner regarding the ROCKS program and praised the Parks and Community Services Department for all of their work, and reported on cooling stations throughout the city.

Mayor Pro Tem Chavez – None.

Mayor Stephens spoke on following up on the Hilton safety concerns, spoke on the J uly 3 rd
event and thanked the Parks and Community Services and Police Departments for their work on the event, spoke on participating remotely for the August City Council meeting and tha t Mayor Pro Tem Chavez will preside at the meeting.

REPORT – CITY MANAGER – NONE.

REPORT – CITY ATTORNEY – NONE.

CONSENT CALENDAR

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Reynolds/Mayor Pro Tem Chavez MOTION: Approve the Consent Calendar.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: None.

Abstain: Council Member Gameros recused himself on item 3 the Warrant Resolution due to his wife previously working for Priceless Pet Rescue.

Motion carried: 7-0

133

Minutes – Regular Meeting July 21, 2026 Page 5 of 14

1. PROCEDURAL WAIVER: WAIVE THE FULL READING OF ALL ORDINANCES AND

RESOLUTIONS

ACTION:

City Council and Housing Authority approved the reading by title only and waived further reading of Ordinances and Resolutions.

2. READING FOLDER

ACTION:

City Council received and filed Claims received by the City Clerk and authorized staff to reject any and all Claims: Roselle Bailey, Anthony Deak, Emma Romero Gaona, Jessie Lynn Henderson, Austin Hoskins, Laura Laidlaw, Eloisa Tadeo, Mayra Guadalupe Alvarez Tadeo.

3. ADOPTION OF WARRANT RESOLUTION

Council Member Gameros recused himself on this item due to his wife previously working for Priceless Pet Rescue.

ACTION:

City Council approved Warrant Resolution No. 2757.

4. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CITY OF IRVINE FOR USE OF

BEDS AT THE COSTA MESA BRIDGE SHELTER

ACTION:

1. City Council approved the Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Irvine for access to beds, as available, at the Costa Mesa Bridge Shelter for a period of one year from August 1, 2026 to July 31, 2027.

2. Authorized the City Manager and City Clerk to execute all agreements and any amendments to the agreement as needed.

5. APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF A CATERPILLAR 938 WHEEL LOADER

ACTION:

1. City Council a uthorized the use of Sourcewell Public Sector National Cooperativ e Agreement No. 011723- CAT with Caterpillar Inc. for the purchase of one (1) 2026 Caterpillar 938 Wheel Loader in the amount of $349,368.97.

2. Authorized the City Manager to execute all necessary documents for the above purchase.

134

Minutes – Regular Meeting July 21, 2026 Page 6 of 14

6. ACCEPTANCE OF THE 2024-2025 CITYWIDE PARKWAY MAINTENANCE, STREET REHABILITATION, AND SLURRY SEAL PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 24-03

ACTION:

1. City Council a ccepted the work performed by Onyx Paving Company, Inc., 2890 East La Cresta Avenue, Anaheim, Califor nia 92806 for the 2024- 2025 Citywide Parkway Maintenance, Street Rehabilitation, and Slurry Seal Project, City Project No. 24-03, and authorize the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion.

2. Authorized the City Manager to release the retention monies thirty-five (35) days after the Notice of Completion filing date; release the Labor and Material Bond seven (7) months after the filing date; and release the Faithful Performance Bond one (1) year after the filing date.

7. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENTS WITH THE 32ND DISTRICT

AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION

ACTION:

1. City Council a pproved the 2026 agreement between the City and the 32nd District Agricultural Association for traffic management services for the Orange County Fair.

2. Approve d the 2026 agreement between the City and the 32nd District Agricultural Association for traffic management services for all designated year -round events at the Orange County Fair and Event Center (OCFEC).

3. Authorized the City Manager, or their designee, to execute the agreements.

4. Authorized the City Manager, or their designee, to execute any amendments to the agreements, including but not limited to, amendments increasing the maximum compensation to be paid to the City.

------------------------------END OF CONSENT CALENDAR-------------------------------

PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE.
(Pursuant to Resolution No. 05-55, Public Hearings begin at 7:00 p.m.)

OLD BUSINESS: NONE.

NEW BUSINESS:

1. FLOCK SAFETY AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READER (ALPR) REPORT AND

PRESENTATION

Presentation by Chief LaPointe, Captain Diaz, Lieutenant Barnes, and Lieutenant Jacobi.

135

Minutes – Regular Meeting July 21, 2026 Page 7 of 14

Public Comments:

Speakers in the Council Chambers:

Crystal Guerra, Underground Grit, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, Orange, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, Costa Mesa, Underground Grit, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Flo Martin, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Rachael Godwin, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, Newport Beach, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, Resilience Orange County, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Zoe McKewen, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Juana Trejo, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Adam Frazier, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Carmen Ramirez, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, Students’ Civil L iberties U nion, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, Resilience Orange County, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, Resilience Orange County, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

136

Minutes – Regular Meeting July 21, 2026 Page 8 of 14

Tanya Navarro, Organizing Director of Chispa, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Carla Hernandez, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Maricela Lopez, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Brooke Grey, Costa Mesa, organizer with F ood Not Bombs Orange County , spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, Sunrise Orange County, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Lucia Mejia, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, Sunrise Orange County, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Jackie Rothmeier, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Daniel Livingston, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

City Council recessed into a break at 10:05 p.m.

City Council reconvened at 10:15 p.m.

MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Stephens/Council Member Marr
MOTION: Reduce public comments to 2 minutes each
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pet tis, Council Member Reynolds, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: Council Member Gameros and Mayor Pro Tem Chavez.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 5-2
137

Minutes – Regular Meeting July 21, 2026 Page 9 of 14

Speaker, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Aliya Yousufi , Senior Policy Advocacy Manager for CAIR -LA Council on American- Islamic Relations, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Marina Salmon, Santa Ana, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Eric Jimenez, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Dahlia Collins, Laguna Hills, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Natalie Foley, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Shawn Drexler, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, Sunrise Orange County, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Angely Andrade, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, Sunrise Orange County, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, Pride at the Pier, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

138

Minutes – Regular Meeting July 21, 2026 Page 10 of 14

Speaker, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, Sunrise Orange County, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Cristian Garcia Arcos, Parks and Community Services Commissioner, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

David Martinez, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speakers on Zoom:

Alison Rubinfeld, ACLU of Southern California, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Michael Moses Nolf, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Priscilla Rocco, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Kayla Asato, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Vivek Chellappa, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Ron Lawrence, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the Flock Camera contract.

Speaker, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Cynthia McDonald, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, Tustin, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

Speaker, spoke in opposition to the Flock camera contract.

139

Minutes – Regular Meeting July 21, 2026 Page 11 of 14

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Gameros/Council Member Marr MOTION: Maintain the existing Flock services while the City Attorney works on revisions to the agreement; limit the data retention period to 21 days; direct the City Attorney to review the existing agreement and negotiate appropriate revisions to sections relating to release of data to third parties, require notice to the city of any demand for data, including subpoenas and court orders; eliminate language regarding customer generated data, revise language to preclude sale, exchange, or other release of customer data; no change to system capabilities without approval of city, and such other revisions as will strengthen protection of the data to the maximum extent applicable and return with the modified language to the City Council for consideration.

Council Member Marr requested the following amendments to the motion:

• Eliminate any reference to audio or audio detection
• Separate the definition of retention period and access period • Clarify Section 2.4 regarding upgrades to system platform to prohibit additional capabilities of software without notification
• Remove Section 4.2
• Section 4.1 define both the retention period and access period • Section 4.3 strike section granting anonymized data for training • Add Section 4.4 related to data destruction procedures and protocols • Provide a detailed definition of the scope and expected contents of the audit report, including defining information to be available to the public • Require the Police Department to recommend the appropriate number of author ized users for the system

Council Member Gameros agreed to the amendments.

Council Member Gameros and the City Attorney clarified Section 5.3:
• Regarding disclosure of footage: tighten the language to restrict distribution, and to clarify that if Flock receives a request for footage, including via subpoena or court order, it must refer the request to the City, and the City retains the authority to restrict its distribution.

Council Member Gameros and Council Member Marr agreed to:
• Change the data retention period to 45 days.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION/SECOND: Council Member Reynolds
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Eliminate Flock contract effective immediately.

The motion died due to lack of a second.

Council Member Buley and the City Attorney clarified that the City Attorney will return with an amended agreement for City Council consideration prior to April 2027.

Council Member Reynolds requested the following amendment to the motion:
• Include propos ed language requiring call volume and system usage data to be evaluated and analyzed to identify opportunities to reduce the number of camera locations, including locations of private cameras.
140

Minutes – Regular Meeting July 21, 2026 Page 12 of 14

Council Member Gameros and Council Member Marr agreed to the amendment.

Council Member Reynolds spoke on not supporting the original motion.

The City Attorney clarified that an amended agreement will be presented to the City Council for consideration no later than November 2026.

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Gameros/Council Member Marr The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: Council Member Reynolds.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 6-1

ACTION:

Maintain the existing Flock services while the City Attorney works on revisions to the agreement; limit the data retention period to 45 days; directed the City Attorney to review the existing agreement for amendments including:

• Section 5.3 regarding disclosure of footage : tighten the language to restrict distribution, and to clarify that if Flock receives a request for footage, via subpoena or court order, it must refer the request to the City, and the City retains the authority to restrict its distribution
• Eliminate language regarding customer generated data • Preclude sale, exchange or other release of customer data • No changes to the system capabilities without approval of the City • Any additional revisions deemed necessary to strengthen data protection and safeguard data to the maximum extent
• Eliminate any reference to audio or audio detection • Separate the definition of retention period and access period • Clarify Section 2.4 regarding upgrades to system platform to prohibit additional capabilities of software without notification
• Remove Section 4.2
• Section 4.1 define both the retention period and access period • Section 4.3 strike section granting anonymized data for training • Add Section 4.4 related to data destruction procedures and protocols • Provide a detailed definition of the scope and expected contents of the audit report, including defining information to be available to the public. • Require the Police Department to recommend the appropriate number of authorized users for the system
• City Attorney to return with an amended agreement for the City Council's consideration no later than November, 2026
• Include proposed language requiring call volume and system usage data to be evaluated and analyzed to identify opportunities to reduce the number of camera locations, including locations of private cameras.
141

Minutes – Regular Meeting July 21, 2026 Page 13 of 14

2. CITY BALLOT INITIATIVES PERTAINING TO BUSINESS LICENSE REFORM AND

TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Marr/Council Member Reynolds MOTION: Continue the to July 22, 2026 at 4:00 p.m.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, and Council Member Reynolds.

Nays: Mayor Pro Tem Chavez and Mayor Stephens.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 5-2

ACTION:

City Council continued the item to July 22, 2026 at 4:00 p.m.

142

Minutes – Regular Meeting July 21, 2026 Page 14 of 14

Minutes adopted on this 1st day of September, 2026.

___________________________
John Stephens, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk

143

Minutes – Regular Meeting August 4, 2026 Page 1 of 12

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AUTHORITY
AUGUST 4, 2026 – MINUTES

CALL TO ORDER – The Closed Session meeting was called to order by Mayor Pro Tem Chavez at 4:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens (Via Zoom Webinar pursuant to Government Code Section 54953 from Kirimu Camp located in the Serengeti National Park in Tanzania).

Absent: None.

PUBLIC COMMENTS – NONE.

CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:

144

Minutes – Regular Meeting August 4, 2026 Page 2 of 12

5. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6, (a) Agency Designated Representative: Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, City Manager Name of Employee Organization: Costa Mesa Executive Employees

6. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: City of Costa Mesa v. Ohio House LLC
Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2020-01146835-CU-OR-CJC

7. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: City of Costa Mesa v. Ohio House, LLC, a California limited liability corporation; Richard Perlin, Nancy Perlin, Dolores Perlin, and Brandon Stump as individuals, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2018-01006173-CU-OR-NJC

8. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, United States District Court, Central District of CA, Case No. 8:19 cv 01710 DOC (KESx)

9. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: Disability Rights California, a California non-profit corporation v. City of Costa Mesa, Cecilia Gallardo-Daly, City Manager, and Costa Mesa City Council Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2026-01581983-CU-WM-CJC

10. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Name of Case: People of the State of California, ex rel, Rob Bonta, California Department of Housing and Community Development v. City of Costa Mesa Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2026-01583941-CU-WM-CJC

Ms. Hall Barlow, City Attorney, requested to add an item to the closed session agenda that arose after the posting of the agenda related to closed session items 6- 10 and related to consent calendar item no. 7 regarding the proposed grand jury response.

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Marr/Mayor Pro Tem Chavez
MOTION: Add the item requested by the City Attorney to the Closed Session agenda.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, and Mayor Pro Tem Chavez.

Nays: None.

Absent: Mayor Stephens.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 6-0

City Council recessed at 4:08 p.m. for Closed Session.

145

Minutes – Regular Meeting August 4, 2026 Page 3 of 12

Closed Session adjourned at 5:45 p.m. and there was no reportable action taken.

CALL TO ORDER - The Regular City Council and Housing Authority meeting was called to order by Mayor Pro Tem Chavez at 6:01 p.m.

NATIONAL ANTHEM AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – A video was played of the National Anthem and the Mayor Pro Tem led the Pledge of Allegiance.

MOMENT OF SOLEMN EXPRESSION – Led by Calvary Chapel Dave Manne, Pastor Emeritus.

ROLL CALL

Absent: None.

CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT – No reportable action was taken.

PRESENTATIONS: NONE.

PUBLIC COMMENTS – MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA

Speakers in the Council Chambers:

Speaker, spoke on an ethics policy and a conflict-of-interest code for council members.

Steve Smith spoke on the WAGS agreement ending in December and inquired on the RFP process.

Speaker, spoke in opposition to the Flock Cameras Contract.

Speaker, spoke on wildlife issues at Lions Park.

Speaker, spoke in opposition to the Flock Cameras Contract.

Speaker, spoke on wildlife issues at Lions Park.
146

Minutes – Regular Meeting August 4, 2026 Page 4 of 12

Speaker, spoke in opposition to the Flock Cameras Contract.

Liam Cavinaugh spoke in opposition to the Flock Cameras Contract.

Speaker, spoke in opposition to the Flock Cameras Contract.

Speakers on Zoom:

Anne Stenton spoke in opposition to the Flock Cameras Contract.

Speaker, spoke in opposition to the Flock Cameras Contract.

COUNCIL MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS

Council Member Reynolds expressed concern about the Flock Camera contract and whether it violates SB 34, requested a brief report on Lions Park and praised the Public Works team for their ongoing work maintaining the City , highlighted the Costa Mesa Historical Society’s 60th Anniversary event on August 29– 30, acknowledged the Costa Mesa Mutual Aid group for creating a donation website (CostaMesamutualaid.com), and noted efforts by active transportation enthusiasts who are coming together to address e-bike safety.

Council Member Pettis expressed appreciation to staff for organizing the town hall on the Fairview Development Center, recognized Costa Mesa residents for being active in the community, emphasized the importance of listening closely to community concerns— particularly regarding traffic impacts on Harbor Boulevard.

Council Member Buley recognized Travel Costa Mesa, noted a visit with the Chinese Olympic contingency, mentioned that the OC Fair is in full swing and reiterated that the Flock contract will appear on a future agenda for further discussion.

Council Member Gameros congratulated Justin Horner on his promotion to Battalion Chief and noted that the fire recruits have completed training on the grand ladder and vertical operations, emphasized listening to public input regarding the Flock contract and reminded residents that cooling centers are available in Costa Mesa.

Council Member Marr acknowledged the students and Scouts attending the meeting, recognized staff for their work on the Fairview Development Center meeting, voiced support for revisiting an ethics policy and formalizing a tracking system for council members to report contributions they’ve received, and noted the visit from the Chinese Olympic contingency and on the role it could play in LA28.

147

Minutes – Regular Meeting August 4, 2026 Page 5 of 12

Mayor Pro Tem Chavez thanked public commenters and emphasized the importance of public input and community activism, spoke on the visit from the Chinese Olympic contingency and highlighted the upcoming outreach meeting for the Shalimar Park neighborhood, and spoke on adjourning the meeting in memory of Rosa Elena Munguia Cano.

REPORT – CITY MANAGER
– Ms. Gallardo-Daly recognized Lindsey King for receiving the City Managers Leadership Award, recognized new Battalion Chief Justin Horner , and recognized Police Lt. Casarez on his retirement.

REPORT – CITY ATTORNEY – NONE.

CONSENT CALENDAR

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Marr/Council Member Reynolds MOTION: Approve the Consent Calendar except for item no. 7.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: None.

Abstain: Council Member Gameros recused himself on item 3 the Warrant Resolution due to his wife previously working for Priceless Pet Rescue.

Motion carried: 7-0

1. PROCEDURAL WAIVER: WAIVE THE FULL READING OF ALL ORDINANCES AND

RESOLUTIONS

ACTION:

City Council and Housing Authority approved the reading by title only and waived further reading of Ordinances and Resolutions.

2. READING FOLDER

ACTION:

City Council received and filed Claims received by the City Clerk and authorized staff to reject any and all Claims: Tusapa Lee Laolagi, Ivin Mood, Davis Salary.

3. ADOPTION OF WARRANT RESOLUTION

ACTION:

City Council approved Warrant Resolution No. 2758.

4. MINUTES

ACTION:

City Council approved the minutes of the Study Session meeting of June 9, 2026.

148

Minutes – Regular Meeting August 4, 2026 Page 6 of 12

5. DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE FOR THE 2026 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA

CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE

ACTION:

City Council designated Mayor Pro Tem Manuel Chavez as Costa Mesa’s vot ing delegate for the 2026 League of California Cities Annual Conference.

6. BIENNIAL REVIEW OF CITY’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE

ACTION:

City Council approved Resolution No. 2026-35, revising the list of designated positions in the City’s Conflict of Interest Code.

8. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS FOR AMERICAN FAMILY HOUSING AVON RIVER APARTMENTS PROJECT LOCATED AT 1400 BRISTOL STREET

ACTION:

1. City Council authorized the City Manager, or their designee, to execute all applicable agreements necessary to advance the Avon River Apartments Project, contingent upon completion of HUD requirements for receipt of Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funds.

2. Authorized the City Manager, or their designee, to execute a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the County of Orange regarding Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Progress Credits.

ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR

7. RESPONSE TO ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT -STATE HOUSING

MANDATE

Public Comments:

Speakers in the Council Chambers:

Speaker, spoke in opposition of the Grand Jury report , disagrees with the city’s response, and spoke on the need for more housing.

Speakers on Zoom:

Cynthia McDonald, Costa Mesa, spoke on the individuals that serve on the Grand Jury, questioned the City’s decision to agree with the findings, noted that the State is putting the City in a difficult position with the RHNA numbers , and emphasized the need for the Housing Element to be certified.

149

Minutes – Regular Meeting August 4, 2026 Page 7 of 12

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Marr/Mayor Stephens
MOTION: Approve staff recommendation with the following amendments:
• In section F6 of the response letter – add that the planning cycle is too short. • In section F7 – note the number of programs to respond to as part of the Housing Element process.
• In section F9 - use this as an opportunity to highlight the work the City is already doing to advance affordable housing.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 7-0

ACTION:

City Council reviewed and approved the responses to the May 27, 2026, Orange County (OC) Grand Jury Report titled, “California Housing Mandates” and authorized staff to submit the response to the presiding judge with the following changes:
• In section F6 of the response letter – add that the planning cycle is too short. • In section F7 – note the number of programs to respond to as part of the Housing Element process.
• In section F9 - use this as an opportunity to highlight the work the City is already doing to advance affordable housing.

-----------------------------------------END OF CONSENT CALENDAR----------------------------------------

PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(Pursuant to Resolution No. 05-55, Public Hearings begin at 7:00 p.m.)

1. INTRODUCE AND GIVE FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA CALIFORNIA 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- PCTY-26-0001

Presentation by Ms. Gregg, Contract Project Manager and Ms. Tai, Director of Community Development.

Public Comments: None.

150

Minutes – Regular Meeting August 4, 2026 Page 8 of 12

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Marr/Council Member Reynolds MOTION: Approve staff recommendation.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 7-0

ACTION:

1. City Council fou nd that the Zoning Code Amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15305; and

2. Introduced for first reading, by title only, an Ordinance approving amendments to Title 13 (Planning, Zoning and Development) of the Costa Mesa Municipal 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.

2. CONTINUATION REQUEST OF THE CONSOLIDATED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

Public Comments: None.

MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Pro Tem Chavez/Council Member Gameros MOTION: Approve staff recommendation.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 7-0

ACTION:

City Council open ed the public hearing and continued the item to the September 15, 2026, meeting, pursuant to department’s request.

OLD BUSINESS: NONE.

151

Minutes – Regular Meeting August 4, 2026 Page 9 of 12

NEW BUSINESS:

1. PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT

Presentation by Mr. Gruner, Parks and Community Services Director, Ms. Brown, Chair of the Parks and Community Services Commission and Ms. Wright, Vice Chair of the Parks and Community Services Commission.

Public Comments:

Speakers in the Council Chambers:

Matt Garcia, Costa Mesa, spoke on concerts in the park, and that the current draft Fairview Park Master Plan does not mention concerts in the park as an approved use.

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Reynolds/ Council Member Marr MOTION: Approve staff recommendation.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 7-0

ACTION:

City Council received and filed the Parks and Community Services Commission annual report.

2. AWARD OF THE ON CALL SIDEWALK REPAIR PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 25-20

Presentation by Mr. Yang, City Engineer.

Public Comments: None.

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Reynolds/Mayor Pro Tem Chavez MOTION: Approve staff recommendation.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, and Mayor Stephens.

Nays: None.

Absent: None.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 7-0

152

Minutes – Regular Meeting August 4, 2026 Page 10 of 12

ACTION:

1. City Council made a finding of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301.

2. Adopted plans, specifications, and working details for the On Call Sidewalk Repair Project, City Project No. 25-20.

3. Rejected the apparent low bid submitted by Access General Contracting, Inc., 357 North Sheridan Street, Suite 100, Corona, California 92878, as non-responsive.

4. Awarded a Public Works Agreement (PWA) for construction to S&H Civilworks, 6612 Columbus Avenue, Riverside, California 92504 in the amount of $237,600, and authorize an additional ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $23,760 as needed for any unforeseen costs related to this project.

5. Authorized the City Manager and City Clerk to execute the PWA and future amendments to the agreement within Council authorized limits.

3. SIGNAL MODERNIZATION FOR SYSTEMIC SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS, FEDERAL PROJECT NO. HSIPL-5312(107), CITY PROJECT NO. 26-01

Presentation by Mr. Martin, Transportation Services Manager.

Public Comments:

Speakers in the Council Chambers:

Speaker, inquired on the sensors being used for the project.

Speaker, spoke in support of the item and requested staff investigate transit priority.

MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Reynolds/ Mayor Pro Tem Chavez MOTION: Approve staff recommendation.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, and Mayor Pro Tem Chavez.

Nays: None.

Absent: Mayor Stephens.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 6-0

ACTION:

1. City Council a dopted plans, specifications, and working details for the Signal Modernization for Systemic Safety Improvements, Federal Project No.

HSIPL-5312(107), City Project No. 26-01, and found the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

153

Minutes – Regular Meeting August 4, 2026 Page 11 of 12

2. Awarded a Public Works Agreement (PWA) for construction to Econolite Systems Inc. 1250 N Tustin Avenue, Anaheim CA 92807, in the amount of $2,709,902.68, and authorized a ten perc ent (10%) contingency in the amount of $270,990.27 for unforeseen costs related to the project.

3. Authorized the City Manager or designee to negotiate and approve future PWA amendment(s) to increase the total not -to-exceed compensation by up to $712,000.00 to utilize the full federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant allocation.

4. Awarded a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) for construction management and inspection support services to C2PM, 22601 Summerfield, Suite 2, Mission Viejo, CA 92692, in the amount of $406,084.83, and authorized a ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $40,608.48.

5. Authorized an appropriation of $204,000 from the Measure M2 Fairshare (Fund 416) fund balance.

6. Authorized the City Manager and the City Clerk to execute the PWA and the PSA and any future amendments to the agreements within Council authorized limits.

4. AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT F OR THE

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SUPPORT SERVICES FOR

THE ADAMS AVENUE BICYCLE FACILITY PROJECT (FROM HARBOR
BOULEVARD TO FAIRVIEW ROAD), FEDERAL PROJECT NO. STPL -5312(108), CITY PROJECT NO. 25-11

Presentation by Mr. Martin, Transportation Services Manager.

Public Comments: None.

MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Pro Tem Chavez/Council Member Marr
MOTION: Approve staff recommendation.

The motion carried by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Council Member Buley, Council Member Gameros, Council Member Marr, Council Member Pettis, Council Member Reynolds, and Mayor Pro Tem Chavez.

Nays: None.

Absent: Mayor Stephens.

Abstain: None.

Motion carried: 6-0

ACTION:

1. City Council a pproved an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement (PSA) to increase the compensation amount by $64,132.15 for a new not -to-exceed (NTE) compensation amount of $305,506.15 with Z&K Consultants, Inc., 17130 Van Buren Blvd. #122, River side, CA 92504, for construction management and inspection support services for the Adams Avenue Bicycle Facility Project.

154

Minutes – Regular Meeting August 4, 2026 Page 12 of 12

2. Authorized the City Attorney to prepare the Amendment and the City Manager and the City Clerk to execute the Amendment and any f uture amendments to the agreements within Council authorized limits.

ADDITIONAL COUNCIL/BOARD MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND

SUGGESTIONS

Council Member Reynolds stated she would support bringing back an updated ethics policy.

ADJOURNMENT – Mayor Pro Tem Chavez adjourned the meeting at 8:51 p.m. in honor of Rosa Elena Munguia Cano.

Minutes adopted on this 1
st day of September, 2026.

___________________________
John Stephens, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk

155

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 26-379 Meeting Date: 9/1/2026
TITLE:

AUTHORIZE THE USE OF SOURCEWELL PUBLIC SECTOR NATIONAL COOPERATIVE

AGREEMENT WITH FONROCHE LIGHTING AMERICA FOR THE PURCHASE OF SOLAR

LIGHTING EQUIPMENT FOR THE JOANN AND CORNERSTONE BIKE TRAILS DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/MAINTENANCE SERVICES DIVISION PRESENTED BY: RAJA SETHURAMAN, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
CONTACT INFORMATION: ROBERT RYAN, MAINTENANCE SERVICES MANAGER (714) 327-7499
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

2. Authorize the purchase of lighting equipment for the Joann and Cornerstone Bike Trails for $116,152 through Fonroche Lighting America.

3. Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute the necessary agreement and future authorized amendments to the agreement.

BACKGROUND:

The Joann Street Bike Trail and Harbor Cornerstone Trail (Harbor Boulevard Cornerstone Bike Trail) are complementary Class I multi-use paths, that together form a key off-street corridor along or near Harbor Boulevard. The improved Joann Street Bike Trail runs along the east and south perimeters of the Costa Mesa Country Club. The 1.4 mile trail was completed in 2010. The Harbor Cornerstone Trail, a complementary 3.75-mile multipurpose path along the west side of Harbor Boulevard (near Fairview Developmental Center, roughly between Fair Drive and Merrimac Way) was completed in 2016. Together, the trails create an interconnected, buffered network that links neighborhoods, the golf course area, Fairview Park, and routes toward the Santa Ana River Trail. Their shared purpose is to offer a safer, more attractive active-transportation option that separates cyclists and pedestrians from busy traffic. Both trails included new irrigation, drought-tolerant landscaping, trees, lighting and related improvements.

In 2023, the City experienced significant vandalism and theft of copper-wire in this area. While the City attempted to correct the damages, the wires were stolen again. The Costa Mesa Police Department investigated the theft and made several arrests; yet vandalism of the fixtures and

Page 1 of 3 ends

156
File #: 26-379 Meeting Date: 9/1/2026
Department investigated the theft and made several arrests; yet vandalism of the fixtures and supporting bollards continued throughout 2024 until the damage became so extensive that repair was no longer a viable option.

The City worked with Southern California Edison to add additional light fixtures to existing alleyway poles that focus on the portion of Joann Trail south of Costa Mesa Country Club. This work restored lighting along the portion of the trail from Placentia Avenue to just west of Harbor Boulevard, but a similar solution was not an option for the portion of the trails along the west side of Harbor Boulevard.

ANALYSIS:

Staff began testing the viability of different types of solar lighting to address the lack of trail lighting along Harbor Boulevard, including bollard-mounted and pole-mounted options. The pole mounted solar lights proved the most effective in providing sustained lighting throughout the night sufficient for safe travel along the trails. Even through extended periods of cloud cover, the solar powered fixtures were able to provide adequate lighting for safety. Fonroche Lighting America conducted a light study and provided a design and estimate for the equipment necessary to provide solar lighting for the Joann Bike Trail and Harbor Cornerstone Bike Trail. (Attachment 1). The project will provide an advanced solar powered LED lighting system that will increase visibility and safety, reduce vandalism and provide energy savings.

Purchase of the equipment from Fonroche Lighting America through Sourcewell meets all requirements set forth in the City of Costa Mesa’sPurchasing Policy and all requirements set forth by the State of California in regard to regional cooperative purchasing agreements. Sourcewell established an approved vendor list following a nationwide competitive bid process. This assures that the City receives the lowest available pricing and meets the competitive bid process requirements.

The City has utilized cooperative purchasing agreements successfully for several previous related purchases.

The total cost for the lighting equipment, as currently proposed in the conceptual layout, is $116,152, which includes all parts, equipment, plans and delivery (Attachment 1). A separate construction contract will be executed for the installation of the lighting equipment.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council could choose not to authorize the use of the national cooperative agreement with Fonroche Lighting America. This will require staff to initiate a formal bidding process, which will take significantly more time to complete. In addition, formal bidding may not result in lower prices than the proposed Sourcewell pricing.

FISCAL REVIEW:

Funding for this project is included in the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) Fund 251 in the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Adopted Capital Improvement Program. The RMRA Fund has an available fund balance of $450,000.

LEGAL REVIEW:

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

Page 2 of 3 ends

157
File #: 26-379 Meeting Date: 9/1/2026
CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This item supports the following City Council Goal:
· Strengthen the Public’s Safety and Improve the Quality of Life.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

2. Authorize the purchase of lighting equipment for the Joann and Cornerstone Bike Trails for $116,152 through Fonroche Lighting America.

3. Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute the necessary agreement and future amendments to the agreement.

Page 3 of 3 ends

158
Fonroche Lighting America
2224 SE Loop 820, Building C
Fort Worth, TX 76140
339-225-4530
USD 116,151.60Quote Total
USD 13,095.60Programming,Pkg,
Ship & Handling Est.

USD 103,056.00Total Line Items
Shipping fees do not include offloading at the delivery site. It is the customer’s responsibility to arrange for any necessary equipment or personnel to unload the shipment upon arrival.

Fonroche is not in charge of or responsible for utility lines. Fonroche positions its lights on each layout to provide the proper photometric results. It is solely the responsibility of the customer to do their own due diligence in cooperation with the local utility to determine easement/spacing requirements from the utility lines, as well as any other requirements of the local utility.

Beware of Fraud: Any advance payment request will only be made on the basis of a proforma invoice sent by Fonroche Lighting America.

Shipping estimated; final cost determined on day of shipping and added to invoice.

United StatesShip To
City of Costa MesaShip To Name
Within 6 WeeksEst. Lead Time
11/5/2026Quote Expiration
Date
8/5/2026Quote Date
Costa Mesa CA - Harbor Blvd TrailQuote Name
00090304Quote Number
Prices are FOB OriginShipping Terms
50% deposit, 50% Net 30 from Ship
Date-contingent on credit approval
Payment Terms
Adam SanchezOpportunity Owner
Sourcewell Contract: 041525-FNRContract ID
Fonroche Model Number Fonroche Product Description Price System Quantity Amount
[Opera-3K-GEN3]
[P190F-2P]HW-MC-Fixture
Color: Bronze Roman
POLE: 20Ft. Round
Tapered Pole-Direct
Burial-1-3.2 FT Arm -Arm
Color: Black -Pole Color:

Queens and Kings
SmartLight Assembly with 624Wh-24V NiMH Battery , special extreme temperature (from -40F to +158F), 1 x 190W solar module with Top of Pole assembly and Intelligent management/control system. Provisioned for Single Fixture configuration. Single Opera Fixture -Color Temp 3K -Dist. Type GEN3-Fixture Color: Bronze Roman. Power Assembly color is black. Mount:

High wind and enhanced marine coating.
20Ft. Round Tapered Pole-Direct Burial-1-3.2 FT Arm -Arm Color: Black -Pole Color is Queens and Kings
8 Year Warranty All Night Lighting 365 Days a Year - Full Battery Replacement Assumes No Shading | Assumes little or no snow
10 Degrees Tilt
100% =23 Watts worst case conditions.T-PM: 5 hrs. @100% | T-N (Balance of night) @40% | T-AM: 2 hrs. @100%
USD
3,631.00 28.00 USD
101,668.00

GATEWAY
Fonroche Connect Gateway enables optional wireless networking and customer portal access. With long-range LoRA communication, you can connect one or more SmartLight Projects for monitoring and reporting. Communications included, NO MONTHLY FEES. *Requires 3G/4G/5G*
USD
1,388.00 1.00 USD
1,388.00
ATTACHMENT 1
1 159
Fonroche Lighting America
2224 SE Loop 820, Building C
Fort Worth, TX 76140
339-225-4530
Seller's Terms and Conditions of Sale in effect on the date of this order shall apply to this quote and are hereby incorporated by reference.

Seller's Terms and Conditions of Sale may be viewed at https://www.fonrochesolarlighting.com/about-us/terms/.

Pricing is based on Fonroche Lighting America's Standard Terms & Conditions and any additional terms stipulated herein. It is the Representative's responsibility to convey these terms to the customer. Without prior written approval from Fonroche Lighting America's Sales Director, any deviation from these terms may constitute a change in this pricing at the time of order.

This quotation is subject to the following terms and conditions 2 160
Harbor Blvd Trail
5FOf'lROCHElighting AMERICA
2224 SE Loop 820, Building C
Fort Worth, TX 76140
Phone Number: (339) 225 4530
www.fonrochesolarlighting.comPlr'ogjehclt'nNgumPblear:nGR83e4'4 D I IBy: Cuong Vu

1. cDuaoteng4./[email protected]
Luminaire Schedule
Symbol Qty Label Arrangement LLF Luminaire Luminaire Mounting Arm Lumens W26atts Hl8etght s.s-4:) 28 GEN3-Opera-3K-26W Single O.900 5304 Calculation Summary
Tcarabiel I I ClllaulmcTlnyapnece I UFcnits i Atv4g4 I 3Ma5x I OMiln I Al4v:g4/OMin I 3M5ax/00Min Design Target: I 50pl spacing. 3 161
Harbor Blvd Trail
Lighting Plan Rev D
Project Number: G8344
By: Cuong Vu
[email protected]
Date:4/20/2026
'- FO"R'gCt!'a
2224 SE Loop 820, Building C
Fort Worth. TX 76140
Phone Number: (3391 225 4530
ww.fonrochesolarlighting.com
4 162
uioaa6uilil6i1ag1osaqaoyuolms
oeg+ gzz (see) :yaquinx euoiia
01191 Xi 'L4j0/Vl uOl
0 6u!)1!nEl '0;79 dOO'1 3S t==ZZZ
9ZOZ/OZ/t7:alga
srraqaoyuol@nha6uona
n7l 6uonz :AH
5 163
Harbor Blvd Trail
Lighting Plan Rev D
Project Number: G8344
By: Cuong Vu
[email protected]
Date:4/20/2026
N- Fo'Ruh!!'a
2224 SE Loop 820, Building C
Fort Worth TX 76140
Phone Number: (3391 225 4530
www.fonrochesolarlighting.com
6 164

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 26-380 Meeting Date: 9/1/2026
TITLE:

CALTRANS SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING GRANT PROGRAM AWARD DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

DIVISION
PRESENTED BY: RAJA SETHURAMAN, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
CONTACT INFORMATION: PAUL MARTIN, TRANSPORTATION SERVICES MANAGER; BRETT ATENCIO THOMAS, ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR, (714) 754-5275 RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Adopt the proposed Resolution No. 2026-XX, accepting the Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant.

2. Authorize an appropriation increase to both the revenue and expenditure in the amount of $297,500 for the grant in the State Grant Fund (Fund 231).

BACKGROUND:

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program provides funding to encourage local and regional planning that supports state goals, implements regional planning efforts, and to ultimately reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Following discussion and support from the Active Transportation Committee, in November 2025, the Public Works Department submitted a Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant application to update the 2018 Active Transportation Plan. In May 2026, Caltrans indicated its intent to award the Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program funding in the amount of $297,500. A City Council Resolution accepting the grant is required by Caltrans to advance a funding agreement.

ANALYSIS:

In November 2025, the City submitted a Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program application to pursue funding to update the 2018 citywide Active Transportation Plan (ATP).

The application included a total budget of $350,000 including a 20% match by the City. Updating the Active Transportation Plan is anticipated to occur over 24 months beginning in Fiscal Year 2026-27 subject to funding approvals.

This update is needed since the current ATP is eight years old, several key projects have been

Page 1 of 3 ends

165
File #: 26-380 Meeting Date: 9/1/2026
This update is needed since the current ATP is eight years old, several key projects have been implemented, and there is growing demand for enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The ATP update will be developed to identify strategies to address documented crash history and safety concerns, improve active transportation mode share, improve rider comfort and access, serve all ages and abilities, address network deficiencies, increase the efficacy of existing active transportation infrastructure, and increase travel options. In addition, the update will include policy, and funding recommendations based on goals, metrics, and comprehensive infrastructure and non- infrastructure needs.

If funded, the project will include a multi-faceted public engagement process to facilitate input and participation by residents, school districts, business owners, agency stakeholders, and other interested constituents. The Public Works Department will collaborate with key stakeholders and the Active Transportation Committee to update the ATP. Adoption of the attached City Council Resolution is required to advance to a funding agreement with Caltrans and initiate the process for the ATP update.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council could choose to not adopt the proposed Resolution. Without approval of the Resolution, the City will forgo the $297,500 Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant award, resulting in the loss of funding to update the City’s2018 Active Transportation Plan. Staff does not recommend this alternative.

FISCAL REVIEW:

Receipt of the Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant in the amount of $297,500 in the State Grant Fund (Fund 231) to update the ATP requires a City financial commitment of $52,500. There are sufficient fund balances available within the Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 401) and Measure M2 Fairshare (Fund 416) to cover the City’s match.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney’sOffice has reviewed this agenda report, prepared the resolution, and approves them both as to form.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This project works toward achieving the following City Council goals:
· Strengthen the Public’s Safety and Improve the Quality of Life. · Advance environmental sustainability and climate resiliency. · Maintain and enhance the City’s facilities, equipment, and technology.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Adopt the proposed Resolution No. 2026-XX, accepting the Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant.

2. Authorize an appropriation increase to both the revenue and expenditure in the amount of

Page 2 of 3 ends

166
File #: 26-380 Meeting Date: 9/1/2026

2. Authorize an appropriation increase to both the revenue and expenditure in the amount of $297,500 for the grant in the State Grant Fund (Fund 231).

Page 3 of 3 ends

167
Resolution No. 2026-xx Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-xx

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

CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT

WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE

COSTA MESA ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
T

HE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA , CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

W
HEREAS, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa is eligible to receive Federal and/or State funding for certain transportation-related plans, through the California Department of Transportation;
W
HEREAS, a Restricted Grant Agreement is needed to be executed with the California Department of Transportation before such funds can be reimbursed through the Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program;
W
HEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa wishes to delegate authorization to execute these agreements and any amendments thereto;
NO
W, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to execute the Restricted Grant Agreement and any amendments thereto with the California Department of Transportation.

P
ASSED AND ADOPTED this ___day of _____, 2026.
___
__________________________
John Stephens, Mayor
Attachment 1
168
Resolution No. 2026-xx Page 2 of 2

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

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

THIS PAGE IS RESERVED FOR THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss

CITY OF COSTA MESA )

I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREB Y CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2 026-xx and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the ___day of _____, 2026, by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this ___day of _____, 2026.

___________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk

169

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 26-382 Meeting Date: 9/1/2026
TITLE:

ACCEPTANCE AND ALLOCATION OF CANNABIS TAX FUND GRANT PROGRAM FUNDS TO

ENHANCE TRAFFIC SAFETY
DEPARTMENT: POLICE DEPARTMENT
PRESENTED BY: DANIEL HOLL, SERGEANT
CONTACT INFORMATION: DANIEL HOLL (714) 754-5395
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

2. Approve revenue and expense appropriations in the amount of $92,160 respectively, for the 2026- 27 CHP CTFGP Grant in the State Grant Fund (Fund 231).

BACKGROUND:

The California Highway Patrol (CHP) distributes state funding to California law enforcement agencies through the California State Controller’sOffice. The mission of the California Highway Patrol is to effectively administer traffic safety grants that deliver innovative programs to reduce traffic fatalities and injuries on California roadways. Grants are used to mitigate traffic safety program deficiencies, expand ongoing programs, and/or to develop new programs. Grant funding cannot replace existing program expenditures, nor can traffic safety funds be used for program maintenance, research, rehabilitation, and/or construction.

The Police Department has been awarded similar grants in the past, which have significantly assisted the objectives of the Traffic Safety Bureau and improved traffic safety for residents and visitors.

Traffic safety for vehicular traffic, bicycles, and pedestrians is a vital concern as the City promotes a healthy, active lifestyle and active transportation. The Traffic Safety Bureau utilizes enforcement efforts, public awareness campaigns, and community events aimed at educating roadway users about traffic safety laws. By prioritizing traffic safety, Costa Mesa strives to make its streets safer and more enjoyable for all residents and visitors.

Page 1 of 3 ends

170
File #: 26-382 Meeting Date: 9/1/2026
ANALYSIS:

The Police Department has been approved for a $92,160 traffic safety grant. This is the second Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program (CTFGP) grant awarded to the Costa Mesa Police Department.

The funds associated with the grant will be used to fund personnel overtime related to targeted traffic operations. The Traffic Safety Bureau will administer this grant and will strategically use funds to create safer roadway environments and reduce fatal and injury-producing traffic collisions. This will be accomplished by meeting the grant objectives which include highly visible targeted enforcement operations and public awareness focused on driving under the influence education and enforcement.

Driving under the influence (DUI) continues to be a leading cause of traffic-related injuries and fatalities, posing a serious threat to the public’s safety. To mitigate the prevalence of DUI, a combination of prevention, enforcement, and education is crucial and will be a goal of this grant.

Grant funding will be utilized for saturation patrol operations, which will allow officers to specifically and proactively conduct DUI enforcement and to remove DUI drivers from our communities’ roadways before they cause a collision.

Additionally, the grant will fund educational programs in the community; specifically, the grant funds personnel costs for the “Know Your Limit” program. For this program, police personnel will coordinate with local bars and will engage the community and utilize mobile breath devices so they can be educated on their blood alcohol level and whether they are within the legal limit to drive.

The CHP-CTFGP 2026-2027 grant will enable the Police Department to build upon successes achieved to date, while providing new objectives for increasing traffic safety throughout the City.

The specific objectives outlined in the CHP-CTFGP grant agreement include:
· Conduct four (4) community educational events “Know Your Limit” campaigns increasing awareness of driving under the influence.
· Conduct 40 DUI saturation patrols to reduce DUI/DUID deaths or bodily injury, which will improve roadway safety in the community.

CHP - CTFGP grant funding is based on the state and local fiscal year, which begins on July 1, 2026, and ends on June 30, 2027. The Grant Agreement allocates $92,160, which will be utilized over the fiscal year. CHP - CTFGP will reimburse the City for approved grant expenditures throughout the grant period.

Although the majority of CHP - CTFGP grant is designed to support enforcement efforts with the goal of reducing injury traffic collisions, the Traffic Safety Bureau recognizes that it is only through enforcement and education combined that we can fully realize this goal.

The Traffic Safety Bureau will continue to work collaboratively with the City’sTransportation Services Office to identify hazards which can be mitigated through environmental design. Additionally, City departments will continue to promote traffic safety education utilizing public service announcements and social media.

Page 2 of 3 ends

171
File #: 26-382 Meeting Date: 9/1/2026
ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council may elect not to accept the grant; however, the Department would not be able to pursue the specific goals outlined in the grant.

FISCAL REVIEW:

Upon acceptance of the 2026-27 CHP - CTFGP Grant, revenue and expense appropriations in the amount of $92,160 respectively will be established for the grant in the State Grant Fund (Fund 231).

LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney’sOffice has reviewed the 2026-2027 CHP - CTFGP Grant Agreement, proposed resolution, and this report, and has approved them as to form.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

This item supports the City Council Goal:
· Strengthen the public’s safety and improve the quality of life.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council:

2. Approve revenue and expense appropriations in the amount of $92,160 respectively, for the 2026- 27 CHP CTFGP Grant in the State Grant Fund (Fund 231).

Page 3 of 3 ends

172

State of California

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
GRANT AGREEMENT - Page 1
Award Number
30800
________________________________________________________________

1. GRANT TITLE
FY26/27 CTFGP Law Enforcement - Costa Mesa Police Department

2. NAME OF ORGANIZATION/AGENCY
Costa Mesa Police Department

3. ORGANIZATION/AGENCY SECTION TO ADMINISTER GRANT
Costa Mesa Police Department

4. PROJECT PERFORMANCE PERIOD
From: 07/01/2026 To: 06/30/2027

5. PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER

6. GRANT OPPORTUNITY INFORMATION DESCRIPTION
Law Enforcement grants provide financial assistance to allied agencies for the education, prevention, and the enforcement of laws related to driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs, including cannabis and cannabis products.

The intent of the program is to educate the public regarding the dangers of impaired driving, enforce impaired driving laws on the roadway, and improve the Organization/Agency’s effectiveness through training and development of new strategies.

7. FUNDS ALLOCATED UNDER THIS GRANT AGREEMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED $92,160.00

8. TERMS AND CONDITIONS
The Grantee agrees to complete the Project, as described in the Project Description. The Grantee’s Grant Application, and the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Division 2, Chapter 13, Sections 1890.00- 1890.27, are hereby incorporated into this Grant Agreement by reference.

The parties hereto agree to comply with the Terms and Conditions of the following attachments:
• Schedule A – Project Description, Problem Statement, Goals and Objectives, and Method of Procedure • Schedule B – Detailed Budget Estimate
• Schedule B-1 – Budget Narrative
We, the officials named below, hereby swear, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that we are duly authorized to legally bind the Grant recipient to the above-described Grant Terms and Conditions.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Grant Agreement is executed by the parties hereto.

9. APPROVAL SIGNATURES
A. AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL OF ORGANIZATION/AGENCY
Name: Cecilia Gallardo Daly
Title: City Manager
Phone: (714) 754-5099
A
ddress: 77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
E-Ma
il: [email protected]
__
_________________________ _______________
(Signature) (Date)
B. AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL OF CHP
Name: Elliotte Johnson Phone: (916) 843-4360
Title: Captain Fax: (916) 322-3169
A
ddress: 601 North 7th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
E-Mail: [email protected]
__
_________________________ _______________
(Signature) (Date)
C. ACCOUNTING OFFICER OF CHP
Name: M. V. Fojas Phone: (916) 843-3531
Title: Commander Fax: (916) 322-3159
A
ddress: 601 North 7th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
E-M
ail: [email protected]
__
_________________________ _______________
(Signature) (Date)

10. AUT HORIZED FINANCIAL CONTACT TO RECEIVE
R

EIMBURSEMENT PAYMENTS
N
ame: Mark Khou
Title: Finance Administrator
Phone: (714) 754-5241
A
ddress: 77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Attachment 1
173

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Grantee shall comply with the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Division 2, Chapter 13 Section 1890, et seq. and all other Terms and Conditions noted in this Grant Agreement. Failure by the Grantee to comply may result in the termination of this Grant Agreement by the California Highway Patrol (hereafter referred to as State). The State will have no obligation to reimburse the Grantee for any additional costs once the Grant Agreement has been terminated.

A. EXECUTION

1. The State (the California Highway Patrol) hereby awards, to the Grantee, the sum of money stated on page one of this Grant Agreement. This funding is awarded to the Grantee to carry out the Project set forth in the Project Description and the terms and conditions set forth in this Grant Agreement.

2. The funding for this Grant Agreement is allocated pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 34019(f)(3)(B). The Grantee agrees that the State’s obligation to pay any sum under this Grant Agreement is contingent upon availability of funds disbursed from the California Cannabis Tax Fund to the State. If there is insufficient funding, the State shall have the option to either: 1) terminate this Grant Agreement; whereby, no party shall have any further obligations or liabilities under this Grant Agreement, or 2) negotiate a Grant Agreement Amendment to reduce the grant award and scope of work to be provided under this Grant Agreement.

3. The Grantee is not to commence or proceed with any work in advance of receiving notice that the Grant Agreement is approved. Any work performed by the Grantee in advance of the date of approval by the State shall be deemed volunteer work and will not be reimbursed by the State.

4. The Grantee agrees to provide any additional funding, beyond what the State has agreed to provide, pursuant to this Grant Agreement, and necessary to complete or carry out the Project, as described in this Grant Agreement. Any modification or alteration of this Grant Agreement, as set forth in the Grant Application submitted by the Grantee and on file with the State, must be submitted in writing thirty (30) calendar days in advance to the State for approval.

5. The Grantee agrees to complete the Project within the timeframe indicated in the Project Performance Period, which is on page one of this Grant Agreement.

B. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION

1. The Grantee shall submit all reimbursements, progress, performance, and/or other required reports concerning the status of work performed in furtherance of this Grant Agreement on a quarterly basis, or as requested by the State.

2. The Grantee shall provide the State with a final report showing all Project expenditures, which includes all State and any other Project funding expended, within sixty (60) calendar days after completion of this Grant Agreement.

3. The Grantee shall ensure all equipment which is purchased, maintained, operated, and/or developed is available for inspection by the State.

4. Equipment purchased through this Grant Agreement shall be used for the education, prevention, and enforcement of impaired driving laws, unless the Grantee is funding a portion of the purchased price not dedicated to impaired driving and that portion is not part of the Project costs.

Equipment purchased under this Grant Agreement must only be used for approved Project- related purposes, unless otherwise approved by the State in writing.

5. Prior to disposition of equipment acquired under this Grant Agreement, the Grantee shall notify the State via e-mail, and by telephone, by calling the California Highway Patrol, Impaired Driving Section, Cannabis Grants Unit at (916) 843-4360. 174

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

C. PROJECT TERMINATION

1. Grantee or the State may terminate this Grant Agreement at any time prior to the commencement of the Project. Once the Project has commenced, this Grant Agreement may only be terminated if the party withdrawing provides thirty (30) calendar days written notice of their intent to withdraw.

a. If by reason of force majeure the performance hereunder is delayed or prevented, then the term end date may be extended by mutual consent for the same amount of time of such delay or prevention. The term “force majeure” shall mean any fire, flood, earthquake, or public disaster, strike, labor dispute or unrest, embargo, riot, war, insurrection or civil unrest, any act of God, any act of legally constituted authority, or any other cause beyond the Grantee’s control which would excuse the Grantee’s performance as a matter of law.

b. Grantee agrees to provide written notice of an event of force majeure under this Grant Agreement within ten (10) calendar days of the commencement of such event, and within ten (10) calendar days after the termination of such event, unless the force majeure prohibits Grantee from reasonably giving notice within this period. Grantee will give such notice at the earliest possible time following the event of force majeure.

2. Any violations of law committed by the Grantee, misrepresentations of Project information by the Grantee to the State, submission of falsified documents by the Grantee to the State, or failure to provide records by the Grantee to the State when requested for audit or site visit purposes may be cause for termination. If the Project is terminated for the reasons described in this paragraph, the State will have no obligation to reimburse the Grantee for any additional costs once the Grant Agreement has been terminated.

3. The State may terminate this Grant Agreement and be relieved of any payments should the Grantee fail to perform the requirements of this Grant Agreement at the time and in the manner herein provided. Furthermore, the Grantee, upon termination, shall return grant funds not expended by the Grantee as of the date of termination.

4. If this Grant Agreement is terminated, the State may choose to exclude the Grantee from future Grant Opportunities.

D. FINANCIAL RECORDS

1. The Grantee agrees the State, or their designated representative, shall have the right to review and to copy all records and supporting documentation pertaining to the performance of this Grant Agreement. Grantee agrees to maintain such records for possible audit for a minimum of five (5) years after final payment, unless a longer period of records retention is stipulated or required by law. Grantee agrees to allow the auditor(s) access to such records during normal business hours and to allow interviews of any employees who might reasonably have information related to such records. Furthermore, the Grantee agrees to include a similar right for the State to audit all records and interview staff in any subcontract related to performance of this Grant Agreement.

E. HOLD HARMLESS

1. The Grantee agrees to indemnify, defend, and save harmless the State, its officials, agents and employees from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any and all Grantee’s staff, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and other person, firm or corporation furnishing or supplying work services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of this Grant Agreement, and from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any person, agency, firm, corporation who may be injured or damaged by the Grantee in performance of this Grant Agreement.
175

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

F. NONDISCRIMINATION

1. The Grantee agrees to comply with State and federal laws outlawing discrimination, including, but not limited to, those prohibiting discrimination because of sex, race, color, ancestry, religion, creed, national origin, physical disability (including HIV and AIDS), mental disability, medical condition (including cancer or genetic characteristics), sexual orientation, political affiliation, position in a labor dispute, age, marital status, and denial of statutorily-required employment- related leave. (GC 12990 [a-f] and CCR, Title 2, Section 8103.)

G. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

1. The Grantee assures the State it complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, as well as all applicable regulations and guidelines issued pursuant to the ADA. (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.)

H. DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE

1. The Grantee shall comply with the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1990 and will provide a drug-free workplace by taking the following actions:

a. Publish a statement notifying employees that unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited and specifying actions to be taken against employees for violations.

b. Establish a Drug-Free Awareness Program to inform employees about:

i. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace.

ii. The person's or Organization/Agency's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace.

iii. Any available counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs.

iv. Penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations.

c. Every employee who works on the Project will:

i. Receive a copy of the company's drug-free workplace policy statement.

ii. Agree to abide by the terms of the company's statement as a condition of employment on the Grant Agreement.

2. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in suspension of payments under this Grant Agreement, or termination of this Grant Agreement, or both, and Grantee may be ineligible for award of any future Grant Agreements if the department determines that any of the following has occurred:

a. The Grantee has made false certification or violated the certification by failing to carry out the requirements, as noted above. (GC 8350 et seq.)

I. LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

1. All law enforcement Organization/Agency Grantees shall comply with California law regarding racial profiling. Specifically, law enforcement Organization/Agency Grantees shall not engage in the act of racial profiling, as defined in California Penal Code Section 13519.4. 176

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

J. LABOR CODE/WORKERS' COMPENSATION

1. The Grantee is advised and made aware of the provisions which require every employer to be insured against liability for Worker's Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions, and Grantee affirms to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this Grant Agreement, (refer to Labor Code Section 3700).

K. GRANT APPLICATION INCORPORATION

1. The Grantee agrees the Grant Application and any subsequent changes or additions approved or required by the State is hereby incorporated into this Grant Agreement.

L. STATE LOBBYING

1. The Grantee is advised that none of the funds provided under this Grant Agreement may be used for any activity specifically designed to urge or influence a state or local legislator to favor or oppose the adoption of any specific legislative proposal pending before any state or local legislative body. Such activities include both direct and indirect (e.g., “grassroots”) lobbying activities, with one exception. This does not preclude a state official, whose salary is supported by this Grant Agreement, from engaging in direct communications with the state or local legislative officials, in accordance with customary state and/or local practice.

M. REPRESENTATION AND WARRANTIES

1. The Grantee represents and warrants that:

a. It is validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of California, has, or will have the requisite power, authority, licenses, permits, and the like necessary to carry on its business as it is now being conducted and as contemplated in this Grant Agreement, and will, at all times, lawfully conduct its business in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and rules.

b. It is not a party to any Grant Agreement, written or oral, creating obligations that would prevent it from entering into this Grant Agreement or satisfying the terms herein.

c. If the Grantee is a Nonprofit Organization/Agency, it will maintain its “Active” status with the California Secretary of State, maintain its “Current” status with the California Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts, and maintain its federal and State of California tax - exempt status. If the Grantee subcontracts with a Nonprofit as part of this Grant Agreement, the Grantee shall ensure the Nonprofit will maintain its “Active” status with the California Secretary of State, maintain its “Current” status with the California Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts, and maintain its federal and State of California tax-exempt status.

d. All of the information in its Grant Application and all materials submitted are true and accurate.

N. AIR OR WATER POLLUTION VIOLATION

1. Under the state laws, the Grantee shall not be: (1) in violation of any order or resolution not subject to review promulgated by the State Air Resources Board or an air pollution control district; (2) subject to cease and desist order not subject to review issued pursuant to Section 13301 of the Water Code for violation of waste discharge requirements or discharge prohibitions; or (3) finally determined to be in violation of provisions of federal law relating to air or water pollution. 177

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

O. GRANTEE NAME CHANGE

1. Grantee agrees to immediately inform the State, in writing, of any changes to the name of the person within the Organization/Agency with delegated signing authority.

2. An Amendment is required to change the Grantee's name, as listed on this Grant Agreement. Upon receipt of legal documentation of the name change, the State will process the Amendment. Payment of invoices presented with a new name cannot be paid prior to approval of said Amendment.

P. RESOLUTION

1. A county, city, district, or other local public body shall provide the State with a copy of a resolution, order, motion, or ordinance of the local governing body, which by law, has authority to enter into a Grant Agreement, authorizing execution of the Grant Agreement.

Q. PAYEE DATA RECORD FORM STD. 204

1. This form shall be completed by all non-governmental Grantees.

R. FINANCIAL INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT AGENCY TAXPAYER ID FORM

1. This form shall be completed by all Grantees.

S. CONFLICT OF INTEREST

1. This section serves to make the Grantee aware of specific provisions related to current or former state employees. If Grantee has any questions regarding the status of any person rendering services or involved with the Grant Agreement, the Grantee shall contact the State (California Highway Patrol, Impaired Driving Section, Cannabis Grants Unit) immediately for clarification.

2. Current State Employees:

a. No officer or employee shall engage in any employment, activity, or enterprise, from which the officer or employee receives compensation or has a financial interest, and which is sponsored or funded by any state agency, unless the employment, activity, or enterprise is required, as a condition of regular state employment.

b. No officer or employee shall contract on their own behalf, as an independent Grantee, with any state agency to provide goods or services.

3. Former State Employees:

a. For the two-year period from the date they left state employment, no former state officer or employee may enter into a contract in which they engaged in any of the negotiations, transactions, planning, arrangements, or any part of the decision-making process relevant to this Grant Agreement while employed in any capacity by any state agency.

b. For the 12-month period from the date they left state employment, no former state officer or employee may enter into a contract with any state agency if they were employed by that state agency in a policy-making position in the same general subject area as the proposed Grant Agreement within the 12-month period prior to their leaving state service.

4. The authorized representative of the Grantee Organization/Agency, named within this Grant Agreement, warrants their Organization/Agency and its employees have no personal or financial interest and no present or past employment or activity, which would be incompatible with 178

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

participating in any activity related to this Grant Agreement. For the duration of this Grant Agreement, the Organization/Agency and its employees will not accept any gift, benefit, gratuity or consideration, or begin a personal or financial interest in a party who is associated with this Grant Agreement.

5. The Grantee Organization/Agency and its employees shall not disclose any financial, statistical, personal, technical, media-related, and/or other information or data derived from this Grant Agreement, made available for use by the State, for the purposes of providing services to the State, in conjunction with this Grant Agreement, except as otherwise required by law or explicitly permitted by the State in writing. The Grantee shall immediately advise the State of any person(s) who has access to confidential Project information and intends to disclose that information in violation of this Grant Agreement.

6. The Grantee will not enter into any Grant Agreement or discussions with third parties concerning materials described in paragraph five (5) prior to receiving written confirmation from the State that such third party has a Grant Agreement with the State, similar in nature to this one.

7. The Grantee warrants that only those employees who are authorized and required to use the materials described in paragraph 5 will have access to them.

8. If the Grantee violates any provisions in the above paragraphs, such action by the Grantee shall render this Grant Agreement void.

T. EQUIPMENT-USE TERMS

1. The Grantee agrees any equipment purchased under this Grant Agreement shall be used for impaired driving efforts.

2. Law Enforcement Projects:

a. Oral Fluid Drug Screening Devices and Cannabis/Marijuana Breath Testing Equipment - The Grantee agrees to ensure all personnel using road-side drug testing equipment, including oral fluid drug testing devices and/or cannabis/marijuana breath testing devices, purchased with grant funds from this Grant Agreement, are trained to recognize alcohol and drug impairment.

At a minimum, personnel using these devices should receive Standardized Field Sobriety Testing training. These personnel are also encouraged to attend Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement and Drug Recognition Evaluator training. Prior to using these devices, the Grantee agrees to obtain permission from their local prosecutor’s office, establish a policy ensuring appropriate use, and require the staff using these devices to receive appropriate training, which may include training from the manufacturer. This will help ensure the equipment is used appropriately. The Grantee shall advise the State (California Highway Patrol, Impaired Driving Section, Cannabis Grants Unit) of any legal challenges or other items of significance that may affect the use or legal acceptance of these devices.

Additionally, the State may request additional information about the performance of these devices, including information about their use, accuracy, and feedback from personnel using the devices.

b. Law Enforcement Vehicles – The Grantee agrees any law enforcement vehicles purchased with Grant funds, from this Grant Agreement, will be primarily used for the enforcement of driving under the influence laws and/or providing public education, related to the dangers of driving under the influence. Additionally, any vehicle purchased using funds from this Grant Agreement shall comply with all California Vehicle Code and California Code of Regulation requirements. The State may require the Grantee to mark these vehicles with a decal and/or emblem, indicating the vehicle is used for driving under the influence enforcement. 179
Schedule A

Costa Mesa Police Department

The Grantor determined awards and adjustments based on the Project’s merit, operational scale, compliance with the Request for Application (RFA), and program regulations. Certain activities or budget items proposed in Schedule A may have been deemed ineligible for funding. The final, binding list of authorized activities and expenses is set forth in Schedule B - Detailed Budget Estimate.

Project Description
The proposed project to combat DUI and impaired driving combines targeted enforcement and public education to reduce traffic collisions and enhance safety. It includes increased DUI saturation patrols along with a collaborative effort between local businesses and public safety. Public awareness campaigns will educate drivers about the dangers of impaired driving, focusing on both alcohol and drug use, while promoting responsible behaviors and alternative transportation options. Additionally, the project will leverage data analysis to identify high-risk areas and adjust enforcement strategies accordingly. By integrating both enforcement and education, the project aims to deter impaired driving and foster a safer driving environment.

Problem Statement
Problem Statement:

Costa Mesa is located 37 miles south of Los Angeles in southern California. Costa Mesa encompasses a total of 16 square miles and has a population of approximately 109,000 (US Census 2023). State Highway 55 has its southern terminus, and State Highway 73 has its northern terminus within Costa Mesa. Interstate 405 also runs directly through the middle of the city. Costa Mesa is also located one mile from the Pacific Ocean.

Costa Mesa has a large tourist industry centering on the nearby beach and coastal area, the Orange County Fairgrounds, South Coast Plaza mall, and the Segerstrom Center for the Arts. There are hundreds of thousands of commuters daily during the summer months.

The City's location provides easy access to many of Southern California's major attractions, including beaches, mountain areas, high and low deserts, Disneyland, Knott's Berry Farm, Palm Springs and Los Angeles. Due to the increase in numbers of both locals and visitors, high traffic density in parts of Costa Mesa increases the risk of crashes. Pedestrians and cyclists are particularly vulnerable in busy corridors. Limited traffic control measures in some neighborhoods contribute to unsafe conditions. We are committed to supporting everyone using our roadways.

Traffic Enforcement Staffing:

The Costa Mesa Police Department's Traffic Safety Bureau is currently staffed with ten officers and is responsible for enforcing traffic laws across the entire city, including a full-time, two-person DUI team.

While the department provides traffic enforcement coverage seven days a week, the limited number of officers results in minimal daily staffing. Traffic officers must also divide their time between critical duties, including crash investigations and other pressing law enforcement responsibilities, leaving little capacity for proactive traffic enforcement. The Costa Mesa Police Department reintroduced a full -time DUI team late last year for directed enforcement of impaired drivers.

DUI Enforcement:

Costa Mesa has historically been impacted by DUI traffic collisions due to numerous ABC establishments located within the city boundaries, a highly traveled freeway terminating in our city, and our roadways being used to access nearby tourist cities such as Huntington Beach and Newport Beach. To mitigate driving under the influence cases in Costa Mesa, a combination of prevention, enforcement, and education is crucial.

Strengthening partnerships with local businesses, increasing DUI saturation patrols, and continuing public outreach efforts can help reduce the frequency and impact of DUI incidents. From January 2025 to September 2025, the Costa Mesa Police Department had a total of 426 DUI arrest. In September 2025, the Traffic Safety Bureau introduced a DUI team. From September 2025 to December 2025, we had 312 DUI arrest displaying a DUI team is successful in preventing injury traffic collisions due to impaired driving.

180
Schedule A

Traffic Enforcement/Education:

Driving under the influence (DUI) continues to be a leading cause of traffic-related injuries and fatalities, posing a serious threat to public safety. Despite existing laws and enforcement efforts, many drivers remain unaware of the full risks and legal consequences of impaired driving. Public education is a crucial component in preventing DUI incidents by increasing awareness, changing behaviors, and promoting responsible decision-making. However, our agency often lacks the necessary funding to implement comprehensive DUI prevention programs. Cannabis Tax fund grant for public education on DUI prevention would allow us to develop and distribute educational materials, host community workshops, and launch awareness campaigns targeting at-risk populations. By utilizing community partnerships, agencies can effectively educate the public on the dangers of impaired driving, alternative transportation options, and the legal repercussions of DUI offenses. Strengthening public education efforts will contribute to safer roadways, reduce impaired driving incidents, and foster stronger relationships between law enforcement and the communities we serve.

DUI Related Traffic Collisions

2023
• Fatal 1
• Causing Injury 46
• Injured 63

2024
• Fatal 0
• Caused Injury 59
• Injured 90

2025
• Fatal 0
• Caused Injury 69
• Injury 46

Solution

Equity:

The Costa Mesa Police Department is committed to providing law enforcement services to the community with due regard for the racial, cultural or other differences of those served. The Costa Mesa Police Department will provide law enforcement services and enforce the law equally, fairly, objectively, and without discrimination toward any individual or group.

Strategies:

Traffic Safety Bureau has slowly been increasing staffing levels, and as of 2025, it implemented a permanent DUI enforcement team. The increase in drivers who are displaying signs and symptoms of both alcohol and drugs, specifically marijuana, has grown exponentially. The Costa Mesa Police Department has experienced an increase in the refusals of the chemical test requirement associated with driving under the influence arrests. As a result, both traffic and patrol officers are spending a significant amount of time during the booking process requesting “McNeely” warrants to obtain the chemical test (blood draw).

Additionally, the Cannabis Tax Funding Grant will allow officers dedicated time for DUI saturation patrols, without having to split their enforcement time with crash investigations and other police matters. The legal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit for operating a motor vehicle in California is widely known to be below

0.08%. However, many individuals may not fully understand how much or how little alcohol it takes to reach or exceed this limit. To address this, the Costa Mesa Police Department is seeking the Cannabis Tax Fund Grant to support the Know Your Limit campaign. As part of this initiative, officers patrol Costa Mesa’s entertainment districts on foot, engaging with patrons outside bars and clubs. Volunteers are asked to estimate their current BAC and assess whether they believe they are safe to drive. They then use a breathalyzer in front of their peers to compare their perceived and actual levels of impairment. This interactive 181
Schedule A

approach serves as an educational tool, reinforcing the importance of responsible decision- making and encouraging the use of designated sober drivers within the Costa Mesa community.

Performance Measures/Scope of Work (Proposed Solution)
40 DUI Saturation Patrols (Q1=10, Q2=10, Q3=10, Q4=10): Aim to reduce DUI/DUID deaths or bodily injury, which will improve roadway safety measures in the community.

4 Know your limit campaigns (Q1=1, Q2=1, Q3=1, Q4=1: Aim to contact patrons attending entertainment venues in the City of Costa Mesa and increase awareness of driving under the influence. This interactive approached serves as an educational tool. We aim to contact at least 25 citizens each quarter to increase awareness of driving under the influence. The officers will educate the public on the implications of impaired driving.

Project Performance Evaluation
Prepare and submit grant claim invoices (due each quarter)

Prepare and submit Quarterly Performance Reports (QPR)

Collect and report quarterly, appropriate data that supports the progress of goals and objectives.

Provide a brief list of activity conducted, procurement of grant-funded items, and significant media activities.

Include status of grant-funded personnel, status of contracts, challenges, or special accomplishments.

Provide a brief summary of quarterly accomplishments and explanations for objectives not completed or plans for upcoming activities.

Collect, analyze and report statistical data relating to the grant goals and objectives.

Method of Evaluation:

Using the data compiled during the grant, the Grant Director will complete the “Final Evaluation” section in the fourth/final Quarterly Performance Report (QPR). The Final Evaluation should provide a brief summary of the grant’s accomplishments, challenges and significant activities. This narrative should also include whether goals and objectives were met, exceeded, or an explanation of why objectives were not completed.

Administrative Support:

This program has full administrative support, and every effort will be made to continue the grant activities after grant conclusion.

Program Sustainability
To prioritize recruitment and hiring efforts, a phased approach will be implemented to restore full -time positions within the Traffic Safety Bureau. This initiative will allow for dedicated DUID enforcement without full reliance on grant-funded
overtime operations. Current projections indicate that staffing levels are improving.

In the short term, a financial assessment will identify essential grant-funded programs, and budget reallocation will prioritize critical expenditures. Over the mid-term, revenue diversification strategies and efficiency improvements will be pursued to optimize resources. Additionally, advocacy efforts will focus on securing stable funding through local and state allocations.

In the long term, self-sustaining initiatives, including grant funds, will be established to create continuous revenue streams. A grant contingency plan will also be developed to mitigate financial risks and ensure uninterrupted operations. Through this strategic approach, the organization will gradually reduce dependency on grants while maintaining essential public services and achieving long-term financial sustainability.

Administrative Support
Administrative Support: This program has full administrative support, and every effort will be made to continue the grant activities after grant conclusion.
182

Schedule B

Detailed Budget Estimate

Award Number
Organization/Agency
Total Amount

30800
Costa Mesa Police Department
$92,160.00

Cost Category
Line Item Name
Total Cost to Grant

Personnel

DUI Saturation Patrol
$76,800.00

Education/Outreach
$15,360.00

Category Sub-Total
$92,160.00

Grant Total
$92,160.00

183

Schedule B-1

Budget Narrative

Costa Mesa Police Department

Prior to engaging in grant-funded Saturation Patrols, DUI Checkpoints, or other enforcement activities in areas where the grantee does not have primary traffic jurisdiction, the grantee should consult with the agency having primary traffic jurisdiction.

Personnel

DUI Saturation Patrol

$76,800.00

40 DUI Saturation Patrols = $160 / hour (Overtime) 6-hour shifts 2 officers = $1,920 40 operations $76,800 RATES

INCLUDE BENEFITS

Education/Outreach

$15,360.00

4 "Know Your Limit" operations = $160 / hour (Overtime) 6-hour shifts 4 officers = $3,840 operations $15,360

184
Resolution No. 2026-xx Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-xx

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

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT FUNDS AND THE EXECUTION OF A GRANT AGREEMENT FROM THE FY202 6-27 STATE OF

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY PATROL (CHP) CANNABIS TAX FUND GRANT PROGRAM.

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

WHEREAS, the State of California, Department of California Highway P atrol (CHP), has awarded grant funding from its Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program (“Grant”); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa desires to accept the grant funds for the education, prevention, and the enforcement of laws related to driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs, including cannabis; and WHEREAS, the CHP Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program (“CTFGP”) has awarded grant funding to the City in the amount of $92,160.00 to create safer roadway environments and reduce fatal and injury producing collisions by funding patrol operations, which will allow officers to specifically and proactively conduct DUI enforcement and to remove DUI drivers from our communities’ roadways before they cause a collision; and
WHEREAS, in addition, the G rant will fund educational programs in the City, specifically, for the “Know your Limit” program, which will involve utilizing police personnel who will coordinate with local bars and will engage the community with the utilization of mobile breath devices so they can be educated on their blood alcohol level and whether they are within the legal limit to safely operate a vehicle; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that acceptance of the grant funds from the State of California, CHP Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program could provide a benefit to the safety of the residents of Costa Mesa; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa as follows:

Attachment 2
185
Resolution No. 2026-xx Page 2 of 3

Section 1. That the recitals contained in this Resolution are true and correct and incorporated herein.

Section 2. The City Council hereby approves the acceptance of the grant funds from the State of California, CHP Cannabis Tax Grant Program in the amount of $92,160.00 for the reimbursement to the City’s General Fund for the funding of personnel overtime related to targeted traffic operations and costs related to educational programs.

Section 3. The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to execute and deliver the grant documents, including the Grant Agreement and accept and administer the Grant.

Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and shall enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of _________, 2026.

_____________________________
John Stephens, Mayor

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

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

186
Resolution No. 2026-xx Page 3 of 3

THIS PAGE IS RESERVED FOR THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss

CITY OF COSTA MESA )

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

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

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

___________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk

187

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 26-392 Meeting Date: 9/1/2026
TITLE:

CONTINUATION REQUEST OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’SDECISION TO UPHOLD THE ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR’SDECISION TO DENY

A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST TO DEVIATE FROM CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE TO OPERATE A SOBER LIVING HOME. OPERATED BY THE OHIO HOUSE AT 115 EAST WILSON STREET, UNITS A THROUGH E DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT/PLANNING

DIVISION
PRESENTED BY: VICTOR MENDEZ, SENIOR PLANNER
CONTACT INFORMATION: VICTOR MENDEZ, SENIOR PLANNER (714) 754-5276 RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council continue the open public hearing to the October 20, 2026, meeting, pursuant to the applicant’s request.

BACKGROUND:

The appeal was originally agendized for the December 2, 2025, City Council meeting and has subsequently been continued several times. At the applicant’srequest, the City Council voted 7-0 to continue the public hearing to February 3, 2026. Staff then requested a continuance to April 21, 2026, which the City Council approved by a 6-0-1 vote, with Council Member Buley absent. At the applicant’srequest to allow additional time to gather information, the City Council subsequently voted 7-0 to continue the public hearing first to June 16, 2026, and then to September 1, 2026. Prior to publication of the September 1, 2026, agenda, the applicant has requested an additional continuance to the October 20, 2026, City Council meeting.

ANALYSIS:

The applicant requested that the public hearing be continued to a date certain to the October 20, 2026, City Council meeting. Staff will present the item at the October 20, 2026, meeting.

ALTERNATIVES:

There are no recommended alternatives.

Page 1 of 2 ends

188
File #: 26-392 Meeting Date: 9/1/2026
FISCAL REVIEW:

The fiscal review will be included as part of the October 20, 2026, report.

LEGAL REVIEW:

The legal review will be included as part of the October 20, 2026, report.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:

The priorities will be included as part of the October 20, 2026, report.

CONCLUSION:

The item will be presented at the October 20, 2026, City Council meeting.

Page 2 of 2 ends

189

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 26-385 Meeting Date: 9/1/2026
TITLE:

ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE SIXTH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT (2021-2026) OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA GENERAL PLAN (PCTY-26-0003) TO ADD ADDITIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT OPPORTUNITY SITES,

ASSOCIATED REVISIONS (INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POLICIES), AND

DETERMINE THE AMENDMENTS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT/ADVANCED

PLANNING AND HOUSING DIVISION
PRESENTED BY: ANNA MCGILL, ADVANCED PLANNING MANAGER, MICHELLE

HALLIGAN, SENIOR PLANNER AND SOHAB MEHMOOD, DUDEK
CONTACT INFORMATION: ANNA MCGILL, ADVANCED PLANNING MANAGER, (714) 754- 5609
RECOMMENDATION:

The Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2026-XX to approve a General Plan Amendment to amend the City of Costa Mesa Sixth Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element of the City’sGeneral Plan to add additional Housing Element Opportunity Sites needed to maintain Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) capacity, remove certain Housing Element Opportunity Sites, adopt associated revisions (including environmental justice policies) and the associated Environmental Quality Act environmental determination (Attachment 1).

Page 1 of 1 ends

190

Page 1 of 14 ends

City of Costa Mesa
Agenda Report

77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Item #: 26-385 Meeting Date: 9/1/2026
TITLE: ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO A PPROVE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE SIXTH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT (2021 -2026) OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA GENERAL PLAN (PCTY -26-0003) TO ADD ADDITIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT OPPORTUNITY

SITES, ASSOCIATED REVISIONS (INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POLICIES), AND

DETERMINE THE AMENDMENTS EXEMPT FRO M ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT/ADVANCED PLANNING AND

HOUSING DIVISION

PRESENTED BY: ANNA MCGILL, ADVANCED PLANNING MANAGER, MICHELLE HALLIGAN,

SENIOR PLANNER AND SOHAB MEHMOOD, DUDEK

CONTACT INFORMATION: ANNA MCGILL, ADVANCED PLANNING MANAGER, (714) 754-5609 RECOMMENDATION:

The Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2026-XX to approve a General Plan Amendment to amend the City of Costa Mesa Sixth Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element of the City’s General Plan to add additional Housing Element Opportunity Sites need ed to maintain Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) capacity, remove certain Housing Element Opportunity Sites, adopt associated revisions (including environmental justice policies) and the associated Environmental Quality Act environmental determination (Attachment 1).

BACKGROUND:

Many California jurisdictions, including the City of Costa Mesa, are using overlay districts as a mechanism for implementing their Housing Elements. An overlay district is a type of zoning that allows for supplemental or additive uses (such residential or commercial uses) in addition to the uses enabled by the base zoning. In the case of Housing Element implementation, and as intended by the City’s Mixed Use Overlay District (MUOD), the City could meet their Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) by adding an overlay district on top of base the base zoning to allow for residential and mixed use (residential and commercial) development (see Figure 1 below).

Overlays were meant to be flexible and additive for property owners, whereby a property owner could continue to develop under base zoning or utilize the overlay for additional development opportunities.

Under this assumption, several property owners expressed interest in being added to the City’s Housing Element Sites Inventory as a means of obtaining additional development opportunities, when sites were first being identified at the beginning of the Sixth Cycle (2021-2029) planning period. As part of the overall Neighborhoods Where We All Belong (NWWAB) rezoning efforts, the City is also proposing to apply a Mixed-Use Overlay District to Measure K sites that are not Housing Element Inventory Sites (Attachment 3 Revised Map of Proposed Measure K and Housing Element Opportunity Sites and interactive GIS map 191

Item #: 26-385 Meeting Date: 9/1/2026

Page 2 of 14 ends

linked below ). Wider community visioning and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been conducted as part of this broader effort, see costamesaneighborhoods.com for more information.

Link to Interactive Draft Map of Proposed Measure K and Housing Element Opportunity Sites:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/d0736823c3754f35965d99597b4d00d1/

Figure 1. Overlay District and Base Zoning Functionality

On October 10, 2025, the California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District), in New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach, held that a residential overlay on Housing Element sites cannot satisfy a jurisdiction’s RHNA if the underlying zoning allows development without residential uses.

The opinion held that in order to meet the RHNA, the zoning or an overlay district on Housing Element sites must require:

• At least 50 percent of new development on each site to be residential; and • A minimum density of 20 units per acre, which is also consistent with another court case, Martinez v. City of Clovis (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 193, concluding that an overlay to establish residential development on Housing Element sites shall have a minimum density of 20 units per acre to meet the intent of state law.

Staff determined that the Court of Appeal’s opinion means that any overlay on Housing Element sites would need to supersede the base zoning and require new development to include a minimum of 50 percent residential at a minimum of 20 units per acre. This opinion represented a shift in how jurisdictions previously understood and utilized overlays for Housing Element implementation. Put simply, this opinion represented a potential loss of flexibility. This potential loss of flexibility would ultimately lead to a number of property owner requests to have their sites removed from the Housing Element. City staff continued 192

Item #: 26-385 Meeting Date: 9/1/2026

Page 3 of 14 ends

to honor these requests prior to March 17, 2026 City Council meeting (described below), and during the 180-day period revising the Housing Element (detailed in the analysis section).

Following the Court of Appeal decision, the City sent a letter to Housing Element sites inventory property owners, informing them of the court opinion and possible effects on future development of their property, as well as a request for their contact information to keep them informed of the Neighborhoods Where We All Belong (NWWAB) effort and any other associated future regulations. In response to this letter, the City received calls, emails, and meeting requests from Housing Element site property owners. These inquiries ranged from general questions to requests to be added to the NWWAB project’s interest ed parties list, to concerns about remaining on the sites inventory. Concurrently, staff w ere also fielding calls/meetings from property owners interested in being added to the sites inventory.

At their February 23, 2026, meeting, the Planning Commission considered and recommended the City Council approve an amendment to the Housing Element of the General Plan to add two sites and remove 17 s ites (listed in Tables 1 and 2 below) at the request of their respective owners. This targeted amendment to Appendix B simply added text references to two Measure K sites joining the inventory and removed text references regarding the 17 sites.

February 23, 2026, Agenda Report and Attachments:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7922544&GUID=692D0434-F1D3-4FC7- A9F2-21B75AC2D44B

At its March 17, 2026, meeting, the City Council considered the Planning Commission recommendation and approved an amendment to the Housing Element of the General Plan to add two sites and remove 17 sites (listed in Tables 1 and 2 below) at the request of their respective owners. The City Council also directed staff to initiate a Housing Element update to identify additional sites necessary to maintain capacity for RHNA and a 10-20 percent buffer as well as continue to honor property owner requests to be added or removed from the Housing Element, including 3333 Susan Street, as part of the Housing Element update process. The amendment of the sites inventory triggered a 180-day period wherein the City must conduct a “no net loss” analysis, identify adequate sites to maintain capacity to meet the RHNA, and obtain approval from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) prior to the City Council adopting revisions to the Housing Element.

March 17, 2026, Agenda Report and Attachments:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7949568&GUID=2DF17F34-C15C-4BEA- 8151-5AA7F42D7753

On April 7, 2026, the City Council adopted amendments to the Zoning Code, Zoning Map, and North Costa Mesa Specific Plan to rezone Housing Element sites and implement all or components of Housing Element programs 2B, 2E, 2F, 2H, 2J, 2K, 2L, 2M, 2N, 2O, 2P, 3C, 3D, 3F, 3N, 3Q, 3R, 3S, 4E, and 4G. The City provided HCD with the adopted documents for their review on April 13, 2026.

April 7, 2026, Agenda Report and Attachments:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7969847&GUID=67D7ED02-CEB9-4795- 9C70-1915758F32C9

In June 2026, the City held an in-person open house and two focused discussion group meetings to collect input on newly proposed Housing Element sites and other proposed Zoning Code, General 193

Item #: 26-385 Meeting Date: 9/1/2026

Page 4 of 14 ends

Plan, and Specific Plan amendments. The draft Housing Element amendment public comment period took place June 8 through June 15, 2026.

On July 24, 2026, the City received a Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief from the Attorney General of California, seeking an order requiring the City to adopt a compliant Housing Element (compliant with the Housing Element Law) 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 RHNA goals, as determined by HCD.

Costa Mesa writ petition file in Orange County Superior Court:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/costa-mesa.pdf

At its August 10, 2026, meeting, the Planning Commission considered and recommended the City Council approve an amendment to the General Plan to update the Safety Element and incorporate Environmental Justice policies into the following General Plan Elements:

• Land Use Element
• Circulation Element
• Housing Element
• Conservation Element
• Noise Element
• Safety Element
• Community Design Element
• Open Space and Recreation Element

The City Council is anticipated to consider incorporation of Environmental Justice policies into the General Plan at its September 15, 2026 meeting. However, given that the City Council is considering a revision to the Housing Element at this public hearing, the Housing Element Amendment includes proposed environmental justice policies for consideration.

August 10, 2026, Agenda Report and Attachments:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=8164831&GUID=02EE162C-3034-4149- 86E9-A807B83CAC23

At a Special Planning Commission meeting held on August 17, 2026, meeting, the Planning Commission considered and recommended the City Council adopt amendments to the Housing Element of the City’s General Plan to add additional Housing Element Opportunity Sites need to maintain Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) capacity, remove certain Housing Element Opportunity Sites, adopt associated revisions (including environmental justice policies) and the associated Environmental Quality Act environmental determination (Attachment 2). The adopted resolution also directed staff to continue to incorporate minor revisions in response to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the public review period, that ended on August 19, 2026, prior to City Council consideration and adoption.

August 17, 2026, Agenda Report and Attachments:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=8170160&GUID=FBA04405-92B6-48C0- A4F9-AFCDF89DEA30
194

Item #: 26-385 Meeting Date: 9/1/2026

Page 5 of 14 ends

No Net Loss

The "No Net Loss" provisions of state Planning and Zoning Law (Gov't Code § 65863) provide that if housing developments are approved on these sites with fewer lower income units than projected in the Housing Element, the City must demonstrate within 180 days that it still has enough sites designated in the Housing Element to accommodate the City’s remaining need for lower income housing. State law provides that the City must make the findings whenever it “allows development … by administrative, quasi-judicial, legislative, or other action” that results in fewer units by income category than identified in the City’s Housing Element. When approving development projects with fewer lower income units than shown in the Housing Element, the City must make the findings and determination for No Net Loss pursuant to Government Code section 65863. If after the identified action, insufficient sites remain, the City must identify within 180 days and “make available” additional sites to accommodate the City’s RHNA at the appropriate income levels.

While there is no specific legal requirement to maintain a “buffer” as part of the Housing Element, jurisdictions typically plan for and maintain a healthy buffer (usually 10- 20 percent) as part of their RHNA cycle. This allows cities to continue to process entitlements for development projects and still make the needed findings and determination for No Net Loss, without the need to continually reopen the Housing Element during the planning period. The City’s previously adopted Housing Element included a 45 percent buffer, accommodating 17,042 units when the RHNA is 11,760. However, given that we nearing the end of the planning period, a smaller buffer is appropriate until the end of the current planning period (2029).

The amendments to the Sixth Cyle (2021- 2029) Housing Element adopted by the City Council on March 17, 2026 constitute a legislative action removing 15 net sites and 5,431 net units. This action removed the entire RHNA buffer and removed some of the sites needed to meet RHNA in certain income categories (such as low and very low income). As such, the City made the necessary No Net Loss findings and determination and initiated a Housing Element update. This initiated the 180- day period to identify new Housing Element sites to accommodate the City’s RHNA and an appropriate buffer, as further detailed in the sections below.

DESCRIPTION:

Adopting additional sites requires an amendment to the Housing Element of the City’s General Plan.

Pursuant to Zoni ng Code Section 13- 10
, amendments to the General Plan are subject to Planning Commission review and a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council is the final decision - making authority for the proposed General Plan amendments.

Housing Element Update

Following City Council action on March 17, 2026, staff conducted outreach to Housing Element property owners and the community at large. Several property owners requested to have their properties added 195

Item #: 26-385 Meeting Date: 9/1/2026

Page 6 of 14 ends

to the Housing Element and others requested to be removed. Staff worked with Dudek, the consultant for the NWWAB rezoning efforts, to identify additional Housing Element sites needed to meet RHNA and appropriately update the Housing Element in compliance with State Housing law. To this end, the list below identifies the overarching goals for the Housing Element revision:

• Identify new Housing Element sites to meet the RHNA capacity in line with the following considerations:
o 28 sites removed (approximately 7,084 units)
o Apply a realistic capacity assumption to all Housing Element sites (existing and proposed) of 80 percent (i.e., 20 percent reduction from the maximum theoretical capacity) o Ensure sufficient capacity under each inc ome category (very -low, low, moderate and above moderate)
o Maintain a 10-20 percent buffer
o Identify new Housing Element sites in line with the following selection criteria:
 Must be a Measure K site
 Cannot be designated as a current or removed Housing Element site  Include Moderate, High and Highest Resource census tracts (e.g. , proximity to transportation options, schools, goods/services, amenities, etc.)  Remove sites with size restrictions (lots >0.5 acres and <10 acres) . Note: sites below 0.5 acres and above 10 acres can still be identified, but HCD requires additional justification, including developer interest, potential for lot consolidation and similar project examples. For this amendment, the City was able to identify enough sites in this lot size range to meet RHNA capacity.  Remove sites with existing residential uses
 Remove sites with high utilization rate (>60%)
 Identify sites that have developer interest (including property owners requesting 14 sites to be added to the Housing Element)
o Continue to honor property owner requests to be removed from or added to the Housing Element

• Text revisions to the Housing Element
o Remove text references to sites no longer on the Housing Element Sites Inventory o Promote Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), reduce segregation and avoid displacement
o Provide updates on the City’s implementation of Housing Element programs, and include revisions where appropriate
o Text revisions needed to comply with state law, where appropriate o Include additional updates, as needed, to reflect ongoing community outreach and input as it relates to the Housing Element revision process

196

Item #: 26-385 Meeting Date: 9/1/2026

Page 7 of 14 ends

After this criterion was applied, staff conducted an internal review of the initial sites iden tified and removed sites that did not have potential for redevelopment (i.e., sites that had recently been developed or were not ideal for housing development, etc.). Following this analysis, the Housing Element revision proposes 95 new Housing Elements sites (shown in Attachment 3, adding capacity for approximately 6,996 units. As noted above, the City continued to honor property owner requests to be added to or removed from the Housing Element Sites Inventory. These requests resulted in an additional 14 sites proposed to be added to, and 28 Housing Element sites proposed to be removed from, the Housing Element Sites Inventory (depicted in Tables 1 and 2, respectively). Following the Planning Commission recommendation hearing on August 17, 2026, staff received property owner requests to remove two additional sites, 3529 Howard Way and 1650 Sunflower Avenue. These requests have been reflected in Table 2, below, and in the revised Housing Element. Property owner requests to be added to the Housing Element Sites Inventory are included in the total 95 new Housing Element sites (shown in Attachment 3).

Table 1. Sites to be added to the Housing Element Sites Inventory (Property Owner Requests)

HE Site Address or APN HE Site Address or APN
27 2729 Bristol St. 174 2045 Placentia Ave.
91* 2821 Bristol St. (418-181-11) 175 1485 Dale Way
96 1998 Harbor Blvd. 176 1770 Newport Blvd.
97* 2000 Harbor Blvd. 177 1176-1778 Newport Blvd.
113 720-730 W 17th St. 178 1780-1784 Newport Blvd.
172 732-746 W 17th St 179 1784 Newport Blvd.
173 2755 Bristol 180 418-102-11
*Sites added by March 17, 2026 City Council Action
**Property owner request to add site processed after August 17, 2026 Planning Commission recommendation

Table 2. Sites to be removed from the Housing Element (Property Owner Requests)

HE Site Address or APN HE Site Address or APN HE Site Address or APN 49** 3539 Howard Way 134* 3390 Harbor Blvd. 164 1491 Baker St. 74 2104 Placentia Ave. 136* 3390 Harbor Blvd. 194* 2180 Harbor Blvd. 75 885 W 18th St 137* 3315 Fairview Rd. 195* 2180 Harbor Blvd. 78 1791 Placentia Ave. 138* 1201 S. Coast Dr. 196 3333 Susan St. 79 1751 Placentia Ave. 139* 3400 Bristol St. 198* APN: 140-041-83 197

Item #: 26-385 Meeting Date: 9/1/2026

Page 8 of 14 ends

80** 1650 Sunflower
Ave. 140* 685 Sunflower Ave. 203* 1590 Adams Ave.
92 2196 Harbor Blvd. 141* 3410 Bristol St. 204* 1590 Adams Ave. 96* 610 W. 18th St. 145* 3333 Bristol St. 205* 3420 Bristol St. 110 2131 Placentia Ave. 146* APN: 412-491-11
133 3303 Harbor Blvd. 147* 3333 Bristol St.
*Sites removed by March 17, 2026 City Council Action
**Property owner requests to remove sites received after August 17, 2026 Planning Commission recommendation

Environmental Justice (EJ) General Plan Policy Update

Over the past several years, California has adopted legislation requiring local jurisdictions to address climate adaptation, natural hazards, emergency preparedness, and environmental justice through their General Plans and related planning documents. Gove rnment Code s ection 65302(h), established
through Senate Bill 1000, requires qualifying jurisdictions to address EJ within their General Plans. In addition, Costa Mesa’s 2021–2029 Housing Element includes Program 2G, which commits the City to updating its Safety Element and incorporating EJ policies into the General Plan by December 2026.

Environmental Justice (EJ) planning seeks to ensure that all residents have equitable access to clean, healthy, and safe environments and meaningful opportunities to participate in public decision-making.

California law recognizes that some communities experience disproportionate environmental burdens due to a combination of environmental conditions, infrastructure deficiencies, and socioeconomic factors. EJ planning focuses on promoting equitable access to clean, healthy and safe environments, including identifying policies that improve community health, reduce pollution exposure, expand access to public facilities, encourage active transportation, improve access to healt hy food, and promote meaningful public participation. The City of Costa Mesa General Plan includes policies related to all eight State-mandated EJ topics:

• Reducing pollution exposure;
• Provide safe and sanitary homes;
• Extending public services and facilities;
• Increasing physical activity;
• Improving access to healthy foods;
• Addressing compounded health and safety risks;
• Promoting civic engagement; and
• Prioritize Environmental Justice Communities.

The City strives to address EJ throughout the community, but especially in areas disproportionately impacted by environmental pollution and degradation, as well as social and economic factors. EJ communities are defined by communities that are disproportionately i mpacted by environmental pollution, hazards and degradation and residents that are burdened by social and economic factors.

While EJ mapping typically occurs and is updated annually, six census tracts in Costa Mesa are currently considered EJ communities.

198

Item #: 26-385 Meeting Date: 9/1/2026

Page 9 of 14 ends

More information regarding the EJ Policy Update, including the census tracts located in Costa Mesa that are currently considered EJ communities, can be found in the agenda packet materials from the Planning Commission study session and recommendation meeting linked below.

July 27, 2026, Agenda Report and Attachments:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=8144196&GUID=A28F54A5-01D9-497A- B1B2-503B19901944

August 10, 2026, Agenda Report and Attachments:
https://costamesa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=8164831&GUID=02EE162C-3034-4149- 86E9-A807B83CAC23

Rather than preparing a separate EJ Element, the City evaluated its existing General Plan to identify current policies that address the state-required topics and determine where additional policy direction was needed. EJ policies are proposed within the Housing Element Amendment, with an EJ symbol, shown in Figure 1, next to the existing Housing Element policies that address EJ topics and therefore qualify as Environmental Justice policies. In certain cases, existing policies are revised or new policies are added. As noted in the background, the City Council is anticipated to consider incorporation of Environmental Justice policies into the General Plan at their September 15, 2026 meeting. However, given that the City Council is considering a revision to the Housing Element at this public hearing, the Housing Element Amendment includes proposed environmental justice policies for consideration.

Figure 1: Symbol used in the General Plan Elements
to identify Environmental Justice Policies

In total, 16 policies within the Housing Element are identified as EJ policies (14 existing policies, 1 new policy and 1 revised policy). A summary of these policies is included as Attachment 4 for ease of reference.

Additionally, the staff report includes a link to the strikethrough Housing Element Amendment, which includes incorporation of environmental justice policies. Amendments are depicted as strikethrough text which denotes text being removed, and underline text for text being added. Green highlighted text reflects revisions made in response to HCD’s preliminary feedback and teal highlighted text reflects revisions made in response to the public review period (August 12-19, 2026) and the August 17, 2026 Planning Commission meeting.

Housing Element Amendment (Strikethrough):
https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=64333&t=639228389207583926

199

Item #: 26-385 Meeting Date: 9/1/2026

Page 10 of 14 ends

Public Participation

In May 2026, the City conducted a second round of outreach to property owners with sites currently included in, or proposed for inclusion in, the Housing Element Sites Inventory. Mailed notices were sent to all property owners. Staff followed up with several property owners via telephone calls, emails and in- person and virtual meetings. The outreach explained the purpose of the Housing Element Amendment, the relationship between the Sites Inventory and the City’s RHNA obligations, and the implications of identifying a property as a Housing Element site. Housing Element property owner interactions were tailored specifically t o the property and the property owner’s interest in future development of the property.

Additionally, the City mailed a post card to over 41,000 Costa Mesa addresses, notifying the community of the upcoming Round 3 community outreach for NWWAB, which included the public comment period for the Housing Element amendment (June 8 through 15, 2026), draft Zoning code updates, Objective Design Standards, General Plan amendments, and Specific Plan amendments, and the draft Program Environmental Impact Report. The mailer also invited the community to participate in an in-person Open House on June 3, 2026, where the City provided an update on the draft NWWAB documents, Housing Element Amendments and showed the new proposed Housing Element Sites map. As part of the Round 3 outreach events, the City also conducted two focused stakeholder meetings on June 10, 2026, to supplement broader public outreach and provide opportunities for more in- depth discussion with stakeholders who have direct experience with housing development on the draft documents and topics such as affordable housing, housing development, fair housing, neighborhood concerns, etc.

A summary of Round 3 outreach is available on the NWWAB website:
https://www.costamesaneighborhoods.com/resources

Housing Element Public Comment Periods and HCD Preliminary Review

The City received nine Housing Element-specific public comment letters from residents and stakeholders during the Draft Housing Element public review period (June 8 through June 15, 2026). These comments were reviewed and considered, and revisions were incorporate d into the draft, as applicable prior to
submittal to HCD on June 24, 2026, for their 60-day review. HCD provided preliminary comments to the City on August 4, 2026 and staff promptly meet with HCD on August 5 th to get clarification on the preliminary comments and discuss needed revisions. Subsequently, non- substantive revisions were made to the draft Housing Element, in response to HCD comments and mainly to provide additional clarity, and the document was submitted back to HCD for their continued review on August 12, 2026. Notably, these revisions include:

• Incorporated updated project listing information from the City’s Annual Progress Report (APR) to reflect progress the City has made towards its RHNA obligations • Providing additional clarification and detail on specific Housing Element sites, regarding existing uses and redevelopment potential;
• Providing additional information to identify which Housing Element Opportunity Sites had been identified in prior planning periods;
• Providing additional rationale for small sites (i.e., under 0.5 acres), with information regarding lot consolidation potential and/or providing recent similar project examples to support justification, where appropriate;
200

Item #: 26-385 Meeting Date: 9/1/2026

Page 11 of 14 ends

• Providing additional clarification on Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) affordability determinations, including how the City determined affordability levels for ADUs permitted in the City; and • In coordination with the City’s Environmental Justice Policy update, the amended Housing Element identifies existing policies addressing Environmental Justice issues, as well as revisions to existing policies and new policies, as described in this report.

Concurrently, the City made the draft document available for public review for another 7-day comment period, starting on August 12, 2026, and ending on August 19, 2026. The City received 6 public comments during the public review period. Subsequently, the City incorporated minor, non-substantive revisions, as appropriate, in response to public comment, including removal of two additional sites and adding one site, as requested by property owners, and reflected in Tables 1 and 2 above (3539 Howard Way and 1650 Sunflower Avenue). Removal of the two sites slightly reduced the City’s overall buffer but did not impact overall RHNA capacity (i.e., there are still enough sites to accommodate RHNA, even with this change).

No changes were substantial in nature nor changed the overall framework for the Housing Element and were included for further clarity and transparency of the process. The document was again submitted back to HCD for their continued review before City Council consideration and adoption.

The City received a formal letter of review from HCD on August 21, 2026 (Attachment 5), indicating that the revisions to the City’s Housing Element meet the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law and that the City’s Housing Element can be certified once there is City Council approval of the Housing Element amendment and pending rezone
of Housing Element sites, including the Fairview
Developmental Center.

GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE

The proposed amendments to the City of Costa Mesa Sixth Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element comply with Government Code section 65863 and are consistent with Program 3A, which requires the City to maintain an inventory of vacant and underutilized sites and provide this inventory to interested developers. The City must monitor the Housing Element throughout the planning period and ensure that the City has adequate sites available to accommodate its RHNA. According to Government Code s
ection 65863, a local jurisdiction shall not “permit or cause its inventory of sites identified in the housing element to be insufficient to meet its remaining unmet share of the regional housing need for lower and moderate-income households.” At the March 17, 2026 City Council meeting, the City made findings and determination for No Net Loss per Gov ernment Code section 65863, and triggered the 180 days to identify and “make available” additional sites to accommodate the City’s RHNA at the appropriate income levels. Since March 17, 2026, City Council action, the City has identified appropriate sites to accommodate the City’s RHNA, in line with the requirements of Government Code section 65863. Adopting additional sites requires an amendment to the Housing Element of the City’s General Plan. Pursuant to Zoning Code Section 13-10, amendments to the General Plan are subject to Planning Commission review and a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council is the final decision-making authority for the proposed General Plan amendments.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION

With regard to the General Plan Amendments related to the Housing Element, on November 15, 2022, the Costa Mesa City Council adopted Resolution No. 2022- 67, certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that analyzed the candidate housing sites for the 6th Cycle (2021 -2029) Housing Element in accordance 201

Item #: 26-385 Meeting Date: 9/1/2026

Page 12 of 14 ends

with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . The Mitigated Negative Declaration provided environmental clearance for the adoption of the Housing Element, which included the overall Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and additional capacity to maintain a buffer. The action to add/remove Housing Element sites falls within the capacity studied under this M ND and MMRP.

Additionally, pursuant to SB 131, on July 1, 2025, a new statutory CEQA exemption, Public Resources Code section 21080.085(a), went into effect, providing an exemption for actions needed to implement Housing Elements, including implementation of Program 3A, which requires the City to continue to maintain an inventory of sites to meet RHNA. The City’s proposed amendments implement a schedule of actions contained in the approved Housing Element pursuant to Government Code s ection 65583 and do not allow the construction of a distribution center, or oil and gas infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed amendments are statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.085(a).

Furthermore, the Planning Commission recommends th at the City Council find the Environmental Justice Policies to be added to the Housing Element exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption), as it can be seen with certainty that adoption of these policy documents will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the environment. The proposed General Plan Amendments state the City’s goals, policies, and
implementation strategies, as related to safety and sustainability, but do not authorize or approve any specific development or physical improvements.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council has the following alternatives:

1. Approval with modifications. The City Council may approve with modifications to the proposed amendments the City of Costa Mesa Sixth Cycle (2021- 2029) Housing Element of the City’s General Plan to add additional Housing Element Opportunity Sites need to maintain Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) capacity, remove certain Housing Element Opportunity Sites, adopt associated revisions (including environmental justice policies).

2. Continue the Resolution review to a date certain. The City Council may continue the item to a date certain with direction for staff to return with additional information, changes, and/or clarifications for City Council consideration. It is important to note that the City has 180 days to adopt a revised Housing Element, pursuant to no net loss provisions, and has received a lawsuit from the Attorney General seeking a court order that the City complete the revisions to the Housing Element and necessary rezones within 120 days.

FISCAL REVIEW:

There are no fiscal impacts associated with this action; contingency budget approved for the Housing Element rezoning program will be allocated to updating the Housing Element to identify adequate sites within HCD’s 180-day requirement. Funding for Housing Element Rezoning Program is available in the Housing Authority Fund (Fund 222). The project has a budget of $2.4 million, of which approximately $340,000 is available in the project balance at the time of the City Council hearing date.

202

Item #: 26-385 Meeting Date: 9/1/2026

Page 13 of 14 ends

LEGAL REVIEW:

The proposed Resolution, draft General Plan Amendment, and report have been prepared in conjunction with and review by the City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC NOTICE:

Pursuant to California Government Code section 65854 (amended by Assembly Bill 2904 in 2025) public notification for amending the Housing Element of the General Plan has 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 August 21, 2026.

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

Additionally, information about the meeting was distributed via email to the Housing Element interest list and NWWAB interest list on August 12, 2026. Meeting information was also published in a City Hall
Snapshot article on August 14, 2026, with a distribution of over 10,000 email addresses. The City also posted a reminder about the meeting to its social media accounts.

Finally, City staff have been in contact with the existing and proposed Housing Element Sites Inventory property owners, including those that made requests to be added or removed from the City of Costa Mesa Sixth Cycle (2021-
2029) Housing Element. These properties owners have been notified of the public hearing via email (to the extent feasible) and received a hard copy notice of the public hearing in the mail.

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 targeted update to the Housing Element Sites Inventory (Appendix B) will trigger comprehensive revisions to the Housing Element to support the following City Council Goal:

1. Diversity, stabilize and increase housing to reflect community needs.

CONCLUSION:

Following City Council action on these amendments, staff anticipates submitting to HCD for Housing Element Certification.

The remaining Neighborhoods Where We All Belong (NWWAB) efforts, including rezoning of the remaining Measure K sites, associated zoning code amendments, Citywide Multifamily Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards, revocation of urbans plans, and associated General Plan and Specific Plan (North Costa Mesa, Newport Boulevard and One Metro West) are currently underway.

This large package of revisions will be considered by the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council on September 14, 2026, and City Council consideration on October 6, 2026. Staff will continue to update the P lanning Commission, City Council, and community on project progress 203

Item #: 26-385 Meeting Date: 9/1/2026

Page 14 of 14 ends

through the project website, www.costamesaneighborhoods.com, emails to the interest list, and meeting notification.

204
ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 1 of 6

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 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-26-0003) TO ADD

ADDITIONAL HOUSING ELEMENT OPPORTUNITY SITES, ASSOCIATED

REVISIONS (INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POLICIES), AND

DETERMINING THE AMENDMENTS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL

REVIEW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

THE CITY COUNCIL 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-26-0003) 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 t he Housing Element Sites Inventory following the March 17, 2026 City Council public hearing as well as incorporate associated revisions (including environmental justice policies);
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; 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;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 65350, et. seq., this Housing Element Update constitutes a General Plan Amendment;
WHEREAS, the City’s Sixth Cycle (2021 -2029) Housing Element was adopted by the Costa Mesa City Council on February 1, 2022, by Resolution No. 2022- 06 and amendments adopted on November 15, 2022, by Resolution No. 2022- 67, and was revised as recently as March 1, 2023, to incorporate non-substantive changes as directed 205

Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 2 of 6

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 Measure K —to the Housing Element Candidates Sites Analysis at the request of the respective property owners;
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2026, the Attorney General of California, filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, seeking an order for the City to adopt a compliant Housing Element and complete necessary rezoning of Housing Element Inventory sites within 120 days and t o 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; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the revision t o 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, will not significantly impact any agency or special district within or abutting the City of Costa Mesa and does not constitute a major amendment to the General Plan within the meaning of Government Code section 65352; WHEREAS, this amendment to the Housing Element is necessary to 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; 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.

WHEREAS, on August 17, 2026, the Planning Commi ssion held a dully noticed public hearing and approved Resolution No. PC-2026-24 on a 5-2 vote recommending that the City Council adopt amendments to the Housing Element of the City’s General Plan to add additional Housing Element Opportunity Sites need to maintain Regional Housing 206

Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 3 of 6

Needs Allocation (RHNA) capacity, remove certain Housing Element Opportunity Sites, adopt associated revisions (including environmental justice policies); WHEREAS, on September 1, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed publi c hearing to consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve the amendments, with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal at the public hearing;
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15162, staff reviewed the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 6 th Cycle (2021 -2029) Housing Element and determined that a subsequent Environmental Impact Report or a Negative Declaration is not required for the addition of 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, as well as incorporation of associat ed revisions (including environmental justice policies) as these revisions would not constitute in new environmental impacts since the prior environmental documents have been certified. O n February 1 2022, the Costa Mesa City Council adopted Resolution No. 2022-06, certifying and adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that analyzed the candidate housing site on 352 acres for the Housing Element.

WHEREAS, on July 1, 2025, a new statutory CEQA exemption , Public Resources Code section 21080.085(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. The addition of new Housing Element Opportunity Sites was determined to be exempt from CEQA, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.085(a) (also known as SB 131);
WHEREAS, the CEQA environmental determination for this project reflects the independent judgement of the City of Costa Mesa.

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

BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitations are true and correct and are incorporated by reference into this action.
207

Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 4 of 6

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa City Council does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon the activity as described in the staff report, and compliance of all applicable federal, state, and local laws.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council finds that the amendments to the Housing Element of the General Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, are consistent with the General Plan, and that the amendment will not be detrimental to or adversely impact the public health, safety, and welfare of the community and hereby adopts the amendments to the sites inventory of the Housing Element.

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

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 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 )

208

Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 5 of 6

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

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 2nd day of September, 2026.

___________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk

209

Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 6 of 6

EXHIBIT A

210

City of Costa Mesa
Housing Element
2021-2029

ADOPTED FEBRUARY 2022
Amended August 25, 2026

EXHIBIT A
211

Costa Mesa Housing Element – 2021-2029 i

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1: INTRO DUCTIO N
A. Role of the Housing Element ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 1-1 B. State Policy and Authorization ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 1-1

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

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

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

4. Relationship to O ther General Plan Elements .......................................................................................................... 1-4

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

6. Data Sources ................................................................................................................................................................. 1-12

7. Housing Element Organization .................................................................................................................................. 1-12

CHAPTER 2: CO MMUNITY PRO FILE
A. Population Characteristics ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 2-1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Extr emely Low-income Households and Poverty Status ....................................................................................... 2-25

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

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

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

2. Housing Type ................................................................................................................................................................ 2-30

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

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

5. Housing Costs and Affordability ................................................................................................................................ 2-34 G. Community Profile Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 2-39

CHAPTER 3: HO USING CO NSTRAINTS, RESO URCES, AND FAIR HO USING A. Nongovernmental Constraints ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 3-1

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

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

3. Economic Constraints ................................................................................................................................................... 3-4 212

Costa Mesa Housing Element – 2021-2029 ii

4. Applicant Requests to Develop Below the Maximum Density ............................................................................... 3-4 B. Governmental Constraints ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 3-5

1. Land Use Controls .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-5

2. State Density Bonus Law .............................................................................................................................................. 3-7 Compliance with State Law ................................................................................................................................................ 3-7

3. Residential Development Standards .......................................................................................................................... 3-7 Yard Requirements .............................................................................................................................................................. 3-9 Site Coverage and FAR ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-9 Open Space ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3-10 Maximum Building Heights .............................................................................................................................................. 3-10 Parking Standards .............................................................................................................................................................. 3-10

4. Variety of Housing Types Permitted ......................................................................................................................... 3-12 Single-Family Dwelling ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-15 Multi-Family Dwelling ....................................................................................................................................................... 3-15 Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ....................................................................................................................................... 3-15 Common Interest Development ..................................................................................................................................... 3-15 Small Lot Subdivision, Residential ................................................................................................................................... 3-15 Manufactured Housing ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-15 Boarding House ................................................................................................................................................................. 3-16 Residential Care Facility ................................................................................................................................................... 3-16 Group Homes ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3-16 Transitional Housing ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-17 Supportive Housing ........................................................................................................................................................... 3-18 Referral Facility .................................................................................................................................................................. 3-18 Single Room Occupancy Residential Hotel (SRO) ......................................................................................................... 3-18 Emergency Shelter ............................................................................................................................................................ 3-18 Farmworker Housing ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-21 Low Barrier Navigation Centers ...................................................................................................................................... 3-21

5. Planned Development ................................................................................................................................................ 3-22 Minor Additions to an Existing PD .................................................................................................................................. 3-23 Site Design Concept .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-23

6. Growth Management Measures ............................................................................................................................... 3-24 Measure Y ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3-24 Measure K........................................................................................................................................................................... 3-25

7. Specific Plans ................................................................................................................................................................ 3-25 East 17th Street Specific Plan ........................................................................................................................................... 3-25 Newport Boulevard Specific Plan .................................................................................................................................... 3-26 North Costa Mesa Specific Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 3-26 Costa Mesa Theater and Arts District Plan .................................................................................................................... 3-28

8. Housing for Persons with Disabilities ....................................................................................................................... 3-29 Reasonable Accommodation ........................................................................................................................................... 3-29 Definition of Family ........................................................................................................................................................... 3-31

9. Development Fees ....................................................................................................................................................... 3-32

10. On-/Off-Site Improvements ...................................................................................................................................... 3-36 Subdivision Improvements .............................................................................................................................................. 3-36

11. Building Codes and Enforcement .............................................................................................................................. 3-37

12. Local Processing and Permit Procedures .................................................................................................................. 3-37

13. Applicable Residential Entitlement Approval Findings .......................................................................................... 3-40 Conditional Use Permits ................................................................................................................................................... 3-40 Master Plan Findings ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-40 C. Infrastructure Constraints ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 3-41 213

Costa Mesa Housing Element – 2021-2029 iii

1. Water Supply ................................................................................................................................................................ 3-41

2. Water Production ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-41

3. Water Quality ............................................................................................................................................................... 3-42

4. Wastewater .................................................................................................................................................................. 3-42

5. Fire and Emergency Services ..................................................................................................................................... 3-43 Fire Administration Division ............................................................................................................................................ 3-43 Operations Division ........................................................................................................................................................... 3-43 Community Risk Reduction Division ............................................................................................................................... 3-43

6. Police Services .............................................................................................................................................................. 3-44 Administration Division .................................................................................................................................................... 3-44 Field Operations Division ................................................................................................................................................. 3-45 Support Services Division ................................................................................................................................................. 3-45 D. Environmental Constraints ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 3-45

1. Geologic and Seismic Hazards ................................................................................................................................... 3-46

2. Mineral Resources ....................................................................................................................................................... 3-46

3. Seismic Hazards ........................................................................................................................................................... 3-46

4. Flood Hazards ............................................................................................................................................................... 3-47

5. Dam Inundation ........................................................................................................................................................... 3-49

6. Sea Level Rise ............................................................................................................................................................... 3-49

7. Fire Hazards .................................................................................................................................................................. 3-49 E. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) ................................ ................................ .................. 3-51

1. Needs Assessment ....................................................................................................................................................... 3-51 Analysis of Impediments Outreach FY 2019 -2024 ....................................................................................................... 3-51 Fair Housing Issues ............................................................................................................................................................ 3-52 Fair Housing Laws .............................................................................................................................................................. 3-52 Lending Patterns ................................................................................................................................................................ 3-53 Hate Crimes ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3-55 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outr each Capacity ...................................................................................................... 3-55

2. Analysis of Federal, State, and Local Data and Local Knowledge ........................................................................ 3-57 Summary of Local Data ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-57 Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends ....................................................................................................... 3-62 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) ................................................................................ 3-69 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence .............................................................................................. 3-73 Disparities in Access to Opportunity .............................................................................................................................. 3-75 California Tax Cr edit Allocation Committee (TCAC) Opportunity Area Maps .......................................................... 3-80 Opportunity Areas – Education ....................................................................................................................................... 3-85 Opportunity Indicators ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-87 Access to Transit ................................................................................................................................................................ 3-88 Environmental Justice ....................................................................................................................................................... 3-89

3. Discussion of Disproportionate Housing Needs ..................................................................................................... 3-92 Existing Needs .................................................................................................................................................................... 3-92 Future Growth Need .......................................................................................................................................................3-106

4. Displacement Risk ......................................................................................................................................................3-106 Urban Displacement .......................................................................................................................................................3-106 SB 330................................................................................................................................................................................3-112

5. Summary of Fair Housing Analysis ..........................................................................................................................3-113

6. Assessment of Contributing factors to Fair Housing in Costa Mesa ..................................................................3-114 Regionally Identified Contributing Factors ..................................................................................................................3-114 Locally Identified Contributing Factors ........................................................................................................................3-115

7. Analysis of Sites Pursuant to AB 686 ......................................................................................................................3-115

8. Analysis of Fair Housing Priorities and Goals ........................................................................................................3-138 214

Costa Mesa Housing Element – 2021-2029 iv
F. Housing Resources ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 3-144

1. Regional Housing Needs Allocation ........................................................................................................................3-144 Future Housing Needs ....................................................................................................................................................3-145 Residential Sites Inventory .............................................................................................................................................3-145 Adequacy of Sites for RHNA ..........................................................................................................................................3-145 Summary of Sites Inventory and RHNA Obligations ..................................................................................................3-151 G. Financial Resources ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 3-151

1. Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher , CDBG and HOME Funds .............................................................................3-151 Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) ........................................................................................................3-151 HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) ......................................................................................................3-152

2. Opportunities for Energy Conservation .................................................................................................................3-152 Energy Use and Providers ..............................................................................................................................................3-152 Energy Conservation .......................................................................................................................................................3-153

CHAPTER 4: HO USING PLAN
Regional Housing Needs Assessment ................................................................................................................................... 4-1 A. Guiding Principles ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 4-1 B. Housing Goals ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 4-3 C. Housing Policies and Programs ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4-3 POLICIES HOU-1 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4-3 HOUSING GOAL 1 IMP LEMENTATION ACTIONS ................................................................................................................. 4-4 POLICIES HOU-2 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4-5 HOUSING GOAL 2 IMP LEMENTATION ACTIONS ................................................................................................................. 4-5 POLICIES HOU-3 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4-12 HOUSING GOAL 3 IMP LEMENTATION ACTIONS ............................................................................................................... 4-13 POLICIES HOU-4 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4-25 HOUSING GOAL 4 IMP LEMENTATION ACTIONS ............................................................................................................... 4-26 D. Summary of Quantified Objectives ................................ ................................ ............................... 4-39

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

215

Costa Mesa Housing Element – 2021-2029 v

216

Costa Mesa Housing Element – 2021-2029 vi

217

Introduction
Chapter 1
218

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

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

B. State Policy and Authorization

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

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

The California Legislature identifies overall housing goals for the State to ensure every resident has access to housing and a suitable living environment; Section 65580 of the California Government Code states the following Housing Element goals:
219

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

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

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

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

Section 65583.a Chapter 3.F.1
Analysis of existing and potential governmental con-
straints upon the maintenance, improvement or develop-
ment of housing for all income levels.

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

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

Section 65583.a Chapter 2.E
Analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with re- spect to residential development. Section 65583.a Chapter 3.G.2 Identification of Publicly-Assisted Housing Developments. Section 65583.a Chapter 3.E.3 Identification of Units at Risk of Conversion to Market Rate Housing. Section 65583.a Chapter 3.E.3
Identification of the City’s goal relative to the Section 65583.a Chapter 4 220

Chapter 1: Introduction 1-3
Table 1-1: Housing Element Requirements
Housing Element Requirement(s) Gov. Code Section Reference in Hous- ing Element
maintenance, improvement, and development of housing.

Analysis of quantified objectives and policies relative to the maintenance, improvement, and development of
housing.

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

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

Section 65583.c(2) Chapter 3.E.1, 2, 3
Description of the Public Participation Program in the for- mulation of Housing Element Goals, Policies, and Pro-
grams.

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

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

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

Costa Mesa’s current Housing Element was adopted in January 2014 for the 5th cycle for the 2014 - 2021 planning period . T he 6 th Cycle Housing Element will plan for the 2021 -2029 planning period . Multiple amendments have been made to Housing Element law since the adoption of the City’s 5 th Cycle Housing Element; such amendments and subsequent housing laws change the required analysis, reporting and pol- icies contained in the Housing Element. The contents of this updated Housing Element comply with these amendments to state housing law and all other federal, state and local requirements.

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

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

In accordance with Section 65583 of the California Government Code, SCAG then delegates a “fair share” of housing need to its member jurisdictions. The City of Costa Mesa’s RHNA allocation is divided amongst four income categories, which are benchmarked on the County of Orange’s median income for a family of four. 221

Chapter 1: Introduction 1-4
Table 1-2 below identifies the four income categories by which the City’s RHNA allocation is divided. For the 2021-2029 planning period the City of Costa Mesa is allocated a total of 11,760 units as shown below.

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

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

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

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

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

5. Public Participation
Public participation is a vital component of the Housing Element update process. Public engagement cre- ates opportunities for community members to provide their input and feedback, information which then directs the Housing Element’s goals, policies and programs. Section 65583 of the Government Code re- quires local governments to make diligent and continued efforts to achieve public participation of all eco- nomic segments of the community . Meaningful community participation ensures that a variety of stake- holders and community members are offered a platform to engage in the City’s planning process. 222

Chapter 1: Introduction 1-5
The City of Costa Mesa engaged in an extensive community outreach process as part of the development of the 6th Cycle Housing Element. The outreach plan focused on reaching as many segments of the popu- lation as possible through a series of citywide meetings, district-specific meetings, focused group meetings, and meetings with topical experts in the area of housing. These efforts were complemented by a series of online presentations, handouts, and community surveys.

Outreach for the 6th Cycle Housing Element to the community are outlined in detail in Appendix C: Sum- mary of Community Outreach, and includes the following actions:
• Housing Element Update webpage with all housing materials available in English and Spanish, lo- cated at : www.costamesaca.gov/housing-element-update
• Virtual Townhall Meetings
• District Specific Meetings
• Stakeholder Meetings
• Online Community Survey
• City Council and Planning Commission Study Sessions
As required by Government Code Section 65585(b)(2), all written comments regarding the Housing Ele- ment made by the public have previously been provided to each member of the City Council. 2026 Housing Element Amendments:

This Housing Element reflects a targeted update to specific chapters and appendices, prepared in response to the City Council's March 2026 hearing, at which several sites were removed from the sites inventory at property owners' request. To maintain compli ance with State Housing Element Law following these site removals, the City has revised specific sections to reflect updated site inventory data, realistic capacity assumptions, and related findings. Other sections of the Housing Element not directly affected by these changes have not been revised as part of this targeted update. A comprehensive Housing Element update will be prepared during the 7th Cycle planning period.

On October 10, 2025, the California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District), in New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach, concluded that a residential overlay on Housing Element sites cannot satisfy a jurisdiction’s RHNA if the underlying zoning allows development without residential uses. In December 2025, the City notified property owners of sites included in the Housing Element inventory of the draft rezoning of Housing Element sites via an overlay within the context of the Court decision. The City fielded questions and requests from property owners, some seek ing more information, some to have their sites removed from the inventory, and others wanting to have their properties added.

On February 9, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on amendments to the Zoning Code, Zoning Map, and North Costa Mesa Specific Plan to implement Housing Element programs and rezone Housing Element sites. As part of its action, the Planning Commission directed staff to honor recent re- quests from property owners seeking to be added to or removed from the Housing Element sites inventory, and to exclude a specific property from the proposed Mixed-Use Overlay District (MOUD) that would apply to Housing Element sites. On March 17, 2026, the City Council approved an amendment to the Housing Element to remove 17 sites and add 2 sites to the inventory, as well as amendments to the Zoning Code, 223

Chapter 1: Introduction 1-6
Zoning Map. North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, and the rezoning of the remaining Housing Element sites via the MUOD. This amendment to the Housing Element resulted in a temporary loss of adequate capacity to meet the RHNA.

Following the March 2026 amendment of the Housing Element, the City identified additional sites for the inventory to achieve adequate RHNA capacity, including a buffer.

A. Neighborhoods Where We All Belong Community Visioning Public outreach is an important component of the Housing Element implementation effort. The City con- ducted an inclusive, accessible, and transparent community engagement process to encourage meaningful public input. Feedback collected through various outreach methods directly inform ed planning decisions and implementation strategies.

Beginning in 2025, the City launched the “Neighborhoods Where We All Belong” community visioning pro- cess to implement the Housing Element and Measure K . This name was intentionally selected to reflect the City’s intent to facilitate housing and neighborhood development to meet diverse local needs. It avoids technical language in order to be more approachable to a wide audience. The community visioning and outreach plan for Neighborhoods Where We All Belong was strategically designed to maximize opportuni- ties for public participation. In addition to a variety of events and activities in English and Spanish, the com- munity was also able to provide input throughout the process via email, an online comment form, and the project website.

Different techniques were employed to reach community members, including bilingual post cards, YouTube videos, City Hall Snapshot (email newsletter) articles, social media posts, press releases, newspaper ads, posters, signs, emails to the interest list, and announcements at public hearings. The City employed a vari- ety of outreach methods to ensure broad and equitable participation. When p ossible, engagement activi- ties were scheduled at different times of day, days of the week, and in multiple locations and formats to accommodate diverse schedules and preferences. Community visioning and outreach activities included public open houses, workshops, walking tours, pop-up events at local businesses and community events, in-person and online surveying, focused stakeholder discussions, an online workshop, and formal public hearings and study sessions.

As part of NWWAB community visioning, the City conducted three rounds of community engagement ac- tivities. The first round of outreach focused on informing the public about the purpose of the rezoning, gathering input on future housing opportunities, what the community would like to see in new neighbor- hoods and residential developments. The second round of outreach was more focused on specific design features and uses. Through a variety of outreach activities, including a building blocks exercise, the City sought feedback on topics such as building form, design, density and intensity, mixed-use development, land use compatibility, open space, parking, mobility, and infrastructure. The third round of outreach was conducted to encourage the public to review and comment on draft Zoning Code updates and new objec- tive design standards crafted to encourage and facilitate housing and mixed-use development.

Input received through NWWAB community visioning helped inform the City’s understanding of commu- nity priorities and concerns related to future housing development. These comments were considered as 224

Chapter 1: Introduction 1-7
part of the City’s ongoing Housing Element implementation and provided broader context for the 2026 Housing Element Amendments.

In April 2026, the Orange Section of the California Chapter of the American Planning Association awarded the City with the Opportunity and Empowerment Award of Merit for the Neighborhoods Where We All Belong Community Visioning (Round One).

B. Outreach Specific to the Second Housing Element Amendment In the third round of Neighborhoods Where We All Belong community outreach, the City conducted a com- prehensive and multi -layered process to inform the 2026 Housing Element Amendment and associated rezoning efforts. This process included a community Open House, public comment period on the draft Housing Element, two focus group discussions, and study sessions and formal hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council from late 2025 through 2026 . In parallel, the City carried out targeted out- reach to property owners whose sites were under consideration for inclusion in the updated inventory, gathering critical information on site availability, redevelopment potential, and development constraints to ensure that the amended inventory reflects realistic capacity assumptions and current conditions.

The June 3, 2026 , community Open House provided an accessible forum for residents, businesses, and local organizations to learn about the amendment, Housing Element law, proposed Housing Element sites, and offer input on proposed changes.

Stakeholder focused discussions which took place on June 10, 2026, enabled more in-depth feedback from community partners on key housing issues. Together, these efforts ensured a transparent, inclusive pro- cess that integrated technical analysis with community and stakeholder input to refine the amended Hous- ing Element and its implementation strategies.

C. Assembly Bill 215 Compliance
The City complied with the public review requirements of Assembly Bill 215 (AB 215, Chapter 342, Statutes of 2021). The draft 2026 Housing Element Amendment was posted on the City’s website on June 8, 2026 and was open for public review and comment until June 15, 2026.

Additionally, the City emailed a link to the draft amendment to individuals and organizations that had pre- viously requested notices related to the City’s Housing Element. The public was provided with an oppor- tunity to review and comment on the draft amendment during the public comment period. Additionally, members of the public were able to review the draft Housing Element sites at the June 3, 2026 public community open house prior to the public comment period.

Community visioning and outreach for the 6th Cycle Housing Element , and a summary of all public com- ments regarding the Housing Element received by the City during the update process, are outlined in detail in Appendix C.

D. August 2026 Amendments
Following receipt of HCD's preliminary comments on the draft 2026 Housing Element Amendment, the City made additional revisions to provide additional clarifying edits. The revised draft was posted for an addi- tional 7-day public review and comment period, consistent with the requirements of AB 215. 225

Chapter 1: Introduction 1-8
In response to comments received during this public review period, the City made further revisions to the draft amendment. Concurrently, on August 17, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the revised draft Housing Element Amendment and receive public testimony. A copy of public comments received during the Planning Commission hearing and the 7-day public review is provided in Appedix C.

E. Summary of Public Comments and Key Themes
During the 2026 Housing Element Amendment outreach process and public comment period, the City re- ceived feedback on a range of housing-related topics, including housing affordability, housing distribution, development review timelines, infrastructure and community amenities, traffic, and coordination with local housing and service organizations. Co mments were received through the Open House community event, focused discussions, and written comments submitted during the public comment period.

Overall, comments reflected support for expanding housing opportunities across the community, including housing for young families, seniors, the local workforce, and households at a range of income levels. Com- ments emphasized that future housing growth should be paired with affordability, access to daily services and amenities, schools, infrastructure planning, and consideration of traffic impacts, particularly in areas planned for higher-density housing such as north of I-405.

Comments also encouraged the City to continue improving the development review and permitting pro- cesses by increasing staff capacity, reducing bottlenecks, improving transparency, and providing oppor- tunities for applicants to request clarification during review. Several comments also asked the City to better explain the role of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in the Housing Element update and to consider additional incentives that support the production of affordable housing while helping offset development costs.

Lastly, c omments included site -specific requests from property owners requesting that certain proper- ties either be added to or removed from the Housing Element sites inventory. These requests were re- viewed by the City as part of the overall sites inventory analysis, including consideration of Housing Ele- ment requirements, Me asure K/MUOD applicability, realistic development potential, parcel characteris- tics, existing uses, and the City’s need to maintain adequate capacity to meet its RHNA obligation with an appropriate buffer.

The following table summarizes the general themes raised during outreach and the public comment period, along with how public comments and feedback were incorporated into the 2026 amendment.

Public Comment
Theme Summary of Feedback Received Housing Element Response to Feedback Housing growth,
neighborhood
compatibility, and
quality of life
Comments raised questions about how
new development could affect sunlight,
parking, neighborhood character,
building scale, and day -to-day resident
experience. Comments also discussed
how different densities may result in
different housing types, including
Programs 2B, 3D, 3I, and 3J. These programs
collectively address comments related to
growth, design and compatibility. Together,
they support the City’s broader rezoning
efforts through the MUOD, adoption of
objective design standards, and updates to
development review procedures.
226

Chapter 1: Introduction 1-9
Public Comment
Theme Summary of Feedback Received Housing Element Response to Feedback townhomes, stacked townhomes,
mixed-use housing, and larger
multifamily projects. Overall,
comments emphasized that increased
housing capacity should be paired with
thoughtful design, clear standards, and
attention to neighborhood context.

Through these programs, the City is
implementing Measure K by increasing
residential capacity in appropriate areas of
the City, establishing location -specific
densities and height standards, and creating
clear objective standards for future
multifamily and mixed-use development.

The City is also in the process of adopting
objective design standards that will apply
citywide to multifamily residential projects.

These standards address design elements
related to building form, site planning,
pedestrian orientation, open space, sunlight
access and compatibility with surrounding
residential and commercial areas.

Inclusionary
Program
Comments expressed support for
increasing affordable housing
opportunities and asked questions
about the City’s inclusionary housing
program. Some comments expressed
interest in prioritizing on -site
affordable units, reducing the
threshold at which inclusi onary
requirements apply, and providing
additional incentives for affordable
housing production.

Programs 2A and 2I were updated in
relation to the City’s D ensity Bonus and
Inclusionary Ordinance. The City adopted its
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in 2024 to
increase the production of affordable
housing as new residential development
occurs. The City will continue to implement
the ordinance and evaluate its effectiveness
over time, including opportunities to
prioritize on-site affordable units and assess
whether adjustments are needed.

Additionally, the City continues to
encourage the use of State Density Bonus
Law as an addit ional mechanism to obtain
and prioritize affordable housing as part of
development.

Anti-displacement,
preservation, and
housing stability
Comments emphasized that new
housing production should be paired
with anti -displacement strategies,
particularly in Westside neighborhoods
and areas where lower -income
residents may be more vulnerable to
housing instability.

The City will continue to support
preservation and rehabilitation of existing
housing through Programs 1A, 1 B, 1C and
4A including implementation of
rehabilitation programs, CDBG -funded
programs, fair housing services, tenant
assistance and preservation monitoring.
227

Chapter 1: Introduction 1-10
Public Comment
Theme Summary of Feedback Received Housing Element Response to Feedback ADUs and faith-
based housing
opportunities
Comments encouraged the City to
continue supporting ADU production
and to provide more resources or
assistance to property owners
interested in building ADUs. Comments
also expressed interest in learning
more about SB 4 and how churches,
faith-based organi zations, and other
eligible institutions may be able to
provide housing on their properties.

The City has exceeded the ADU projections
identified in the 2021 Housing Element and
continues to see interest in ADU production.

The City will continue to support ADUs
through Program 3M pre-approved ADU
plans, website resources and technical
assistance. The City will also continue
implementing Program 3k to provide
information and technical assistance related
to housing opportunities on faith-based and
institutional sites, including applicable state
housing laws such as SB 4. In June, 2026, the
City held stakeholders meeting with faith
based organizations regarding SB 4 and is
currently developing an SB 4 informational
handout for faith based organizations and
the wider public.

Public education
and plain -language
housing
information
Comments encouraged the City to
provide more education, technical
assistance, and plain -language
materials on housing laws and
programs, including SB 4, Measure K,
the Housing Element, zoning updates,
objective design standards, ADUs, and
affordable housing requirements.

The City continues to implement Program
4A that includes actions related to providing
public information through the City website,
community meetings, public notices, and
other outreach materials. The City is also
developing supplemental materials
including checklists and handouts regarding
specific city-programs such as ADUs, Faith -
based site, etc.,
Permit
streamlining,
transparency, and
interdepartmental
coordination
Comments noted that the permit
process can be slow and difficult to
navigate, especially for affordable
housing projects. Comments supported
tools that help applicants understand
where a project is in the review
process, who is reviewing it, and what
steps remain.

The City recently completed Programs 2B
and 2K to streamli ne housing review and
reducing constraints to housing production.

Community
amenities, open
Comments expressed interest in more
community gathering places, such as
community centers, YMCA -type
Program 2B reflects the City’s efforts on
adopting objective design standards and the
MUOD which includes requirements and
incentives related to private open space,
228

Chapter 1: Introduction 1-11
Public Comment
Theme Summary of Feedback Received Housing Element Response to Feedback space, and “third
places”
facilities, civic spaces, parks, plazas, and
other amenities.
common open space, and publicly
accessible open space. These standards are
intended to support usable outdoor areas,
pedestrian-oriented design, and
opportunities for plazas, courtyards, and
other gathering spaces as new development
occurs.

General support for
expanded housing
opportunities
Comments generally supported making
it easier to build housing of all types and
income levels, including affordable
housing, workforce housing, for -sale
housing, ADUs, and housing on faith -
based sites.

The City is implementing several Housing
Element programs and zoning updates to
expand housing opportunities, including the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance,
streamlined review, citywide objective
design standards, support for faith -based
housing sites, Hous ing Element rezones,
and additional rezoning beyond the City’s
RHNA obligation.

Together, the 2026 Housing Element
Amendment, MUOD, and related zoning
updates increase residential capacity,
support a broader range of housing types,
and provide capacity for approximately
22,000 units citywide.

Site-specific
requests to add or
remove properties
from the sites
inventory
Comments included requests from
specific property owners and
interested parties to either add specific
properties to the Housing Element sites
inventory or remove properties from
consideration. Requests to add sites
generally reflected interest in future
residential or mixed -use development
opportunities.

The City responded to these requests by
removing sites where property owners
requested removal and adding specific sites
where property owners or developers
expressed interest in residential
development and site conditions
demonstrated realistic development
opportunity. These changes help reflect
property owner intent, development
interest, and the realistic potential for
additional residential development during
the planning period.

6. Data Sources
229

Chapter 1: Introduction 1-12
The data used for the completion of this Housing Element comes from a variety of sources. These include, but are not limited to:
• 2000 and 2010 Census
• American Community Survey
• Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (AI) • Point-in-Time Homeless Census by the Regional Task Force on the Homeless, 2020 • Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) lending data
• California Department of Economic Development
• California Employment Development Division Occupational Wage data, 2020 • Department of Housing and Urban Development, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2013-2017
The data sources represent the best data available at the time this Housing Element Update was prepared.

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

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

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

Appendices provides various appendices with supplementary background resources including:
• Appendix A – Review of Past Performance of 5th Cycle Programs • Appendix B – Sites Analysis
• Appendix C – Summary of Outreach
• Appendix D – Glossary of Housing Terms
230

Community Profile
Element Update
Chapter 2
Element Update
231

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

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

The data used for this Community Profile has been collected using the most current available data from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2010 U.S. Census, 201 0-2018 U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS), the California Department of Finance, the California Employment Development Department, the California Department of Education and other relevant available real estate and market data.

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

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

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

232

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-2

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

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

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

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

Under 5 years 5 to 19 years 20 to 34 years 35 to 49 years 50 to 64 years 65 years + 2010 6.90% 17.30% 28.00% 23.60% 15.70% 8.50%
2015 6.70% 17.20% 28.00% 21.60% 17.30% 9.50%
2018 5.70% 17.00% 27.40% 22.00% 17.20% 10.70%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%
Table 2-1: Population Growth Forecast, 2010-2040
Jurisdictions
Population Percent Change
2010
Actual
2012
Projected
2020
Projected
2035
Projected
2040
Projected 2010-2020 2020-2040
Newport Beach 85,186 86,300 89,300 92,300 92,700 4.8% 3.8% Costa Mesa 109,960 111,200 113,900 116,500 116,400 3.6% 2.2% Irvine 212,375 227,100 296,300 326,700 327,300 39.5% 10.5% Santa Ana 324,528 329,200 340,600 343,400 343,100 5% 0.7% Huntington
Beach 189,992 193,200 203,800 207,300 207,100 7.3% 1.6% Orange County 3,010,232 3,072,000 3,271,000 3,431,000 3,461,000 8.7% 5.8% Sources: Bureau of the Census (2010) and SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Growth Forecast by Jurisdiction Report. 233

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

234

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

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

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

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

White
Black or
African
American
American
Indian and
Alaska
Native
Asian
Native
Hawaiian
and Other
Pacific
Islander
Some
Other Race
Two or
More
Races
Hispanic or
Latino
Costa Mesa 71.6% 1.9% 0.4% 8.4% 0.7% 13.0% 4.0% 36.1%
Orange County 61.7% 1.7% 0.5% 20.1% 0.3% 11.7% 4.1% 34.1% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
235

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

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

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

Table 2-6 shows how employment has changed amongst different sectors for Costa Mesa residents between 2010 and 2018. In 2010, the majority of the working population in the City was employed in education services, health care, and social assistance. In 2018, the majority of employed persons were estimated to be in the professional, scientific, management, and administrative services sector. This sector is estimated to have increased by 2.7 percent between 2010 and 2018. Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining represents the sector with the lowest rates of employment for all cities in Orange County. 236

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

Table 2-6: Employment in Costa Mesa by Sector, 2018
Industry Sector
2010 2018 Percent
Change
2010-2018
# of people
employed
% of City
Employment
# of people
employed
% of City
Employment
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and
hunting, and mining 231 0.4% 557 0.9% 0.5%
Construction 3,831 6.4% 3,783 5.9% -0.5%
Manufacturing 5,768 9.6% 5,869 9.2% -0.4%
Wholesale trade 2,562 4.3% 2,005 3.2% -1.1%
Retail trade 6,643 11.1% 7,224 11.3% 0.2%
Transportation and warehousing,
and utilities 1,493 2.5% 1,850 2.9% 0.4%
Information 1,385 2.3% 1,216 1.9% -0.4%
Finance and insurance, and real
estate and rental leasing 6,076 10.2% 5,713 9% -1.2%
Professional, scientific,
management, and administrative
services
9,150 15.3% 11,436 17.9% 2.7%
Education services, health care,
and social assistance 10,210 17.1% 10,360 16.3% -0.8%
Arts, entertainment, recreation,
accommodation, and food
services
7,828 13.1% 8,623 13.5% 0.5%
Other services (except public
administration) 3,582 6% 3,698 5.8% -0.2%
Public Administration 1,126 1.9% 1,406 2.2% 0.3%
Total 59,885 100.0% 63,740 100.0% 6.4%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2010 and 2018. 237

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

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

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

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

238

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

239

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

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

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

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

Female Household, No
Spouse Present

Non-Family
Household1

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

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

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

240

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

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

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

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

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

Married-Couple
Households
Female Households,
No Spouse Present
Male Households,
No Spouse Present
NonFamily
Households
Householder Age 65
or above
2018 42.8% 10.2% 6.7% 40.2% 6.6%
2010 42.7% 10.5% 6.4% 40.4% 4.7%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
241

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

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

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

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

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

242

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-12
Figure 2-4: Median Household Income by City, 2018

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

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

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

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

$122,709
$79,207
$100,969
$61,774
$91,318
$85,398
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
Newport Beach Costa Mesa Irvine Santa Ana Huntington Beach Income Orange County
243

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

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

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

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

The severe housing problems category relates to the livability of a residence and critically affects the quality of life of the occupants. These are important to analyze as it may reveal an aging housing stock, as well as a need for affordable housing. Severe housing problems include incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1.5 persons per room (rate of severe overcrowding), and a cost burden greater than 50 percent of a household’s annual income . Table 2-14 shows that at 70.6 percent or the Less than $25,000
14%
$25,000 to
$34,999
7%
$35,000 to
$49,999
10%
$50,000 to
$74,999
16%
$75,000 to
$99,999
14%
$100,000 to
$149,999
19%
$150,000 or more
20%
244

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

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

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

Overcrowded and severely overcrowded households can contribute to neighborhood deterioration. This can be due to more intensive use leading to excessive wear and tear , and/or the potential cumulative 245

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

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

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

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

246

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

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

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

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

16.3 percent spend over 50 percent. By comparison, homeowners who also earn an AMFI of 30 percent or less, 7.3 percent spend 30 percent of more of their income on housing and 6.2 percent spend over 50 percent. Table 2-18 also shows that homeowners who earn a low to moderate income are the most likely to experience a cost burden of 30 percent or more.
247

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

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

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

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

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

248

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

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

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

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

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

Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018; Orange County Point in Time County /Homeless Count, 2019.
249

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-19

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal housing data defines the household type as ‘elderly family’ if it consists of two persons with either or both age 62 or over. Table 2-23 summarizes the income and tenure of elderly family households in Costa Mesa. Of elderly households in Costa Mesa, 24.5 percent earn less than 30 percent of the surrounding area income, 39.4 percent earn less than 50 percent of the surrounding area. 250

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

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

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

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

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

The 201 8 ACS identifies six disability types: hearing disability, vision disability, cognitive disability, ambulatory disability, self -care disability , and independent living disability. The Census and the ACS provides clarifying questions to determine persons with disabilities and to differentiate between disabilities. The ACS defines a disability as a report of one of the six disabilities identified by the following questions:

251

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

State law requires that the Housing Element discuss the housing needs of persons with developmental disabilities. As defined by federal law, “developmental disability” means a severe, chronic disability of an individual that:
• Is attribu ted to a mental or physical impairment or combination of mental and physical impairments;
• Is manifested before the individual attains age 22;
• Is likely to continue indefinitely;
• Results in substantial functional limitations in three or more of the following areas of major life activity: a) self-care; b) receptive and expressive language; c) learning; d) mobility; e) self-direction; f) capacity for independent living; or g) economic self- sufficiency; and • Reflects the individual’s need for a combination and sequence of special, interdisciplinary, generic services, individualized supports, or other forms of assistance that are of lifelong or extended duration and are individually planned and coordinated.
252

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Large Households
Large households are defined as those consisting of five or more members. These households comprise a special need group because many communities have a limited supply of adequately sized and affordable housing units. To save for other basic necessities such as food, clothing, and medical care, it is common for lower income large households to reside in smaller units with a low number of bedrooms, which may result in overcrowding and can contribute to fast rates of deterioration. 253

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

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

Table 2- 25: Large Households by Tenure in Costa Mesa
Household Size Owner Renter Total
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
5-Person Household 944 62.1% 1,441 56% 2,385 58.3%
6-person household 278 18.3% 728 28.3% 1,006 24.6%
7-or-more person
Households 298 19.6% 402 15.6% 700 17.1%
Total 1,520 37.2% 2,571 62.8% 4,091 100%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018 Table 2-26 provides comparisons of large households between Costa Mesa and its neighboring cities. At ten percent, Costa Mesa h as a lower total number of large households than Orange County (14.2 percent). Of the neighboring cities, Santa Ana has the greatest number of large households (25 percent more than Costa Mesa). In comparison, Costa Mesa has approximately 5 percent more large households than Newport Beach. While lower than the County percentage as a whole, ten percent of the total households containing five or more persons is a large portion of the Costa Mesa community. In response, Program 2E describes actions the City will take to encourage the development of additional housing options for large -family households.

Table 2-26: Percent of Large Households by Jurisdiction 5-Person
Households
6-Person
Households
7-or-More Person
Households
Total Large
Households
Newport Beach 3.6% 1.3% 0.3% 5.1%
Costa Mesa 5.8% 2.5% 1.7% 10.0%
Irvine 5.3% 1.9% 0.6% 7.8%
Santa Ana 14.2% 9.4% 11.4% 35.0%
Huntington Beach 5.3% 1.6% 0.9% 7.8%
Orange County 7.9% 3.5% 2.8% 14.2%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2018. 254

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-24

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

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

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

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

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

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

255

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-25

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

256

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-26
Figure 2-6: Percent below Poverty Level, by Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin

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

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

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

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

11.5%

15.5%

12.7%

10.4%

3.6%

24.7%

7.1%

19.5%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%
White Black or
African
American
American
Indian and
Alaska
Native
Asian Native
Hawaiian
and Other
Pacific
Islander
Some other
race
Two or
more races
Hispanic or
Latino
Origin
257

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-27

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

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

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

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

Costa Mesa reported a total of 193 individuals experiencing homelessness (187 unsheltered and 6 sheltered); this represents 2.8 percent of the total homeless population for Orange County. This percentage is greater than that of the neighboring cities of Newport Beach and Irvine as both counted under 2 percent. 258

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

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

In analyzing homelessness from a fair housing and areas of historic concentration standpoint, the City determined that while people experiencing homelessness may seek refuge throughout the City, historically the majority of people were in and around the Do wntown Recreation Center/Lions Park area. This is partially due to services available in the area, access to transit, and public spaces which were more easily habitable. In response, the City of Costa Mesa opened an emergency Bridge Shelter at a temporary location in April 2019 with 50 beds, while constructing a permanent shelter location with 72 beds which opened in April 2021. These facilities were successful in providing additional resources and being able to house individuals and families experiencing homelessness with the goal of transitioning them to more permanent supportive housing. The Downtown Recreation and Lions Park areas saw an almost immediate trend of fewer people sleeping in these public spaces and the areas of concentration largely disappeared. There are no current known identified areas with significant concentrations of people experiencing homelessness within the City.

The Bridge Shelter assists persons experiencing homeless with temporary housing along with a variety of programs including:
• Collaborative Case Management
• Housing Related Support Services (including Coordinated Entry System housing assignments, Housing Search Assistance, linking clients to rental assistance programs and other general housing services)
• Legal Services
• Basic Needs (including food, clothing, and housing/emergency services) • Social Services
• Transportation
The permanent Bridge Shelter publishes bi-weekly reports in which they regularly assist approximately 60 to 110+ persons over a two -week span. Section 2.B.4 (Emergency Shelter) provides a more detailed description of the City’s efforts related to the Bridge Shelter facility.

259

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-29

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

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

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

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

Table 2-30: Housing Unit Growth Trends, 2010-2018
Jurisdiction 2010 2015 2018 Percent Change
2010 to 2015
Percent Change
2015 to 2018
Newport Beach 43,503 43,690 44,801 0.4% 2.5%
Costa Mesa 42,867 43,030 43,100 0.4% 0.2%
Irvine 76,184 91,938 101,434 20.7% 10.3%
Santa Ana 77,796 77,192 78,597 -0.8% 1.8%
Huntington Beach 79,166 78,252 81,396 -1.2% 4.0%
Orange County 1,042,254 1,064,642 1,091,376 2.1% 2.5%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2010, 2015, and 2018. 260

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0.8 percent, respectively).

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

Table 2 -33 compares estimated average household sizes and tenure amongst cities surrounding Costa Mesa. Aside from Santa Ana, all of the cities included below have household sizes that are below that of Orange County and fairly similar amongst owner -occupied households. The average household size for 261

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-31
Santa Ana is estimated to be nearly double that of the other cities for both renters and owners and is an average of about 1.6 persons per household more than Costa Mesa. Figure 2-7 illustrates vacancy rates by city and shows that Costa Mesa has the second lowest vacancy rate in the area (4.8 percent). Orange County’s vacancy rate is 0.6 percent above that of Costa Mesa.

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

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

Figure 2-7: Vacancy Rates by Jurisdiction, 2018

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

15.5%

4.8%

6.0%

2.6%

5.6% 5.4%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
Newport Beach Costa Mesa Irvine Santa Ana Huntington
Beach
Orange County
262

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-32
Based on 2018 ACS estimates, the most common reason for vacancies in Costa Mesa is due to units being up for rent (37.8 percent), as shown in Table 2-34. Another 566 units (31.5 percent) are vacant in the City because they are for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. Homes that have been sold and are not yet occupied represent the lowest vacancy type (4.1 percent).

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

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

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

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

263

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

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

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

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

Additionally, proactively surveying the City’s housing conditions is a primary component of the City’s Code Enforcement efforts. The City’s Community Improvement Division (Code Enforcement) employs approximately one-dozen full-time code enforcement office rs that regularly survey the City’s residential neighborhood housing conditions relating to rehabilitation and replacement. According to the Community Improvement Division Manager, rarely does any of the City’s housing stock reach a condition that requires replacement (less than approximately one property per year). However, City staff confirmed, based on the 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan there are approximately 88 units in need of rehabilitation annually. This estimate was compiled based on a combination of code enforcement data (based on a review of total Built
1939 or
earlier
Built
1940 to
1949
Built
1950 to
1959
Built
1960 to
1969
Built
1970 to
1979
Built
1980 to
1989
Built
1990 to
1999
Built
2000 to
2009
Built
2010 to
2013
Built
2014 or
later
Huntington Beach 1.5% 0.9% 5.1% 36.5% 29.5% 12.6% 6.6% 4.8% 1.0% 1.4% Irvine 0.4% 0.2% 0.8% 3.4% 20.4% 17.2% 16.4% 23.7% 10.0% 7.4% Newport Beach 4.3% 3.7% 11.7% 19.0% 22.3% 11.2% 14.2% 10.8% 1.6% 1.1% Santa Ana 7.3% 6.2% 20.1% 22.2% 24.5% 10.4% 5.2% 3.1% 0.6% 0.5% Costa Mesa 1.5% 2.7% 19.2% 25.4% 24.1% 12.9% 6.4% 5.2% 1.2% 1.4% 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Huntington Beach Irvine Newport Beach Santa Ana Costa Mesa 264

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

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

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

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

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

265

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

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

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

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

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

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

The maximum affordable home and rental prices for residents in Orange County are shown in Table 2-38 and Table 2-39.
266

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

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

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

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

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

267

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

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

268

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

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

This analysis shows that the moderate- and lower -income households in Costa Mesa generally cannot afford to own a home in Costa Mesa based on for sale housing costs. Lower income households generally cannot afford to rent or own in Costa Mesa based on for sale housing costs and rental prices. Long term, this trend may result in increased instances of overcrowding, an increased number of households with a high housing cost burden, and residents moving out of Costa Mesa for ownership opportunities. 269

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

The City will need to consider the following findings, but not limited to, based on the data presented in this Community Profile:
• The Costa Mesa population is showing aging trends – housing goals should consider the needs of seniors who may have less flexible income, need accessibility accommodations, or may seek assisted living options. The City has established Housing Program 2D to address this finding. • Over a quarter of the Costa Mesa population identifies as Hispanic or Latino – housing needs should account for possible cultural needs such as larger or multigenerational housing units. Additionally, housing information should be made available in Spanish to assist in the location of appropriate housing within the community. The City has established Housing Programs 2E and 4A to address this finding.
• Approximately 47 percent of the Costa Mesa population earn a lower income , indicating that production of and access to affordable housing including affordable rental options and entry level home ownership facilitation should be considered. The City has established Housing Programs 2B, 4A, 4B, and 4C to address this finding.
• Approximately 48.8 percent of renters and 31.8 percent of homeowners are estimated to spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing, indicating a high housing cost burden overall with a higher proportion of renters compared to owners experiencing overpayment. The City has established Housing Programs 2B, 4A, 4B, and 4C to address this finding. • Based on for sale and rental housing prices, a moderate-income household cannot afford to own a home in Costa Mesa, while lower income households cannot afford to own or rent in Costa Mesa without experiencing overpayment. The City has established Housing Programs 2B, 4A, 4B, and 4C to address this finding.
• The majority of housing units in Costa Mesa were built over 30 years ago – households in older homes may benefit from assistance in renovating their homes and ensuring safe living environments with access to all utilities. The City has established Housing Programs 1A and 1B to address this finding.
• Costa Mesa has a relatively low vacancy rate, indicating high demand for housing and low availability of housing units within the City. The City has established Housing Programs 2B and 3A to address this finding.
• 46.5 percent of Costa Mesa households have at least one of the four identified housing problems, which include:
o Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom); o Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room – excluding bathrooms and kitchens);
270

Chapter 2: Community Profile 2-40
o Housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income; and o Severe housing cost burdens, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income.

The City has established Housing Programs 1A, 1B, and 4A to address this finding.

The Housing Element’s Chapter 4: Housing Plan provides goals, policies, and programs for the City of Costa Mesa based on the findings of this analysis. Policies established in the Housing Plan implement the goals and programs of the Housing Element and are reviewed on yearly-basis to identify progress and success. 271

Housing Constraints,
Resources, and Fair Housing
Chapter 3
272

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-1 Housing Constraints
A variety of factors could affect the number, type, and affordability of housing and housing development in a community. Governmental housing constraints are often specific to the requirements and regulations local governments enforce. Governmental constraints in Costa Mesa may include land use controls, residential development standards, development and permitting fees, and permitting processes, amongst other constraints. Nongovernmental and market constrai nts are directly related to the conditions of the local and regional construction and the development market. Nongovernmental constraints in Costa Mesa may include the cost of land, construction costs, including materials and labor, availability of financing, and the local economic conditions. These factors could incentivize or create barriers for the maintenance and addition of housing in Costa Mesa, and predominantly affordable housing. The focus of this section is recognizing the existing constraints. The following sections will analyze the extent of each constraint on housing development.

A. Nongovernmental Constraints
Nongovernmental constraints are those associate with external market costs and rely predominantly on the economy and cost of land and construction. The ava ilability and cost of land, labor costs, as well as financing, may pose barriers for housing developers and can often deter the development of housing, specifically affordable housing. The following sections highlights the primary market factors that affect the production of housing in Costa Mesa.

1. Land Costs and Construction Costs
Construction costs vary widely according to the type of development, with multi-family housing generally less expensive to construct than single-family homes due to square footage. However, there is wide variation within each construction type, depending on the size of the unit and the number and quality of amenities provided. An indicator of construction co sts is Building Valuation Data compiled by the International Code Council (ICC). The ICC updates the estimated cost of construction at six-month intervals and provides estimates for the average cost of labor and materials for typical Type V-A wood-frame housing. Estimates are based on “g ood-quality” construction, providing for materials and fixtures well above the minimum required by state and local building codes. In August 2020, the ICC estimated that the average per square-foot cost for good-quality housing was approximately $118.57 for multi-family housing, $131.24 for single-family homes, and $148.44 for residential care/assisted living facilities. Construction costs for custom homes and units with extra amenitie s, run even higher. Construction costs are also dependent upon materials used and building height, as well as regulations set by the City’s adopted Building Code. For example, according to the ICC, an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or converting a garage using a Type V-B wood framed unit would costs about $123.68 per square foot. Although construction costs are a significant portion of the overall development cost, they are typically consistent throughout the region and, especially when considering land costs, are not cons idered a major constraint to housing production in Costa Mesa.
273

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-2 Land costs can also pose a signific ant constraint to the development of affordable and middle-income housing and represents a significant cost component in residential development. Land costs may vary depending on whether the site is vacant or has an ex isting use that must be removed. Similarly, site constraints such as environmental i ssues (e.g., steep slopes, soil stabi lity, seismic hazards, flooding, and contamination) can also be factored into the cost of land. A September 2020 web search for vacant lots for sale in the City of Costa Mesa returned three lots for sale ranging in size from 0.23 acres at $749,000 to

1.03 acres at $2,000,000. Based on current prices of for sale lots, the vacant lots cost an estimated average price per square foot of $68, or about 2.9 million dollars per acre.

Costa Mesa has the lowest cost of land in comparison to the neighboring cities of Santa Ana, Huntington Beach, and Irvine, based on an October 2020 Zillow search for vacant lots. The cost of land in these cities range from $73 per square to $304 per square foot. However, the cost of land in Costa Mesa is still very expensive and though it is consistent with neighb oring jurisdictions and the region, it may create a constraint to the development of housing, specifically affordable housing. The City cannot control the cost of land in Costa Mesa or the region, however Chapter 4 of this Housing Element outlines programs and policies to work with developers and interested parties to increase affordable housing options in the City.

2. Available Financing
The availability of financing in a community depends on a number of factors, including the type of lending institutions active in a community, lending practice s, rates and fees charged, laws and regulations governing financial institutions, and equal access to such loans. Additionally, availability of financing affects a person’s ability to purchase or improve a home. Under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), lending institutions are required to disclose information on the disposition of loan applications and the income, gender, and race of loan applicants. The primary concern in a review of lending activity is to determine whether home financing is available to all residents of a community, regardless of income, sex, race, or ethnicity. The data presented in this section include the disposition of loan applications submitted to financial institutions for home purchase, home improvement, and refinancing in the Anaheim-Santa Ana- Irvine MSA.

Table 3-1 below displays the disposition of loan applicat ions for the Anaheim-Santa Ana-Irvine MSA, per the 2016 Home Mortgage Discloser Ac t report. According to the data, applicants in the 120% MSA/MD median income or more had the highest rates of loans approved. Of that income category, applicants who reported White had the highest percentage of approval and the number of applications. Applicants in the less than 50% of the MSA/MD median income categories were showed higher percentages of denied loans than loans originated. According to the data, applicants who reported white were, on average, more likely to be approved for a loan than another race or ethnicity.

Given the relatively high rates of approval for home purchase, improvement, and refinance loans, home financing is generally available and not considered to be a significant constraint to the provision and maintenance of housing in Costa Mesa.

274

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-3 Table 3-1: Disposition of Loan Applications by Race/Ethnicity– Anaheim-Santa Ana-Irvine MSA Applications by Race/Ethnicity Percent
Approved
Percent
Denied
Percent
Other
Total
(Count)
LESS THAN 50% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 26.2% 52.3% 23.1% 65
Asian 33.9% 42.5% 26.7% 1,382
Black or African American 41.6% 33.7% 25.8% 89
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 25.0% 44.2% 30.8% 52 White 45.6% 31.2% 26.1% 5,240
Hispanic or Latino 37.9% 38.2% 26.8% 1,566
50-79% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 38.1% 34.0% 29.9% 97
Asian 53.3% 25.3% 29.4% 3,153
Black or African American 43.4% 19.1% 41.4% 152
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 49.4% 39.8% 16.9% 83 White 54.5% 23.3% 27.6% 8,677
Hispanic or Latino 47.6% 27.7% 29.3% 3,245
80-99% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 51.4% 25.7% 31.4% 35
Asian 59.5% 19.2% 29.3% 1,495
Black or African American 52.9% 22.1% 30.9% 68
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 43.5% 13.0% 43.5% 23 White 61.9% 17.2% 26.1% 3,873
Hispanic or Latino 54.0% 21.4% 29.1% 1,347
100-119% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 48.9% 22.7% 29.5% 88
Asian 62.3% 15.6% 28.8% 4,820
Black or African American 55.6% 20.1% 28.6% 234
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 49.4% 27.6% 31.0% 87 White 66.2% 13.8% 25.1% 12,607
Hispanic or Latino 60.8% 16.4% 26.8% 3,398
120% OR MORE OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 59.2% 13.0% 32.0% 169 Asian 62.8% 12.9% 29.0% 17,800
Black or African American 57.7% 17.3% 27.2% 624
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 64.2% 11.4% 26.8% 254 White 68.3% 11.3% 24.9% 49,811
Hispanic or Latino 64.6% 13.3% 26.7% 6,095
Source: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Disposition of loan applications, by Ethnicity/Race of applicant, 2019. 275

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-4

3. Economic Constraints
Market forces on the economy and the trickle-down effects on the construction industry can act as a barrier to housing construction and especially to affordable housing construction. It is estimated that housing price and development costs will continue to increase in the City and the region. Moving into 2020, the economy was growing, California was seeing a 1.6 percent growth in jobs from 2019 and experiencing all-time lows for unemployment rates. COVID-19 had stalled much of the economy in early 2020, however, as the California economy regains momentum, housing stock and prices in the Costa Mesa community remain stable. A housing market analysis by Redfin reports the number of homes sold in August 2020 experienced a 16.1% growth in year-over-year trends and over doubled since the low in May 2020. The same report shows that the median sale price of homes in Costa Mesa is the largest it has been in five years, except for a peak in February 2021; the median number of days on the market was 41 in August 2020 in contrast to

86.5 in at the start of the year.

A 2020 California Association of Realto rs (CAR) report found that homes on the market in Orange County experienced a 10.2 percent year to year increase and cost an average of $915,000 in September 2020; over $250,000 higher than the Southern California median home price in the same month ($656,750). According to the CAR First Time Buyer Housing Affordability Index, the median value of a home in Orange County is $730,150 with monthly payments (including taxes and insurance) of $3,690, requiring an average qualifying income of $110,700.

Costa Mesa’s home value index ($881,064), which includes single-family residences and condos, has been on a steady increase since Spring 2012, according to Zillow data from September 2020. According to Zillow, this value is seasonally adjusted to remove outliers and only includes the middle price-tier of homes. Costa Mesa home values have gone up 4.9 percent over the past year and Zillow predicts they will rise 4.8 percent within the next year. Orange Count y by comparison has a median home value index of $775,797, which is $105,267 less than Costa Mesa. Due to the high costs and increasing values, the cost of land and home prices in Costa Mesa may be considered a constrai nt to the development of and access to housing, particularly affordable housing.

4. Applicant Requests to Develop Below the Maximum Density The City does not typically receive request to develop below the maximum density permitted for residential projects. Based on review of past proj ects and discussions with the development community, the existing development standards have not proved to be a constraint to meeting the maximum density.

Programs 3B and 3C within the Housing Plan call for revision s to the development standards associated with the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan and the Ci ty’s Urban Plans and Overlays, including the maximum density permitted. These densities are higher than what is currently permitted within Costa Mesa (with the exception of some areas in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan where densities have exceeded 90 du/ac for specific projects). Until those zoning change s are made to permit the higher densities identified in the housing element, the City will not be able to evaluate potential requests to develop below the maximum density. The City ha s committed to working with the community, including the local development community, to create development sta ndards which promote development consistent with the identified densities.
276

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-5 B. Governmental Constraints
In addition to market constraints, local policies and regulations also affect the price and availability of housing and the provision of affordable housing. For example, State and Federal regulations affect the availability of land for housing and the cost of housing production, making it difficult to meet the demand for affordable housing and limiting supply in a region. Regulations related to environmental protection, building codes, and other related topics have significant, often adverse, impacts on housing cost and availability.

While the City of Costa Mesa has no control over Stat e and Federal Laws that affect housing, local laws including land use controls, site improvement requ irements, fees and exactions, permit processing procedures, and other factors can constrain the maintenance, development, and improvement of housing as well as, create barriers to housing development.

1. Land Use Controls
Cities in California are required by Law to prepare a comprehensive, long term General Plan to guide future development. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes permitted land uses and development density throughout the City of Costa Mesa. These la nd uses provide for a wide variety of housing types throughout the City, while also ensuring compatibility between neighboring uses. The following lists the land uses that permit residential developments and the maximum allowable density:
 Low-Density Residential: 8 dwelling units per acre
 Medium-Density Residential: 12 dwelling units per acre  High-Density Residential: 20 dwelling units per acre
 Commercial-Residential: 12 to 17.4 dwelling units per acre  Urban Center Commercial: 20 dwelling units per acre / 80 dwelling units per acre  Multi-Use Center: 6 dwelling units per acre / 40 dwelling units per acre Overlay Districts
Overlay districts are created in order to incentivize particular development types in an area and/or to implement a Master Plan’s strategies and goals. Overlay districts are applied to the Zoning Map and provide a development option in addition to the underlying zoning regulations as they often require stricter and/or more specific standards. An overlay district could also be created to administer the goals of a Master Plan.

The overlay districts in Costa Mesa are detailed below.

Residential Incentive Overlay
The Residential Incentive Overlay District is intended to create opportunities for residential development at strategic locations along Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard. The designation allows for development of new higher-density residential uses in areas where limited residential with lower densities are currently allowed. Small-lot single-family subdivisions are also appropriate in the designated areas. The Residential Incentive Overlay also expands developm ent opportunities on residential and commercial 277

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-6 properties which are not currently developed to their full potential or supporting outdated buildings and underperforming uses.

The following are required for developments in the Residential Incentive Overlay District:

Residential Incentive Development Plan Screening Application – To provide initial feedback to developers, all residential and development projects proposed in th is district must submit a screening application for review and approval by the City Council.

Master Plan – All developments proposed in this district require approval of a master plan by the Planning Commission. The master plan must be consistent with the General Plan and meet the intent and purpose of the overlay district. The project must include adequate resident-serving amenities in the common open space areas and private open space area; this may incl ude patios, balconies, roof terraces, walkways, and landscaped areas. The project must be consistent with the compatibility standards for residential development in that it provides adequate protection for residents from excessive noise, odors, vibration, light and glare, and toxic emanations . The residences must have adequate separation and screening from adjacent commercial uses through site planning cons iderations, structural features, landscaping, and perimeter walls.

Development Standards – This overlay designation allows for developments that meet the following:
 Minimum Lot Area: 0.5 acres
 Maximum Height: 4 stories (not including permitted roof top terraces)  Maximum Density: 40 units per acre
 Minimum Open Space: 40% of total site area
 Common Open Space : 50% of required open space. Recreational facilities for children are required for residential projects with 12 or more units.  Front Setback: 20 feet
 Side Setback: 20 feet (30 feet minimum for 4-story developments abutting R2-MD zones)  Rear Setback: 20 feet (30 feet minimum for 4-story developments abutting R2-MD zones) Mixed-Use Overlay District
The City included Program 3D, “Update the City’s Ur ban Plans and Overlays,” to update the City’s urban plans and overlays to permit and facilitate additional residential development. Urban plans are documents that were intended to provide guidance for projects within various areas of the Mixed-Use Overlay District.

Following guidance from the City Council, staff reviewed each urban plan determined that many standards were ambiguous and all of the urban plans establishe d a complicated review process that was potentially a governmental constraint to housing development. Instead of updating the urban plans, the City will codify their development potential and standards, as approp riate, into the Zoning Code and then rescind the plans. Additionally, to implement rezoning for Ho using Element sites, in March 2026, the City Council amended the MUOD to establish specific provisions applicable to sites within the Housing Element inventory, excluding the Fairview Developmental Center. The new MUOD section establishes development 278

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-7 criteria for Housing Element Opportunity Sites to encourage and facilitate residential development, subject to the following:
 Densities up to the specific site density identified in the Housing Element (40, 50, and 90 units per acre);  Minimum of 50 percent residential use;
 Basic objective design standards such as height and minimum setbacks that can accommodate the Housing Element-identified densities; and
 Ministerial review and approval procedures consistent with State law.

In late 2026, the City will rescind the urban plans an d amend the Mixed-Use Overla y District to establish objective standards applicable to Measure K properties that are not within the Housing Element. Those property owners will be able to opt into utilizing the MUOD. This will increase the overall residential development capacity in Costa Mesa.

2. State Density Bonus Law
Density bonuses are another way to increase the number of dwelling units allowed in a residentially zoned area. The City of Costa Mesa does not have its own Density Bonus Ordinance but defers to the Government Code Section 65915. However, the City’s Zoning Code identifies the purpose of a density bonus as providing incentives for the production of affordable housing, se nior housing, and childcare facilities in compliance with State Government section 65915.

Compliance with State Law
Until 2021, under Government Code Section 65915, known as the Density Bonus Law, the maximum bonus was 35%. California state law AB 2345 states that all ju risdictions in California are required to process projects proposing up to 50% additional density, as long as those projects provide the additional Below Market Rate units (units affordable to low and very low-income households) in the original proposed project, unless the locality already allows a bonus above 35%. The City’s Density Bonus program allows a maximum of 35% density increase; however, AB 2345 requires an allowa nce of up to 50% density bonus when the base BMR is proposed. The City included Pr ogram 2I, to review and update the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance. The City is currently revising the existing ordinance and expects to adopt revisions in December 2026.

3. Residential Development Standards
The City of Costa Mesa established four residential districts to provide a range of housing types. These standards and regulations are intended to create th e highest quality residential development, minimize land use conflicts, encourage the maintenance of residential neighborhoods, and implement the goals of the City’s General Plan. In addition to residential districts, Costa Mesa also includ es three types of mixed- use designations to bring together residential and commercial developments.  Single-Family Residential District (R1) – Single-Family Residential is intended to promote the development of single-family detached units on lots measuring at least 6,000 square feet. The maximum density is 7.26 dwelling units per gross acre.
279

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-8  Multiple-Family Residential District, Medium Density (R2-MD) – Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential is intended to promote the development of multi-family properties on lots measuring a minimum of 12,000 square feet. The maximum density is 3,630 square feet per dwelling unit / 12 dwelling units per gross acre.
 Multiple-Family Residential District, High Density (R2-HD) – High Density Multiple-Family Residential is intended to promote the development of multi-family properties with a minimum of 12,000 square feet. The maximum density is 3,000 sq uare feet per dwelling unit / 14.25 dwelling units per gross acre.
 Multiple-Family Residential District (R3) – Multiple-Family Residential is intended to promote the development of multi — family properties with a minimum of 12,000 square feet. The maximum density is 2,178 square feet per dwelling unit / 20 dwelling units per gross acre.  Town Center District (TC) – Town Center is intended to allow intensely developed mixed commercial and residential uses within a limite d geographical area located between Sunflower Avenue, I-405, Bristol Street, and Avenue of the Arts. Developments can range from one- to two- story office and retail buildings to mid- and high-rise buildings, including residential.  Planned Development Commercial (PDC) – Planned Development Commercial is intended for retail shops, offices, and service establishments, incl uding but not limited to, hotels, restaurants, theaters, museums, financial institutions, and health clubs. These uses are intended to serve adjacent residential area and the entire communi ty and region. Complementary residential uses may also be included in the planned development.
 Institutional and Recreational Multi-Use District – Institutional and Recreational Multi-Use is only applicable to the Fairview Developmental Center and is intended to allow the integration of a variety of land uses and intensities at a low to moderate density and intensity.

As mentioned above, the City of Costa Mesa’s Zo ning Code establishes standards which regulate development throughout the City. The development standards include minimum requirements for lot size, width, building setbacks, and open space. Table 3-2 provides the development standards applicable to each zoning district in Costa Mesa that permit residential development.

Table 3-2: Development Standards in Costa Mesa - Dimensions Zone
Dimensions Min. Yard Setbacks (ft) Construction Standards Min. Lot Size
(square feet)
Min. Lot
Width (feet)
Front
(feet)
Side
(feet) Rear (feet) Max.

Height*
Min. Open
Space
(square feet)
Max. Density
Residential Districts
R1 6,000 sq.ft.

Interior Lot:
50 ft.

Corner Lot:
60 ft.
20 ft. 5 ft. (3)
2-story: 20 ft.
1-story:
10 ft.
27 feet 40% 1 DU (1) per
6,000 sq.ft.

R2-MD 12,000 sq.ft. 100 ft. 20 ft. 5 ft. (3)
2-story: 20 ft.
1-story:
10 ft.
27 feet 40% 1 DU per
3,630 sq.ft.(2)
R2-HD 12,000 sq.ft. 100 ft. 20 ft. 5 ft. (3)
2-story: 20 ft.
1-story:
10 ft.
27 feet 40% 1 DU per
3,000 sq.ft.
280

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-9

Yard Requirements
Yards provide light and air, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, emergency access, and general aesthetic improvements. The Costa Mesa Zoning Code establishes setback requirements in order to maintain yard area. Minimum setback requirements are consistent in residential districts, 5 feet, but they differ depending on type of development in mixed-use distri cts. While it is possible that setback requirements may pose a constraint on reaching maximum permitted density in some cases, there is enough flexibility in the current ordinances that setback requirements do no t constitute a significant constraint on residential development.

Site Coverage and FAR
The City of Costa Mesa establishes site coverage requirements in order to maintain bulk, mass, and intensity of use. Site coverage is not used towards planning residential districts in Costa Mesa as open space and setback requirements ensure structures are located within an area of a lot to avoid massing and excessive density. Site coverage is considered in mixed-use developments when combined with commercial uses.

Height*
Min. Open
Space
(square feet)
Max. Density
R3 12,000 sq.ft. 100 ft. 20 ft. 5 ft. (3)
2-story: 20 ft.
1-story:
10 ft.
27 feet 40% 1 DU per
2,178 sq.ft.

Planned Development Standards
PDR-LD 5,500 sq.ft. 40 ft. 5 ft. (7) 0-10ft.
(8) 5 ft. 27 ft. 45% (6) 8 DUs per
acre
PDR-MD 5,500 sq.ft. - 5 ft. 0-10ft.
(8) 5 ft. 27 ft. 45% 12 DUs per
acre
PDR-HD 3,000 sq.ft. - 5 ft. 0-10ft.
(8) 5 ft. 27 ft. 42% 20 DUs per
acre (4)
PDR-
NCM 3,000 sq.ft. - - - - - 42% 35 DUs per
acre
PDC N/A - - - - - - 20 DUs per
acre (5)

PDI N/A - - - - - - N/A
Note:
(1): Dwelling Unit
(2): 1 unit per DU for legal lots existing as of March 16, 1992, that are less than 7,260 sq.ft. in area but not less than 6,000 sq.ft. in area. (3) Accessory structures that do not exceed 6.5 feet in height in the R1 zone or 15 feet in height in other residential zones may have a zero- side setback. Property line abutting a public street: 10 feet. Property line abutting an alley: 5 feet. (4): See North Costa Mesa Specific Plan for exceptions. The maximum density for 125 East Baker Street is 58 dwelling units per acre (C0- 13-02). The maximum density for 2277 Harbor Boulevard is 54 dwelling units per acre (C0-14-02). (5): The maximum density for 1901 Newport Boulevard is 40 dwelling units per acre. See North Costa Mesa Specific Plan for exceptions. No residential development is permitted within the 23.4-acre project site generally addressed as 1375 Sunflower Ave. and 3370 Harbor Blvd. (6): See section 13-60 required open space criteria for planned development residential. (7): For individual DUs.
(8): feet on one side; 10 feet combination of both sides.

Source: City of Costa Mesa Zoning Code 2022
281

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-10 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) refers to the gross floor area allowed on a site divided by the total gross area of the site. FAR requirements limit the usable floor area to limit the bulk of a building in comparison to the land, other buildings, and public facilities in the area.

Open Space
Open space is used in conjunction with site coverage to control intensity of use and provide for an area that is intended to add light and air. Open space ma y include, but is not limited to, lawns, decorative planting, walkways, active and passive recreational area, playgrounds, fountains, swimming pools, and wooded areas. Also included are unenclosed patios, water courses, and surfaces covered by no more than 5 feet in depth by projections which are at least 8 feet above ground. Driveways, parking lots, surfaces designed for vehicular access, upper floor decks, balconies, and areas under projections which are less than 8 feet above ground are not considered open space.

Maximum Building Heights
A structure’s height is defined by the Zoning Code as the distance from the grade to the highest point on the roof, including roof-top mechanical equipment and screening. A standard 27 feet maximum height is established for two-story residential developments in Costa Mesa in order to maintain compatibility with existing and proposed developments, however a planned development is permitted to be developed up to four stories. The City’s General Plan and Zoning Code permit up to four stories south of the 405 Freeway through planned development and in many of the City’s overlay areas where higher densities are allowed, as well as additional height nort h of the 405 Freeway in the North Cost a Mesa Specific Plan area. Per the City’s development standards shown in Table 3-2, a 2-story 14,400 square-foo t multi-family development on a 12,000 square-foot lot could develop up to 14 potential 1,000 square-foot units, all while meeting the City’s setback, open space, and height requirements. The City’s 27-foot height limit for all residential developments does not pose a constraint to meeting the City’s established densities and is not considered a constraint to the development of housing. As of March 2026, the City modi fied its maximum building heights up to 108 feet for residential projects on Housing Element sites, depending on the maximum residential density allowed.

Parking Standards
The City of Costa Mesa mandates parking requirements be applied to all developments in the City. Table 3- 3 provides the required parking for a ll housing types. The Zoning Code further identifies the number of parking spaces that must be covered and those that can remain uncovered. These requirements ensure that there is adequate parking provided for residents and for guests in both single-family and multi-family residences. The City had included Program 2M committing to reviewing and revising the City’s Zoning Code for off-street parking for multifamily projects. In April 2026, the City reduce d the residential parking minimums for multi-family units and adopted a standard of no minimum parking requirement for residential uses on Housing Element sites within the Mixed-Use Overlay District (all Housing Element sites are within this overlay). In late 2026, the City will amend the overlay to remove parking minimums on non- Housing Element sites.
282

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-11 Table 3-3: Parking Requirements for Residential Uses
Unit Type Number of Spaces
Required
Residential Development in the
Mixed-Use Overlay District All residences No minimum
requirement
Single-Family Detached with 4
Bedrooms or Less
Without garage access from alley 4
With garage access from alley 3
Single-Family Detached with 5
Bedrooms of More
Without garage access from alley 5
With garage access from alley 4
Multi-Family Residential
Bachelor/Studio to 1 bedroom 1.25

2 Bedrooms or more 2. 25

Source: City of Costa Mesa Zoning Code
The cost associated with garage park ing construction can be viewed as a constraint to affordable housing development, especially for multi-family housing. Affordable housing projects that qualify for a density bonus may also request application for additional incentives which can be provided in the form of reduction of parking requirements. While off-street parking re quirements can affect planned residential density, particularly for small lots and in-fill areas, this potential constraint is mitigated by the flexible standards shown above.

Furthermore, in comparison to neighboring jurisdictions (Table 3-4) the City of Costa Mesa has reduced parking requirements. Where Costa Mesa differs in sing le-family parking requirements is in its count of open/driveway parking spaces. The City of Costa Mesa specifically requires 2 spaces in a garage and 2 spaces on a driveway for a single-family detached residence with 4 bedrooms or less; the other cities only provide requirements for the number of vehicles that must be included in a garage. In addition, the other cities require guest parking as a percentage of the total number of units or required spaces, while Costa Mesa requires a set number per unit except for residential development in the Mixed-Use Overlay District, where there is no minimum parking requirement.

Table 3-4: Parking Standards of Neighboring Communities Unit Type Number of Spaces Required
City of Newport Beach
Accessory Dwelling Unit 1 parking space, with exceptions (1) Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit No additional parking required Single-Unit Dwellings – Attached 2 per unit in a garage Single-Unit Dwellings – Detached and less than
4,000 sq. ft. of floor area 2 per unit in a garage
Single-Unit Dwellings – Detached and 4,000 sq. ft. of
floor area 3 per unit in a garage
Single-Unit Dwellings – Balboa Island 2 per unit in a garage Multi-Unit Dwellings – 3 units
2 per unit covered, plus guest parking
1-2 units, no guest parking required
3 units, 1 guest parking space
283

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-12 Table 3-4: Parking Standards of Neighboring Communities Unit Type Number of Spaces Required
City of Newport Beach
Multi-Unit Dwellings – 4 units or more 2 per unit covered, plus 0.5 space per unit for guest parking Two-Unit Dwellings 2 per unit; 1 in a garage and 1 covered or in a garage Live/Work Units 2 per unit in a garage, plus 2 for guest/customer parking Senior Housing – Market Rate 1.2 per unit
Senior Housing – Affordable 1 per unit
City of Irvine
Single Family 1-3 bedrooms 2 spaces
4+ bedrooms 3 spaces + visitor parking (2)
Attached Ownership
Studio 1 space + visitor parking (2)
1 bedroom 1.5 spaces + visitor parking (2)
2 bedroom 2 spaces + visitor parking (2)
Attached Rental
Studio 1 space + visitor parking (2)
1 bedroom 1.4 spaces + visitor parking (2)
2 bedroom 1.6 spaces + visitor parking (2)
3 bedroom 2 spaces + visitor parking (2)
City of Fountain Valley
Single-family, detached: up to 4 bedrooms 2 stalls in a garage Single-family, detached: 5+ bedrooms or homes
larger than 4,000 sq. ft. 3 stalls in a garage
Single-family, detached Same as single-family, detached Mobile home park 2 covered for unit, plus 0.2 visitor stall/unit provided independent of the unit
Accessory dwelling unit
No parking required beyond that which is required for the primary residence. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65852.2, replacement parking cannot be required if an existing garage is converted to an ADU.

Multi-family: duplex,
condos, other attached
dwellings
1 bedroom or less 1 covered stall + 0.5 uncovered + 25% of total required spaces for visitor parking
2 bedrooms 1 covered stall + 1 uncovered + 25% of total required spaces for visitor parking
3 bedrooms 2 covered stall + 0.5 uncovered + 25% of total required spaces for visitor parking
More than 3 bedrooms 2 covered stall + 0.5/room over 3 uncovered + 25% of total required spaces for visitor parking
Note:

1. Parking is waived for ADUs if the property is within ½ mile walking distance to transit (including ferry); within an architecturally or historically significan t district; on-street parking permits are re quired and not provided to the occupant of the ADU; or within one block of a car-share vehicle pick-up/drop-off location

2. Visitor parking: 0.7 space/unit if project has resident garages or 0.4 spaces/unit if the project has resident carports.

Source: City of Newport Beach, Irvine, and Fountain Valley Municipal Codes Program 2M included in Chapter 4: Housing Plan has been completed.

4. Variety of Housing Types Permitted
California Housing Element Law mandates jurisdiction s must make sites available through zoning and development standards to promote the development of a variety of housing types for all socioeconomic levels of the populations. Housing types include si ngle-family homes, multi-family housing, accessory 284

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-13 dwelling units, factory-built homes, mobile-homes, em ployee and agricultural work housing, transitional and supportive housing, single-room occupancy (S ROs), and housing for persons with disabilities. Table 3- 5 shows the various housing types permitted throughout the City of Costa Mesa.

Table 3-5: Housing Types Permitted in Costa Mesa (March 2026) Housing
Types
Zones
Residential Commercial Industrial Planned Development Institutional & Rec.

R1
R2-MD
R2-HD
R3
C1
C2
C1-S
TC
MG
MP
PDR-LD
PDR-MD
PDR-HD

PDR-NCM
PDC
PDI
I&R

I&R-MLT
Single-Family P P P P - - - - - - P P P P P P - P
Multi-Family - P P P - - - P - - P P P P P P - P
Accessory
Dwelling Unit P P P P - - - P - - P P P P P P - P
Common
Interest
Development
- P P P - - - P - - P P P P P P - P
Small Lot
Subdivision,
Residential
- P P P - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mobile Home
Park
- C C C - - - - - - C C C C C C - -
Boarding
House, Small
(1)
- P P P - - - - - - P P P P P P - -
Boarding
House, Large
(1)
- C C C - - - - - - - C C C C C - -
Residential
Care Facility,
6 or Fewer
Persons

P P P P - - - - - - P P P P P P P P
Residential
Care Facility,
7 or More
- C C C - - - - - - - C C C C C C -
Group
Homes, 6 or
Fewer
Persons

S S S S - - - - - - S S S S S S P P
Group
Homes, 7 or
More

S C C C - - - - - - - C C C C C P -
Sober Living
Homes, 6 or

S S S S - - - - - - S S S S S S P -
285

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-14 Table 3-5: Housing Types Permitted in Costa Mesa (March 2026) Housing
Types
Zones
Residential Commercial Industrial Planned Development Institutional & Rec.

R1
R2-MD
R2-HD
R3
C1
C2
C1-S
TC
MG
MP
PDR-LD
PDR-MD
PDR-HD

PDR-NCM
PDC
PDI
I&R

I&R-MLT
Fewer
Persons
Sober Living
Homes, 7 or
More
- C C C - - - - - - - C C C C C P -
Referral
Facility
- C C C - C - - - - - C C - - - - -
Single Room
Occupancy
Residential
Hotel (SRO)
- - - - C C - - - - - - - - - - - -
Employee
Housing, 6 or
fewer

P P P P - - - - - - P P P P P P - -
Supportive
Housing
P3 P2,3 P2,3 P2,
3 - - - P2,3 - - P2,
3 P2,3 P2,3 P2,3 P2,3 P2
,3 - -
Transitional
Housing
P3 P3 P3 P3 - - - P3 - - P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 - -
Emergency
Shelters
- - - - - - - - - C - - - - - P - -
Low Barrier
Navigation
Centers
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA P4 NA NA NA NA NA NA P4 P4 NA NA
Source: City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code Table 13-30 Citywide Land Use Matrix, amended March 2026 Notes:
(1) Small boardinghouses shall locate at least six hundred fifty (650) feet from any other small boardinghouse. Large boardinghouse s shall be located at least one thousand (1,000) feet away from any other boardinghouse. (2) Supportive housing, as defined in Government Code Section 65650, shall be permitted by-right in all zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted by-right, provided it is consistent with Government Code Sections 65650 – 65656. (3) Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(c)(3), transitional and supportive Housing shall be considered a residential use of property and shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zoning district. (4) Low barrier navigation centers shall be permitted by-right provided they are consistent with the requirements in Government Code Sections 65660-65668.

P – Permitted
C – Conditional Use Permit
S – Special Use Permit
(-) – Prohibited
286

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-15 Single-Family Dwelling
The Costa Mesa Zoning Code defines a Single-Family Dwelling as a building of permanent character which is designed or used for residential occupancy by one family. A single mobile home on a foundation system on a single lot is a single-family dwelling. A single-family dwelling may be attached or detached from another single-family dwelling, incl uding but not limited to an accessory dwelling unit. Single Family dwelling units are permitted in the R1, R2-MD, R2-HD, and R3 residential zones, as well as the PDR-LD, PDR- MD, PDR-HD, PDR-NCM, PDC, PDI, and I&R-MLT zones.

Multi-Family Dwelling
A Multi-Family Dwelling is a building of a permanent character which is designed or used for residential occupancy or two or more families. This housing designation may include, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and apartments. The building is typically owned by a si ngle person or agency and rented out to tenants.

Each dwelling unit within the structure is occupied by a single housekeeping unit. Multifamily dwelling units are permitted in the R2-MD, R2-HD, and R3 resident ial zones, the TC commercial zone, and the PDR-LD, PDR-MD, PDR-HD, PDR-NCM, PDC, and PDI zones, and the I&R-MLT Institution zone. Multifamily dwelling units are also permitted in the City’s two overla y zones – the Mixed-Use Overlay and the Residential Incentive Overlay.

Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
An ADU is a second dwelling unit established in co njunction with and subordinate to the single-family dwelling unit existing on the property. The ADU may be a studio with no bedroom or contain any number of bedrooms and it may be attached to the single-family dwelling unit or detached and located on the same lot. An ADU may also be referred to as an “accessory apartment”, “granny unit”, “granny flat”, or “in-law apartment”. Refer to Costa Mesa City Ordinanc e 2021-03 for ADU-specific development standards.

Accessory dwelling units are permitted in all zones where single-family residential units are also permitted.

Common Interest Development
The City Zoning Code defines Common Interest Develo pments as containing 2 or more common interest units, which may include, but is not limited to, a community apartment project, rights of exclusive occupancy, a stock cooperative, and/or exclusiv e occupancy. Common interest developments are permitted in all zones where multifamily developments and units are permitted.

Small Lot Subdivision, Residential
A Small Lot Subdivision refers to a residential develo pment that contains a maximum of 15 detached or townhome style units with no common walls where each unit is independently constructed on an individual parcel. In a small lot subdivision, the land is subdivide d into fee simple parcels containing each unit and each individual lot is provided with either a direct access to a public street/alley or an easement access through a recorded subdivision map. Small Lot subdiv ision projects are permitted in the R2-MD, R2-HD, and R3 residential zones.

Manufactured Housing
Manufactured housing includes detached housing that is built to the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, incl uding structures known as manufactured homes and 287

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-16 mobile homes. A factory-built structure is considered a single-family home and shall be reviewed under the same standards as a site-built structure if it is manufactured under the authority of 42 U.S.C. section 5401 - National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act. Mobile homes are permitted conditionally in the R2-MD, R2-HD, R3 residential zones and PDR-LD, PDR-MD, PDR-HD, PDR-NCM, PDC, and PDI zones.

Boarding House
A Boarding House is a residence or dwelling, other than a hotel, wherein rooms are rented under 2 or more separate written or oral rental agreements, leases, or subleases. The property owner, agent, or rental manager may or may not reside on the property. A small boarding house rents 2 or less rooms, while a large boarding house rents out 3 to 6 rooms. The City of Costa Mesa prohibits boarding houses that rent more than 6 rooms. Small boarding house de velopments are permitted in all zones where manufactured/mobile homes are permitted, and larg e boarding house developments are conditionally permit in these zones.

Residential Care Facility
In Costa Mesa, a Residential Care Facility must be licensed by the State to provide care, services, or treatment to persons living in supportive community residential setting. Residential care facilities may include, but may not be limited to: intermediate care facilities for the developmentally disabled; community care facilities; residential care facilities for the elderl y; residential care facilities for the chronically ill; alcoholism and drug abuse facilities; pediatric day health and respite care facilities; residential health care facilities, including congregate living health facilities; family care home, foster home, group home for the mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped person s or dependent and neglected children. Residential care facilities are permitted in all residential, planned development, and institutional zones.

Group Homes
A Group Home is a facility that is being used as a supportive living environment for persons who are considered handicapped under state or federal law. A group home operated by a single operator or service provider (whether State licensed or unlicensed) constitutes a single facility, whether the facility occupies one or more dwelling units. Group homes are allowed in all residential zoning districts through a conditional or special use permit. Small group homes are permitted with a special use permit in residential and planned development zones, and they are permitted as a primar y use in institutional zones subject to consistency with an adopted Master Plan. Large group homes are conditionally permitted in residential and planned development zones and are permitted as a primary use in the institutional zones subject to consistency with an adopted Master Plan.

Although there are several different housing types outlined in the Zoning Code including group homes, the City’s Zoning Code does not exclude group homes or more specifically housing for disabled people from any residential zones in the City. On the contrary, disa bled individuals can live in any residential property in the City. The city’s code provisions regarding group homes have been upheld by numerous courts in both state and federal court and have been found to be intended to and actually protective of persons with disabilities. Group homes are intended to be integr ated into residential communities for the benefit of 288

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-17 both the disabled and the non-disabled. The City’s code protects the disabled from being forced to live in multiple adjoining properties clustered together -- institutionalized settings -- in crammed quarters, subject to eviction without warning and left vulnerable and home less in a City far from their actual homes. It also preserves the very character of residential neighborhoods which make them desirable places to live, by preventing unreasonably increased traffic, noise, pa rking difficulties, and drug-related activity when residents relapse during the recovery process. The recovery community, including industry associations like Sober Living Network and the National Alliance for Recovery Residences, acknowledged these issues, and recommend that group recovery homes – includin g sober living homes – adopt model operational standards to ensure proper care of their residents. Costa Mesa’s code does exactly that, regulating operators, not disabled individuals, and ensuring the disabled safe and appropriate residential environments. Numerous group homes for the disabled, including sober living homes have been approved and operate throughout the City. There is no shortage of options for those seeking to live in a recovery home in low or high density areas of the City. Furthe r, the City does not regulate state licensed homes of six or fewer residents, as that is preempted by state law.

Based on California Health and Human Services (CHHS) data shown below, Costa Mesa has more Certified & Licensed group home facilities (in number and per capita) than the surrounding Orange County jurisdictions. Under the current regulations, there are significant portions of the City that can accommodate additional facilities. Per capita estimates are shown below (based on 2021 US Census population estimates).
 Costa Mesa: 55 Certified and Licensed Facilities (1 per 2,013 residents)  Newport Beach: 35 Certified and Licensed Facilities (1 per 2,422 residents)  Huntington Beach: 42 Certified and Licensed Facilities (1 per 2,777 residents)  Fountain Valley: 16 Certified and Licensed Facilities (1 per 3,530 residents)  Irvine: 5 Certified and Licensed Facilities (1 per 61,806 residents)  Santa Ana: 28 Certified and Licensed Facilities (1 per 11,051 residents) Notwithstanding, the City has included Program 2P in the Housing Element to review and consider revisions to its zoning code and application procedures applicable to group homes to promote objectivity and greater approval certainty.

Transitional Housing
. The City originally included Program 2J to address transitional housing. As of March 2026, the City has adopted municipal code revisions to ensure consistency with State law and has completed Program 2J. Specifically, the revisions clarify that transitional and supportive housing are permitted as residential uses and are subject only to the sa me restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone , consistent with Government Code section 65583(a)(5). Supportive Housing
Supportive Housing includes housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population, and that is linked to onsi te or offsite services that assist the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health stat us, and maximizing their ab ility to live and, when possible, work in the community. Supportive housing that is provided in single family dwelling, multi-family 289

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-18 dwelling units, residential care fa cilities, or boarding house uses, shall be permitted, conditionally permitted, or prohibited in the same manner as the other single-family dwelling, multi-family dwelling units, residential care facilities, or boarding house uses . The City originally included Program 2J to address transitional and supportive housing. As of April 2026, the City has ad opted municipal code revisions to ensure consistency with State law and has completed Program 2J. Specifically, the revisions clarify that supportive housing is permitted by-right in zones where multi-family and mixed-use development is permitted, including non-residential zones where mu ltifamily uses area permitted consistent with Government Code Section 65651(a).

Currently, the city permits supportive housing consistent with the development standards and regulations of the type of unit it is proposed as; for example, if a supportive housing project is proposed as a single- family unit (SFU), it is subject to the same provisions of the identified zone for a single family unit. The City has identified Program 2J to update the zoning code to acknowledge supportive housing distinctively in the City’s land use matrix, consistent with state law.

Referral Facility
A Referral Facility or a group home may include one or more person who resides there pursuant to a court order or directive from an agency in the criminal justice system. Referral facilities are conditionally permitted in the R2-MD, R2-HD, and R3 residentia l zones, the PDR-MD, PDR-HD Planned Development zones and the C2 commercial zone.

Single Room Occupancy Residential Hotel (SRO)
An SRO is permitted in certain commercial zones and contains units designed for long-term occupancy by a single person. Double occupancy may be permitted. SROs are conditionally perm itted in the C1 and C2 commercial zones.

Emergency Shelter
An emergency shelter provides temporary housing and food for individuals in need or disaster victims. The shelters may be operated by a public or non-profit organization. Emergency shelters are permitted by-right in the PDI Zone. Emergency shelters are also permitted in the MP Zone with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. All emergency shelters are subject to the following development standards (City-owned emergency shelters are exempt from certain provisions):
 The maximum length of stay may not exceed 120 days in a 365-day period.  Each emergency shelter may have a maximum of 30 beds.  Off-site parking must be provided at a parking rate of 1 parking space per 4 beds or one 1 space per employee, whichever is higher. In comparison to the Cities of Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, and Irvine, Costa Mesa’s emergency shelter parking requirements are lowest and therefore not considered a constraint.
 Stays at an emergency shelter facility shall be lim ited to the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. the following day.
 Nonoperational and unregistered vehicles may not be kept on site. 290

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-19  Each emergency shelter will provide an interior and exterior waiting area adequate to accommodate waiting clients and to prevent queuing into the public right-of-way. An exterior waiting area must be physically separated and visually screened from the public right-of-way.  The emergency shelter facility will provide an on-site resident manager on site at all times.  A minimum distance of 300 feet must be maintained from another emergency shelter. The distance of separation shall be measured in a stra ight line between the property lines of each use without regard to intervening structures or objects.
 The shelter operator shall provide minimum exteri or lighting in compliance with the city’s security requirements.
 The shelter operator shall patrol a half-mile radius surrounding the shelter site during hours that the shelter is in operation to ensure that shel ter clients and homeless individuals who have been denied access are not congregating in the neighborhood.  Alcohol and narcotics use, and consumption are prohibited within the facility and on the property.  An operations plan will be submitted for review and approval by the development services director and police chief prior to operation of the emergency shelter. The plan must include minimum provisions related to on-site security and safety, staff training, loitering control, client eligibility, counseling services, and indoor and outdoor management of the facility.

In April 2021, the City of Costa Mesa completed the construction of it s permanent Bridge Shelter within the City. The Costa Mesa City Council purchased the Airway property in March of 2019 and completed $4.5 million worth of capital improvements to convert the 26,000-square-foot industrial warehouse to a 12,000- square-foot 72-bed shelter with a 14,000-square-foot tenant space. The permanent Bridge Shelter was built in coordination with the neighboring City of Newport Beach who made a one-time payment of $1.4 million in capital costs as well as $200,000 in furniture, fixtures, and e quipment for the si te. Additionally, Newport Beach will provide $1 million annually for 20 set-aside beds.

Construction of the Bridge Shelter, as well as the organization and operation of the temporary Bridge Shelter at Lighthouse Church, represent the Costa Mesa’s commitment to assisting those residents currently experiencing homelessness. With the shelter in full operation, the City is now able to assist up to 72 residents at one time. This multi-year effort is a tremendous step towards helping to house residents within the City of Costa Mesa who may need assistance and transition to more permanent housing. The City also provides services and assistance to residents of the Bridge Shelter.

In addition, a total of 294 parcels (483.5 total acres and an average parcel size of 1.6 acres) are zoned MP and 150 parcels (168.7 total acre s and an average parcel size of 1.1 acres) are zoned PDI which allows for the development of emergency shelters by-right without discretionary approval. Additionally, the Bridge Shelter parcel is approximately 1.3 acres large – which is similar to the average size of other parcels in the MP and PDI zones. These parcels currently include industrial uses such as light manufacturing, warehousing, and logistics centers, office buildings, schools, chur ches, civic uses and surface parking lots. There are two areas of the City with a mix of PDI and MP zoning – these include the area between John Wayne Airport and the 55 Freeway and the area to the north-west of the City between the 405 Freeway and W MacArthur Boulevard. Parcels located in these PDI and MP zones are all located approximately within a half-mile of a 291

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-20 transit stop. In the area closest to John Wayne Airport, the 71 OCTA line runs through Red Hill Avenue. In the area closest to W MacArthur Boulevard, OCTA li nes 43, 76, and 37 run along Harbor Boulevard and W MacArthur Boulevard.

Based on CalEnviroScreen 4.0, there are 3 hazardous waste generators within the MP and PDI zones in the north-west portion of the City and 4 near the north-east portion of the City as shown in Figure 3-1b. These generators are light industrial uses and do not create an environment unfit for human habitation. Located in close proximity to the area are existing and new housing units. In fact, residential development is allowed in certain industrial zones in the City pursuant to residential overlay zoning and subject to an adopted master plan. As such, the hazardou s waste generators identified by CalEnviroScreen 4.0 do not pose a threat to the development and use of future emergency shelters in the area.

Figure 3-1a: Map of MP Zones in Costa Mesa

Source: City of Costa Mesa, Zoning Code Map.

292

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-21 Figure 3-1b: Map of Hazardous Waste Generators

Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0, Hazardous Waste.

Farmworker Housing
California Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6 require ag ricultural employee housing to be permitted by-right, without a conditional use perm it (CUP), in single-family zones for six or fewer persons and in agricultural zones with no more than 12 units or 36 beds. The City has completed Program 2H identified in Chapter 4: Housing Plan ensuring the City’s development standards allow Farmworker Housing by-right, without a CUP, in single-family zone s for six or fewer persons. In March 2026, the City amended the Zoning Code to allow Farmworker housing, also known as employee housing consistent with California Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6.

Low Barrier Navigation Centers (LBNC)
AB 101 states that “Low Barrier Navigation Center developments are essential tools for alleviating the homelessness crisis in this state.” Low Barrier Navigation Centers are defined as a Housing First, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals ex periencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. Low Barrier Navigation Centers are required as a use by right in areas zoned for mixed uses and nonresidential zones perm itting multifamily uses if it meets specified 293

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-22 requirements. The City has completed Program 4E in Chapter 4: Housing Plan to ensure the City’s development standards allow Low Barrier Navigation Centers by-right in all zones that permit mixed-uses and non-residential uses. Sp ecifically, in March 2026, the City amended the Zoning Code to allow LBNC consistent with AB 101 (2019).

5. Planned Development
The intent and purposed of Planned Developments are to provide a method by which appropriately located areas of the City can be developed utilizing more imaginative and innovative planning concepts than would be possible through strict application of existing zoning and subdivision regulations. It is intended that these developments will meet the broader goals of the General Plan and Zoning Code by exhibiting excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures, and protection of the integrity of neighboring developments. Additional standards for PDs may be found in Chapter V. Article 6 of the City’s Zoning Code.

All PDs require approval through a Master Plan and must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The following provides the process by which PDs may be reviewed:

Preliminary Master Plan : a preliminary master plan may be processed in advance of the master plan to determine the general location, type, and intensities of uses proposed in large scale planned developments prior to the preparation and submittal or more detailed development plans. Preliminary master plans may also be used as conceptual plans for long-term or phased PDs.

Upon approval of the preliminary master plan, develo pment plans for individual components or phases of the PD are required and will be processed according to the provisions for master plans. Subsequent plans must be consistent with the parameters and general allocation and intensity of uses of the approved preliminary master plan. At the time of approval of the preliminary master plan, the Planning Commission may determine that subsequent development plans may be approved by the Zoning Administrator. In such cases, development plans will be forwarded by the Zo ning Administrator, upon an appeal filed or upon motion by the Planning Commission or City Council.

Amendments to the Master Plan : Minor changes in the location, siting or character of buildings and structures may be authorized by the planning division if required by engineering specifications or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the master pl an was approved. No change authorized under this section may cause any of the following:
 A change in the use of character of the development;
 An increase in the overall density of the development;  An increase in overall coverage of structures;
 A reduction or change in character of approved open space;  A reduction of required off-street parking;
 A detrimental alteration to the pedestrian, vehicular and bicycle circulation, and utility networks; or  A reduction in required street pavement widths.
294

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-23 Major changes involving substantial amendments to the master plan encompassing one or more of the minor changes listed above, or any other proposed change determined by the Development Services Director as a major amendment, shall be subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. If the major amendment results in an overall building square footage that exceeds the maximum density or building square footage allowed by the approved master plan, the Zoning Administrator must find that the major amendment is consistent with the density, floor area ratio, and trip budget standards established by the general plan, as applicable.

Minor Additions to an Existing PD:
 Residential buildings—Single-story additions : Minor single-story addition s to existing residential buildings not meeting the criteria below may be a pproved by a Minor Modification application if the Planning Division finds that the proposed construction does not materially affect the required open space, site coverage, or parking of the PD.
 Unenclosed patio covers : Unenclosed patio covers in planned development residential zones, which meet the setback criteria may be approved by the Planning Division:
 Enclosed patios and room additions : Enclosed patios and room additions may be permitted pursuant to the parameters for such additions established in the master plan. In cases where the master plan does not include criteria for future enclosed patios and/or room additions, the addition may be permitted if the required open space percentage is met on the affected lot and the addition meets the setbacks established for patio covers with the exception of small lot developments.  Residential buildings—Second story additions : In cases where the master plan does not include criteria for future second-story additions, the planning division may approve any proposed second- story addition that meets the setback standards.
 Nonresidential buildings: Minor additions to existing nonresid ential buildings may be approved by Development Review if the Planning Division finds that the proposed construction does not materially affect required open space, floor area ratio, and parking requirements specified in the approved master plan. If the minor addition results in an overall building square footage that exceeds the maximum building square footage allowed by the approved master plan, the Planning Division must find that the minor addition is consistent with the floor area ratio and trip budget standards established by the general plan, as applicable.

Site Design Concept
To maintain similar development designs and intensities within the different residential zones in the Costa Mesa, the City encourages the following standards and housing types:

Low-Density Zone: Small-lot, single-family detached residential developments including clustered development, zero lot line development and conventional development are appropriate.

Medium-Density and High-Density Zone, and North Costa Mesa Zones : Single- and multi-family residential developments containing any type or mixture of hous ing units, either attached or detached, including but 295

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-24 not limited to, clustered development, townhouses, patio homes, detached houses, duplexes, garden apartments, and high-rise apartments or common interest developments are appropriate.

As a Complementary Use: nonresidential use of a religious, educat ional, or recreational nature may be allowed if the planning commission finds the use to be compatible with the PD residential project.

As a Complementary Use in PDR-MD, PDR-HD, PDR-NCM Zones : nonresidential uses of a commercial nature may be allowed if the Planning Commission finds the uses to be compatible with the PD residential project and if the FAR does not exceed that esta blished for the Neighborhood Commercial General Plan Land Use designation.

6. Growth Management Measures
Measure Y:

Growth management measures allow cities to grow in a responsibly and orderly manner, however, if overly restrictive, these measures can produce constraints to the development of housing, specifically affordable and accessible housing.

In 2016, residents of Costa Mesa voted to pass Measur e Y: An Initiative to Re quire Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects. The Measure amended the Costa Mesa Municipal Code to require voter approval of any projects involving certain legislative actions (i.e. projects that amend, change, or replace the General Plan, the Zoning Code, a specific plan, or an overlay plan) which:
 Add 40 or more dwelling units;
 Generates more than 200 additional average daily trips (ADT);  Increases the volume/capacity of an intersection based on specified formulas;  Changes the intersection capacity utilization or level of service (LOS) based on specified formulas;  Adds 10,000 square feet of retail, office, or other nonresidential uses; and/or  Where the proposed project, combined with other projects within 8 years and a half-mile of each other, meet the above criteria.

Voter approval is also required for projects involving the above listed legislative actions which involve:
 Changes from public uses to private uses under special circumstances;  Land designated as utility right-of-way under specified circumstances;  Land donated, bequeathed, or otherwise granted to the City;  Land used or designated for Costa Mesa school property; and/or  Land owned, controlled, or managed by the City.

Any of these proposed changes as listed above are required to be approved by the Costa Mesa voters through a special or general election after the City Council has approved the project. Applicants may choose to put their project on a General Election which could result in timing delays to the project as those typically only occur in June and November of even numbered years or may pay for a Special Election to occur. Special Elections typically cost approximately $200,000, a cost wh ich must be paid for by the developer. This can 296

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-25 be a significant capital investment that may return uncertain election results (even if a project is approved by the City Council through an entitlement process). This process may discourage developers from pursuing housing development projects and particularly affordable housing projects.

The precise impact on development projects depends heavily on the type of project, number of residential units, and funding sources. The City has not had a project go through the entire Measure Y process to date.

While the exact cost and impact is not known, it ca n be assumed based on the analysis above that the Measure Y process adds time to the entitlement schedule and potentially additional costs if a Special Election is required. Program 3G discusses specific action s the City will take to address Measure Y in the context of the Housing Element and making sites available to accommodate the City’s RHNA.

Measure K:

In 2022, Costa Mesa voters approved Measure K, which author ized the City to upda te zoning for certain commercial, industrial, and mixed-us e areas to allow additional resi dential and mixed-use development while minimizing impacts on existing residential neighborhoods. The City is implementing Measure K through updates to the Mixed-Use Overlay District (M UOD). This effort not only supports rezoning of Housing Element sites needed to accommodate the RHNA but also expands residential development opportunities to additional Measure K sites beyond the Housing Element inventory. As a result, the City is taking a broader, proactive approach to facilitating housing production and creating residential capacity beyond the minimum RHNA obligation.

7. Specific Plans
The purpose of a Specific Plan is to implement the goal s and objectives of a city’s General Plan in a more focused and detailed manner that is area and project specific. The Specific Plan promotes an enhanced aesthetic level throughout the project/community. Specific Plans can contain their own development standards and requirements that may be more restrictive than those defined for a city as a whole.

East 17th Street Specific Plan
The East 17th Street Specific Plan encompasses approximately 33 acres along 17th Street, east of Santa Ana Avenue and west of Irvine Avenue. The area is designated for General Commercial by the General Plan Land Use Element and contains a mix of office and commercial uses.

The intent and purpose of the specific plan is to prov ide a good transition to neighboring residential areas by alleviating the problems generated by the proximit y of commercial and residential uses in the area. In order to do this, the City adopted the following development standards:
 Properties on the south side of the 400 block of the Specific Plan area must maintain a 10-foot landscape buffer and properties on the north side of the 400 block must maintain a 5-foot landscape buffer.
 A Conditional Use Permit is required to permit any development over 2 stories / 30 feet.

Developments over 4 stories are prohibited.
297

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-26 Newport Boulevard Specific Plan
The Newport Boulevard Specific Plan was prepared in order to address the development issues that resulted from the completion of the Costa Mesa Freeway. The intent and purpose of this specific plan is to encourage viable commercial businesses along Newport Boulevard, as well as to encourage marginal uses to redevelop. The Newport Boulevard Specific Plan added the “Commercial-Residential” land use designation to allow for a mix of re sidential and commercial zoning, wh ich would otherwise only occur in Planned Development zoning districts. Maximum residential density ranges from 12 units to 17.4 units per acre through the specific plan area; Table 3-6 below provides the permitted densities.

The Commercial-Residential land use designation is intended to allow commercial uses which serve and complement the residential neighborhoods to the east and within the specific plan. Appropriate uses include markets, drug stores, retail shops, financial institutions, service establishments and support office uses. Single room occupancy hotels are also permitted in this area. The location of these uses near residential neighborhoods is further intended to reduce the need for longer vehicle trips to areas of more intense commercial activity in order to obtain goods or services.

Table 3-6: Permitted Residential Density
Lot Size Street Frontage Allowable Density
40,000 square feet 120 feet 1 unit/ 3,630 square feet
(Medium density at 12 units per acre)
60,000 square feet 150 feet 1 unit/ 3,000 square feet
(High density at 14.5 units per acre)
80,000 square feet 180 feet 1 unit/2,500 square feet
(High density at 17.4 units per acre)
Source: Newport Boulevard Specific Plan SP-96-01 (1996) North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
The North Costa Mesa Specific Pl an encompasses 423 acres north of the San Diego Freeway and was adopted in 1994 and last updated in 2016. A specific plan was developed to set standards and strategies for the development of two large areas of undeveloped land in this area. The intent of the specific plan is to implement the policies of the General Plan in a manner that seamlessly integrates a variety of uses and considers the impact of new development on surrounding areas.

Table 3-7 provides the permitted land uses and densities within the specific plan areas, and Table 3-8 provides the maximum building heights allowed.

298

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-27

Table 3-7: Permitted Land Uses and Development Standards Land Use
Designation Typical Uses Zoning
Districts
Residential
Density FAR
Low Density
Residential
Single family detached and attached
units, granny units, accessory
apartments, family day care
R1, PDR-LD,
I&R
≤ 8 units per
acre

0.15 high traffic

0.25 moderate traffic

0.35 low traffic
Medium
Density
Residential
Single-family attached units, multiple
family units, senior
congregate care facilities,
convalescent hospitals, and group
residential homes. Ancillary
commercial uses are permitted
the planned development zones.

R1, R2-MD,

PDR-MD,

MU, I&R
≤ 12 units per
ace

0.15 high traffic

0.25 moderate traffic

0.35 low traffic
High Density
Residential
Multiple family units, senior
congregate care facilities,
convalescent hospitals and group
residential homes.

Ancillary commercial uses are
permitted in the planned
development zones.

R2-HD, R3,

PDR-HD,

PDR-NCM,

MU, I&R
≤ 20 units per
acre
(except the
density in

PDR-NCM
zone is 25-35
units per
acre)

0.15 high traffic

0.25 moderate traffic

0.35 low traffic
Commercial
Center
(1)
Major shopping, service, and office
facilities designated
serve city-wide and regional markets.

C1, C2, C1-
S,

PDC, AP, P,
CL
≤ 20 units per
acre

0.25 high traffic

0.35 moderate traffic

0.45 low traffic

0.75 very low traffic
Regional
Commercial
Regional scale uses including major
department stores,
specialty retail outlets, restaurants,
offices, and hotels.

PDC
≤ 20 units per
acre

0.652 South Coast Plaza
(east of Bear Street)

0.89 South Coast Plaza
(west of Bear Street)
Urban Center
Commercial
Intensively developed mixed
commercial including offices, retail
shops, restaurants, and hotels.

Residential uses are also
permitted pursuant to the North
Costa Mesa Specific Plan
PDC, TC ≤ 20 units per
acre
See Note 2.

Industrial
Park
Wide variety of industrial and
compatible office and support
commercial uses.

MP, POI, CL ≤ 20 units per
acre

0.20 high traffic

0.30 moderate traffic

0.40 low traffic

0.75 very low traffic
Notes:
(1) Home Ranch has a site-specific FAR: 0.37 for the IKEA portion of the project and 0.64 for the office portion (2) South Coast Metro Center (Area 6) has a site- specific FAR of 0.79. Sakioka Lot 2 (Area 8) has a maximum site- specific FAR of 1.0.

Source: North Costa Mesa Specific Plan (2016)
299

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-28 Table 3-8: Maximum Building Height – North Costa Mesa Specific Plan Sub-Are Max. Building Height
Area 1 – Home Ranch Varies (1)
Area 2 – Metro Pointe
30 feet / 2 stories (2)(3)
(North of South Coast Drive)
90 feet / 6 stories
(2)(3)
(South of South Coast Drive)
Area 3 – South Coast Plaza and Crystal
Court
85 feet / 4 stories
Area 4 – SCP Town Center 315 feet / 25 stories (2)
Area 5 – The Lakes
90 feet / 6 stories (2)
(Mid-Rise Residential)
280 feet / 26 stories
(2)
(High-Rise Residential)
Area 6 – South Coast Metro Varies (2)(4)
Area 7 – Sakioka Lot 1 60 feet / 4 stories (4)
Area 8 – Sakioka Lot 2
60 feet / 4 stories (2)(4)

180 feet / 12 stories
(2)(4)

Notes:
(1) See North Costa Mesa Specific Plan.
(2) Buildings above 173 feet in height will require a determination of no hazard by the FAA. (3) Current development agreement allows buildings up to 15 stories. (4) Buildings which encroach into the setback for Anton Blvd. and/or Sakioka Dr. cannot exceed 30 feet (approx. 2 stories) within the setback area.

Source: North Costa Mesa Specific Plan (2016)
Costa Mesa Theater and Arts District Plan
The Costa Mesa Theater and Art District includes 54 acres of land located east of Bristol Street, south of Sunflower Avenue, west of Avenue of the Arts, and north of the San Diego Freeway. The specific plan area includes high-rise office buildings, cultural facilities, hotels, restaurants, and other commercial uses; it neighbors high-density residential developments. The goals of the plan are to:
 Create a strong sense of place and awareness of a coherent identity for the Costa Mesa Theater and Arts District that will recognize existing cultural and corporate resources in the area and successfully integrate new resources as they are developed.  Assist pedestrians and vehicle operators in reaching their destinations quickly and easily, and, once they are in the area, make information available that highlights additional points of attraction throughout the district.
 Inform local, regional, national, and international communities about the Costa Mesa Theater and Arts District.
 Support occasional programs and installations in the Costa Mesa Theater and arts District that will recognize the importance of culture and the arts in daily life. 300

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-29  Encourage appropriate interplay between policies that apply particularly to the Costa Mesa Theater Arts District and those policies that evolve in the City of Costa Mesa to serve regional needs.  Improve communication and cooperation among area property owners in monitoring and fostering design and development within the district.

8. Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Both the Federal Fair Housing Amendment Act (FHAA) and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act require governments to make reasonable accommodations (that is, modifications or exceptions) in their zoning laws and other land use regulations to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to housing.

State law also requires cities to analyze potential and actual constraints to the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons with disabilities.

The Housing Element Update must also include programs that remove constraints or provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for persons with disabilities. The analysis of constraints must touch upon each of three general categories: 1) zoning/land use; 2) permit and processing procedures; and 3) building codes and other factors, including design, location, and discriminati on, which could limit the availability of housing for disabled persons.

Reasonable Accommodation
Reasonable accommodation in the land use and zoning context means providing individuals with disabilities or developers of housing for people with disabilities, flexibility in the application of land use and zoning and building regulations, policies, practices, and procedures, or even waiving certain requirements, when it is necessary to eliminate barriers to housing opportunities. For example, it may be reasonable to accommodate requests from persons with disabilities to waive a setback requirement or other standard of the Zoning Code to ensure that homes are accessible for the mobility impaired. Whether a particular modification is reasonable depends on the circumstances.

The Reasonable Accommodations Chapter of the City of Costa Mesa’s Municipal Code identifies the applicability and procedures needed to obtain relief from a Zoning Code provision, regulation, policy, or condition which may cause a barrier to equal opportunity for housing. This regulation applies to any person seeking approval to construct and/or modify resident ial housing for persons(s) with disabilities, and/or operate a residential care facility, group home, or referral facility, which will substantially serve persons with disabilities.

An application for a reasonable accommodation must be submitted to the City of Costa Mesa’s Planning Division and requires approval by the Development Services Director within 60 days of the application being deemed complete. A denied application may be appealed to the Planning Commission and is subject to the notice, review, approval, and appeal procedures prescribed for any other discretionary permit. There are no fees associated with the application and it must include:
 The Zoning Code provision, regulation, policy , or condition from which accommodation is being requested;
301

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-30  The basis for the claim that the individuals are considered disabled under state or federal law, and why the accommodation is necessary to provide equal opportunity for housing and to make the specific housing available to the individual;
 Any other information that the Director reasonably determines is necessary for evaluating the request;  Documentation that the applicant is either an individual with a disability, applying on behalf of one or more individuals with a disability, or a developer or provider of housing for one or more individuals with a disability;
 The specific exception or modification to the zoning code provision, policy, or practices requested;  Documentation that the specific exception or modification requested by the applicant is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disabi lity an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the residence; and
 Any other information that the hearing officer reasonably concludes is necessary to determine whether the grounds for reasonable accommodation can be made, so long as any request for information regarding the disability of the individual(s) benefited complies with fair housing law protections and the privacy rights of the individual(s) affected.

The following factors are considered during the review of the application:
 Is the requested accommodation necessary to affo rd a disabled person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling? To determine whether the accommodation is necessary, the director may consider, among other things: The nature of the disability including the special needs created by the disability, the physical attributes and sett ing of the property and structures, the potential benefit that can be accomplished by the requested accommodation, and alternative accommodations that may provide a comparable level of benefit.  Is the requested accommodation reasonable? A requ ested accommodation is not reasonable if it would impose an undue financial or administrative bu rden on the City. It is also not reasonable if it would fundamentally alter a City program, such as the City’s zoning scheme. o In considering the financial or administrative burden on the City, the director may consider, among other things, the extent to which the Ci ty would have to dedicate resources, such as staff time and funds, to grant the request and other requests like it. o In considering the potential alteration to a City program, such as the City’s zoning scheme, the director may consider, among other thin gs, whether granting the request would be consistent with the City’s General Plan, with the purpose and nature of the particular zoning district, and with nearby uses. The director may also consider whether the requested accommodation would potentially have adverse external impacts on properties in the vicinity.

The inherent constraints of any reasonable accommodation process are that the accommodation must be both “reasonable” and “necessary.” Each of these concepts are unavoidably subjective in some ways and entail a highly specific inquiry into a particular, typically unique, set of circumstances. Impacts to individuals and properties in the vicinity of any requested deviation from standards is a routine and appropriate factor to review in determining whether a particular ac commodation requested is reasonable under all the 302

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-31 circumstances presented. The City has established Program 2N and has committed to as a primary objective to review and revise the “Reasonable Accommodation” procedure to promote access to housing for persons with disabilities, address potential constraints and establish potential objective standards. The revisions will also provide applicant guidance and amend as necessary to promote greater certainty on how approval findings will be implemented. Importantly, any revisions will be consistent with the requirements of State law, and to consider public comments to de termine whether revisions can be made to minimize constraints in the process. In April 2026, the City approved amendments to its “Reasonable Accommodations” findings and procedures to promote access to housing for persons with disabilities, address potential constraints and establish greater certainty in approval findings.

Definition of Family
Under the right of privacy, the California Constitution prohibits a restrictive definition of “family” which limits the number of unrelated persons and differentiates between related and unrelated individuals living together. The City of Costa Mesa’s Municipal Code defines the term “family” as one or more persons occupying one dwelling unit and living together as a single housekeeping unit. The City also defines a “single housekeeping unit” as occupants which have establishe d ties and familiarity with each other, jointly use common areas, interact with each other, share meals, household activities, and expenses and responsibilities. Membership in the single housekeeping unit must be fairly stable as opposed to transient, the members have some control over who becomes a member of the household, and the residential activities of the household are conducted on a nonprofit basis. The City also includes that there is a rebuttable presumption that integral facilities do not constitute single housekeeping units.

The City’s Municipal Code provides the following indi cators that a household is not operating a single housekeeping unit:
 The occupants do not share a lease agreement or ownership of the property;  Members of the household have separate, private entrances from other members;  Members of the household have locks on their bedroom doors; and/or  Members of the household have separate food storage facilities, such as separate refrigerators.

The Courts have clearly distinguished between single housekeeping units and those of a more transient nature, such as boarding homes, motels, etc. The City’s code does not restrict single housekeeping units to those who are related, but does properly define a single housekeeping unit consistently with the law. State zoning law allows the city to establish zones of diff erent residential density, such as R-1 (single family residential), R-2 (two unit/family residential), multi-fam ily, mixed use, etc. The City’s definition of family does not touch on whether the members are disabled or not, is not based on and is not intended to discriminate against any based on different levels of ability or disability. The City has added Program 2O to review and revised the definition of single-housekeepin g unit (which is language within the definition of family) to provide greater flexibility in consideration of accommodating a variety of household situations for related and unrelated individuals living together.

303

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-32

9. Development Fees
Residential developers are subject to a variety of fees and exactions to process permits and provide necessary services and facilities as allowed by Stat e law. Development fees can be a constraint to the maintenance, improvement, and development of hous ing because the added costs for developers results in higher housing unit costs. Development fees are, however, necessary to provide planning and public services. Table 3-9 provides the planning processing fees and Table 3-10 provides the engineering fees.

Table 3-9: Planning Processing Fees
Review Process Fee
ABC License Review $500
Administrative Adjustment $3,800
Address / Address Change $200
Appeal
Planning Commission
Decision
Located within 500 ft. of
project site $1,220
Located greater than 500 ft.
of project site $3,825
Non-Planning Commission
Decision
Located within 500 ft. of
project site $690
Located greater than 500 ft.
of project site $3,825
Banner Permit $25
CC&Rs Review $1,000
Certificate of Appropriateness $7,500
Certificate of Compliance $1,500
Conditional Use Permit $7,500
Conditional Use Permit – Measure X $27,508
Density Bonus Review $12,000
Design Review Minor $1,500
Major $3,800
Designating a Cultural Resource No fee
Development Agreement Time and materials with
$20,000 min. deposit
Development Agreement
Annual Review
Planning Commission Review $1,425
City Council Review $1,875
Development Review (Staff) $1,500
Environmental Review / CEQA Total consultant contract
estimates plus 10%
Flood Zone Determination Letter $250
Gate Permits $500
General Plan Amendment Screening $5,000
General Plan Amendment $12,000
Home Occupation Permit (Planning Review) $100
Land Use Restriction $500
Lot Line Adjustment $1,500
304

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-33 Table 3-9: Planning Processing Fees
Review Process Fee
Master Plan $9,000
Master Plan Amendment
Minor Change $1,250
Minor Amendment $6,000
Major Amendment $7,500
Minor Modification $500
Minor Conditional Use Permit $3,800
Minor Design Review $1,500
Mixed-Use Development Plan Screening $5,000
Mobile Home Park
Applications
Mobile Home Park Conversion $7,500
Tenant Relocation (Staff Review) $5,000
Tenant Relocation (Third Party Review) Total consultant contract estimates plus 10%
Off-Site Hazardous Waste
Facility
Notice of Intent $5,000
Conditional Use Permit $12,000
Local Assessment Committee (Formation
and Convening) $5,000
Planned Signing Program $1,500
Plan Check
Commercial $250
Industrial $250
Residential – Minor, 4 or Less $250
Residential – Major, 5 or More $500
Landscape Plan Only $500
Pre-Application Review $1,500
Public Entertainment Permit $1,500
Public Notice (500-Foot Radius and Newspaper Publishing) $1.00 per mailing address plus publishing costs
Reasonable Accommodation No fee
Renewal/Time Extension
Director Action $500
Zoning Administrator Action $2,500
Planning Commission Action $3,800
Residential and Non-Residential Common Interest Development Conversion
$7,500 plus $115 per unit
for required building
inspection
Rezone $10,000
Second-Story Notification $500
Shared Parking Approval $500
Small Cell Facility Encroachment Permit – Planning Review $1,000 Special Use Permit $5,500
Specific Plan / Amendment $12,000
Specific Plan Conformity Review $9,000
Tentative Tract Map $6,000
Tentative Parcel Map $3,800
305

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-34 Table 3-9: Planning Processing Fees
Review Process Fee
Tree Removal Review / Tree Replacement Plan $500
Urban Master Plan Screening $10,000
Use Determination Letter $500
Variance $7,500
Zoning Verification Letter $250
Source: City of Costa Mesa Planning Processing Fee Schedule (2019)

Table 3-10: Engineering Fees
Type Fee
Drainage Fee $6,283 - $11,309 per acre + storm drain upgrade Final Map Check Fee $90/hour
Off-Site Plan Check $90/hour
Street Improvement Plan Check Fee $90/hour
Deposit/bond – Off-Site Work Twice the amount of the cost estimate of off-site work Construction Access Permit $230
Curb and Gutter Permit $365
Driveway Approach $425
Sidewalk Approach $380
Wheelchair Ramp $365
Public Right-of-Way Inspection $125/hour
Source: City of Costa Mesa Development Fees (2019)
The City of Costa Mesa assesses impact fees on a project-by-project basis, taking into account the number of units proposed in the development and the impact these units may have on the local school district, parkland, circulation in the area, an d sewage and water infrastructure. Table 3-11 provides the development impact fees as they relate to the development of housing in Costa Mesa.

Table 3-11: Development Impact Fees
Use Fee
Newport-Mesa Unified School District
Residential Developer Fees $1.84 per sq.ft. (additions under 500 sq.ft. may be exempt)
Transportation
Low Density Residential (9.41 ADT) $235 per net trip
Medium Density Residential (7.5 ADT) $235 per net trip
High Density Residential (6.85 ADT) $235 per net trip
Parkland
Single-Family Residential $13,572 per dwelling unit
Multi-Family Residential $13,829 per dwelling unit
Apartment $5,000 per dwelling unit
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
Small New Development Plan Check $420
306

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-35 Table 3-11: Development Impact Fees
Use Fee
Large New Development Plan Check $1,260
Single Family Residential
1 Bedroom $3,083
2 Bedrooms $4,029
3 bedrooms $4,973
4 Bedrooms $5,918
5+ Bedrooms $6,912
Multi-Family Residential
Studio $1,591
1 Bedroom $2,486
2 Bedrooms $3,482
3 bedrooms $4,426
4+ Bedrooms $5,371
San Juaquin Hill Trans. Corridor Agency
Single-Family Residential $4,448 per dwelling unit
Multi-Family Residential $2,595 per dwelling unit
Mesa Water District
Service Establishment Fee $20/account
Sources: City of Costa Mesa and Other Agencies Development Fees (2019) Newport-Mesa Unified School District Developer Fees
CMSD Sewer Connection Fees (2020)
The development fees associated with each project is dependent on the housing type, density, intensity of use, and location. In addition to these direct fees, the total cost of development is contingent on the project meeting the City’s policies and standards, as well as the project applicant submitting necessary documents and plans in a timely manner.

The estimated total development and impact fees for a typical single-family residential project, assuming it is not part of a subdivision and is consistent with ex isting city policies and regulations, can range from $40,069 to $45,069. Estimated total development and impa ct fees for a typical mu lti-family residential project with ten units, assuming it is consistent wi th existing city policies and regulations range from $303,008 to $308,008.

These estimates are illustrative in nature and actual costs are contingent upon unique circumstance inherent in individual development project applications. Considering th e cost of land in Costa Mesa, and the International Code Council (ICC) estimates for cost of labor and materials, the combined costs of permits and fees range from approximately 3.98 percent to 4.48 percent of the direct cost of development for a single-family residential project and 4.27 percent to 4.34 percent for a multi-family residential project.

Direct costs do not include, landscaping, connection fees, on/off-site improvements, shell construction or amenities. The percentage of development and impact fees charged by the City may be smaller if all direct and indirect costs are included.

307

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-36

10. On-/Off-Site Improvements
Site improvements in the City consist of those typically associated with development for on-site improvements (street frontage improvements, curbs, gutters, sewer/water, and sidewalks), and off-site improvements caused by project impacts (drainage, parks, traffic, schools, and sewer/water). Because residential development cannot take place without the addition of adequate infrastructure, site improvement requirements are considered a regular component of development of housing within the City and may also influence the sale or rental price of housing. The majority of cost associated with on and off- site improvements is undertaken by the City and recovered in the City’s development and impact fees.

The Costa Mesa Municipal Code requires that all abutti ng public rights-of-way must be fully improved to the full extent possible as required through the Master Plan of Highways, adopted specific plans, or applicable code sections as directed by the Public Services Department. On-site improvements may include, but are not limited to, curbs, gutters, sewers/water, sidewalks, and undergrounding utility lines for housing developments with at least five units. For example, a project may be accompanied by a condition to upgrade an existing sidewalk. Larger multi-family re sidential developments may also be conditioned to improve an intersection as a response to the change in traffic patterns. The required public improvements standards are used to ensure that the existing roadways adjacent to new residential construction maintain or provide the appropriate right-of-way. Street work permits are required to authorize construction in these areas.

On- and off-site improvements in Costa Mesa do not pose a constraint for the development of housing.

Although these improvements create an additional cost, they also ensure adequate services and infrastructure for residents and existing uses. In ad dition, the improvements are site and project specific.

A multi-family project may require the addition of a sidewalk at a specific site, while the same project may not in a different location.

Subdivision Improvements
Title 13 Chapter XI of the Costa Me sa Municipal Code establishes on- and off-site improvements required for subdivisions. The Code states that subdividers mu st agree to improve all land dedicated for streets, highways, public ways, and easements as a condition precedent to acceptance and approval of a final map.

The improvements must include grading, surfacing, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, culverts, bridges, storm drains, water mains, and service connections to the prop erty line with cutoff valves, sanitary sewers, and other structures or improvements which may be required by ordinance for the general use of the lot in the subdivision and for local neighborhood traffic and drainage needs.

Subdivision improvements may add development co sts for developers. However, these subdivision improvements are consistent with that of neighboring communities. Additionally, all improvements required add to the livability, safety, and resources of future housing units. Such requirements do not pose an unreasonable constraint to development.
308

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-37

11. uilding Codes and Enforcement
The City of Costa Mesa’s construction codes are based upon the California Code of Regulations, Title 24 that includes the California Administrative Code, Building Code, Residential Code, Electrical Code, Mechanical Code, Plumbing Code, Energy Code, Historical Building Code, Fire Code, Existing Building Code, Green Building Standards Code, and California Referenced Standards Code. These are considered to be the minimum necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the City’s residents. In compliance with State law, the California Buil ding Standards Code is revised a nd updated every three (3) years. The newest edition of the California Building Standards Code is the 2019 edition with an effective date of January 1, 2020.

Code enforcement is conducted by the City and is based on systematic enforcement in areas of concern and on a complaint basis throughout the city. The Code Enforcement Division works with property owners and renters to assist in meeting State health and safety codes. The Code Enforcement Division investigates complaints regarding violations of the Costa Mesa Municipal Codes. The City’s caseload is complaint-based, and deals with issues such as unpermitted structures , poor property maintenance, debris accumulation, and inappropriate storage of vehicles or materials with the intention and goal of working with the community to help resolve issues through voluntary compliance. On average, there are 1,292 total code enforcement cases generated per year.

12. Local Processing and Permit Procedures
The development community commonly cites the permit processing time as a contributor to the high cost of housing. Depending on the magnitude and comple xity of the development proposal, the time that elapses from application submittal to project approval may vary considerably. Factors that can affect the length of development review on a proposed project include the completeness of the development application and the responsiveness of developers to staff comments and requests for information. Approval times are substantially lengthened for projects that are not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), require rezoning or general pl an amendments, or encounter community opposition.

Applicants for all permits or reviews are recommended to request a pre-application meeting with the respective department to: confirm City requirements as they apply to the proposed project; review the City’s review process, possible project alternatives or revisions; and identify information and materials the City will require with the application, and any necess ary technical studies and in formation relating to the environmental review of the project. In April 2026, the City amended the Planning Applications chapter of the Zoning Code to streamline residential developm ent application reviews. The City replaced the subjective design review process with objective development reviews, established objective design standards for multifamily and mixed-use developmen t, and created a streamlined development review process. One-story residential projects in the R-1, R2-MD, R2-HD, and R3 zones, residential projects that qualify as “permitted by right” under State law, and projects with at least 20 percent of the residential units committed to rates affordable to lower income households are now processed through “Development Review, Streamlined.” This ministerial review was designed specifically to expedite housing approvals and facilitate affordable housing development.

309

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-38 All permit applications are first reviewed by City Staff for completeness, and discretionary applications must then receive a recommendation through a staff report prior to a review by the appropriate authority.

Various applications may also require public noticing and a public hearing. Table 3-12 identifies the appropriate review process for each planning permit application.

Table 3-12: Planning Application Review Process (March 2026) Planning Application
Public
Notice
Required
Public
Hearing
Required
Recommending
Authority
Final Review
Authority
Notice of
Decision
Streamlined Development Review No No None Planning Division No Development Review No No None Planning Division No Minor Modification Lot Line Adjustment No No None Planning Division No
Major Modification
Yes No None Zoning
Administrator Yes Minor Conditional Use Permit
Minor Design Review
Planned Signing Program
Design Review
Yes Yes Planning
Division
Planning
Commission Yes
Mobile Home Park Conversion
Common Interest Development
Conversion
Specific Plan Conformity Review
Tentative Parcel Map
Tentative Tract Map
Variance
Conditional Use Permit
Yes Yes Planning
Division
Planning
Commission (1) Yes Density Bonus
Master Plan
Master Plan – Preliminary

Rezone Yes Yes Planning
Commission City Council No
Local Register of Historic Places No No Planning
Commission (2) City Council Yes
Certificate of Appropriateness No No Planning
Commission (2)
Planning
Commission (3) No
Note:
(1) Except where noted otherwise in the Zoning Code.
(2) Or other commission/committee as designated by the City Council.

Source: City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29. Planning Application Review Process, amended March 2026.

Table 3-13 shows recent projects which received entitlement approval and the date applicants submitted for building permits. As shown, the gap between pl anning approval and buildin g submittal ranges from about one week to a little over a year. Applicants may submit for building permits directly after the appeal period ends (the appeal period is seven days). Timi ng of submittals is dependent on applicants and may vary based on unique situations unrelated to City processes. 310

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-39 Table 3-13: Residential Project Entitlements
Application
Reference
Entitlement
Approval
Building Permit
Submittal Description
DR-18-13 09/10/2018 06/04/2019
(9 months)
Development Review for the construction of a new two-
story residence with an attached two-car garage.

DR-18-07 10/02/2018
10/11/2018
(after end of
appeal period)
Development Review for the demolition of an existing
single-story residence, and the construction of a new,
two-story 2,523 sq. ft.

DR-18-12 10/04/2018 11/02/2018
(1 month)
Development Review for a new, two-story single family
residence (3,121 sq. ft.) with 4 bedrooms, 4.5 bathrooms and an attached two-car garage.

DR-18-16 01/07/2019 01/22/2019
(2 weeks)
Development Review for the demolition of an existing
attached garage structure and 2nd floor deck, to be
replaced with a new garage and 425 sq. ft. master
bedroom above. Interior work is limited to the 2nd floor master bedroom only
DR-19-03 06/26/2019
08/24/2020
(1 year 2
months) *

Development Review to construct a new two-story
residential unit (ADU) which consists of 1 bed, kitchen, family room, parlor and 2 baths. Total square footage is 1,196 sq. ft. Includes a new three car garage.
* The COVID-19 may have played a factor in delay of submitted plans. The City also had to adapt to taking in plans electronically.

Between 2017 and April 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed a total of 35 projects proposing 152 total housing units. The average entitlement processing for these projects was an average of 175 days from submittal (less than six months) to final entitlement approval with projects typically being approved in one hearing (only seven of the 35 projects had more than one hearing and none of the projects required more than two hearings). The City’s entitlement processing fees are flat rate fees, with any costs associated with project delays resulting from the costs associated wi th holding the land. All but three of the proposed projects received approval. The following details the reasoning behind the denial of the three projects (eight total units):
 PA-16-68 (March 2017): 2-unit Small Lot Subdivision project Project did not meet the Residential Design Guidelines and was not compatible with the surrounding properties due to the large mass and scale of structures, lack of open space, and the side entryway design which resulted in a project closed itself off from the neighborhood.  PA-16-20/ T-18034 (March 2018): Master Plan for 5-unit live/work development Proposed Master Plan does not meet the goals of the General Plan, 19 West Urban Plan and the Zoning Code in terms of design, site planning, integration of uses and structures and protection of the integrity of neighboring development. The project did not comply with live/work development standards such as setbacks and parking standards and the deviations from objective Code requirements requested by the applicant would have resulted in a project that was inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the General Plan and Urban Plan for the area. 311

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-40  PA-18-36/ ZA-18-40 (October 2018): Proposal does not meet minimum lot size development standards; applicant requested a Variance for ADU on an R1 property. Variance findings could not be made. ADU development standards have since been modified to remo ve minimum lot size requirements.

13. Applicable Residential Entitlement Approval Findings Indicated below are the applicable approval findings specified in the Costa Mesa Municipal Code for various residential project entitlements. In order to reduce processing time, and set clear application expectations, staff is trained to provide developers and applicants guidance for compliance with satisfying required findings. This guidance comes in the form of prelim inary application reviews, creating and distributing residential development hand-outs (such as specific Residential Design Guidelines and FAQs), planning counter discussions, providing applicants with exampl es of successful project application submittals and various other types of staff/applicant assistance. In addition, the Planning Commission is regularly trained on the importance of adequately evaluating project findings and offerings project design modifications/solutions for project approval when the Commission believes that the findings are not being satisfied. As indicated further in this Section, very few residential projects have been denied in the last five years, which is an indicator of success for the aforementioned staff and Planning Commission residential development efforts.

Conditional Use Permit Findings.
 The proposed development or use is substantially compatible with developments in the same general area and would not be materially detrimental to other properties within the area;  Granting the conditional use permit or minor conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety and general we lfare of the public or otherwise injurious to property or improvements within the immediate neighborhood; and  Granting the conditional use permit or minor conditional use permit will not allow a use, density or intensity, which is not in accordance with the ge neral plan designation and any applicable specific plan for the property.

Master Plan Findings.
 The master plan meets the broader goals of the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and the Zoning Code by exhibiting excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures and protection of the integrity of neighboring development;  As applicable to affordable multi-family housing developments, the project complies with the maximum density standards allowed pursuant to the general plan and provides affordable housing to low or very-low income households, as define d by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The project includes long-term affordability covenants in compliance with state law.

In its analysis, Costa Mesa reviewed the approval fi ndings listed above that are applicable to residential projects and found that some contai n language which may be interpreted broadly. For example, the first Master Plan finding requires that projects exhibit excellence in design. The master plan process applies to 312

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-41 specific areas of the City where flexibility in deve lopment standards is offere d through the master plan process due to unique circumstances in the area and to promote revitalization and flexibility necessary to accommodate differing types of residential development within the city. As it is a process used to modify approved development standards, the City reviews development project Master Plans to promote a high quality of life for future residents at all income levels, as well as compatibility with surrounding development. Further, no project has been denied on the basis of not being able to meet these specific findings. Nevertheless, the City understands that approval findings should be clear to applicants and strives to promote quality development within the community. In an effort to further clarify this process, The City included Program 3S, committing to review and revise required findings. To implement this program, the City has approved amendments to the permit review process, including replacing the design review process with more streamlined review pathways. These amendments allow more projects to be reviewed at the staff level, reduce subjectivity, and provide greater clarity and certainty in the development review process.

C. Infrastructure Constraints
Another factor that may constrain new residential construction is th e requirement and cost to provide adequate infrastructure (major and local streets; water and sewer lines; and street lighting) needed to serve new residential development. In most cases, where new infrastructure is required, it is funded by the developer and then dedicated to the City, which is then responsible for its maintenance. Because the cost of these facilities is generally borne by developers, it increases the cost of new construction, with much of that increased cost often “passed on” as part of home rental or sales rates.

1. Water Supply
The Mesa Water District is responsible for providing safe, local, and reliable water to 110,000 customers in Costa Mesa, as well as some parts of Newport Beach and unincorporated areas of Orange County. Mesa Water pumps water from Orange County’s groundwate r basin, which is located beneath north-central Orange County between Irvine and the Los Angeles County border and from Yorba Linda to the Pacific Ocean. The groundwater basin derives its water from the Santa Ana River and imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Mesa Water does not depend on other water sources, however, water from Northern California and the Colorado River can be imported as necessary.

In addition to Mesa Water District, a small portion of the City to the east, south of the John Wayne Airport, receives its water from the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). Approximately 50 percent of the IRWD water supply is derived from the Orange County Gr oundwater Basin. The remaining amount comes from recycled water (23 percent) and potable water imported from MWD (27 percent).

2. Water Production
The independent special district pumps, treats, and de livers about 5 billion gallons of drinking water to homes and businesses per year. The system includes 317 miles of pipelin e, 7 wells, 2 reservoirs and the 313

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-42 Mesa Water Reliability Facility (MWRF/ “Murph”). The MWRF features 2 deep-water wells, a million-gallon reservoir and nanofiltration technology for water treatment. 1

3. Water Quality
Mesa Water provides safe, drinking water to the co mmunity and is considered the most efficient water provider of the 10 Orange County water districts. Th e water is naturally filtra ted through sand and gravel as the Orange County groundwater basin is replenishe d from the Santa Ana River. Before it enters the distribution system, the water is treated and disinfec ted with chloramines, which include chlorine and ammonia. In addition to the gro undwater, Mesa Water also uses source water from the MWRF, which is safe to drink prior to treatment but has an amber tint. Nanofiltration technology is used to remove the tint prior to adding it to the water supply. 1
In the event of an emergency, Mesa Water would be provided with water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), which sources its water from the State Water Project and the Colorado River.

The imported water is filtered at Metropolitan’s Diemer and Weymouth Filtration Plants where the water is also disinfected with chloramines.

According to Mesa Water District and the City of Costa Mesa Conservation Element, access to water does pose a constraint to the development of housing in the City. Mesa Water District has adopted and regularly updates an Urban Water Management Plan in order to ensure an adequate supply of water for the following 5 years, and the District continuously maintains the reservoir, water mains, and wells. Through continued community outreach and water conservation strategies, the City and the District are able to conserve more water than before – customers have reduced their water usage by 20 percent since 2015

2. 4. Wastewater
Wastewater includes used water, so lids, storm water, surface water, groundwater infiltration, and used water from industrial processes, which flows to a trea tment plant. Costa Mesa Sanitary District (CMSD) oversees 224.2 miles of gravity sewer mains and, as of 2019, a total of 47,471 connections to single-family residences, multi-family residences, commercial pr operties, and industrial properties. The District continuously cleans the collection system and uses closed circuit televising (CCTV) to identify problems and ensure quick maintenance. Twenty (20) sewer pumps are located throug hout the collection system to maintain gravity flow and continuously report data to the headquarters. Standby generators and bypass pumps are also used in case of emergency. Wastewater collected by CMSD is se nt to and treated at the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD)3.

Wastewater does not pose a constraint on the deve lopment of housing in the City. Given the sufficient infrastructure, access to services, and continuous maintenance, CMSD is confident it can continue to serve

1 Mesa Water District
2 Mesa Water District
3 Costa Mesa Sanitary District
314

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-43 the Costa Mesa community through the addition of more housing. Furthermore, CMSD has developed a Sewer Management Plan which ensures the District avoids sewage spills and maintains adequate facilities.

5. Fire and Emergency Services
The City of Costa Mesa's Fire & Rescue Department aims to protect life, property, and the environment using highly trained professionals committed to service excellence. Across six fire stations and City Hall, the Department has 94 full-time employees , 84 sworn positions, ten non-swor n positions, and the equivalent of one full-time position with part-time staff to provide 24-hour protection and response to the community's residents, businesses, and visitors. The Costa Mesa Fire & Re scue Department is an "all-risk" and “all-hazard” organization.

Fire Administration Division
The Fire Administration Division provides direction for strategic, operational, and emergency planning through the following:
 Establish policies and procedures;
 Coordinate internal functions of all divisions, programs, and external functions with other City departments and community organizations;
 Develop and manage the budget;
 Coordinate ordering and purchasing;
 Manage the Department's human resources;
 Coordinate additional functions and performs du ties as delegated by the City Manager or the City Council;
 Continue to manage and safeguard the City’s ri ghts for local control, including the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system, as expressly guaranteed by the Health & Safety Code Section 1797.201.

Operations Division
This Division manages Fire, Rescue, and Emergency Me dical Services and maintains constant readiness to answer calls for assistance. The Divi sion is tasked with responding to fire, rescue, and environmental emergencies that threaten life, health, and property. The Division also provides fire cause and origin determinations, life and safety inspections, and educational programs. To support these services, the Division offers the following services: emergency planning, communications, training and education, equipment maintenance and repair, supplies, records, and quality control.

Community Risk Reduction Division
This Division works to prevent and reduce risks to the community by enforcing protections standards and fire and life safety codes through fire prevention, planning, and code enforcement. The Department achieves such goals by doing the following:
 Reviewing building construction plans;
 Conducting building construction and business inspections;  Investigating citizen complaints;
315

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-44  Monitoring the City's hazardous materials disclosure program as Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) liaison to the Orange County Environmental Health Division;  Providing training to department personnel regarding fire and life safety codes; and  Assisting professional trades with technical fire code requirements and department public education efforts.

Community risk reduction and fire prevention strategies are critical components for new development projects and throughout the life of the building. During the entitlement and pre-construction phases of a new building or tenant improvement project, the CRR team applies the California Fire Code (CFC) and locally adopted amendments to building and fire system pl an review to ensure conformance to state and international standards. Once plans are reviewed and approved and building permits are issued, Fire Protection Specialists perform technical inspections and acceptance tests of fire protection systems and building construction for Fire & Life Safety compliance . After the Certificate of Occupancy is issued for a new building or tenant improvement, Annual Operational Fire Permits are issued based on the hazard of the use, and Company Inspections are conducted to complete emergency response pre-planning operations and verify ongoing compliance with the CFC.

Fire and Emergency Services provide sufficient services which would not cause a strain on the Department's ability to respond to community emergencies. The City recognizes in its General Plan Safety Element that additional emergency services and funding will be required as the population ages and additional residents and employees come to the City; however, this is addressed and maintained in the Safety Element's goals and policies. The existing six facilities are spread out throughout the City in such a way to provide the fastest service possible; the Department aims to respond to at least 80 percent of emergency calls within 5 minutes. In addition, no part of Costa Mesa lies within a State Responsibility Area (SRA), which indicates a fire hazard area, nor the very High Fire Severity Zone

4. 6. Police Services
The Police Department is tasked with protecting life and property while preserving the peace. As of 2020, the department has 215 full-time positions, of which 138 are sworn and 77 are professional staff. Full-time staffing is composed of 13 management positions, 32 supervisory, and 170 line-l evel positions. Part-time staffing consists of 21.21 full-time equivalents. The department is comprised of three divisions and each division is further split into bureaus and units.

The three divisions are as follows:
 Police Administration
 Police Field Operations
 Police Support Services
Administration Division
The Administration Division is responsible for the de partment's overall direction and planning with input from other divisions; provides advice to the city manager and the City Council on public safety issues;

4 Costa Mesa Safety Element
316

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-45 manages the department budget and financial planni ng; oversees the departme nt's Volunteer Program and Citizens' Academy through the Crime Prevention Unit; maintains and updates the department's policy and procedures manual; coordinates and disseminates information to the media; provides internal investigation services through the Pr ofessional Standards Unit; and supervises training and recruitment.

Administration is comprised of the following bureaus and units:
 Professional Standards
 Public Affairs & Crime Prevention
 Training & Recruitment
 The Office of Emergency Management
(OEM)

Field Operations Division
The Field Operations Division provides public sa fety services through both geographic-based and community-oriented policing. In Ja nuary 2008, the Costa Mesa Police Department (CMPD) implemented geographic-based policing, which divided the City into two areas, based upon calls for service and geographical boundaries. Each area is overseen by a lieutenant who is the designated area commander for either Area 1 or Area 2. The area commanders are responsible for the delivery of police services to the communities within the designated geographical area. Field Operations is comprised of three bureaus:
 Patrol Services
 Traffic Safety
 Field Operations Administration
Within the three bureaus, there are various specialized units that provide specific police services. They include Patrol, Traffic Safety, Community Policing Unit, South Coast Plaza Detail, K9 Unit, Reserve Program and Park Rangers.

Support Services Division
The Support Services Division is responsible for specialized investigations and provides essential logistical support services to the Police Department. It is responsible for computer-related activities associated with the 24-hour operation of the City’s public safety computer system; and responsible for the research and development of numerous programs, including safety equipment, new laws and regulations, and policy development. Support Services is comprised of the following bureaus:
 Investigative Services Bur
 Records and Evidence
 Telecommunications

The City contracts with G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. for jail services and the City of Huntington Beach for airborne law enforcement services.

D. Environmental Constraints
The City of Costa Mesa contains a variety of natu ral landscapes and environmental features, which may cause constraints to the development of housing. The City is located approximately one mile from the Pacific Ocean, directly alongside the Santa Ana River, and atop an uplifted mesa. As with most of California 317

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-46 cities, the City of Costa Mesa sits along major fault lines. In total, the City is susceptible to a variety of environmental hazards that could affect housing, in cluding fires, flooding, an d geological and seismic hazards. However, the City has analyzed all housing el ement sites including sites identified as part of the initial housing element submittal and new sites added as part of this current 2026 amendment, and found that no known environmental or other conditions pose a constraint to or preclude development of housing on identified sites during the planning period.

1. Geologic and Seismic Hazards
According to the Costa Mesa Safety Element of the General Plan, geologic risks are defined as those associated with geological hazards such as seismically induced surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, tsunamis, seiches and dam failure, and slope instability leading to mudslides, landslides, and subsidence. The specific geological hazards that may affect the development of housing the City are detail below.

2. Mineral Resources
The City is located over portions of the West Newport Oil Field, particularly on the west side. The Safety Element of the General Plan identifies 15 active oil wells located west of Irvine Avenue, east of the City boundary with Huntington Beach, north of 16
th Street, and south of Baker Street. Another 132 oil wells exist in the City; however, they are either plugged and abandoned, idle, or buried.

In addition to oil, peat deposits have been found adjacent to the Santa Ana River. While the quantity does not justify extraction, it is an unstable base for construction and requires removal prior to development.

This may create a constraint to the development of ho using as it creates additional costs to remove the peat deposits.

3. Seismic Hazards
The City of Costa Mesa is located near several active earthquake faults such as the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone and the San Joaquin Hills Fault Zone, which would prove the most damaging to the City in the event of an earthquake. Other faults such as the San Andreas, Whittier, Elsinore, Palos Verdes, and Puente Hills Faults are located further away and would pote ntially cause less direct damage to the City’s infrastructure, depending on the magnitude of the quake. The Safety Element notes indirect impact to the City resulting from a severe quake of one of these faults, particularly the San Andreas Fault, includes the need to provide aid, an infusion of households seeking housing, and mass care and sheltering services.

The General Plan Safety Element defines ground shaking as resulting from seismic activity which may be intensified depending on the recorded magnitude a nd duration of the quake, proximity to the ruptured fault, and the presence of deeper soft soils below the ground surface. The Newport-Inglewood Fault runs directly through the City; the larges t quake from this fault was in 1933 at a recorded magnitude of 6.3 on the Richter scale. The San Joaquin Hills Fault is located near Huntington Beach and it is estimated a rupture of this blind thrust fault could result in a magnitude 7.3 quake. The third most likely seismic hazard to the City of Costa Mesa is from the San Andreas Fault, which is expected to produce a magnitude 6.8 to 8 quake in the near future. While the fault is located approximately 48 miles from the City, a quake from the fault 318

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-47 may result in simultaneous ruptures of nearby faults. The Safety Element notes a major earthquake occurs on this zone approximately every 145 years; 2002 marked 145 years since the last major rupture.

Given the extent of seismically active areas in California, any new residential structures will face potential hazards. The location of the City of Costa Mesa on relatively flat land improves enable it to provide a safer location for development in comparison to neighbo ring cities with steep slopes or along the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, seismic activity in Costa Mesa does not create a burden or constraint to the development of housing.

4. Flood Hazards
The City of Costa Mesa and surrounding areas are, like most of Southern California, subject to unpredictable seasonal rainfall, and every few years the region is subjected to periods of intense and sustained precipitation that result in flooding. Fl ooding can be a destructive natural hazard and is a recurring event. A flood is any relatively high streamfl ow overtopping the natural or artificial banks in any reach of a stream. The City of Costa Mesa’s Safety Element Identifies 100-year and 500-year flood zones in the City. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood zones are geographic areas that the FEMA has defined according to varying levels of flood risk. Each zone reflects the severity or type of flooding in the area.5 The 100-year flood zone are areas with a one percent annual chance of flooding, the 500-year flood zones are areas with a 0.2 percent annual chance of flooding. The City’s Safety Element cites 100- year floods as potentially having low impacts on the City with minimal flooding in the channels adjacent to Talbert Nature Preserve. A 500-year flood would pose flooding dang ers to the northern and western boundaries of the City.

With increased development, there is also an increase in impervious surfaces, such as asphalt. Water that used to be absorbed into the ground becomes runoff to downstream areas. However, various flood control measures help mitigate flood damage in the City, including reservoirs in the San Joaquin Hills and Santa Ana Mountain foothills, and channel alterations for the Santa Ana River. These structures help regulate flow in the Santa Ana River, San Diego Creek, and smaller stre ams and hold back some of the flow during intense rainfall period that could otherwise overwhelm the storm drain system in Costa Mesa.

Figure 3-2 illustrates the flood zones within the City of Costa Mesa in relation to the proposed sites selected for future housing. There are two housing sites that are adjacent to a 100-year flood zone channel running between the two sites. The majority of the sites are located with in the 500-year flood zone. The 500-year flood zone is considered an area of minimal floo d hazard and does not present a constraint on the development of housing as the sites are located within an existing developed context. Additionally, all housing sites including new sites identified as part of the 2026 amendment are serviced by the City’s emergency services.

5 FEMA Flood Zone Designations, Natural resources Conservation Service – Field Office Technical Guides 319

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-48 Figure 3-2: Flood Zones and Identified Sites Map

Sources: FEMA, Flood Zones SCAG, published by Southern California Association of Governments, 2019, accessed December 2021.

320

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-49

5. Dam Inundation
Costa Mesa and numerous other Orange County cities are protected from flooding by both the Santiago Creek Dam and the Prado Dam. The Santiago Creek Dam serves to protect from flooding of the Irvine Lake, approximately 15 miles from the City. While it historically provided irrigation for agriculture, the water is now protected within the reservoir and downstream flow only occurs from seepage and storm water. The Prado Dam is located approximately 30 miles from the City and is continuously improved and maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Recent improvements to the dam have added 190 years of protection.

However, should failure occur to either of the dams , flooding would likely occur in the northern and western portions of the City. Such a flood would caus e varying degrees of damage to structures north of the San Diego Freeway (I-405) and up to approximately one-mile east of the Santa Ana River. The threat of flooding in these areas due to dam failure is a constraint on the development of housing.

6. Sea Level Rise
Sea level rise is an important consequence of anthropogenic climate change – resulting from human activity – to coastal communities. Sea level rise may affect Costa Mesa through flooding in low-lying areas, water infiltration into sanitary sewer and storm drain systems, and earthqua ke-induced tsunami flooding. The City’s location along the Santa Ana River places it at risk of these impacts; the City’s Safety Element identifies areas to the west of the City, near Talbert Regional Park and Fairview Park, that will become inundated by unimpeded Pacific coastal flooding under a scenario of 100-year flood with a 55-inch (1.4 meters) sea level rise. A 100-year flood risk does not pose significant risk to developments in the City and would likely result in flooding within the channels ad jacent to the Talbert Nature Preser ve; however, a 500-year flood event would cause significant flooding in the northern and west regions of the City and therefore poses a minimal constraint on housing development. The potential hazard is minimal as the chances of a 500-year floor occurring each year is 0.2 percent.

7. Fire Hazards
The Costa Mesa Safety Element determines the fire hazard severity of an area by the amount and type of vegetation, slope gradient, and weather. Wildfires are particularly prone during late summer and early fall, and during Santa Ana wind events. The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) does not list any area within Costa Mesa as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The most likely fire risk within the City comes from urban and grassland fires in open spaces, such as Talbert Regional Park. A direct threat from fire is not a significant risk for housing development in Costa Mesa; poor air quality from local and State fires, however, may pose significant health risks to the Costa Mesa population.

Figure 3-3 maps the fire hazard severity zones identified within the City in relation to the proposed sites for future housing. Based on the map there are no fire hazard severity zones within the City of Costa Mesa.

As there are no fire hazard severity zones identified within the City, fire is not considered a major hazard or constraint to the development of housing.

321

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-50 Figure 3-3: Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Proposed Sites

Source: VHFHSV in LRA, Cal Fire, November 2011.
322

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-51 E. Affirmatively Furtheri ng Fair Housing (AFFH)
Beginning January 1, 2019, AB 686 esta blished new requirements for all Ca lifornia jurisdictions to ensure that local laws, programs, and activities affirmatively further fair housing. All Housing Elements due on or after January 1, 2021, must contain an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) consistent with the core elements of the analysis required by the federal Affirmatively Further Fair Housing Final Rule of July 16, 2015.

Fair housing is a condition in which individuals of similar income levels in the same housing market have like ranges of choice available to them regardless of race, color, ancestry, national origin, age, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, source of income, sexual orientation, or any other arbitrary factor.

Under State law, affirmatively furt her fair housing means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. These characteristics can include, but are not limited to race, religion, sec, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familiar status, or disability.

The Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (Impediments Analysis), prepared for the County of Orange, examines local housing conditions, economics, policies, and practices in order to ensure that housing choices and opportunities for all resident s are available in an environment free from discrimination. The (Impediments Analysis) assembles fair housing information, identifies any existing impediments that limit housing choice, and proposes actions to mitigate those impediments. The Regional (Impediments Analysis) examines fair housing issues in the County’s unincorporated areas and cooperating cities from 2020 to 2024, it includes additional fair housing issues and data for the City of Costa Mesa.

1. Needs Assessment
The (Impediments Analysis) contains a Countywide analysis of demographic, housing, and specifically fair housing issues in the City of Costa Mesa. The City's demographic and income profile, household and housing characteristics, housing cost and availability, and special needs populations were discussed in the previous Chapter 2: Community Profile.

Analysis of Impediments Outreach FY 2019-2024
As a part of the Regional Analysis for the County, a series of outreach workshops and events were hosted, including the following:
 Outreach by the Lawyers’ Committee to tena nts, landlords, homeowners, fair housing organizations, civil rights and advocacy organizations, legal services provers, social services providers, housing developers, and industry groups;
 Stakeholder and focus group meetings organized by the Lawyers’ Committee in Mission Viejo, Westminster/Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Fullerton;
 Community meetings across Orange County with additional outreach to members of protected classes, including the Latino and Vietnamese communities; and  Virtual public hearings and City Council meetings.
323

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-52 Of the fair housing impediments listed in the Region al AI, the City of Costa Mesa was identified as experiencing the following local contributing factors as impediments to fair housing choice:
 Housing Discrimination
 Racial and Ethnic Segregation
 Unfair Lending
 Overcrowding
Local contributing factors are detailed further below in Section E.4 “Assessment of Contributing Factors to Fair Housing.”
Fair Housing Issues
Within the legal framework of federal and state laws and based on the guidance provided by the HUD Fair Housing Planning Guide, impediments to fair housing choice can be defined as:
 Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of age, race, color, ancestry, national origin, age, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, source of income, sexual orientation, or any other arbitrary factor which restrict housing choices or the availability of housing choices; or  Any actions, omissions, or decisions which have the effect of restricting housing choices or the availability of housing choices on the basis of age, race, color, ancestry, national origin, age, religion, sex, disability, marital st atus, familial status, source of in come, sexual orientation, or any other arbitrary factor.

As a part of the 2019-2024 AI, the County identified fair housing impediments including the following:
 Housing Discrimination  Racial and Ethnic Segregation  Reasonable Accommodations  Unfair Lending
 Density Bonus Incentive  Discriminatory Advertising
 Zoning  Cost Burden
 Affordable Homeownership  Accessibility
Fair Housing Laws
All jurisdictions across California are subject to a number of fair housing laws. The following section details how the City of Costa Mesa maintains compliance with the listed laws. More specific laws are detailed throughout this Chapter 3 (such as Senate Bill 330 and Assembly Bill 686), and programs in the Housing Plan specify which Legislature is addressed.
 California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA): The FEHA provides employees with protection from discrimination, retaliation, and harassment in employment, as well as protects tenants or homeowners from discrimination from landlords, real estate agents, home sellers, builders, and mortgage lenders. The City reviews fair housing complaints and lending patterns – details on both are provided within this Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing section. The City also implements and updates programs to promote fair and equal access to housing. Lastly, the City continues to review standards and requirements that may constrain equal access to housing and the development of affordable housing.
 Government Code Section 65008: This Legislature protects lower- and moderate-income households and persons experiencing homelessness from discrimination that inhibits affordable 324

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-53 units and emergency shelters. The following programs address the development of affordable units and emergency shelters: Programs 2B, 2J, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4E, and 4F.  Government Code Section 8899.50: This Legislature establishes the requirement for jurisdictions to administer programs and activities that a ffirmatively further fair housing. Program 4A establishes actions the City will commit to throughout the 6th Planning Cycle to affirmatively further fair housing.
 Government Code Section 11135: This legislation protects residents of the State of California from discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, ethnic group identification, age, mental disability, physical disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation. Through the Housing Element, the City assesses potential constraints that inhibit all residents from acce ssing housing and resources. The Housing Plan contains a number of programs that provide for greater access to a variety of housing types for all income levels, promotion of information and resources to special needs groups, and continued review of City permits and processing for streamlining and removal of constraints.  Government Code Section 65863 (No-Net-Loss Law): This Legislature establishes guidance on No- Net-Loss requirements. Jurisdictions are required to maintain adequate sites to accommodate its RHNA at each income category throughout the entirety of the Planning Cycle. Program 3A is included to address the requirements of this Legislature.  Density Bonus Law: The City has an adopted Density Bonus Ordinance. Program 2I is included in the Housing Plan to ensure the Ordinance main tains compliance with State Density Bonus Law.

Chapter 3.B.2 provides details on incentives and concessions granted to qualifying projects through the Density Bonus Ordinance.
 Housing Element Law: All California jurisdictions are required to adequately plan for the needs of their current and future population. All policies and programs included in the Housing Plan are included to maintain compliance with all California housing laws and to comply with the California State Department of Housing and Community Development’s requirements for Housing Elements.

Lending Patterns
Availability of financing affects a person’s ability to purchase or improve a home. The analysis of the lending patterns and practices within a community or city help to identify persons who regularly experience disproportionate roadblocks to home ownership. Table 3-14 below identifies the lending patterns by race and ethnicity, as well as income category for the Anaheim-Santa Ana-Irvine MSA. According to the data, applicant in the highest income category were more likely to have a loan approved, compared to applicants in the lower income categories where approval rate s were consistently under 55 percent. Additionally, within each income category, applicants who identified as White consistently had higher rates of approval than applicant of color. Overall, applicants who identified as Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Black/African American had the lowest rates of loan approval in all income categories.

325

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-54 Table 3-14: Disposition of Loan Applications by Race/Ethnicity– Anaheim-Santa Ana-Irvine MSA Applications by Race/Ethnicity Percent
Approved
Percent
Denied
Percent
Other
Total
(Count)
LESS THAN 50% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 26.2% 52.3% 23.1% 65
Asian 33.9% 42.5% 26.7% 1,382
Black or African American 41.6% 33.7% 25.8% 89
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 25.0% 44.2% 30.8% 52 White 45.6% 31.2% 26.1% 5,240
Hispanic or Latino 37.9% 38.2% 26.8% 1,566
50-79% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 38.1% 34.0% 29.9% 97
Asian 53.3% 25.3% 29.4% 3,153
Black or African American 43.4% 19.1% 41.4% 152
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 49.4% 39.8% 16.9% 83 White 54.5% 23.3% 27.6% 8,677
Hispanic or Latino 47.6% 27.7% 29.3% 3,245
80-99% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 51.4% 25.7% 31.4% 35
Asian 59.5% 19.2% 29.3% 1,495
Black or African American 52.9% 22.1% 30.9% 68
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 43.5% 13.0% 43.5% 23 White 61.9% 17.2% 26.1% 3,873
Hispanic or Latino 54.0% 21.4% 29.1% 1,347
100-119% OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 48.9% 22.7% 29.5% 88
Asian 62.3% 15.6% 28.8% 4,820
Black or African American 55.6% 20.1% 28.6% 234
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 49.4% 27.6% 31.0% 87 White 66.2% 13.8% 25.1% 12,607
Hispanic or Latino 60.8% 16.4% 26.8% 3,398
120% OR MORE OF MSA/MD MEDIAN
American Indian and Alaska Native 59.2% 13.0% 32.0% 169 Asian 62.8% 12.9% 29.0% 17,800
Black or African American 57.7% 17.3% 27.2% 624
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 64.2% 11.4% 26.8% 254 White 68.3% 11.3% 24.9% 49,811
Hispanic or Latino 64.6% 13.3% 26.7% 6,095
Source: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Disposition of loan applications, by Ethnicity/Race of applicant, 2019.

326

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-55 Hate Crimes
Hate crimes are violent acts against people, property, or organizations because of the group to which they belong or identify with. The Federal Fair Housing Act makes it illegal to threaten, harass, intimidate, or act violently toward a person who has exercised their right to free housing choice. In Orange County, there were a total of 9 hate crimes reported in 2019. Table 3-15 below identifies the reported hate crimes in Costa Mesa between 2014 and 2019. Data for hate crimes reported in Costa Mesa was not available by bias for the years 2014-2016 and 2018. However, in 2017 and 2019 a total of 5 hate crimes were reported in the City, all of which were motivated by race, ethnicity, or ancestry.

Table 3-15: Reported Hate Crimes by Bias Motivation for City of Costa Mesa (2014-2019) Year Race/Ethnicity/
Ancestry Religion Sexual
Orientation Disability Gender Gender
Identity Total
2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0
2015 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0
2016 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0
2017 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
2018 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0
2019 3 0 0 0 0 0 3
2020 7 0 1 0 0 0 8
Total 12 0 1 0 0 0 13
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reporting. Hate Crime Statistics Report, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019.

Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
The City of Costa Mesa utilizes the Fair Housing Fo undation. The Fair Housing Foundation was formed in 1964 to support and promote freedom of residence through education, advocacy, and litigation, to ensure that all persons have the opportunity to secure safe and decent housing that they desire and can afford.

The Fair Housing Foundation is dedicated to eliminat ing discrimination in housing and promoting equal access to housing choices for everyone.

The City of Costa Mesa has identified the following goals regarding fair housing in collaboration with the Fair Housing Foundation:
 Provide fair housing education and informat ion to apartment managers and homeowner associations on why denial of reasonable modifications/accommodations is unlawful.  Conduct multi-faceted fair housing outreach to tena nts, landlords, property owners, realtors, and property management companies. Methods of outreach may include workshops, informational booths, presentations to community groups, an d distribution of multi-lingual fair housing literature.

There are no current fair housing lawsuits within Costa Mesa. The City analyzed data from the Costa Mesa Fair Housing Action Plan from the 2016/2017 repo rting period to 2020/2021 and found the following relating to outreach and engagement, property management trainings, fair housing issues, and fair housing allegations as well as how they were resolved:

327

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-56 Fair Housing Action Plan 2016/2017 Summary:
 The Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) conducted 2 tenant & 2 landlord workshops.  FHF conducted 2 certificate property managers training.  FHF provided fair housing related serves to 204 unduplicated households: 77.5% of calls came from tenants, 6.4% from property owners & 5.4% from landlords/managers.  FHF addressed 230 housing issues; top 3 issues were habitability (21%), notices (27%) & lease terms & rent increase (tied at 8% each).
 18 fair housing allegations were received by FHF regarding mental & physical disability (14) familial status (3), race (2) & gender (1). 11 allegations were resolved via counseling & 7 cases opened; no evidence was found to sustain 4 allegation, 1 investigation was inconclusive, 1 allegation was sustained & 1 case is pending.
 FHF provided over 4,600 pieces of fair housing literature in English, Spanish and Vietnamese.

Fair Housing Action Plan 2017/2018 Summary:
 The Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) conducted 2 tenant & 2 landlord workshops.  FHF conducted 2 certificate property managers training.  FHF provided fair housing related serves to 206 unduplicated households: 82.5% of calls came from tenants, 4.9% from property owners & 5.8% from landlords/managers.  FHF addressed 241 housing issues; top 3 issues were notices (22%) habita bility (20%) & deposits (12.5%).
 12 fair housing allegations were received by FHF regarding mental & physical disability (10) familial status (1) & race (1). 7 allegations were resolved via counseling & 5 cases opened; no evidence was found to sustain 2 allegations 1 investigation was inconclusive & 1 case is pending.  FHF provided over 3,700 pieces of fair housing literature in English, Spanish and Vietnamese.

Fair Housing Action Plan 2018/2019 Summary:
 The Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) conducted 1 tenant & 1 landlord workshop.  FHF conducted 1 certificate property managers training.  FHF provided fair housing related serves to 178 unduplicated households: 86.0% of calls came from tenants, 2.8% from property owners & 3.9% from landlords/managers.  FHF addressed 198 housing issues; top 3 issues were habitability (27%), notices (21%) & deposits (9%).  19 fair housing allegations were received by FHF regarding mental & physical disability (14), gender (1), race (2), national origin (1), & sexual orientation (1). 16 allegations were resolved via counseling & 3 cases opened; no evidence was found to sustai n 1 allegation. Allegations were sustained in 2 cases and resolved through conciliation and educ ation. FHF provided over 1,600 pieces of fair housing literature in English, Spanish and Vietnamese.

Fair Housing Action Plan 2019/2020 Summary:
 The Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) conducted 1 Fair Housing Workshop.  FHF provided fair housing related serves to 153 unduplicated households: 91.5% of calls came from tenants, 3.2% from property owners & .6% from landlords/managers.  FHF addressed 167 housing issues; to p 3 issues were habitability (22.1%), notices (14.3%) & lease terms (8.9%).
328

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-57  14 fair housing allegations were received by FHF regarding me ntal & physical disability (12), national origin (1), & familial status (1). 11 alle gations were resolved vi a counseling & 3 cases opened; no evidence was found to sustain 1 allega tion. Allegations were sustained in 2 cases and resolved through conciliation and education.
 FHF provided over 2,803 pieces of fair housing literature in English, Spanish and Vietnamese.

Fair Housing Action Plan 2020/2021 Summary:
 The Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) conducted 5 Fair Housing Workshop.  FHF provided fair housing related serves to 173 unduplicated households: 82.6% of calls came from tenants, 1.7% from property owners & 7.5% from landlords/managers.  FHF addressed 183 housing issues; top 3 issues were habitability (15.3%), eviction (14.7%) & notices (10.9%).
 21 fair housing allegations were received by FH F regarding mental & physi cal disability (10), Age (1), Gender (1), Martial Status (1), national origin (2), familial status (1), Race (4), Source of Income (1). 13 allegations were resolved via counseling & 8 cases opened; no evidence was found to sustain 4 allegations. Allegations were in conclusive in 1 case, allegations were sustained in 3 cases and resolved through conciliation.
 FHF provided over 2,812 pieces of fair housing literature in English, Spanish and Vietnamese.

As noted, the City tracks fair housing cases reported as well as how they were resolved (if resolved) annually through completion of the City of Costa Mesa Fair Housing Action Plan. In addition, as the City updates its Specific Plans, additional outreach will occur to collect feedback from the community and identify rehabilitation and enforcement needs and priorities.

2. Analysis of Federal, State, and Local Data and Local Knowledge Summary of Local Data
As a part of the Housing Element Update for 2021-2029, the City of Costa Mesa implemented a thorough and expansive outreach program. The program intende d to gather a deeper understanding of housing concerns and issues, challenges, and opportunities to housing, and gain insight and feedback from residents and the community on housing in Costa Me sa. As a part of the outreach program, the City hosted the following:
 Virtual townhall community meeting #1 – November 18, 2020  Online community survey – November 19, 2020
 Subject matter expert meetings – February 9-11, 2021
 District specific meetings – February 18 and 18, 2021  Targeted focus group meetings – throughout the update 202-2021  Virtual townhall community meeting #2 – September 2, 2021  In-person community open house – June 3, 2026
 Stakeholder focused discussions – June 10, 2026
 NWWAB in-person community open houses/workshops (4) in summer 2025  NWWAB Stakeholder focused discussions (3) in fall 2025  NWWAB in-person community workshops (2) in March 2026  NWWAB virtual community workshop-March 5, 2026
 NWWAB Stakeholder focused discussions (2) in March 2026 329

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-58  NWWAB Open House- June 3, 2026
 NWWAB Stakeholder focused discussions (2) in June 2026

During the outreach program the City gathered input and ideas from the public. Key feedback or concerns related to fair housing, which were identified during engagement, include the following:
 Accessory Units should be affordable to lower income households  The City needs more housing
 There should be more bike lanes to support active transportation  Housing should be focused on increasing quality of life for residents  More education about affordable housing to increase public awareness and public opinion  Need supportive services along with housing
 Overcrowding often occurs and there need to be opportunity for multigenerational living  Senior housing should be prioritized, followed by housing for persons with disabilities  More affordable housing near transit and jobs
 Overall need for more affordable housing for residents of Costa Mesa, both for renters and owners In addition to the fair housing a nd housing accessibility related concer ns, a large percentage of residents were not interested in increasing the housing stock in Costa Mesa during the initial outreach for the Housing Element. At this time, a number of residents identified a desire and interest to keep Costa Mesa lower density for single-family homes, a disinterest in ADUs and objections to growth in affordable housing stock.

However, the Neighborhoods Where We All Belong (NWWAB) efforts to rezone Housing Element sites and create additional housing opportunities in the City heard more diverse and varying feedback. While a number of residents expressed overall concern regard ing parking and traffic from increased density and housing, there was a significant amount of voiced support for new housing opportunities across the City and opportunities for walkable, mixed-use environments that come with new and more dense housing.

Historical Impediments to Local Housing Choices and Mobility Local impediments to housing choices and mobility have been considered as a part of the Housing Element Update for 2021-2029.
 Land Use and Zoning Provisions: The City’s previous land use and zoning provisions include certain regulations that are considered restrictive in regard to increasing the development of housing units in the City. The City’s parking standards for multi-family development requires parking relating to “tenant covered parking,” “tenant open parking” and “guest parking,” and in certain bedroom configurations, the City’s multi-family parking standards require up to four parking spaces per unit. To address this, Program 2M was included and completed to reduce parking requirements for all multifamily developments and removing minimum parking requ ired for residential development on Housing Element sites. The City’s adopted Specific Plans and overlays include density standards that, if increased, would allow for a broader range of housing choices and support housing opportunities closer to jobs, services, and transit. Housing Programs 3C and 3D were included to amend the City’s specific plans and overlays to increase residential densities and ensure the City can accommodate its RHNA. To implement these programs, the City has developed amendments to the Mixed-Use Overlay District ( M U O D ) t o i n c r e a s e a l l o w a b l e r esidential densities for Housing El ement sites and Measure K sites, 330

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-59 including sites beyond those needed to accommo date the RHNA. The MUOD allows residential densities ranging from 30 to 90 dwelling units per acre, expands opportuni ties for mixed-use and residential development in commercial and employment areas, and establishes a more comprehensive regulatory framework to facilitate housing production. This effort not only supports the City’s RHNA strategy, but also advances broader housing choices by creating additional residential capacity beyond the Housing Element inventory and throughout the City.
 Also, in 2016, residents of Costa Mesa voted to pass Measure Y: An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects. One of the provisions of this measure requires voter approval for changes in zoning and/or land use that would increase housing within an area by 40 or more residential units. Such a vote may discourage developers fr om pursuing housing development projects and particularly affordable housing pr ojects (the Housing Element includes Program 3G to take steps to identify and address specific ways in which the Ci ty-wide vote process functions as a constraint to housing compliance, the City’s housing goals, and other shared community goals). In 2022, Costa Mesa voters approved Measure K, which authorized the City to update zoning for certain commercial, industrial, and mixed-use areas to allow addition al residential and mixe d-use development while preserving existing residential neighborhoods. The City is implementing Measure K through updates to the MUOD. This effort not only supports rezoning of Housing Element sites needed to accommodate the RHNA, but also expands residential developmen t opportunities to additional Measure K sites beyond the Housing Element inventory. As a result, the City is taking a broader, proactive approach to facilitating housing production and creating residential capacity beyond the minimum RHNA obligation.

Lastly, the City has focused in the past on transportation investments related primarily to mobility of single- occupant vehicles (SOVs) instea d of multi-modal transportation which available generally to all demographic segments. However, the City now focuse s on multi-modal circulation investments such as transportation projects related to traffic calming to increase pedestrian and bike safety, and enhancements to existing sidewalks and the prov ision of new sidewalks and bike paths and facilities to encourage walkability/bikability in the City.

Past Community Development Action Analysis - Urban Plan Development As the Costa Mesa community has changed over time from a primarily suburban community within larger Orange County to a mixed use community that incl udes urban, semi-urban and suburban neighborhoods, the City began to modify its land use plans and zoning to promote mixed use, mixed income walkable residential communities. The first ov erlay districts, adopted by the Ci ty in April 2006, were the SoBECA Urban Plan district and three Westside Residential Urban Plans. These plans served as "overlay zones" and established provisions for mixed-use development a nd residential development in the mixed-use overlay areas. The Urban Plans resulted from the collaboration of a 40-member Westside Revitalization Oversight Committee (WROC) appointed in 2003 by the City Council. The Urban Plan s followed previous efforts to revitalize the Westside and create an artist village around Bristol Street by other committees.

The intent of the various Westside Urban Plans was to provide an incentive for redevelopment of marginal commercial and industrial properties in an area of the City that was closest to the beach. The 19th West and Mesa West Bluffs plans were developed to provid e for a variety of land uses such as mixed use, live/work and residential lofts and to create ownership opportunities on the Westside. 331

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-60 The Mesa West Residential Ownership Overlay was intended to redevelop older rental residential structures with new ownership properties. The over lay allowed for development up to the High Density Residential General Plan capacity regardless of the residential zoning and to allow development up to three- stories in height.

The SoBECA overlay was intended to allow a mix of housing, eclectic retail/service, creative studios and entertainment/restaurant uses that attract local residents and visitors.

Since 2006, the majority of projects in the Westside of the City have been approved under the Urban Plans/overlay districts. Over time, some concerns have been expressed that development under the urban plans has changed the character of neighborhoods and encouraged new development that in some cases removed and replaced existing older housing st ock with residential ownership opportunities that were less affordable to existing residents of the area. There is a perception that this has resulted in increased property values limiting the opportunity to consolidate smaller parcels into larger development lots. While much of the development pursuant to the urban plans in the last decade replaced industrial uses and resulted in remediatio n of a number of brownfield sites, concerns have, nonetheless, arisen regarding the concept of these Urban Plans. The following Table 3-16 lists concerns that have been expressed regarding implementation of the Urban Plans/overlay districts and potential actions to address these concerns:

Table 3-16: Feedback on the Implementation of the Urban Plans/Overlay Districts Concern Remedial Action
Increased density and proximity to single family
residences
Modify the boundaries to allow an appropriate
transition between the overlay zones and R1 zones
Limited open space / park access The 20 15 amendment requires a minimum of 30- percent open space and inclusion of common
recreational areas to promote quality living
environments
No variety in products (all 3-4 stories with multiple living levels - not conducive to all ages)
Modify standards to require a mix of two-story and
three-story product types
Parking - live/works are used as residential uses but with less parking
Increase guest parking requirement and require the
same parking ratio for live/work and residential loft
development consistent wi th residential standards
based on number of bedrooms
Saturation of market for live/work products The majority of new development on the Westside are live/work units; require a mix of live/work and
residential lofts, and two-story residential product types Proximity of residential uses to existing industrial uses CC&Rs and homebuyer notices provide advance notification to the buyers regarding potential noise
nuisance impacts associated with living in a mixed use
urban environment. Additional buffer may be needed
between residential and major industrial uses
Privacy Impacts Three-story in proximity to single story and two-story development must demonstrate minimal privacy
impacts; roof decks and balc onies should face project
interiors
Increased Height - Live/work development are allowed
to be four stories or a maximum 60 feet in height; the
Rooftops should be consider ed as stories to improve
neighborhood compatibility . The 30-percent open
332

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-61 Table 3-16: Feedback on the Implementation of the Urban Plans/Overlay Districts Concern Remedial Action
amendment in 2015 allowed rooftops to be counted
toward open space requirement and not considered a
story
space requirement should not include roof tops and
focus on ground floor amenities to promote quality
living environments.

The overlay plans have been amended periodically since adoption to address changes in market demands, land use patterns, and community concer ns as identified above. The 6 th cycle housing element proposes amendments which respond to community needs and the community’s need for a range of housing types and more housing opportunities affordable at all income levels.

Since adoption of the Housing Element, the City ha s taken additional steps to address these concerns and modernize the City’s approach to urban plans, spec ific plans and overlays. Rather than relying solely on the older Urban Plans as standalone overlay areas, the City has advanced a broader update to the MUOD to provide a more comprehensive and consiste nt regulatory framework for residential and mixed- use development.

In April 2026, the City amended the MUOD to establish specific provisions for Housing Element Opportunity Sites and adopted a revised zoning map to apply the MUOD to those Housing Element sites. This action directly supported implementation of the Housing Element sites strategy and helped ensure that sites identified to accommodate the RHNA are subject to clear development standard s intended to facilitate residential development.

The City is also taking steps beyo nd the Housing Element in ventory. In Fall 2026, the City anticipates a broader MUOD update that will over haul the existing MUOD provisions and apply the overlay to the remaining Measure K sites, including both Housing El ement and non-Housing Element sites. Through this effort, the City is expanding opportunities for resi dential and mixed-use development beyond the sites needed to accommodate the RHNA. The MUOD is anticipated to apply to approximately 1,079 parcels and will establish updated standards, including residentia l densities ranging from 30 to 90 dwelling units per acre, to support additional housing choices.

This phased approach demonstrates that the City is not only addressing its Housing Element obligations, but is also taking a broader, proactive approach to updating older urban plan and overlay frameworks. By integrating Housing Element sites and additional Measure K sites into the MUOD, the City is creating additional residential capacity beyond the RHNA, improving clarity and consistency in development standards, and supporting broader fair housing objectives by expanding housing opportunities in areas with access to employment, services, and amenities.
333

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-62 Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends
Race and Ethnicity
The dissimilarity index is the most used measure of segregation between two groups, reflecting their relative distributions across neighborhoods (as defi ned by census tracts). The index represents the percentage of the minority group that would have to move to new neighborhoods to achieve perfect integration of that group. An index score can range in value from 0 percent, indicating complete integration, to 100 percent, indicating complete segregation. An index number above 60 is considered to show high similarity and a segregated community.

It is important to note that segregation is a complex topic, difficult to generalize, and is influenced by many factors. Individual choices can be a cause of segreg ation, with some resident s choosing to live among people of their own race or ethnic group. For instance, recent immigrants often depend on nearby relatives, friends, and ethnic institutions to help them adjust to a new country. 6 Alternatively, when white residents
leave neighborhoods that become more diverse, those neighborhoods can become segregated. Other factors, including housing market dynamics, availability of lending to different ethnic groups, availability of affordable housing, and discrimination can also cause residential segregation.

Figure 3-4 shows the dissimilarity between each of the identified race and ethnic groups and Costa Mesa’s White population. The White population within Costa Mesa makes up the majority of the City’s population at approximately 71 percent according to 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) estimates.

The higher scores shown in the figure below, directly indicate higher levels of segregation among those race and ethnic groups. The race and ethnic groups with the high scores were Native Hawaiian (52.4 percent) and Hispanic (51.8 percent). These scores correlate directly with the percentage of people within that racial or ethnic group that would need to move into a predominantly White census tract in order to achieve a more integrated community. For instance, 52.4 percent of the Native Hawaiian population would need to move into predominantly White census tract areas to achieve “perfect” integration, or 51.8 percent of the Hispanic population would need to move into predominantly White census tract areas for perfect integration.

As indicated above, a score of 60 or higher indicates a highly similar and segregated area. The City does not have any racial or ethnic groups with scores higher than 60. However, scores above 30 indicate moderate levels of segregation. It is important to note the areas where moderate segregation occurs in order for Costa Mesa to understand any additional disparities in access to opportunities or housing, as well as identify lack of resources for the communities. In the City of Costa Mesa, all racial and ethnic groups, except for those who identify as two or more races, show a score of 30 or greater dissimilarity index. The City of Costa Mesa is committed to furthering fair housing a ccess and increasing fair housing opportunities to communities of color.

6 Allen, James P. and Turner, Eugene. “Changing Faces, Changing Places: Mapping Southern California”. California State University, Northridge, (2002).
334

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-63 Figure 3-4: Dissimilarity Index with White Population in Costa Mesa

Source: Census Scope, Social Science Data Analysis Network Disability
In 1988, Congress added protections against housing discrimination for persons with disabilities through the FHA, which protects against intentional discrimination and unjustified policies and practices with disproportionate effects. The FHA also includes the following unique provisions to persons with disabilities:
(1) prohibits the denial of requests for reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities if necessary, to afford an individual equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; and (2) prohibits the denial of reasonable modification requests. With regards to fair housing, persons with disabilities have special housing needs because of the lack of accessible and affordable housing, and the higher health costs associated with their disability. In addition, many may be on fixed incomes that further limit their housing options.

Table 3-24 provides data for persons with disabilities in Costa Mesa, Orange County, and across California; Figure 3-15 also maps out populations with disabilities th roughout the City. There are five census tracts that report 10 to 20 percent of the population with a disability. These tracts are located the center of the City in the south-western region. The central census tracts include the Fairview Developmental Center and a senior living development (Azulon at Mesa Verde). The census tracts in the south-western region also include a senior living development (Vivante Newport Mesa). These may contribute to the higher occurrence of persons with disabilities.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Hispanic
Two or More Races
Other
Native Hawaiian
Asian
American Indian
Black
Hispanic
Two or
More
Races
Other Native
Hawaiian Asian American
Indian Black
Dissimilarity Index with Whites 51.8% 19.4% 36.7% 52.4% 36.3% 31.0% 35.9% 335

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-64 Regarding access to community reso urces and services, the central census tracts are located near community parks, fire and police services, grocery stores and commercial uses, and medical offices. Public transit runs directly between both central census tracts along Harbor Boulevard, as well as Fairview Road.

The south-western census tracts are also located ne ar community parks, grocery stores and commercial uses, medical offices, and th ey have access to public transit along Placentia Avenue, 19 th Avenue, and Victoria Street.

It is the policy and practice of the City to take a ll reasonable steps to ensure its services, programs and activities are accessible to all members of the public including persons with disabilities. The City’s leadership team and accessibility experts work to ensure all de partments comply with this policy by carrying out the following functions:
 Provide technical assistance to support City departments in complying with federal, state, and local disability access laws.
 Assist departments and divisions in evaluating thei r facilities, programs, services, and activities to ensure provision of reasonable accommodations to people with disabilities.  Facilitate the resolution of grievances filed against the City of Costa Mesa that allege noncompliance with disability access laws.

Additionally, the City is concerned with public right- of-way access for everyone including people with disabilities. Staff is aware of pedestrian mobility concerns for people with various disabilities. The following information describes department programs available to the public:
 Curb Ramp Program – The City administers the Sidewalk Accessibility Curb Ramp Program by identifying locations and managing the installation of curb ramps throughout the city. These ramps provide safer and easier pedestrian access to sidewalks, particularly for persons with disabilities.

All newly constructed ramps comply with the current Americans with Disabilities Act standards.  Contractual Services – The City utilizes contractual services to install curb ramps each year through the ongoing capital-funded program. Along with these ongoing City-funded installation projects, the program also assists and coordinates installation projects with a variety of other programs and construction projects.
 City Staff also utilize a priority approach to select locations for new ramps. Installation project priorities are based on the following criteria:
o Known routes used, and requests by persons with disabilities o Known locations in the walking route to school plans
o Known routes to senior and community centers and around parks o Requests from the community
o Mobility Access Analysis for People with Disabilities o Upon request, staff conducts a study of obstructions blocking pedestrian or wheelchair travel.

Costa Mesa residents with disabilities living in the fi ve census tracts listed above may also benefit from regional resources. The Regional Center of Orange County provide services to person with developmental 336

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-65 disabilities, including: housing options, employment opportunities, prenatal diagnostic evaluations, as well as services for early intervention, therapy, respite care, childcare, adult day programs, transportation, medical and dental, and recreation. The following lists a number of additional agencies and organizations and the services they provide for Costa Mesa residents:
 Dayle McIntosh Center - Provides support services, advocacy, transition services, information and referral, peer support, housing assistance, health care access and more.  Employment Development Department - The California State Disability Insurance Program (SDI) provides short term Disability Insurance (DI) and Paid Family Leave (PFL) wage replacement benefits to eligible workers who need time off work.
 Family Caregiver Resource Center - Assists families who are coping with the physical, emotional, and financial responsibilities of caregiving.
 Help Me Grow - Connects families with developmental, behavioral or learning concerns to resources in the community for children birth to 6 years of age.  In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) - Provides supportive services to aged, blind, and disabled persons who are limited in their ability to care for themselves and cannot live safely at home without help.
 Lions Sight and Hearing Foundation of Southern California - Provides hearing aids and common eye surgeries Income qualifications apply.
 Orange County Deaf Equal Access Foundation - Provides services to deaf and hard of hearing community including employment assistance, information and referral, advocacy, peer counseling, independent living, communication assistance ([email protected]).  Protection and Advocacy Inc. (PAI) - Provides legal representation in response to rights/violations for persons with disabilities.
 Rehabilitation Institute of Southern California - Programs which increase the ability of disabled individuals to function at home and at school, on the job, and in the community.  St. Jude Brain Injury Network - Assist persons with a traumatic brain injury to attain access into gainful employment, appropriate community rein tegration programs, accessible housing, and research-related education.

Costa Mesa children with disabilities living in the fi ve census tracts listed above also have access to assessments/evaluations and education plans through the Newport-Mesa Unified School District Harper Assessment Center, as well as individual and family counseling, suicide prevention services, and residential services through the South Coast Community Services Student Assistance Program (SAP). Acuity Behavior Solutions provides a variety of Applied Behavioral Analysis techniques for children and teens with autism in Orange County, this includes: play-based applied beha vior analysis services, individual in-home therapy, and social skills groups for children and teens.

Income
Government Code Section 65008 provides protection against the discrimination of lower- and moderate- income households that inhibits affordable housing deve lopment. As detailed in Chapter 2.C.2, the City of Costa Mesa is made up of households earning a variety of income levels. Table 2-12 shows over a quarter 337

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-66 of Costa Mesa households earn less than 50 percent of the area median family income (AMFI) and just under 40 percent earn over $100,000. Figures 3-5a and 3-5b provide mapping of median incomes and poverty status across the City and in surrounding communities.

Figure 3-5a illustrates a greater tendency for lower median incomes towards the center of the City with higher median incomes along the City’s western, northern, and eastern edges. When considering zoning, block groups with lower median incomes generally overlap with zones that allow for multi-family housing development at higher densities. In comparison, bl ock groups with higher median incomes tend to be zoned for single-family residential. This shows lower income households have a greater ability to afford apartments and condominiums over single-family re sidences. Chapter 2.F.5 also indicates the housing market for single-family residences is more difficult to access for households not earning an above moderate income.

Figure 3-5b illustrates poverty status by census tract. The data is similar to that of Figure 3-5a as it shows higher concentrations of poverty towards the City’s southern and central region. There is one census tract (636.05) that reports 30 to 40 percent of its population falling under the poverty line. This census tract is further detailed in the following section as an area of high segregation and poverty; however, the data is dated 2019 and does not reflect recent development and financing. While the area is identified as high segregation and poverty, it has se en much redevelopment over recent years and the median home value according to 2020 ACS 5-Year Estimates is $922,500. The median contract rent for the census tract is $1,665, and the median household income is $71,150. Program 4I is included in the Housing Plan to specifically address the hi gh segregation and poverty finding for census tract 636.05 by partnering with local community-based organization s, stakeholders and groups who provide supportive resources and programs to further identify specific needs of this community and connect community members with appropriate resources.

Furthermore, the Appendix B Sites Analysis includes the identification of a number of sites throughout the entirety of the City so as to provide for future resi dential development at a variety of densities. This is intended to allow for a variety of housing types afford able to all income categories. Sites were selected based on the availability of land, property owner and developer interest, and access to transportation, resources, and services. A number of sites are located in areas that report both high and lower median incomes, as shown in Figure 3-5a, so as to provide for future affordable units in areas where existing communities may benefit from and in areas of high opportunity. More details on the sites selection are provided in Appendix B.
338

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-67 Figure 3-5a: Income Segregation – Median Income

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 339

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-68 Figure 3-5b: Income Segregation – Poverty Status

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 340

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-69 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) To assist communities in identifying racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), HUD has developed a census tract-based definition of R/ECAPs. The definition involves a racial/ethnic concentration threshold and a poverty test. The racial/ethnic concen tration threshold is straig htforward: RECAPs must have a non-white population of 50 percent or more. Regarding the poverty threshold, Wilson (1980) defines neighborhoods of extreme poverty as census tracts with 40 percent or more of individuals living at or below the poverty line. Because overall poverty levels are s ubstantially lower in many parts of the country, HUD supplements this with an alternate criterion. Thus, a neighborhood can be a R/ECAP if it has a poverty rate that exceeds 40% or is three or more times the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan/micropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower.

Location of residence can have a substantial effect on mental and physical health, education opportunities, and economic opportunities. Urban areas that are more residentially segregated by race and income tend to have lower levels of upward economic mobility than other areas. Research has found that racial inequality is thus amplified by residential segregatio n. However, these areas may also provide different opportunities, such as ethnic enclaves providing proximity to centers of cultural significance, or business, social networks, and communities to help immigrants preserve cultural identify and establish themselves in new places. Overall, it is important to study and identify these areas in order to understand patterns of segregation and poverty in a City.

Figure 3-6a below displays the R/ECAP analysis of the Costa Mesa area. The low poverty index captures the depth and intensity of poverty in a given neighborhood. The index uses both family poverty rates and public assistance receipt, in the form of cash-welfare, such as Temporar y Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

The poverty rate and public assistance for neighborhoods are determined at the census tract level, and the higher the score, the less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood. HUD provides data for the entire Orange County region, and not Costa Mesa specific, as shown in the map. Figure 3-6a shows that Costa Mesa has a pocket of concentrated Hispanic population towards the southern central region of the City. The eastern region of the City is shown to be mostly made up of concentrated White, Non-Hispanic, population. There is also a minor concentration of Hispanic and Native American, Non-Hispanic, populations in the SoBECA area of Northern Costa Mesa.

While there are no R/ECAP areas within the City, Figure 3-6a shows one in the nearby City of Irvine surrounding the University of California – Irvine campus. According to the AI, it is likely that they qualify as R/ECAPs due to the high proportions of students. In addition, the figure shows a large concentration of Hispanic population directly north of Costa Mesa in the City of Santa Ana. The City of Costa Mesa is committed to increasing housing mobility opportunities for persons outside of the City and in Orange County as a whole. Chapter 4: Housing Plan of this Housing Element ou tlines housing opportunity, affordable housing, and fair housing strategies to increase opportunities to all households.

Additionally, Figure 3-6b displays the data for TCAC areas of high segregation and poverty. The maps shows that there is one census tract that is designated as high segregatio n and poverty (census tract: 636.05).

Areas that are identified as high segregation and poverty are consistent with the standards for both poverty (30% of the population below the federal poverty line) and racial segregation (overrepresentation of people of color relative to the county).
341

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-70 Census tract 636.05 is generally located in the southwes tern portion of the City. This tract contains 3 different Costa Mesa City Council Districts - Districts 4, 5, and 6. The zoning designations within this tract is majority industrial (MG, General Industrial) and high density residential (R2-HD and R3), with commercial corridors along Newport Boulevard and 19 th Street. The general Westside area also has 3 adopted urban plans, which do not change the underlying zoning of the property but allows for the development of live/work units and/or residential development. Since the adoption of the urban plans in 2006, the City has approved 541 newly constructed units, which includes the subject census tract.

342

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-71 Figure 3-6a: R/ECAP Areas, Costa Mesa

Source: HUD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool, Data Versions: AFFHT0006, April 28, 2021 343

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-72 Figure 3-6b: TCAC Area of High Segregation and Poverty

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 344

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-73 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Pove rty have long been analyzed and reviewed as a contributing factor to segregation. However, patterns of segregation in the United States show that of all racial groups, the White population is the most severely insulated (separated from other racial groups). 7 Research also identifies segregation of affluence to be greater than the segregation of poverty. Racial and economic segregation can have significant effects on respective communities, including but not limited to, socioeconomic disparities, educational experiences a nd benefits, exposure to environmental conditions and crime, and access to public goods and services.

Data used in the analysis of Ra cially Concentrated Areas of Affl uence (RCAA) comes from the 2015-2019 ACS and measured at the census track level. The definition for an RCAA is a census tract in which 80 percent or more of the population is White and a median income of at least $125,000. The nationwide RCAA analysis identifies the following:
 RCAA tracts have more than twice the median household income of the average tract in their metro area.
 Poverty rates in RCAAs are significantly lower and are, on average about 20 percent of a typical tract.  RCAAs tracts are more income homogenous than R/ECAPs.  The average RCAA is about 57 percent affluent, whereas the average R/ECAP had a poverty rate of 48 percent.
 The typical RCAA tract has a rate of affluence 3.2 times that of a typical tract, whereas R/ECAPs on average had a poverty rate 3.2 times that of a typical tract.

Overall, RCAAs may represent a public policy issue to the extent that they have been created and maintained through exclusionary and discriminatory land use and development practices. Postwar patterns of suburbanization in many metropolitan areas were characterized by White communities erecting barriers to affordable housing and engaging in racially exclusionary practices. Figure 3-7 illustrates five RCAAs mostly along the City’s edges. As noted above, these areas overlap with the presence of single-family neighborhoods. Table 3-17 displays the RCAAs for Costa Mesa, and Table 3-18 shows local (Costa Mesa) and regional (Orange County) context for the median household incomes of White residents.

7 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation. University of Minnesota. Edwards Goets, Damiano, Williams. 2019.
345

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-74 Figure 3-7: Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence, Costa Mesa

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer 346

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-75 Table 3-17: RCCAs - Median Household Income by Race by Census Tract, Costa Mesa Census Tract Percent Population White Median Income
Census Tract 638.05 69.5% $122,750
Census Tract 636.01 62.3% $120,057
Census Tract 638.02 65.5% $118,000
Census Tract 631.02 81.6% $127,153
Census Tract 631.03 75.3% $131,477
Source: (U.S. Census Bureau) from HCD AFFH Data Viewer, Accessed November 3, 2022.

Table 3-18: RCCAs - Median Household Income by Race, Costa Mesa and Orange County Race Costa Mesa Orange County
Median Income Population Median Income Population
White $91,959 1 72.2% $98,535 1 64.3%
All Households $90,370 -- $94,441 --
Notes: 1. Median income in the past 12 months (in 2020 inflation-adjusted dollars) Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2020.

Disparities in Access to Opportunity
The UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Raboba nk partnered to develop the Regional Opportunity Index (ROI) intended to help communities understand local social and economic opportunities. The goal of the ROI is to help target resources and policies to ward people and places with the greatest need to foster thriving communities. The ROI incorporates both “people” and “place components, integrating economic, infrastructure, environmental, and social indicators into a comprehensive assessment of the factors driving opportunity.”
The ROI: People is a relative measure of people 's assets in education, the economy, housing, mobility/transportation, health/environment, and civic life as follows:
 Education Opportunity: Assesses people’s relative success in gaining educational assets, in the form of a higher education, elementary school achievement, and regular elementary school attendance.  Economic Opportunity: Measures the relative economic well-being of the people in a community, in the form of employment and income level.
 Housing Opportunity : Measures the relative residential stability of a community, in the form of homeownership and housing costs.
 Mobility/Transportation Opportunity: Contains indicators that assess a community’s relative opportunities for overcoming rural isolation.
 Health/Environment Opportunity : Measures the relative health outcomes of the people within a community, in the form of infant and teen health and general health.  Civic Life Opportunity : A relative social and political engagement of an area, in the form of households that speak English and voter turnout.

The ROI: Place is a relative measure of an area's assets in education, the economy, housing, mobility/transportation, health/environment, and civic life. 347

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-76  Education Opportunity : Assesses a census tract's relative ability to provide educational opportunity, in the form of high-quality schools that meet the basic educ ational and social needs of the population.
 Economic Opportunity : Measures the relative economic climate of a community, in the form of access to employment and business climate.
 Housing Opportunity : Measures relative availability of housing in a community, in the form of housing sufficiency and housing affordability.
 Health/Environment Opportunity: A relative measure of how well communities meet the health needs of their constituents, in the form of access to health care and other health-related environments.  Civic Life Opportunity: Measures the relative social and political stability of an area, in the form of neighborhood stability (living in same residence for one year) and US citizenship.

Figure 3-8 shows the ROI: People classifications throughout the City, the “ROI: People” data identifies the achievement levels that persons living within these census tracts have attained. As the figure shows, classifications vary greatly throughout Costa Mesa. The City has area s of high opportunity to the west and east of the City, but also has areas classified as the low opportunity in the southern and central regions of the City. Persons living in the areas identified as low opportunity “people” are considered to have low achievement opportunities for economic, health, and housing. The figure shows one census tract, identified as Inset B, where the general attainment for education, transportation, housing, economic opportunity, or jobs was low the residents living in this tract. Further analysis shows the census tract, identified as Inset A, has overall very low levers of education, economic, housing, transportation, and civic life attainment among residents. Low attainment levels may project generational poverty, lower levels of upward mobility, and increased challenges accessing esse ntial resources and opportunities. Increase housing opportunities and access, specifically affordable housing, in this area can provide stability, safety, and important resources to a community. The City of Costa Mesa has identified portions of this area to accommodate future growth for low and very low-income housing.

Figure 3-9 displays opportunities provided within each census tracts. The map shows that most of the City is classified as high opportunity. High opportunity areas mean that individual census tracts provide the necessary and essential resources for housing, econ omic or job opportunity, quality education and educational services, safe and affordable transportati on, and quality civic and environmental life. Utilizing areas which provide important and essential resources, to increase housing opportunities can help to break cycles of poverty and increase overall community health. The City of Costa Mesa has identified housing opportunity sites to accommodate the RHNA in a variety of high opportunity areas. 348

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-77 Figure 3-8: Regional Opportunity Index, People – City of Costa Mesa

Source: UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank, 2014.

Inset A
Inset B
349

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-78 Figure 3-9: Regional Opportunity Index, Place – City of Costa Mesa

Source: UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank, 2014. 350

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-79 Additionally, Table 3-19 and Figure 3-10 below display the data for Regional Opportunity Index in Costa Mesa overall compared to the State of California. The data shows the following key findings:
 Costa Mesa residents reportedly have lower math and English proficiency levels; however, they have higher rates of college education, high school graduation, UC/CSU eligibility.  The economic conditions in Costa Mesa are high. There is a higher rate of high-quality employment amongst residents and higher minimum basic income than the State. There are many jobs available, and that trend continues to increase.  Costa Mesa households are predominantly renter households. Housing adequacy is the same for the City and the State, but homes in Costa Mesa are reportedly less affordable.  The City reports high rates of available vehicles per household, as well as commute time. Costa Mesa residents spend more time traveling to and from work than residents across the State.  Despite lower air quality reports, Costa Mesa residents have high access to medical and health care, as well as access to supermarkets.
 Costa Mesa residents have high rates of English fluency, despite slightly lower rates of citizenship.

Costa Mesa City CouncilSeptember 1, 2026

Costa Mesa City Council
September 1, 2026