Exhibit A Public Hearing Draft Housing Element — Costa Mesa City Council, September 1, 2026 (part 4 of 4)

The deletion of subsection (7) is an important first step in bringing Costa Mesa’s reasonable accommodation ordinance into compliance with state and federal fair housing requirements. However, in order to bring the entire reasonable accommodation regulation into compliance, Costa Mesa will need to make additional changes. Given the structure of the current ordinance, it will be difficult to do that by simply editing or rewording the text. Instead, we propose that the City repeal sections of the ordinance in their entirety and replace them with new ones.

To begin with, Section 13-200.62 (f) has problems that cannot be remedied without restructuring. That section is a list of findings “all of which are required for approval” of a reasonable accommodation request. But the list combines factors that the person or entity requesting the accommodation must establish in order to be entitled to an accommodation, i.e., the topics of Findings (1) and (2), with factors that are the City’s burden to establish if it is going to deny the accommodation, i.e., the topics of Findings (3), (5), and (8). These two types of topics need to be separated to clearly delineate who – the person or entity making the request, or the City – bears the burden of proof.

As written, Findings (3), (5), and (8) require affirmative findings that there is no undue financial or administrative burden, no direct threat, and no fundamental alteration for the approval of a reasonable accommodation request. In other words, they require that the City affirmatively find that those factors are not present. This has the effect of putting the burden on the person or entity making the request to establish the absence of an undue burden or fundamental alteration. That is contrary to fair housing law, which makes it the City’s burden to establish that there is an undue burden, direct threat, or fundamental alteration before denying a reasonable accommodation request. Fair housing law does not permit the City to make the establishment of the absence of those factors a requirement.

Undue burden, direct threat, and fundamental alteration can properly be in the reasonable accommodation ordinance, but the regulation needs to be structured in a way that makes clear that if the person or entity making the request establishes the factors addressed in Findings (1) and (2), the City must grant the accommodation unless it finds that granting the C-220
January 12, 2026

Page 3 of 7 ends

accommodation will impose an undue financial or administrative burden, will result in a direct threat, or will result in a fundamental alteration (i.e., the inverse of the current language regarding findings). It does not work to combine them in the same list as the elements that the person or entity making the request has the burden to establish. The two types of findings must be bifurcated.

Moreover, the current structure of the reasonable accommodation ordinance also makes it difficult for the ordinance to adequately reflect the law governing the findings that the City must establish to deny an otherwise valid reasonable accommodation request. For example, where the ordinance authorizes the City to deny a reasonable accommodation request based on a direct threat finding, it must also state that in such a case the City must find that the threat cannot be mitigated by reasonable accommodation. 28 C.F.R. §35.139. A finding that granting a reasonable accommodation would be an undue burden or fundamental alteration must also be made “after considering all resources available for use in the funding and operation of the service, program, or activity, and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion.” 28. C.F.R. §35.150(a)(3). It will be difficult to add such clarifications in a clear way unless the two types of findings under Section 13-200.62(f) are separated and the findings for which the City bears the burden are written in the affirmative.

Section 13-200.62 (f) also includes factors that do not fall within either the burden of the person or entity making the accommodation request or the allowable reasons for the City to deny a request, but instead layer on additional obligations that are not permitted under fair housing law. Finding (4) requires a finding that the “requested accommodation is consistent with surrounding uses in scale and intensity of use.” The City cannot apply different occupancy, use, or development standards to shared housing for people with disabilities as compared to other forms of housing, nor can it require a household of people with disabilities to be limited to fewer people than a single housekeeping unit would be allowed to have. To the extent that a requested accommodation would result in housing that was vastly different from permitted housing uses, City staff could evaluate whether granting the request would constitute a fundamental alteration to a City program or would result in an undue burden or direct threat. But simply having the same number of people that a single housekeeping unit would C-221
January 12, 2026

Page 4 of 7 ends

be allowed to have, or failing to meet another occupancy or development standard that was not also applied to single housekeeping units, could never fall within one of those permitted reasons for denying an accommodation request. Consistency with other uses should therefore not be listed as a separate required finding.

Likewise, Finding (6) requires in some instances “a finding that the requested accommodation is necessary to make facilities of a similar nature or operation economically viable in light of the particularities of the relevant market and market participants generally.” For the same reasons that the City is removing Finding (7), which also focuses on “facilities of a similar nature and operation” rather than on the specific housing that is at issue for a particular reasonable accommodation request, the City should remove Finding (6). It is just as true that it will be “operationally difficult for staff or the applicants to make this determination given lack of information” for Finding (6) as for Finding (7). Moreover, providing a feasibility study or market study about other housing does not fall within the burden of someone making a reasonable accommodation request. Making such a study a condition of approving a disability-related accommodation is therefore a discriminatory housing practice. This should likewise not be listed as a required finding.

The deletion of Finding (7) should also be accompanied by a revision to the language of Finding (2), which states that, “[t]he requested accommodation is necessary to provide one or more individuals with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” To ensure that City staff interpret Finding (2) consistent with fair housing laws, by focusing on the housing at issue in the request rather than “facilities of a similar nature and operation” elsewhere, Finding (2) should be revised to refer to an equal opportunity to use and enjoy “their dwelling,” “the dwelling at issue in the accommodation request,” or something similar.

In order to bring the reasonable accommodation ordinance into compliance with federal and state fair housing law, the City will also need to revise other portions of the ordinance. As reflected in the settlement agreement, we would welcome the opportunity to work with the City during that portion of its review of the reasonable accommodation ordinance and to provide feedback on any draft revisions of those other sections.

C-222
January 12, 2026

Page 5 of 7 ends

For those portions of the ordinance as well, it would be most effective for the City to repeal and replace language rather than try to work within the existing structure. For example, Section 13-200.62(b) loads burdensome and irrelevant requirements onto people or entities making reasonable accommodation requests. A lay homeowner who needs an accommodation due to disability should be able to comply with application requirements without having to hire an attorney or other expert to help them understand what they need to do. The City should limit the application to information that is necessary for the City to evaluate whether the person or entity making the request has met their burden, such as the location of the dwelling at issue, the existence of the disability, the nature of the accommodation that is being requested, and the connection between the disability and the requested accommodation. The provisions in Section 13- 200.62(b) that require people or entities making reasonable accommodation requests to provide “[a]ny other information that the director reasonably determines is necessary for evaluating the request for reasonable accommodation” ((b)(3)) and “[a]ny other information that the hearing officer reasonably concludes is necessary to determine whether the findings required by subsection (e) of this section can be made” ((b)(7)) are particularly problematic because they are not limited to the information necessary to establish that a person or entity is entitled to a reasonable accommodation.

Section 13-200.62(d) provides that appeals of reasonable accommodation requests will be handled through the same procedures as “any other discretionary permit.” However, the appeals process pertaining to reasonable accommodation requests needs to be navigable and manageable by lay people with disabilities. This provision should be repealed and replaced with new language that requires a prompt, clear statement of the reasons for any denial, establishes a simple procedure for requesting an appeal, provides a reasonable deadline for making requests for an appeal, and eliminates the need for individuals or entities to pay for the City’s review of their reasonable accommodation determination.

Most importantly, the section of the reasonable accommodation ordinance addressing appeals must exempt them from the review procedures that govern general zoning matters in order to respect the privacy of people’s disabilities and disability-related needs during any review process.

Hearings regarding reasonable accommodations requests should not be C-223
January 12, 2026

Page 6 of 7 ends

made by legislative bodies, and no public notice should be made regarding reasonable accommodation reviews. Public hearings create an opening for members of the public to express animus against people with disabilities, which imposes an improper barrier to people seeking such accommodations. For example, at the hearings regarding Insight’s reasonable accommodation request, a member of the public told the Planning Commission that a person who is “mentally disabled does not belong in a neighborhood next door to me or any of us in this room,” and someone testified to the City Council that the “mentally ill cannot associate with our children, neighbors.” As you know, hearing those types of comments was traumatic for our client Ms. Doe, who spoke about her own experiences with mental illness, and the ways that staying at Insight’s housing had helped her, at a hearing on Insight’s reasonable accommodation request. Not only is the City not obligated to provide the public with a forum to intimidate and humiliate people like Ms. Doe, but the City cannot put people like her through such an ordeal as a condition of having their accommodation request reviewed. Nor can such animus play any part in the City’s review of an accommodation request. For similar reasons, the ordinance should also make clear that only the person or entity making the request can appeal a decision regarding a reasonable accommodation, in contrast to the current language which permits virtually anyone – including neighbors with an animus against people with disabilities – to appeal.

Finally, Sections 13-200.62(e) and (g), regarding “considerations,” overlap with the required “findings” in Section 13-200.62(f) in a way that impedes consistency with fair housing law. Like Section 13-200.62(f), these sections fail to make clear which elements are the burden of the person making the reasonable accommodation request to establish and which are the City’s burden. Many of them are also improper considerations. For example, the City cannot take into account “whether granting the request would be consistent with the City's General Plan.” By definition, any reasonable accommodation request pertaining to zoning will be inconsistent with the zoning scheme. “Requiring public entities to make exceptions to their rules and zoning policies is exactly what the FHAA does.” Anderson v. City of Blue Ash, 798 F.3d 338, 363 (6th Cir. 2015); City of Edmonds v.

Washington State Bldg. Code Council, 18 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1994) (FHA imposes an affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate disabled persons). The question is not whether a requested disability C-224
January 12, 2026

Page 7 of 7 ends

accommodation is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan, but whether granting it would fundamentally alter the General Plan. To take another example, the City cannot take into consideration whether “the accommodation would result in a substantial increase in traffic or insufficient parking” (§ 13-200.62(g)(2)) or “create an institutionalized environment due to the number of and distance between facilities that are similar in nature or operation” (§ 13-200.62(g)(4)) unless it is also doing so with respect to single housekeeping units. Again, the City cannot impose more stringent development or occupancy standards on housing occupied by people with disabilities than on single housekeeping units, nor can it use vague or undefined conditions as a basis for denial of a reasonable accommodation request. These are examples, and not an exhaustive list, of the issues with subsections (e) and (g) of Costa Mesa’s reasonable accommodation ordinance. We would be happy to provide additional comments or to discuss with you and with City staff in more detail our further thoughts on bringing the ordinance into compliance with state and federal fair housing requirements.

We appreciate your time and attention to our comments and look forward to working with you and the City further on these important access issues for Costa Mesa residents with disabilities. Please let us know if you would like to discuss any of these issues further.

Sincerely,

Autumn M. Elliott
Law Office of Autumn Elliott

Jia Min Cheng
Managing Attorney
Disability Rights California

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

App
No.

(RA
application
predates
650 conflict)

[Sum 465 /
City 5074]

[Sum 466 /
City 5075]

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

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

Grant
PA-
16-06
Pacific
Shores
NA

(None
specified)
NA

(Omitted
from
director
letter)

[Sum 468 /
City 6208]

[Sum 469 / City 6209]

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

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

[Sum 471 /
City 17506]

[Sum 471 / City 17506]

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

Deny
C-226
App
No.

[Sum 475 /
City 17640

[Sum 475 / City 17640

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

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

[Sum 479 /
City 6426]

[Sum 479 / City 6426]

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

Deny
C-227
App
No.

[Sum 482 /
City 6665]

[Sum 482 / City 6665]

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

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

[Sum 485 /
City 6955]

[Sum 486 / City 6956]

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

Deny
C-228
App
No.

[Sum 489 /
City 7529]

[Sum 489 /
City 7529

[Sum 490 / City 7530]

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

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

[Sum 493 /
City 8167]

[Sum 494 / City 8168]

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

Deny
C-229
App
No.

[Sum 497 /
City 8796]

[Sum 498 / City 8797]

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

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

[Sum 501 /
City 9123]

[Sum 502 / City 9124]

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

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

[Sum 505 /
City 9557]

[Sum 506 / City 9558]

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

Deny
C-230
App
No.

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

[Sum 509 /
City 10009]

[Sum 510 / City 10010]

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

Deny
C-231
App
No.

[Sum 513 /
City 10704]

[Sum 514 / City 10705]

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

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

[Sum 517 /
City 11402]

[Sum 518 / City 11403]

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

Deny
C-232
App
No.

[Sum 521 /
City 11911]

[Sum 522 / City 11912]

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

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

[Sum 525 /
City 12396]

[Sum 525 / City 12396]

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

Deny
C-233
App
No.

[Sum 528 /
City 12769]

[Sum 528 / City 12769]

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

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

[Sum 531 /
City 12967]

[Sum 531 / City 12967]

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

Deny
C-234
App
No.

[Sum 534 /
City 13150]

[Sum 534 / City 13150]

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

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

[Sum 537 /
City 15378]

[Sum 538 / City 15379]

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

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

[Sum 543 /
City 13547]

[Sum 544 /
City 13548]

[Sum 544 / City 13548]

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

Deny
C-235
App
No.

C-236
Zoning regulations for unlicensed1 residential uses in Costa Mesa’s multi-family zoning districts

CMMC Regulations Governing
Residential Uses in City’s Multifamily
Districts
Sober Living Home2 Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Small < 3 rental
rooms
4 Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Use Definitions

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

C-237
CMMC Regulations Governing
Residential Uses in City’s Multifamily
Districts
Sober Living Home2 Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Small < 3 rental
rooms
4 Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Use defined based on nature of the
disability of dwelling’s residents, CMMC
13-06
Yes, CC 9 No, CC 5 No, CC 3 No, CC 3 No CC 4
Permitted Zoning District

Permitted in Residential Zoning District,
CMMC 13-30, 13-204
No, CC 31 No, CC 31 Yes, CC 31 Yes, if pre-
existing, CC 54;

No, if new, CC 31
Yes, CC 31
Permitted in Multifamily Zoning Districts
(R2-MD, R2-HD, R3), CMMC 13-30
No, CC 31 No, CC 31 Yes, CC 31 Yes, if pre-
existing, CC 54;

No, if new, CC 31
Yes, CC 31
Permitted in Planned Development
Residential Districts (PDR-LD, PDR-MD,
PDR-HD, PRD-NCM, PDC, PDI), CMMC 13-
30, 13-204
No, CC 31 No, CC 31 Yes, CC 31 Yes, if pre-
existing, CC 54;

No, if new, CC 31
Yes, CC 31
Permitted in Institutional & Recreational
(I&R) Zoning District [intended for
“recreation, open space, health, public
services,” 13-20(i), CC 17]
Yes, CC 31 Yes, CC 31 No, CC 31 No, CC 31 No, CC 31
Specially or Conditionally Permitted in
Institutional & Recreational (I&R) Zoning
District [intended for “recreation, open
space, health, public services,” 13-20(i),
CC 17]
NA, CC 31 NA, CC 31 No, CC 31 No, CC 31 No, CC 31
Nonconforming Use Status

Existing uses required to apply for
Special or Conditional Use Permit to
Yes, CC 67, 59 Yes, CC 67, 59 No, CC 54 No, CC 54 NA, CC 31 C-238
CMMC Regulations Governing
Residential Uses in City’s Multifamily
Districts
Sober Living Home2 Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Small < 3 rental
rooms
4 Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
continue existing use, 13-324, 13-
207.1 versus 13-204, 13-30
Separation Requirement

Separation requirement imposed on
existing uses, 13-322, 13-323, 13-324
versus 13-30, 13-204, 13-207.1
Yes: At least 650
feet between
dwelling and any
group home, sober
living home or
state-licensed drug
and alcohol
treatment facility.

CC 66-67
Yes: At least 650
feet between
dwelling and any
group home, sober
living home or state-
licensed drug and
alcohol treatment
facility. CC 66-67
No, CC 54 No, CC 54 NA, 13-30
Separation requirement imposed on new
uses, 13-322, 13-323, 13-324 versus 13-30
fn 7
Yes: At least 650
feet between
dwelling and any
group home, sober
living home, or
state-licensed drug
and alcohol
treatment facility.

CC 66-67
Yes: At least 650
feet between
dwelling and any
group home, sober
living home, or state-
licensed drug and
alcohol treatment
facility. CC 66-67
Yes: Small
boardinghouses
shall locate at
least six
hundred fifty
(650) feet from
any other small
boardinghouse.

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

CC 49
NA, 13-30
Dwelling Operator’s Permit Required

Owner or operator of dwelling must
obtain an “Operator’s Permit,” CMMC 13-
323, 9-372, or meet same conditions for
Yes, CC 67, 69
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
Yes, CC 67, 69 [CUP];
Yes, CC 66, 61-63
[SUP]
No No No
C-239
CMMC Regulations Governing
Residential Uses in City’s Multifamily
Districts
Sober Living Home2 Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Small < 3 rental
rooms
4 Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Operator’s Permit under SUP
requirements, 13-322, 13-311
Owner or operator of dwelling must
obtain an “operator’s permit” as a
condition to qualify for a conditional use
permit, CMMC 13-323, 9-372, or meet
same conditions for Operator’s Permit to
qualify for SUP, 13-322, 13-311
Yes, CC 67, 69
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
Yes, CC 67, 69 [CUP];
Yes, CC 66, 61-63
[SUP]
No No No
Permit Application Requirements

Permit Application: Required to list
applicant/operator’s every general
partner and every owner with controlling
interest in corporation. CMMC 13-311(a)
+ 9-374(a) versus CMMC 13-29(a) + City
Form 09/2019
Yes, CC 61, 69;
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
Yes, CC 61, 69; [CUP];
Yes, CC 66, 61-63
[SUP]
No, CC 22 No, CC 22 No, CC 22
Permit Application: Required to provide
permit history or operation of similar use
at any time anywhere in the United
States. CMMC 13-311(a) + 9-374(a)
versus CMMC 13-29(a) + City Form
09/2019
Yes, CC 61, 69;
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
Yes, CC 61, 69; [CUP];
Yes, CC 66, 61-63
[SUP]
No, CC 22 No, CC 22 No, CC 22
Permit Application: Required to provide
copy of rules governing conduct of
residents occupying dwelling. CMMC 13-
311(a) + 9-374(a) versus CMMC 13-29(a)
+ City Form 09/2019
Yes, CC 61, 69;
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
Yes, CC 61, 69; [CUP];
Yes, CC 66, 61-63
[SUP]
No, CC 22 No, CC 22 No, CC 22
C-240
CMMC Regulations Governing
Residential Uses in City’s Multifamily
Districts
Sober Living Home2 Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Small < 3 rental
rooms
4 Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Permit Application: Required to identify
the name, address, telephone, CDL of
onsite dwelling manager. CMMC 13-
311(a) + 9-374(a) versus CMMC 13-29(a)
+ City Form 09/2019
Yes, CC 61, 69;
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
Yes, CC 61, 69; [CUP];
Yes, CC 66, 61-63
[SUP]
No, CC 22 No, CC 22 No, CC 22
Permit Application: Required to provide
document reflecting criteria for
acceptance of resident in dwelling.

CMMC 13-311(a) + 9-374(a) versus CMMC
13-29(a) + City Form 09/2019
Yes, CC 61, 69;
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
Yes, CC 61, 69; [CUP];
Yes, CC 66, 61-63
[SUP]
No, CC 22 No, CC 22 No, CC 22
Permit Application: Required to provide
blank copies of all forms that residents of
dwelling are required to complete.

CMMC 13-311(a) + 9-374(a) versus CMMC
13-29(a) + City Form 09/2019
Yes, CC 61, 69;
[CUP]; Yes, CC 66,
61-63 [SUP]
Yes, CC 61, 69; [CUP];
Yes, CC 66, 61-63
[SUP]
No, CC 22 No, CC 22 No, CC 22
Permit Notice Requirements, July 2017
(17-05) - October 2018 (18-06) time
period

Public notice of hearing on application for
special use permit, CMMC 13-311(b)
versus CMMC 13-29(c) [07/2017-
09/2018]
Notice to be mailed
to the owner of
record and
occupants of all
properties within
five hundred
(500) feet of the
location of the
group home.

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

Notices of the
hearing shall be
mailed to all
property
owners within
a five hundred-
foot radius of
the project site
Notices of the
hearing shall be
mailed to all
property owners
within a five
hundred-foot
radius of the
project site
Notices of the
hearing shall
be mailed to
all property
owners within
a five
hundred-foot
radius of the
project site
Occupancy limit on number of
residents per dwelling

C-241
CMMC Regulations Governing
Residential Uses in City’s Multifamily
Districts
Sober Living Home2 Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Small < 3 rental
rooms
4 Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Occupancy limitation City Housing
Element
City Housing Element State Housing
Law/UHC
State Housing
Law/UHC
State Housing
Law/UHC
On-Site Manager Requirements

Dwelling must have a 24/7 onsite
manager. CMMC 13-311(a)(4) + CMMC 9-
274(b)(1) versus State Housing Law
Yes, CC 62, 70 Yes, CC 62, 70 No, State
Housing Law
No, State
Housing Law
No, State
Housing Law
Vehicle Restrictions

Each dwelling resident limited to one
vehicle that must be used as resident’s
primary form of transportation, 13-
311(a)(5) + CMMC 9-274(b)(2)
Yes, CC 62, 70 Yes, CC 62, 70 No No No
Resident Parking Restrictions

Each dwelling resident must park her
vehicle on dwelling premises or within
500 feet of dwelling, 13-311(a)(5) +
CMMC 9-274(b)(2) versus CMMC Title 10,
Ch X (Stopping, Standing and Parking)
Yes, CC 62, 70 Yes, CC 62, 70 No No No
Eviction requirements

Landlord/operator must notify resident’s
emergency contact, OCHA OC Links
Referral Line, and Costa Mesa’s Network
for Homeless Solutions before an evicting
resident, CMMC 13-311(a)(10) + 9-
374(b)(6)
Yes, CC 62, 70 Yes, CC 62, 70 No No No
Landlord/operator must provide
transportation to alternative housing to
any resident evicted from dwelling,
CMMC 13-311(a)(11) + 9-374(b)(7)
Yes, CC 62, 70 Yes, CC 62, 70 No No No
C-242
CMMC Regulations Governing
Residential Uses in City’s Multifamily
Districts
Sober Living Home2 Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Small < 3 rental
rooms
4 Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Landlord/operator must maintain eviction
records for one year resident’s eviction
from dwelling, CMMC 13-311(a)(12) + 9-
374(b)(8)
Yes, CC 62, 70 Yes, CC 62, 70 No No No
Regulation of Residents within
Dwelling

Each resident of dwelling must actively
participate in a legitimate self-
improvement program (e.g., 12-step
program), CMMC 13-311(a)(14)(i) + 9-
374(b)(10)(i)
Yes, CC 63, 71 No No No No
Landlord/operator must maintain records
showing that resident is actively
participating in a legitimate self-
improvement program (e.g., 12-step
program), CMMC 13-311(a)(14)(i) + 9-
374(b)(10)(i)
Yes, CC 63, 71 No No No No
Landlord/operator must promulgate a
rule warning that if a resident refuse to
actively participating in a legitimate self-
improvement program (e.g., 12-step
program), then the resident may be
evicted. CMMC 13-311(a)(14)(i) + 9-
374(b)(10)(i)
Yes, CC 63, 71 No No No No
Landlord/Operator must prohibit
residents from use of any non-
prescription drugs. CMMC 13-
311(a)(14)(ii) + 9-374(b)(10)(ii)
Yes, CC 63, 71 No No No No
C-243
CMMC Regulations Governing
Residential Uses in City’s Multifamily
Districts
Sober Living Home2 Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Small < 3 rental
rooms
4 Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Landlord/operator must evict any
resident caught using any non-
prescription drug. CMMC 13-
311(a)(14)(ii) + 9-374(b)(10)(ii)
Yes, CC 63, 71 No No No No
Landlord/operator must promulgate a
good neighbor policy directing residents
“to be considerate of neighbors, including
refraining from engaging in excessively
loud, profane or obnoxious behavior that
would unduly interfere with a neighbor’s
use and enjoyment of their dwelling
unit.” CMMC 13-311(a)(14)(vi) + 9-
374(b)(10)(v)
Yes, CC 63, 71 No No No No
Landlord/operator must promulgate
written protocol for onsite manager to
follow in response to a neighbor’s
complaint. CMMC protocol for 13-
311(a)(14)(vi) + 9-374(b)(10)(v)
Yes, CC 63, 71 No No No No
Owner, Landlord, Operator, and
Employee Qualification Requirements

Owner, landlord, or operator of a
dwelling is barred from obtaining a
Special or Condition Use Permit for that
dwelling if she was terminated from a job
for sexual harassment, embezzlement, or
illegally furnishing alcohol within two
years of applying to the City for that
zoning permit. CMMC 13-311(b)(2), 9-
374(e)(2) versus 13-29(g)(2)
Yes, CC 63, 71 Yes, CC 63, 71 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 C-244
CMMC Regulations Governing
Residential Uses in City’s Multifamily
Districts
Sober Living Home2 Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Small < 3 rental
rooms
4 Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Owner, landlord, or operator of a
dwelling is barred from obtaining a
Special or Condition Use Permit for that
dwelling if she employs any person who
was terminated from a job alcohol for
sexual harassment, embezzlement, or
illegally furnishing alcohol within two
years of applying to the City for that
zoning permit. CMMC 13-311(b)(2), 9-
374(e)(2) versus 13-29(g)(2)
Yes, CC 63, 71 Yes, CC 63, 71 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 Owner, landlord, or operator of a
dwelling is barred from obtaining a
Special or Condition Use Permit for that
dwelling if she was convicted or pleaded
nolo contendere to any PC 290 sex
offense or PC 667.5 felony within 10 years
of applying to the City for that zoning
permit. CMMC 13-311(b)(2), 9-374(e)(2)
versus 13-29(g)(2)
Yes, CC 63-64, 71-72 Yes, CC 63-64, 71-72 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 Owner, landlord, or operator of a
dwelling barred from obtaining a Special
or Condition Use Permit for that dwelling
if she employs any person who was
convicted or pleaded nolo contendere to
any PC 290 sex offense or PC 667.5 felony
within 10 years of applying to the City for
that zoning permit. CMMC 13-311(b)(2),
9-374(e)(2) versus 13-29(g)(2)
Yes, CC 63-64, 71-72 Yes, CC 63-64, 71-72 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 C-245
CMMC Regulations Governing
Residential Uses in City’s Multifamily
Districts
Sober Living Home2 Group Home3 Boardinghouse,
Small < 3 rental
rooms
4 Boardinghouse,
Large < 7 rental
rooms
Multi-family
Dwelling5
Owner, landlord, or operator of a
dwelling barred from obtaining a Special
or Condition Use Permit for that dwelling
if he was convicted or pleaded nolo
contendere to any PC 290 sex offense or
PC 667.5 felony within 10 years of
applying to the City for that zoning
permit. CMMC 13-311(b)(2), 9-374(e)(2)
versus 13-29(g)(2)
Yes, CC 63-64, 71-72 Yes, CC 63-64, 71-72 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 Owner, landlord, or operator of a
dwelling barred from obtaining a Special
or Condition Use Permit for that dwelling
if she employs any person who was
convicted or pleaded nolo contrendere to
any PC 451 arson offense or furnishing
any controlled substance within 7 years of
applying to the City for that zoning
permit. CMMC 13-311(b)(2), 9-374(e)(2)
versus 13-29(g)(2)
Yes, CC 63-64, 71-72 Yes, CC 63-64, 71-72 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 No, CC 25 Owner, landlord, or operator of a
dwelling barred from obtaining a Special
or Condition Use Permit for that dwelling
if she is in recovery from abuse of drugs
or alcohol and has been abstained for less
than one year before applying to the City
for that zoning permit. CMMC 13-
311(b)(6), 9-374(e)(2) versus 13-29(g)(2)
Yes, CC 64, 72 No No, CC 25 No, CC 25 No, CC 25

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks!
Russell Toler
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We look forward to working with all of you soon.

Best always,

George

George M.K. Sakioka
Sakioka Company, LLC

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

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

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.

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

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

Thank you

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

Anna and Carrie,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Casey

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

Hi Casey (and thanks Carrie for the introduction),

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

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

Thanks,

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Casey,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carrie and Daniel,

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

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

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

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

Thank you,

Casey

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

Privileged And Confidential Communication.

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

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

Hi Austin,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C-259

Glossary of Housing Terms
Appendix D
Element
Update

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parcel. A lot or tract of land.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Costa Mesa City CouncilSeptember 1, 2026

Costa Mesa City Council
September 1, 2026