Costa Mesa City Council
September 1, 2026

City of Costa Mesa
Housing Element
2021-2029

ADOPTED FEBRUARY 2022
Amended August 25, 2026

EXHIBIT A

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

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

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

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

Costa Mesa Housing Element – 2021-2029 v

Costa Mesa Housing Element – 2021-2029 vi

Introduction
Chapter 1

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:

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

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.

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.

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,

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

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.

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.

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.

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,

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

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

Community Profile
Element Update
Chapter 2
Element Update

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.

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.

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.

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%

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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%

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.

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

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%

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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);

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.

Housing Constraints,
Resources, and Fair Housing
Chapter 3

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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
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

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.

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

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

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 -

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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)

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.

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;

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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;

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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:

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%).

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

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,

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.

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

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.

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).

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%

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

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

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.

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

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

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).

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Figure 3-10: Regional Opportunity Index, Costa Mesa and California

Source: UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank, 2014.

Educati
on:

People
Econo
my:

People
Housin
g:

People
Mobilit
y/Trans
:

People
Health/
Env:

People
Civic
Life:

People
Educati
on:

Place
Econo
my:

Place
Housin
g:

Place
Health/
Env:

Place
Civic
Life:

Place
Statewide Average 52.95 68.74 56.26 74.02 94.31 53.7 52.68 14.77 55.19 36.73 80.19 City of Costa Mesa 54.44 72.78 46.85 83.51 95.51 51.87 69.51 20.83 45.61 55.11 78.24 0 20
40 60
80 100
120

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-80 Table 3-19: Opportunity Indicators, Costa Mesa and California ROI Indicator Costa Mesa California
Education
People
College Educated Adults 45% 38%
Math Proficiency 67% 70%
English Proficiency 63% 65%
Elementary Truancy 24% 24%
Place
High School Graduation Rate 93% 83%
UC/CSU Eligibility 53% 41%
Teacher Experience 66% 36%
High School Discipline Rate 8% 6%
Economic
People
Employment Rate 92% 89%
Minimum Basic Income 66% 64%
Place
Job Availability 1291.12 701.75
Job Quality 50% 40%
Job Growth 4% 3%
Bank Accessibility 0.38 0.24
Housing
People
Home Ownership 39% 55%
Housing Cost Burden 50% 52%
Place
Housing Adequacy 91% 91%
Housing Affordability 0.14 0.19
Mobility People
Vehicle Availability 88% 86%
Commute Time 73% 60%
Internet Access 4.81 4
Health/Environmental Place
Infant Health 96% 95%
Birth to Teens 5% 7%
Years of Life Lost 25.68 29.84
Place
Air Quality 9.35 10.01
Prenatal Care 91% 83%
Access to Supermarket 65% 53%
Health Care Availability 3.63 1.76
Civic Life
People
Voting Rates 27% 31%
English Speakers 91% 88%
Place
US Citizenship 81% 83%
Neighborhood Stability 83% 85%
Source: UC Davis Center for Regional Change and Rabobank, 2014.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-81 California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) Opportunity Area Maps The Department of Housing and Community Develo pment together with the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee established the California Fair Housing Task Force to provide research, evidence- based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals (as defined by HCD). The Task force developed the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Maps to understand how public and private resources are spatially distributed. The Task force defines opportunities as pathways to better lives, including health, education, and employment. Overall, opportunity maps are intended to display which areas, according to research, offer low-income children and adults the best chance at economic advancement, high educational attainment, and good physical and mental health.

According to the Task Force’s methodology, the tool allocates the 20 percent of the tracts in each region with the highest relative index scores to the “Highest Resource” designation and the next 20 percent to the “High Resource” designation. Each region then ends up with 40 percent of its total tracts as “Highest” or “High” resource. These two categories are intended to help State decision-makers identify tracts within each region that the research suggests low-income families are most likely to thrive, and where they typically do not have the option to live—but might, if given the choice. As shown in Figure 3-11a below, much of Costa Mesa is classified moderate to high resource areas with pockets of low resource areas in the southwest region of the City. Costa Mesa has one area identified in Figure 3-11b classified as high segregation and poverty in the sout hern area of the City – census tract 636.05. This census tract includes industrial, residential, and retail/commercial uses, as well as the Costa Mesa Senior Center and new Superior Pointe and 17 West residential developments. While the area is identified as high segregation and poverty, it has seen much redevelopment over recent years and the median home value according to 2020 ACS 5-Year Estimates is $922,500. The median contract rent for the census tract is $1,665, and the median household income is $71,150.

These census tracts sit within part of the westside Costa Mesa community bound roughly by 19 th Street
to the north, Anaheim Avenue and Newport Blvd (55 Freeway) to the east, Industrial Way and 16th Street to the south, and Placentia Avenue to the north. The following is a qualitative analysis of the area based on observation and historical reference:
 The northern portion between 18th and 19th Streets is primarily single and lower density multi- family residential with some neighborhood serving commercial (including two grocery stores in Smart & Final and El Metate Market) along 19 th Street. Roadways ar e clean and sidewalk improvements were made approximately two years ago along Center Street and Pomona Avenue with a new slurry seal applied to most streets in the neighborhood around the same time.  Directly adjacent to this area across Anaheim Avenue is the renovated Downtown Recreation Center and new Norma Hertzog Community Ce nter, Costa Mesa (Donald Dungan Branch) Library, and Lions Park playground and ball fields. The City invested approximately $36.5 million into renovation of the area which serves as a vi tal resource to the surrounding neighborhoods.

The library and parks host community events and the Downtown Recreation Center host youth and adult sports leagues and daycare services for families. This area is also approximately a quarter mile from one of the City’s main commercial hubs in the Triangle Square shopping Center and Costa Mesa Courtyards shopping centers.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-82  This area contains the Shalimar Drive neighbo rhood which has been found to require greater attention from code enforcement due to housing conditions. This analysis is described in Section 2.F.4 (Housing Age and Condition). Within that section, the City describes investment into the area through Community Clean-Up Da ys, staff time, and donations to community businesses and non-profit community groups multiple times per year.  South of 17 th Street is a mixture of light industrial/office and new townhome communities developed within the last four years. Portions of the street frontage and public ROW improvements along 17
th Street, Pomona Avenue, and Superi or Avenue have all been newly constructed as part of these new communities.
 Most all streets contain dedicated sidewalks with limited crac king or damage. Some industrial local roadways such as Commercial Way see roadwa y conditions typical throughout the City in light industrial areas, such as the areas furt her west between Placentia and Monrovia, along Harbor Blvd, and in the northeast portion of the City adjacent to the airport. These are maintained regularly through the City’s CIP.
 Placentia Avenue, which serves as the western boundary of the area, is a major thoroughfare through the City and has consistent sidewalk a nd on-street dedicated bike lanes which provide safe transit routes to Estancia High School directly to the north.  There are no school facilities within these census tracts but they are served by local schools in adjacent neighborhoods accessed by local neighborhood roads. School buses have regular pick ups at the Costa Mesa Women’s Club parking lot and at several stops in the area to transport K- 5 students to local public schools.
 All major roadways in this area (16th, 17th, 18th, 19th Streets and Pomona, Placentia, and Anaheim Avenues) are maintained consistent with the rest of the City and none show a current need for major repair.
 The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) runs multiple bus lines (47, 55, 178) along 17th Street, 19th Street, and Placentia Avenue regularly with approximately 15 minute headways for most routes during weekdays.

As demonstrated above, these areas have recently received a large amount of City investment through the Downtown Recreation Center, Library, and Lions Park projects. These projects added vital community amenities and improved corresponding streets and public ROW areas. These census tracts, while designated as an Area of High Segregation and Poverty, see community investment consistent with or in excess of the typical condition citywide. Program 2L is included in the Housing Plan to facilitate access to funding, priority processing, and outrea ch for lower income households, including those located in census tract 636.05. Program 4I is also included to specifically address the high segregation and poverty finding for census tract 636.05 by part nering with local community-based organizations, stakeholders and groups who provide supportive reso urces and programs to further identify specific needs of this community and connect community members with appropriate resources.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-83 Figure 3-11a: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map – Costa Mesa and Surrounding Region

Source: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and Department of Housing and Community Development, 2021.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-84 Figure 3-11b: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map – High Segregation and Poverty (2021)

Source: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and Department of Housing and Community Development, 2021.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-85 Opportunity Areas – Education
The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Maps include education data, as illustrated in Figure 3-12 . This data represents opportunity levels based on the following four factors:
 Math proficiency – Percentage of 4th graders who meet or exceed math proficiency standards.  Reading proficiency – Percentage of 4th graders who meet or exceed literacy standards.  High school graduation rates – Percentage of high school cohort that graduated on time.  Student poverty rate – Percentage of students not receiving free or reduced-price lunch.

As Figure 3-12 shows, the City has a variety of education outcome scores. The more positive education outcomes are located over East Side Costa Mesa, east of the 55 Freeway, as well as over the neighborhoods south of the 405-freeway and in the ce nter of the City. The area of the City west of Harbor Boulevard and north of Fairview Park are rated mo derate for educational outcomes. West Side Costa Mesa in the City’s south-western region has the lowest educational outcome.

Title 1 schools receive additional government funding to assist their lower-income student base who are at risk of falling behind. Within Newport-Mesa Unified School District, there are a total of 10 elementary schools, 2 middle schools, and 2 high schools. The following 3 elementary schools are Title 1 schools: Davis Elementary School, Heinz Kaiser Elementary School, and Woodland Elementary School. Davis Elementary S c h o o l i s l o c a t e d i n t h e c e n t e r o f C o s t a M e s a j u s t north of the OC Fairgrounds and Heinz Kaiser and Woodland Elementary Schools are both located in East Side Costa Mesa between the 55 Freeway and the Upper Newport Bay State Marine Conservation Area.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-86 Figure 3-12: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map – Education

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-87 Opportunity Indicators
Opportunity indicators also help inform communiti es about disparities in access to opportunity. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) developed the opportunity indicators to help inform communities about disparities in access to opportunity, the scores are based on nationally available data sources and assess resident’s access to key opportunity assets in the City. Table 3-20 provides the index scores (ranging from zero to 100) for the following opportunity indicator indices:
 Low Poverty Index: The low poverty index captures poverty in a given neighborhood. The poverty rate is determined at the census tract level. The higher the score, the less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood.
 School Proficiency Index: The school proficiency index uses school-level data on the performance of 4th grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods have high-performing elementary schools nearby and which are near lower performing elementary schools. The higher the score, the higher the school system quality is in a neighborhood.  Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the score, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood.
 Transit Trips Index: This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a three-person single-parent family with income at 50% of the median income for renters for the region (i.e. the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA)). The higher the transit trips index, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit.  Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a three-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. The higher the index, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.
 Jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index quantifies th e accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a region/CBSA, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood.  Environmental Health Index: The environmental health index summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block-group.

Table 3-20 below displays the opportunity indices by race and ethnicity for persons in Costa Mesa.

According to the data, there is some poverty among the population of Costa Mesa, across all racial/ethnic groups. There are higher levels of poverty among the Hispanic and Native American populations. All racial/ethnic groups in Costa Mesa experience levels of environmental health below 50, meaning all residents are exposed to a higher degree of environmental pollutants. Otherwise, the data shows the City has high marks for school proficiency, labor market, transit, transportation cost, and job proximity.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-88 Table 3-20: Opportunity Indicators, City of Costa Mesa
(Costa Mesa,

CA CDBG)
Jurisdiction
Low
Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor
Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-
Hispanic 60.10 72.71 73.56 89.69 81.33 83.04 28.03
Black, Non-
Hispanic 55.04 70.24 69.80 90.47 83.27 83.47 25.72
Hispanic 40.06 60.53 56.72 90.42 83.05 78.57 30.24
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-
Hispanic

61.51 71.28 73.20 90.57 82.88 87.44 22.65
Native
American,
Non-Hispanic

53.54 70.81 68.03 90.49 82.74 81.69 28.26
Population Below Federal Poverty Line
White, Non-
Hispanic 53.85 69.80 68.91 90.07 82.43 80.51 28.58
Black, Non-
Hispanic 61.70 78.78 82.00 91.46 84.89 87.37 19.50
Hispanic 33.36 56.69 51.57 90.56 83.60 78.70 31.40
Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non-
Hispanic

55.36 71.81 73.29 90.38 83.08 84.52 24.46
Native
American,
Non-Hispanic

50.53 67.96 56.06 91.85 77.66 85.70 19.03
Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Online Mapping tool, Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; NATA

Access to Transit
Transit explores metrics that reveal the social and ec onomic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. According to the data provided and as shown in Figure 3-13, Costa Mesa scored a 5.4 AllTransit performance score, illustrating a moderate combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible that enable a moderate number of people to take transit to work. In comparison to neighboring ci ties – Huntington Beach scores a 4. 4, Irvine scored a 3.6, Santa Ana scored a 6.6, and Newport Beach scored a 3.9. Access to transportation increases both the economic and environmental/health opportunities. Additionally, AllTransit provides the following data for Costa Mesa transportation:
 98.8% of jobs are located within ½ of transit.
 99,721 customer households have access to a business within a 30-minute transit commute.  2.29% of workers walk to work and 1.43% bike to work
 There are no households within a ½ miles of high frequency transit.  On average, there are 6 transit routes within ½ of a block group on average.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-89

Table 3-21: Opportunity Indicator – Transit
Jurisdiction
AllTransit
Performance
Score
Transit Trips Per
Week within
1/2 Mile
Jobs Accessible
in 30-min trip
Commuters Who
Use Transit
Transit Routes
within 1/2 Mile
Costa Mesa 5.4 837 292,009 2.55% 6
Orange
County 4.2 528 172,595 2.28% 4
Source: AllTransit Fact Sheet, Costa Mesa, 2021.

Figure 3-13: All Transit Performance Score – Costa Mesa

Source: AllTransit Fact Sheet, 2021.

Environmental Justice
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA ) developed a screening methodology to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution called the California Communities Environmen tal Health Screening Tool (CalEnviro Screen). In addition to environmental factors (pollutant exposure, groundwater th reats, toxic sites, and hazardous materials exposure) and sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low birth weight infants), CalEnviro Screen also takes into consideration socioeconomic factors. These factors include educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment. Research has shown a heightened vulnerability of people of color and lower socioeconomic status to environmental pollutants. Figure 3-14 below displays mapped results for the CalEnviro Screen in Costa Mesa and the Orange County region. The map shows that Costa Mesa is prim arily moderate-scoring, with a few low-scoring census tracts and a couple high-scoring census tracts. High scores signify high levels of pollution burdens and low scores signify

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-90 low levels of pollution. Table 3-22 and Table 3-23 below identifies the CalEnviro Screen scores for the highest and lowest scoring census tracts in Costa Mesa, respectively.

Table 3-22: CalEnviro Screen 3.0 – Highest Scoring Census Tract (6059063605) Pollutant Percentile* Health Risk/Burden Percentile*
Ozone 40 Asthma 47
PM 2.5 53 Low Birth Weight 78
Diesel 51 Cardiovascular Rate 33
Pesticides 0 Education 92
Toxic Releases 85 Linguistic Isolation 76
Traffic 58 Poverty 88
Drinking Water 10 Unemployment 76
Cleanups 98 Housing Burden 74
Groundwater Threats 92
Hazardous Waste 93
Impaired Water 0
Solid Waste 53
*Percentile derived using a weighted scoring system to determine average pollution burden/ socioeconomic scores relative to other census tracts.

Source: CalEnviro Screen 3.0 Map Tool, June 2018 Update. Accessed April 28, 2021.

Table 3-23: CalEnviro Screen 3.0 – Lowest Scoring Census Tract (6059063905) Pollutant Percentile* Health Risk/Burden Percentile*
Ozone 40 Asthma 33
PM 2.5 53 Low Birth Weight 11
Diesel 46 Cardiovascular Rate 24
Pesticides 0 Education 27
Toxic Releases 89 Linguistic Isolation 22
Traffic 47 Poverty 34
Drinking Water 10 Unemployment 13
Cleanups 44 Housing Burden 59
Groundwater Threats 25
Hazardous Waste 63
Impaired Water 0
Solid Waste 0
*Percentile derived using a weighted scoring system to determine average pollution burden/ socioeconomic scores relative to other census tracts.

Source: CalEnviro Screen 3.0 Map Tool, June 2018 Update. Accessed May 24, 2021.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-91 Figure 3-14: CalEnviro Screen, Costa Mesa (2018)

Source: CalEnviro Screen 3.0 Map Tool, June 2018 Update. Accessed April 28, 2021.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-92

3. Discussion of Disproportionate Housing Needs
The analysis of disproportionate ho using needs within Costa Mesa eval uates existing housing need, need of the future housing population, and units within the community at-risk of converting to market-rate.

Existing Needs
As described in Section 3.G.1 of this Housing Element, the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA) administers Section 8 Housing Choice vouchers within the Ci ty of Costa Mesa. Fo r the 2020 year, there were a total of 561 Section 8 voucher holders within the community: 110 for persons with disabilities, 394 for seniors, and 54 families with at least one dependent.

Housing Needs in Costa Mesa
A variety of factors affect housin g needs for different households. Mo st commonly, disability, household income, and household characteristics shape the type and size of housing needed, as well as accessibility based on existing units in a City. Tables 3-24 through 3-31 display data for demographic characteristics of Costa Mesa, as compared to Orange County and the State of California. Additional detailed analysis of the Costa Mesa community is provided in Chapter 2: Community Profile.

Table 3-24 displays the data for persons with disabilities in the City, County, and State. Overall, about 10.6 percent of the California population has at least one disability. Orange County and the City of Costa Mesa both have lower percentages by about 2 percent less persons with disabilities. Ambulatory, Independent Living, and Cognitive Difficulties are the top three most common disabilities for all three jurisdictions, in order starting from most common. These figures may be reflective of disabilities commonly found amongst the senior population. Each of reasonable accomm odation procedures and o pportunity for accessible housing can provide increased housing security for the population with disabilities.

Table 3-24: Population by Disability Type by Geography, 2019 Disability Type Costa Mesa Orange County California
Hearing Difficulty 2.4% 2.5% 2.9%
Vision Difficulty 1.6% 1.5% 2%
Cognitive Difficulty 3.4% 3.4% 4.3%
Ambulatory Difficulty 4.3% 4.5% 5.8%
Self-Care Difficulty 1.7% 2.2% 2.6%
Independent Living Difficulty 3.8% 4.3% 5.5%
Total with a Disability* 8.3% 8.5% 10.6%
* Total of noninstitutionalized population with at least one disability.

Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

Figure 3-15 shows the population with a disability throughout the City. As illustrated, the majority of the City has census tracts that report less than 10 perc ent of a disabled population. There are a few census tracts with a population of 10 to 20 percent reporting at least one disability.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-93 Figure 3-15: Population with a Disability, Costa Mesa

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-94 Table 3-25 and Table 3-26 displays household type and income data for the State, County, and City. Overall, Orange County has the largest percentage of family households (71.7 percent) and Costa Mesa has the smallest with about 10 percent less. Costa Mesa has the lowest percentage of female households without a spouse. Non-family households represent the larges t household type in Costa Mesa at 40.5 percent, which is about 9 percent more than California and 12 percent more than Orange County. About 40 percent households in both the State and the County have at least one person above the age of 60, while there are about 30 percent of households in Costa Mesa with at least one person over the age of 60. Different household types have varying housing needs – se nior households may benefit from reasonable accommodation procedures and being located near medical facilities, single-parent households may benefit from affordable housing options due to limi ted income, and family households may benefit from larger housing units located near community areas and schools.

Table 3-25: Population by Familial Status by Geography, 2019 Familial Status Costa Mesa Orange County California
Family Households 59.5% 71.7% 68.7%
Married-Couple Family
Households 43.2% 54.9% 49.8%
With Related Children
Under 18 29.3% 34.1% 34%
Female Households, No Spouse 10.1% 11.5% 13%
Non-Family Households 40.5% 28.3% 31.3%
Households with One or More
People 60 Years+ 29.5% 39.9% 39.1%
Total Households 40,986 1,037,492 13,044,266
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

Table 3-26 provides a breakdown on incomes for the State, County, and City. The majority of households in each region earn between $100,000 and $200,000 annua lly. Orange County has the highest median income at $90,234, about $6,000 more than for Cost a Mesa and $15,000 more than for California as a whole.

Table 3-26: Households by Income by Geography, 2019
Household Income Costa Mesa Orange County California
Less than $10,000 4.5% 4.2% 4.8%
$10,000-$14,999 2.3% 2.7% 4.1%
$15,000-$24,999 5.6% 5.6% 7.5%
$25,000-$34,999 6% 6% 7.5%
$35,000-$49,999 9.5% 8.8% 10.5%
$50,000-$74,999 15.8% 14.6% 15.5%
$75,000-$99,999 13.9% 12.8% 12.4%
$100,000-$149,999 19.9% 18.6% 16.6%
$150,000-$199,999 10% 11.1% 8.9%
$200,000 or More 12.4% 15.5% 12.2%
Median Income $84,138 $90,234 $75,235
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-95 Figure 3-16 below shows the City has varying rates of married-couple households throughout its different census tracts. In general, the map shows the eastern and western edges of the City, which are predominantly single-family neighborhoods, have the highest rates of married-couple households (40-60 percent). Towards the center of the City, census tr acts report approximately 20 to 40 percent married- couple households.

When compared to Figure 3-17 , the census tracts with the highest rates of married-couple households overlap with the highest rates of children living in married-couple family households. Costa Mesa has a generally high propensity of children living in marri ed-couple family households throughout most census tracts. In comparison to neighboring communities, however, Costa Mesa has less census tracts with children in married-couple family households.

Figure 3-18 shows the City, as with its neighboring communities, has very low rates of children living in female- headed households with no spouse present. Most of the City reports approximately 20 percent of less, except for a census tract towards the southern edge of the City which reports 40 to 60 percent of children living in female-headed households. This same census tract is also one of two which reports 20 to 40 percent of its population over the age of 18 living alone, as illustrated in Figure 3-19. The rest of the City has fairly low rates of individuals living alone, with the remaining census tracts reporting less than 20 percent.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-96 Figure 3-16: Married-Couple Households, Costa Mesa

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-97 Figure 3-17: Children in Married-Couple Households, Costa Mesa

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-98 Figure 3-18: Children in Female-Headed Households, Costa Mesa

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-99 Figure 3-19: Individuals Living Alone, Costa Mesa

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-100 Table 3-27 displays data for households experiencing overpayment or cost burden in the State, County, and City. Housing cost burden can cause mainly displace ment, which may create limited access to essential goods and community, as well as employment by pote ntially increasing commute times. The percentages of households that experience a cost burden greater than 30 percent is overall similar amongst the State, County, and City. Costa Mesa experiences higher ra tes of cost burden than the County by about two percent. The City also has the largest percentage of households with a cost burden over 50 percent at about

21.6 percent, compared to about 19 percent in both the State and County. Increased opportunity for affordable housing and housing assistance funds help to prevent cost burden on households.

Table 3-27: Household Overpayment by Geography, 2019
Overpayment Costa Mesa Orange County California
Cost Burden > 30% 42.1% 40.5% 40.1%
Cost Burden > 50% 21.6% 19.3% 19.4%
Cost Burden Not Available 1.3% 1.4% 1.4%
Source: HUD Consolidated Planning/CHAS Data, 2013-2017.

Figure 3-20 shows household overpayment for homeowners and Figure 3-21 shows household overpayment for renters. As illustrated, overpayment disproportionately affects Costa Mesa renters compared to homeowners. Overpayment for homeowners is greater in census tracts along the 55 Freeway.

Overpayment for renters is higher to the south of the City in census tracts along Placentia Avenue and to the north in Mesa Verde and along Harbor Boulevard.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-101 Figure 3-20: Overpayment by Homeowners, Costa Mesa

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-102 Figure 3-21: Overpayment by Renters, Costa Mesa

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-103 Table 3-28 displays data for household tenure (homeowners and renters) for the State, County, and City.

Homeownership is a crucial foundation for households with low incomes to build strength, stability, and independence. The opportunity for transition into the homebuyer’s market is important in a healthy housing market. Table 3-28 shows that the City of Costa Mesa has a much lower percentage of homeowners than the County and State, reporting about 38 percen t, compared to 57 percent in the County and 55 percent in the State. Costa Mesa also has higher rates of renter at 62 percent, compares to 43 percent in the County and 45 percent in the State.

Table 3-28: Households by Tenure by Geography, 2019
Household Tenure Costa Mesa Orange County California
Owner Households 38.3% 57.4% 54.8%
Renter Households 61.7% 42.6% 45.2%
Total Occupied Housing Units 40,986 1,037,492 13,044,266 Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

Additionally, Table 3-29 displays data for overcrowding. Overcrow ding is defined as between 1.01 and 1.5 persons per bedroom in a household, and severe overcr owding is defined as more than 1.51 persons per bedroom. Overcrowding often occurs when nonfamily members combine incomes to live in one household, such as college students and roommates. Overcrowding also occurs when there are not enough size- appropriate housing options for large or multigenerational households. The City has the lowest percentages of owner-occupied households with overcrowded and severely overcrowded households compared to the County and State. Renters in Costa Mesa are disproportionately affected by overcrowding when compare to homeowners. Overall, across all three regions, owners were less affected by overcrowding and severe overcrowding.

Figure 3-22 also shows overcrowded households within the City. The figure shows three census tracts with over 20 percent of overcrowded households along Placentia Avenue west of the 55 Freeway. This also overlaps with areas of high overpayment rates for renters, higher levels of pollution burdens, low TCAC resource areas, as well as the High Segregation and Poverty area. As noted throughout this AFFH analysis, the City has placed a great amount of attention on the area. New residential developments and a new library, community center, and senior center in the area have participated in improving access to resources and general revitalization of the area. A number of candi date housing sites are located within this higher overcrowding region, and the City will work further with developers in ensuring that amenities, sidewalks, streetscape, and general conditions meet the needs of the community.

Table 3-29: Households by Overcrowding by Geography, 2019 Overcrowding and Tenure Costa Mesa Orange County California Owner Households
Overcrowded 0.6% 1.5% 1.6%
Severely Overcrowded 0.2% 0.6% 0.6%
Renter Households
Overcrowded 5.3% 4.2% 3.6%
Severely Overcrowded 2.7% 2.6% 2.4%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-104 Figure 3-22: Overcrowded Households, Costa Mesa

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development – AFFH Data Viewer

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-105 Housing Stock in Costa Mesa
Table 3-30 and 3-31 display comparative housing stock data fo r the State, County, and City. Table 3-20 below shows data for occupied housing units by ty pe. A variety of housing stock provides increased opportunity in communities for different size and hous ehold types. The majority of housing stock in Costa Mesa is multi-unit developments (50.6 percent for 2 or more units). Single-family housing units represent about 48 percent of the housing stock in Costa Mesa. Comparatively, single family units represent about 63 percent and 64 percent of the housing stock in the County and the State, respectively.

Table 3-30: Occupied Housing Units by Type by Geography, 2019 Housing Unit Type Costa Mesa Orange County California
1-Unit, Detached 37.9% 50.6% 57.7%
1-Unit, Attached 9.2% 12.3% 7.0%
2 Units 2.9% 1.6% 2.4%
3 or 4 Units 9.6% 6.9% 5.5%
5 to 9 Units 9.4% 6.7% 6.0%
10 to 19 Units 9.1% 5.4% 5.2%
20 or More Units 19.6% 13.7% 12.3%
Mobile Home 2.2% 2.7% 3.7%
Boat, RV, Van, etc. 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

Table 3-31 below displays housing stock by year built for the City, County, and State. Older housing units generally require more upkeep, regular maintenance, and can cause a cost burden on both renters and homeowners. The majority of Costa Mesa’s housing stock (68.2 percent) was built during a housing boom between 1950 and 1979. The trend is similar for the County and State, with majority of units built between 1980 and 2013. Overall, increased numbers of older hous ing can lead to displace ment, cost burden, and substandard living conditions. An analysis of the housing stock in provided in Chapter 2: Costa Mesa Community Profile.

Table 3-31: Housing Unit by Year Built by Geography, 2019 Year Built Costa Mesa Orange County California
Built 2014 or later 2.6% 2.7% 1.7%
Built 2010 to 2013 1.0% 2.0% 1.7%
Built 2000 to 2009 5.2% 8.3% 11.2%
Built 1990 to 1999 6.3% 11.7% 10.9%
Built 1980 to 1989 12.3% 14.9% 15.0%
Built 1970 to 1979 23.6% 23.3% 17.6%
Built 1960 to 1969 26.7% 19.5% 13.4%
Built 1950 to 1959 17.9% 13.0% 13.4%
Built 1940 to 1949 3.1% 2.1% 5.9%
Built 1939 or earlier 1.3% 2.5% 9.1%
Source: American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2019.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-106 Future Growth Need
The City’s future growth need is based on the RHNA production of 2,919 very low and 1,794 low-income units within the 2021-2029 planning period. Appendix B of this Housing Elements shows the City’s ability to meet its 2021-2029 RHNA need at all income levels. This demonstrates the City’s ability to accommodate the anticipated future affordable housing needs of the community.

4. Displacement Risk
The potential for economic displacement risk can result from a variety of factors, including large-scale development activity, neighborhood re investment, infrastructure investments, and changes in local and regional employment opportunity. Economic displacement can be an inadvertent result of public and private investment, where individuals and families may not be able to keep pace with increased property values and market rental rates.

Urban Displacement
The Urban Displacement Project developed a neig hborhood change database to map neighborhood transformations and identify areas vulnerable to gentrification and displacement. This data was developed to assist local decision makers and stakeholders better plan for existing communities and provide additional resources to areas in need or at-risk of displacement and gentrification. Table 3-32 provides the criteria used to identify each displacement typology and the total number of Costa Mesa Census Tracts that currently fall within each category.

Table 3-32: Displacement Typology Criteria and Costa Mesa Census Tracts Modified Types and Criteria Census Tracts
Low-Income/Susceptible to Displacement
 Low or mixed low-income tract in 2018.
6059063701
6059063605
Ongoing Displacement of Low-Income Households
 Low or mixed low-income tract in 2018.
 Absolute loss of low-income households, 2000-2018.
--
At Risk of Gentrification
 Low or mixed low-income tract in 2018.
 Housing affordable to low or mixed low-income households in 2018.  Didn’t gentrify 1990-2000 OR 2000-2018.
 Marginal change in housing costs OR Zillow home or rental value increases in the 90th percentile between 2012-2018.
 Local and nearby increases in rent were greater than the regional median between 2012-2018 OR the 2018 rent gap is greater than the regional median rent gap.
--
Early/Ongoing Gentrification
 Low or mixed low-income tract in 2018.
 Housing affordable to moderate or mixed moderate-income households in 2018.
 Increase or rapid increase in housing costs OR above regional median change in Zillow home or rental values between 2-12-2018.  Gentrified in 1990-2000 or 2000-2018.
--
Advanced Gentrification
 Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high-income tract in 2018.  Housing affordable to middle, high, mixed moderate, and mixed high- income households in 2018.
6059063604

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-107 Table 3-32: Displacement Typology Criteria and Costa Mesa Census Tracts Modified Types and Criteria Census Tracts
 Marginal change, increase, or rapid increase in housing costs.  Gentrified in 1990-2000 or 2000-2018.

Stable Moderate/Mixed Income
 Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high-income tract in 2018. 6059062610
6059063908
6059063902
6059063803
6059063702
6059063201
6059063101
At Risk of Becoming Exclusive
 Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high-income tract in 2018.  Housing affordable to middle, high, mixed moderate, and mixed high- income households in 2018.
 Marginal change or increase in housing costs.
6059063903
6059063904
6059063102
6059063906
6059063905
6059063808
6059063802
6059063807
6059063202
Becoming Exclusive
 Moderate, mixed moderate, mixed high, or high-income tract in 2018.  Housing affordable to middle, high, mixed moderate, and mixed high- income households in 2018.
 Rapid increase in housing costs.
 Absolute loss of low-income households, 2000-2018.
 Declining low-income in-migration rate, 2012-2018.
 Median income higher in 2018 than in 2000.
6059063301
Stable/Advanced Exclusive
 High-income tract in 2000 and 2018
 Affordable to high or mixed high-income households in 2018.  Marginal change, increase, or rapid increase in housing costs. 6059063907
6059063805
6059063806
6059063601
6059063302
6059063103
Source: Urban Displacement Project, University of California Berkeley (2021).

Table 3-32 and Figure 3-23 both show the City is mostly made up of census tracts which are currently identified as “exclusive” or are in the process/at-risk of becoming exclusive. These areas overlap with most of the City’s single-family neighborhoods. Two census tracts on the west-side of Costa Mesa and to the east of Placentia Avenue are currently identified as lo w-income and susceptible to displacement. The south- western-most census tract to the west of Placentia Avenue is categorized as “Advanced Gentrification”, signifying a rapid increase in housing cost over the past few years. A possible reason for these classifications may be new developments within the census tract and the recently added/renovated public library, community center, and senior center. The census tracts have also seen increases in housing cost; however, this is fairly consistent with the City as a whole and the region. As detailed in the section above, the area has historically been subject to lower access to resources, higher poverty and segregation rates, and greater pollution burdens. These recent projects and invest ments in the community seek to improve conditions and amenities for residents. Candidate sites have also be en identified in this area, as detailed in Appendix B, which may provide for future affordable housing units to increase housing choices and opportunities and amenities for existing residents. The City has work ed with developers constructing new residential developments in the area and will continue to ensure that future projects consider the needs of the existing community. The Housing Plan contains a number of programs to facilitate these partnerships with both the community and housing developers, as well as limit displacement and the gentrification of the area. c
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-108 Figure 3-23: Urban Displacement Project - Gentrification and Displacement

Source: Urban Displacement Project, University of California Berkeley (2021).

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-109 Inventory of Assisted Affordable Housing
Affordable covenants help to ensure that certain housing units remain affordable for an extended period of time. Covenants provide lasting affordable opti ons to low and very low-income households in a community. Table 3-33 below provides a list of 1,144 housing units with affordability covenants, of which 75 housing units are at-risk of converting to market-rate between 2021 and 2031.

Jurisdictions are required by State Housing Element Law to analyze government -assisted housing that is eligible to convert from lower income to market rate housing over the next 10 years. State law identifies housing assistance as a rental subsidy, mortgage su bsidy or mortgage insuranc e to an assisted housing development. Government assisted housing may convert to market rate housing for several reasons, including expiring subsidies, mortgage repayments, or expiration of affordability restrictions. Consistent with the requirements to analyze the impacts of the potential conversion of these units to market-rate units, this section provides an analysis of preservation of assisted housing units at-risk of conversion.

Table 3-33: Affordable Housing Units in Costa Mesa with Covenants Name of Project Address Target Group Potential
Expiration Funding
Target
Income
Level
Assisted
Units
Casa Bella 1844 Park Ave. Senior 2025 HUD Section 8 Very Low 75 Bethel Towers 678 W. 19th St. Senior 2067 LIHTC Low 53
St. John’s Manor 2031 Orange Ave. Senior 5/2062
HUD Section 8,
HOME, Costa
Mesa
Redevelopment,
Federal Rental
Rehab
Very Low 36
Costa Mesa
Family Village
2015 -2019 Pomona Ave.
755-771 W. 20th St.
1924-1932 Wallace Ave.

General 12/2038
Costa Mesa
Redevelopment
Ground Lease
Very
Low/Low 72
Park Place Village
(SRO) 1662 Newport Blvd. General Perpetuity Land Use
Restriction Very Low 60
Costa Mesa
Village (SRO) 2450 Newport Blvd. General Perpetuity
OC Housing
Authority, Costa
Mesa
Redevelopment

Very Low 96
Newport Senior
Village (SRO) 2080 Newport Blvd. Senior Perpetuity Land Use Restriction
Very
Low/Low 91
HOME
Rehabilitation
Project #1
734-744 James Street General 4/2049 HOME Very
Low/Low 11
HOME
Rehabilitation
Project #3A
745 W. 18th Street General 5/2056 HOME Very
Low/Low 3
HOME
Rehabilitation
Project #6
717-721 James Street General 6/2058 HOME, Federal
Rental Rehab
Very
Low/Low 8
HOME
Rehabilitation
Project #3B
707-711 W. 18th
Street General 5/2056 Costa Mesa
Redevelopment
Very
Low/Low 8
Other Density
Bonus Units Scattered General Various Land Use
Restriction
Very
Low/Low/ 156

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-110 Table 3-33: Affordable Housing Units in Costa Mesa with Covenants Name of Project Address Target Group Potential
Expiration Funding
Target
Income
Level
Assisted
Units
Moderate
Harbor Village 2501 Harbor
Developmentally
Disabled and
General
Perpetuity State-Owned
Very
Low/Low/
Moderate
550
TOTAL 1,144
TOTAL UNITS AT-RISK 75
Sources:

1. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

2. California Housing Partnership Corporation.

3. City of Costa Mesa, 2013
Cost of Preservation of Units
While there are many options to preserving units including providing financial incentives to project owners to extend lower income use restrictions, purchasing a ffordable housing units by a non-profit or public agency, or providing local subsidies to offset the difference between the affordable and market rate units, the strategy considered below is to provide local rental subsidy to residents. The rent subsidy would provide financial assistance to residents if their affordable units converted to market rate. To determine the subsidy needed, Fair Market Rents were compared to market rate rents.

Table 3-34: Estimated Monthly Subsidy to Preserve “At-Risk” Units Unit Size
Monthly Rents Number of
Units At-Risk Difference Monthly
Subsidy
Annual
Subsidy Fair Market
Rents1 Market Rate2
Efficiency $1,716 $2,293 0 $577 $0 $0
1-Bedroom $1,905 $2,707 75 $802 $60,150 $721,800
2-Bedroom $2,324 $3,352 0 $1,028 $0 $0
3-Bedroom $3,178 $3,712 0 $534 $0 $0
4-Bedroom $3,674 N/A 0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL $721,800
Source:

1. HUD FY 2022 Fair Market Rent Documentation System – Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA HUD Metro FMR Area

2. Kimley-Horn and Associate Analysis – based on apartments listed for rent across ten properties on September 22, 2021.

Cost of Replacement of Units
The City of Costa Mesa can also consider the cost of replacing the units with new construction. Construction cost estimates include all hard and soft costs associated with construction in addition to per unit land costs.

The analysis assumes the replacement units are apartments with concrete block with steel frame buildings and parking provided on-site. Square footage estimates are based on estimated size of units to be replaced and assume housing units are developed on multi- family zoned properties. Land costs have been determined on a per unit basis.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-111 Table 3-35: Replacement Cost by Unit Type of At-Risk Units Size of Unit Cost Per Square
Foot1
Average
Square
Foot/Unit2
Replacement
Cost/Unit3
Number of
Units
Total
Replacement
Cost
Efficiency 131.24 508 $66,670 0 $0
1-Bedroom 131.24 761 $99,874 75 $7,490,523
2-Bedroom 131.24 1,080 $141,739 0 $0
3-Bedroom 131.24 1,390 $182,424 0 $0
4-Bedroom 131.24 N/A N/A 0 $0
TOTAL $7,490,523
Source:

1. International Code Council – August 2020 Report.

2. Kimley-Horn and Associate Analysis – based on apartments listed for rent across ten properties on September 22, 2021.

3. Includes financing and land acquisition costs of $30,000 per unit.

Resources for Affordable Housing Units
A variety of programs exist to help cities acquire, replace, or subsidize at-risk affordable housing units. The following summarizes financial resources available:
 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) – CDBG funds are awarded to cities on a formula basis for housing activities. The primary objective of the CDBG program is the development of viable communities through the provision of dece nt housing, a suitable living environment and economic opportunity for principally low- and moderate-income persons. Eligible activities include administration, fair housing, energy conservation and renewable energy sources, assistance for economic development, public facilities and improvements and public services.  HOME Investment Partnership – Local jurisdictions can receive funds by formula from the Department of Housing and Urba n Development (HUD) to increase the supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing to lower income households. Eligible activities include housing acquisition, rehabilitation, and development, homebuyer assistance, and rental assistance.  Section 8 Rental Assistance Program – The Section 8 Rental Assistance Program provides rental assistance payments to owners of private, market rate units on behalf of very low-income tenants, senior citizens, disabled and/or handicapped persons, and other individuals for securing affordable housing.
 Section 202/811 Program – Non-profit and consumer cooperat ives can receive no-interest capital advances from HUD under the Section 202 program for the construction of very low-income rental housing with the availability of supportive servic es for seniors and persons with disabilities. These funds can be used in conjunction with Section 811, which can be used to develop group homes, independent living facilities and immediate care facilities. The capital advance funding can also provide project rental assistance for the properti es developed using the funds. Eligible activities include acquisition, rehabilitation, new construction, and rental assistance.  California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) Multifamily Programs – CalHFA’s Multifamily Programs provide permanent financing for the acquisition , rehabilitation, and preservation of new construction of rental housing that includes affordable rents for low- and moderate-income

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-112 families and individuals. One of the programs is the Preservation Loan program which provides acquisition/rehabilitation and permanent loan fina ncing designed to preserve or increase the affordability status of existing multifamily housing projects.  Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) – This program provides tax credits to individuals and corporations that invest in low-income rental housing. Tax credits are sold to those with high tax liability and proceeds are used to create housing. Eligible activities include new construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of properties.
 California Community Reinvestment Corporation (CCRC) – The California Community Reinvestment Corporation is a multifamily affordable housing lender whose mission is to increase the availability of affordable housing for low-in come families, seniors, and re sidents with special needs by facilitating private capital flow from its investors for debt and equity to developers of affordable housing. Eligible activities include new construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of properties.

Qualified Entities for Preservation of Affordable Housing Units The following organizations may potentially assist in preserving future at-risk units:
 Jamboree Housing Corporation
 Irvine Housing Opportunities, Inc.
 Bridge Housing Corporation
 The Irvine Company
 Orange County Housing Authority
 Housing Corporation of America
 Southern California Housing
Development Corporation
 Century Housing
Quantified Objectives
Housing Element law requires that cities establish th e maximum number of units that can be preserved over the planning period. The City’s objective it to preserve the 75 affordable housing units “at-risk” of converting to market rate through policy programs provided in Chapter 4: Housing Plan.

SB 330
Effective January 1, 2020, Senate Bi ll 330 (SB 330) aims to increase resi dential unit development, protect existing housing inventory, and expedite permit processing. Under this legislation, municipal and county agencies are restricted in ordinances and polices th at can be applied to residential development. The revised definition of “Housing Development” now contains residential projects of two or more units, mixed- use projects (with two-thirds of the floor area designated for residential use), transitional, supportive, and emergency housing projects. SB330 sets a temporary 5- year prohibition of resi dential density reduction associated with a “housing development project”, from January 1, 2020, to January 1, 2025. For example, during this temporary prohibition, a residential triplex cannot be demolished and replaced with a duplex as this would be a net loss of one unit.

The City is committed to making diligent efforts to engage underrepresented and disadvantaged communities in studying displacement.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-113

5. Summary of Fair Housing Analysis
The analysis conducted in this section regarding fa ir housing issues within Costa Mesa yielded the following conclusions:
 The dissimilarity analysis shows that nearly all racial and ethnic groups experience moderate to high segregation in the City of Costa Mesa. The Native Hawaiian and the Hispanic population experience the highest levels of segregation, meaning that to create a more integrated city, more than 45 percent of each respective population wo uld need to move into a predominantly white census tract.
 There are no racially or ethnically concentrated census tracts (RECAPs) within Costa Mesa as identified by HUD. This indicates that there are no census tracts within the City with a non-white population of 50 percent or more or any census tr acts that have a poverty rate that exceeds 40% or is three or more times the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan area. However, there is one area identified as high segregation and poverty.  The data shows that Costa Mesa has ten block groups which meet the criteria for racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAA). RCAAs are areas which the population is predominantly white with an income over $125,000 or higher.
 The UC Davis Regional Opportunity Index shows that the majority of residents within Costa Mesa have a moderate to high level of achievement and attainment. However, there are two census tracts in the south western portion of the City which show the lowest levels of attainment and achievement for residents, these areas also overlap with the high segregation and poverty area identified by the TCAC map (Figure 3-5b).
 The UC Davis Regional Opportunity Index (ROI)shows that the majority of residents within Costa Mesa have the highest level of access to opportunity throughout the City. Additional analysis of the ROI maps show that the northern portion of the City has moderate to lower levels of access to affordable or appropriate housing.
 The City provides moderate transit trip opportunity, a score of 5.4. Additionally, about 98.8% of all City jobs are within ½ mile of transit but just under 3 percent of the working population uses public transit as a primary source of transportation.
 The City has demonstrated the ability to meet th e anticipated future affordable housing needs of the community through the designation of sites to meet the very low and low income RHNA need (Appendix B: Candidate Si tes and Housing Resources ). These sites are dispersed throughout the community and are identified on sites with high opportunity for residential development.  There are 75 current units with affordable covenant s at risk of converting to market rate before the year 2029 in the City.
 The CalEnviro Screen mapping tool (2018) identified most of the Ci ty as “moderate” to “low to moderate” scoring, indicating moderate exposure to harmful pollutants. Additionally, the area which is identified as high segregation and poverty is the highest scoring census tract on the CalEnviro Screen map, indicating high exposure to harmful pollutants.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-114

6. Assessment of Contributing factors to Fair Housing in Costa Mesa Regionally Identified Contributing Factors
As identified by the AI and the above analysis the City of Costa Mesa experiences the following local contributing factors to fair housing:
 Housing Discrimination – The 2020 AI identified housing discrimi nation as an impediment to fair housing choice in the City. The AI reports that 609 households in Costa Mesa received fair housing services relating to general housing issues and discrimination allegations. The Fair Housing Foundation (FHF) received 65 housing discrimination inquiries with 9 based on physical or mental disability, 8 related to race, 2 related to national origin, 2 related to gender, 1 related to sexual orientation, and 5 related to familial status.
o Through CDBG funding the City contracts with the Fair Housing Foundation to provide educational and support services to persons who experience housing discrimination in Costa Mesa. Services include: 1) responding to discrimination inquiries and complaints through screening and counseling, 2) document ing discrimination complaints by opening fair housing cases, 3) investigating discrimination complaints through extensive testing, and 4) resolving discrimination complaints through conciliation, mediation, administrative agency referrals, and litigation.
 Racial and Ethnic Segregation – The Analysis above identifies moderate segregation through the dissimilarity index analysis. Persons who identify as Hispanics, Asian, Native Hawaiian, American Indian, and Black experience over 30 percent dissimilari ty with the white population in Costa Mesa.

Additionally, while the R/ECAP analysis did not identify R/ECAPs in the City, there are two racially and ethnic concentrated areas of poverty near the City consisting of primarily Hispanic and Asian population. o During the AI report period, the City distributed literature on fair housing in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese to target neighborhoods and in conjunction with other neighborhood improvement efforts. This information was also provided at workshop events, at community centers, and at City Hall.
o The City will continue to outreach specifically to low and very low-income residents as wells considered targeted outreach to residents with moderate and high levels of segregation,  Unfair Lending – The Lending Analysis identifies lower rates of home loan approval for moderate, low, and very low-income residents. Additionally, applicants in Costa Mesa who identify as Black experience both lower rates of home loan approv al and purchase and higher rates of home loan denial, indicating disparity in access to funding.
o Currently, the City does not offer homebuyer assistance, but the AI reports that information on housing rehab programs are avai lable on the City’s website. The City will continue to provide important ownership information on the City’s website. Costa Mesa recognizes that an educated community is an empowered commitment and will considered target education and outreach about loan purchase to residents.  Overcrowding – the Analysis of Existing Housing Needs in Costa Mesa identified a significantly higher percentage of renters who experience overcrowding in the City than in the County and the State. Overcrowding can be an indicator of multi-generational living, however in renter ship it is

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-115 often an indicator that there are not sufficient affordable housing options causing residents to increase the number of persons per unit to lower the overall cost of housing. Overcrowding may also indicate a lack of adequate housing unit types available to residents with large families. While the City does not build housing, they will work wi th developers and interested parties to increase feasibility and opportunities for both affordable housing and multigenerational housing.

Locally Identified Contributing Factors
There are a number of factors and elements that contribute to and cause fair housing issues. The following lists a number of contributing factors within the City of Costa Mesa:
 Community Opposition – As a part of the Housing Element Update, the City hosted a variety of community engagement opportunities to gather feedback and input related housing needs. A large number of community members identified an ov erall objection to new housing in the City, specifically higher income housing. Traditionally, affordable housing and higher density residential projects receive community pushback or oppositi on. However, outreach and education can help to shift negative views of additional housing in a positive manner.  Lack of Investment in Specific Neighborhoods – The TCAC map identified census tract:
06059063605 as an area of high segregation and poverty (Figure 3-5b); meaning the demographics of this tract are consistent with the standards for both poverty (30% of the population below the federal poverty line) and racial segregation. Additi onally, this census tract is scored as lowest opportunity in civic life , health, mobility, housing, economy, and education by the UC Davis ROI:

People (Figure 3-8), which is a relative measure of people’s assets in a census tract. While the area was scored as low opportunity for resident assets, it was scored highest opportunity for Place (Figure 3-9), meaning the geographic area has high assets and opportunity in education, economic, housing, mobility, health and civic life. The census tract is also identified as having less positive educational outcomes by the TCAC-Education map ( Figure 3-12 ) and the highest exposure to harmful pollutants according to the CalEnviro Screen ( Figure 3-14 ). Combined data shows that conditions in this area may exacerbate existing segregation trends, low opportunity for community and resident enhancement and upward mobility a nd that there may be overall lack of public investment in the area.
 Displacement of Residents Due to Economic Pressures – The data in the RCAA analysis ( Figures 3- 6 through 3-7 ) show that there are ten census tracts which meet the criteria for a racially concentrated area of affluence (RCAA). The definition for an RCAA is a census tract in which 80 percent or more of the populat ion is White and has a median income of at least $125,000. The RCAAs are located in the highest resource and highest opportunity areas and are also within areas with the lowest exposure to harmful pollutants. If RCAA expand and gentrification occurs across the city, lower income households are at risk of displacement due to economic pressures and potential changing or increasing costs in housing and essential retail.

7. Analysis of Sites Pursuant to AB 686

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-116 AB 686 requires that jurisdictions id entify sites throughout the community in a manner that is consistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing. The site identification requirement involves not only an analysis of site capacity to accommodate the RHNA (provided in Appendix B ), but also whether the identified sites serve the purpose of replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity.

Figures 3-24 through 3-32 below identify the sites to accommodate future housing, as identified in the adequate sites analysis, overlaid on demographic data using the 2022 American Community Survey 5-Years Estimates.

 Figure 3-24 – Sites Proposed to Accommoda te RHNA and Percent Population Hispanic  Figure 3-25 – Proposed Sites to Accommodate RHNA and Percent Population Non-White  Figure 3-26 – Proposed Sites to Accommodate RHNA and Percent Population Low and Moderate- Income
 Figure 3-27 – Proposed Sites to Accommodate RHNA and Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
 Figure 3-28 – Proposed Sites to Accommodate RHNA and Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence
 Figure 3-29 – Proposed Sites to Accommodate RHNA and TCAC Opportunity Areas  Figure 3-30 – Urban Displacement Project – Gentrification and Displacement  Figure 3-31 – Overcrowded Households
 Figure 3-32 – Overpayment by Renters

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-117

A. Segregation and Integration
This section evaluates the proposed housing sites inventory in relation to segregation and integration indicators, including race/ethnicity and income.

Race and Ethnicity
Figures 3-24 and 3-25 show the proposed sites inventory in relation to predominant race or ethnicity of the area in which each site is located.
 120 housing element sites, or 71.9 percent of the sites, are located in areas where the predominant population is White alone, not Hispanic or Latino. These site s accommodate 10,811 units, or 87.0 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 3,510 units are lower-income units, 1,920 units are moderate-income units, and 5,381 units are above moderate-income units.  47 housing element sites, or 28.1 percent of the sites, are located in areas where the predominant population is Hispanic or Latino. These sites accommodate 1,617 units, or 13.0 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 564 units are lower-income units, 287 units are moderate- income units, and 766 units are above moderate-income units.

The data shows that the proposed sites inventory is not concentrated in areas with higher concentrations of non-White populations. A majority of both sites and total RHNA capacity are located in areas where the predominant population is White alone, not Hispanic or Latino. This includes 86.2 percent of the lower- income RHNA capacity, indicating that the lower-income capacity in the sites inventory is primarily located outside areas where the predominant population is Hispanic or Latino.

What does this mean? This distribution supports AFFH objectives by providing opportunities for future housing development, including lower-income housing, in areas that are not characterized by higher concentrations of communities of color. However, the inventory also includes a meaningful share of sites and units in predominantly Hispanic or Latino areas.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-118

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-119

Income — Low- and Moderate-Income Population
Figure 3-26 shows the proposed sites inventory in relation to census data identifying the percentage of low- and moderate-income residents in the areas where the sites are located. Figure 3-26 shows the following findings:
 29 housing element sites, or 17.4 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas where the low- and moderate-income population is less than 10 percent. These sites accommodate 1,146 units, or

9.2 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 333 units are lower-income units, 218 units are moderate-income units, and 595 units are above moderate-income units.  83 housing element sites, or 49.7 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas where the low- and moderate-income population is between 10 and 14.9 percent. These sites accommodate 9,397 units, or 75.6 percent of th e total RHNA capacity analyzed . Of those units, 3,069 units are lower-income units, 1,652 units are moderate-income units, and 4,676 units are above moderate- income units.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-120  48 housing element sites, or 28.7 percent of the sites analyzed, are located in areas where the low- and moderate-income population is between 15 and 19.9 percent. These sites accommodate 1,687 units, or 13.6 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 605 units are lower-income units, 301 units are moderate-income units, and 781 units are above moderate-income units.  7 housing element sites, or 4.2 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas where the low- and moderate-income population is 20 percent or greater. These sites accommodate 198 units, or

1.6 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 67 units are lower-income units, 36 units are moderate-income units, and 95 units are above moderate-income units.

The data shows that the majority of the sites inventory capacity is located in areas with relatively lower shares of low- and moderate-income residents. Approximately 85 percent of the total RHNA capacity is located in areas where the low- and moderate-income population is below 15 percent. Similarly, approximately 83.5 percent of the lower-income RHNA capacity is located in these same areas.

What does this mean? This distribution supports AFFH objectives because the sites inventory does not concentrate lower-income RHNA capacity in areas with higher concentrations of low- and moderate-income residents. Instead, the lower-income RHNA capacity is primarily located in areas with comparatively stronger income characteristics, which may help expand housing choice and access to economic opportunity.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-121

Income — Median Household Income
Additionally, the City analyzed the proposed sites inventory in relation to median household income and noted the following key findings:
 10 housing element sites, or 6.0 percent of the sites analyzed, are located in areas with a median household income below $75,000. These sites accommodate 492 units, or 4.0 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 148 units are lower-income units, 94 units are moderate- income units, and 250 units are above moderate-income units.  57 housing element sites, or 34.1 percent of the sites analyzed, are located in areas with a median household income between $75,000 and $99,999. Thes e sites accommodate 1,675 units, or 13.5 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 517 units are lower-income units, 313 units are moderate-income units, and 845 units are above moderate-income units.  48 housing element sites, or 28.7 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas with a median household income between $100,000 and $124,999. These sites accommodate 2,353 units, or 18.9

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-122 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 792 units are lower-income units, 463 units are moderate-income units, and 1,098 units are above moderate-income units.  45 housing element sites, or 26.9 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas with a median household income between $125,000 and $149,999. These sites accommodate 7,809 units, or 62.8 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 2,578 units are lower-income units, 1,318 units are moderate-income units, and 3,913 units are above moderate-income units.  7 housing element sites, or 4.2 percent of the sites analyzed, are located in areas with a median household income of $150,000 or greater. These sites accommodate 99 units, or 0.8 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those unit s, 39 units are lower-income units, 19 units are moderate-income units, and 41 units are above moderate-income units.

The data shows that the proposed sites inventory is primarily located in moderate- and higher-income areas. Approximately 82.6 percent of total RHNA capacity is located in areas with median household incomes of $100,000 or greater. Similarly, approximat ely 83.7 percent of lower-income RHNA capacity is located in areas with median household incomes of $100,000 or greater.

What does this mean? This distribution supports AFFH objectiv es by providing substantial lower-income housing capacity in moderate- and higher-income areas, rather than concentrating lower-income capacity in lower-income areas of the City. This pattern can help expand housing choice and improve access to areas with stronger income characteristics.

Poverty Status
The City analyzed the proposed housing element sites in relation to poverty rates and noted the following key findings:
 102 housing element sites, or 61.1 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas where the poverty rate is less than 10 percent. These site s accommodate 3,074 units, or 24.7 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 995 units are lower-income units, 570 units are moderate-income units, and 1,509 units are above moderate-income units.  62 housing element sites, or 37.1 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas where the poverty rate is between 10 and 19.9 percent. These sites accommodate 9,212 units, or 74.1 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 3,031 units are lower-income units, 1,610 units are moderate-income units, and 4,571 units are above moderate-income units.  3 housing element sites, or 1.8 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas where the poverty rate is between 20 and 29.9 percent. These sites accommo date 142 units, or 1.1 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 48 units are lower-income units, 27 units are moderate-income units, and 67 units are above moderate-income units.  No housing element sites are located in areas where the poverty rate is 30 percent or greater.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-123 The data shows that the sites inventory is not concentrated in areas with high poverty rates. Approximately

98.2 percent of housing element sites and 98.9 percent of total RHNA capacity are located in areas where the poverty rate is below 20 percent. Similarly, approximately 98.8 percent of lower-income RHNA capacity is located in areas where the poverty rate is below 20 percent.

What does this mean? This distribution supports AFFH objectives because the sites inventory does not concentrate the lower-income RHNA capacity in high-poverty areas. Instead, the lower-income RHNA capacity is primarily located in areas with compar atively lower poverty rates, which may help expand housing choice and reduce patterns of concentrated poverty.

Conclusion - What This Means for Fair Housing Choice
Overall, the proposed sites inventory supports AFFH objectives related to segregation and integration. The site-level and unit-capacity analysis shows that the inventory is not disproportionately concentrated in areas with higher concentrations of non-White populations, lower-income households, or high poverty rates. A majority of RHNA capacity, including lo wer-income RHNA capacity , is in areas where the predominant population is White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, and in areas with moderate- to higher- income characteristics.

The data shows that 86.2 percent of lower-income RHNA capacity is located in areas where the predominant population is White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, and 83.7 percen t of lower-income RHNA capacity is located in areas with median household incomes of $100, 000 or greater. In addition, 98.8 percent of lower-income RHNA capacity is located in areas where the poverty rate is below 20 percent, and no housing element sites are located in areas where the poverty rate is 30 percent or greater.

Together, these findings indicate that the sites inve ntory has the potential to expand housing choices in areas of the City with stronger income characteristics and lower levels of poverty, rather than concentrating lower-income capacity in areas already experiencing economic disadvantage. This distribution supports AFFH objectives by providing opportunities for fu ture housing development, including lower-income housing, in areas that may offer greater access to economic stability and opportunity.

B. Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) and Affluence This section evaluates the sites inventory in relation to racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAA). The analysis includes data for R/ECAP and RCAA tracts.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-124

R/ECAP Tracts
Figure 3-27 shows the housing element sites in relation to Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty. Figure 3-27 shows the following findings:
 No housing element sites are located within a R/ECAP tract. Therefore, 0 units, or 0 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed, are located within a R/ECAP tract.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-125

Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence
Figure 3-28 shows the housing element sites in relation to Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence. Figure 3-28 shows the following findings:
 14 housing element sites, or 8.4 percent of the sites inventory, are located within a Racially Concentrated Area of Affluence. These sites accommodate 442 units, or 3.6 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 148 units are lower-income units, 80 units are moderate- income units, and 214 units are above moderate-income units.

What does this mean? The data shows that the sites inventory is not concentrated in Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence. However, the inventory does include some lower-income RHNA capacity within these

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-126 areas, including 148 lower-income units. This supports AFFH objectives by providing some opportunity for lower-income housing in more affluent areas of the City.

Conclusion - What This Means for Fair Housing Choice
Overall, the sites inventory supports AFFH objectives related to avoiding the concentration of housing capacity in areas of poverty. No housing element sites are located within R/ECAP tracts, and no sites are located in areas where the poverty rate is 30 percent or greater.

However, the City recognizes that the analysis also shows that the sites inventory includes a limited share of capacity in Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence. Only 14 housing element sites, or 8.4 percent of the sites inventory, are located in RCAAs. These site s accommodate 442 units, or 3.6 percent of the total RHNA capacity, including 148 lower-income units, or 3.6 percent of the lower-income RHNA capacity. As a result, while the sites inventory does include some lo wer-income housing capacity in RCAAs, it does not place a substantial share of the RHNA capacity in these areas.

The limited share of capacity in RCAAs suggests that the sites inventory alone may not fully address patterns of exclusion from the City’s most affluent areas. However, the RCAA findings should be considered together with the broader access to opportunity and income findi ngs. Although only a limited share of capacity is located within RCAAs specifically, the sites inventory places a substantial majority of housing capacity in higher-opportunity areas. Specifically, 111 housing element sites, or 66.5 percent of the sites inventory, are located in High or Highest Resource areas. These sites accommodate 9,483 units, or 76.3 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed, including 3,101 lower-income units, or 76.1 percent of the lower-income RHNA capacity.

The income analysis also supports this finding. Th e sites inventory accommodates 10,261 units, or 82.6 percent of total RHNA capacity, in areas with median household inco mes of $100,000 or greater. This includes 3,409 lower-income units, or 83.7 percent of the lower-income RHNA capacity. Therefore, while the sites inventory has limited capacity in RCAAs, it does provide substantial lower-income housing capacity in higher-income and higher-resource areas of the City.

Therefore, although the sites inventory does not concentrate a large share of capacity within RCAAs specifically, it does provide significant lower-income housing capacity in higher-income areas of the city.

This distinction is important because RCAAs are one measure of affluence, but they are not the only indicator of access to higher-income neighborhoods or economic opportunity. When evaluated against median household income and TCAC Opportunity Area data, the sites inventory provides substantial capacity in areas with stronger income and opportunity characteristics.

The City’s ADU strategy also plays an important role in addressing this finding. Unlike larger housing element sites, which depend on parcel size, zoning, redevelopment feasibility, and realistic capacity assumptions, ADUs may be developed on residential parcels throughout the City, including in higher- income and lower-density neighborhoods where larger multifamily opportunity sites may be limited. To

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-127 the extent ADUs are anticipated in RCAA or higher-income areas, they can help expand lower-cost housing opportunities in neighborhoods that may otherwise have limited multifamily development capacity.

Over the first five years of the pl anning period (2021 – Current), the City permitted a total of 374 ADUs, exceeding the original projection of 250 ADUs for the 8-year planning period. This demonstrates that actual ADU permitting has outpaced the assumptions included in the 2021 Housing Element, particularly in later years as property owner familiarity, streamlined regulations, and local implementation efforts have continued to support ADU development. Completed ADUs have also increased steadily over time, reflecting the typical lag between permitting and construction while confirming that ADUs are being delivered as part of the City’s housing supply.

From an AFFH perspective, continued ADU producti on supports the City’s broader strategy to expand housing opportunities throughout existing reside ntial neighborhoods, including areas where larger multifamily Housing Element sites may be limited. While ADUs are not relied upon in this amendment to satisfy RHNA capacity, they remain an important t ool for increasing housing choice in established neighborhoods, including single-family and lower-dens ity areas. This is particularly relevant in areas identified as Racially Concentrated Areas of Afflue nce, where the availability of traditional multifamily sites may be more limited. By allowing additional hous ing units within existing residential lots, ADUs can help incrementally diversify housing options, support smaller households, older adults, caregivers, and extended families, and create additional rental oppo rtunities in neighborhoods with access to schools, services, and amenities.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-128 C. Access to Opportunities
This section evaluates the housing element sites invent ory in relation to access to opportunity indicators, including TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area designations a nd environmental conditions. These indicators help evaluate whether future housing capacity, including lo wer-income RHNA capacity, is located in areas with greater access to economic, educational, environmental, and other opportunity-related resources.

Tax Credit Allocation Committee/HCD Opportunity Areas
Figure 3-29 shows the housing element sites in relation to TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area designations. Figure 3-29 shows the following findings:
 70 housing element sites, or 41.9 percent of the sites inventory, are located in Highest Resource areas. These sites accommodate 8,320 units, or 66.9 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed.

Of those units, 2,736 units are lower-income uni ts, 1,426 units are moderate-income units, and 4,158 units are above moderate-income units.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-129  41 housing element sites, or 24.6 percent of the sites inventory, are located in High Resource areas.

These sites accommodate 1,163 units, or 9.4 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 365 units are lower-income units, 214 units are moderate-income units, and 584 units are above moderate-income units.
 34 housing element sites, or 20.4 percent of the sites inventory, are located in Moderate Resource areas. These sites accommodate 2,160 units, or 17.4 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed.

Of those units, 692 units are lower-income units, 434 units are moderate-income units, and 1,034 units are above moderate-income units.
 22 housing element sites, or 13.2 percent of the sites inventory, are located in Low Resource areas.

These sites accommodate 785 units, or 6.3 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 281 units are lower-income units, 133 units are moderate-income units, and 371 units are above moderate-income units.

The data shows that the sites inventory is strongly oriented towards higher-opportunity areas. Combined, 111 housing element sites, or 66.5 perc ent of the sites inventory, are loca ted in High or Highest Resource areas. These sites accommodate 9,483 units, or 76.3 percent of the total RH NA capacity analyzed.

Importantly, these High and Highes t Resource sites also accommodate 3,101 lower-income units, or 76.1 percent of the lower-income RHNA capacity.

What does this mean? This distribution supports AFFH objectives by placing a substantial majority of total housing capacity and lower-income housing capacity in areas with greater access to opportunity. The data indicates that the sites in ventory does not concentrate lower-income RHNA capacity in Moderate or Low Resource areas. Instead, the majority of lower-income RHNA capacity is located in High and Highest Resource areas, which may improve access to economic, educational, environmental, and other resources for lower-income households.

Environmental Conditions / CalEnviroScreen
The City also analyzed housing element sites in relation to CalEnviroScreen scores. Lower CalEnviroScreen scores generally indicate lower environmental burden, while higher scores indicate higher environmental burden. Key findings included:
 20 housing element sites, or 12.0 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas with a CalEnviroScreen score below 25. These sites acco mmodate 599 units, or 4.8 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 208 units are lower-income units, 109 units are moderate- income units, and 282 units are above moderate-income units.  102 housing element sites, or 61.1 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas with a CalEnviroScreen score between 25 and 49.9. Th ese sites accommodate 10,080 units, or 81.1 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 3,291 units are lower-income units, 1,781 units are moderate-income units, and 5,008 units are above moderate-income units.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-130  23 housing element sites, or 13.8 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas with a CalEnviroScreen score be tween 50 and 74.9. These sites acco mmodate 964 units, or 7.8 percent of the total RHNA capacity anal yzed. Of those units, 294 units ar e lower-income units, 184 units are moderate-income units, and 486 units are above moderate-income units.  22 housing element sites, or 13.2 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas with a CalEnviroScreen score of 75 or greater. These sites accommodate 785 units, or 6.3 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 281 units are lower-income units, 133 units are moderate-income units, and 371 units are above moderate-income units.

What does this mean? The data shows that most housing capacity is located in areas with lower to moderate environmental burden. Approximately 85.9 perc ent of total RHNA capacity is located in areas with CalEnviroScreen scores below 50. Similarly, 85.9 percent of lower-income RHNA capacity is located in areas with CalEnviroScreen scores below 50.

Only 6.3 percent of total RHNA capacity and 6.9 percent of lower-income RHNA capacity are located in areas with CalEnviroScreen scores of 75 or greater. This indicates that the sites inventory does not disproportionately place lower-income RHNA capacity in areas with the highest environmental burden.

Conclusion - What This Means for Fair Housing Choice
Overall, the sites inventory strongly supports AFFH objectives related to access to opportunity. A substantial majority of total RHNA capacity and lower-income RHNA capacity is located in High or Highest Resource areas. Specifically, 76.3 percent of total RHNA capaci ty and 76.1 percent of lowe r-income RHNA capacity are located in High or Highest Resource areas. This is a strong finding because it shows that the City is not simply accommodating lower-income RHNA capacity in lower-resource areas but is instead identifying meaningful capacity in areas with greater access to opportunity.

The CalEnviroScreen analysis also supports this co nclusion. Approximately 85.9 percent of total RHNA capacity and 85.9 percent of lower-income RHNA capacity are located in areas with CalEnviroScreen scores below 50. This indicates that most of the sites inventory is located outside areas with comparatively higher environmental burden.

Comparison to 2021 Housing Element Sites Inventory
The updated sites inventory reflects a stronger distribu tion of housing capacity in relation to TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas than the sites inventory analyzed in the 2021 Housing Element. This improvement appears to reflect two related factors: the addition of new housing element sites are more broadly distributed throughout th e City and no longer concentrated north of the I-405 and changes in the underlying fair housing datasets and opportunity area designations over time.

The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps are updated regularly and are intended to identify areas associated with positive economic, educational, and health outcomes for lower-income families. Because the maps are periodically updated, changes between the 2021 analysis and the current analysis may reflect both changes

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-131 to the City’s sites inventory and changes in how areas are classified under the current TCAC/HCD methodology and data. (Cal HCD)
The housing element submitted origin ally in 2021 found that the majority of potential units were located in Moderate Resource areas, with only a limited sh are of capacity located in High Resource areas.

Specifically, the 2021 inventory included 9 sites in High Resource areas, acco mmodating 578 units, or 3.5 percent of total potential units. Of those units, 165 units were affordable to lower-income households. The 2021 analysis also identified 17 site s in High Segregation and Poverty areas and 10 sites in Low Resource areas, together accommodating 1,595 units, or 9.6 pe rcent of total potential units, including 498 lower- income units.

By comparison, the updated sites inventory reflected in this 2026 amendment includes 111 housing element sites in High or Highest Resource areas, accommodating 9,483 units, or 76.3 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. These sites include 3,101 lower-income units, or 76.1 percent of the lower-income RHNA capacity. The updated inventory also includes a smaller share of capacity in Low Resource areas, with 22 housing element sites accommodati ng 785 units, or 6.3 percent of total RHNA capacity, including 281 lower-income units, or 6.9 percent of lower-income RHNA capacity.

The updated AFFH data also shows that Costa Mesa now includes areas classified as Highest Resource and areas identified as Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence, which were not reflected in the same way in the 2021 sites inventory analysis. This suggests that, under current TCAC/HCD and AFFH datasets, portions of Costa Mesa demonstrate stronger opportunity and a ffluence characteristics than were reflected in the prior analysis. However, because opportunity maps and AFFH layers are updated over time, this change should be understood as a combination of updated si te selection, updated data, and changes in mapped opportunity classifications.

Overall, while the 2021 and 2026 updated analyses are not perfectly comparable, the current sites inventory demonstrates a substantially improved fair housing outcome. The updated inventory places a much larger share of total and lower-income RHNA capacity in High and Highest Resource areas and a smaller share of capacity in lower-resource areas. This improved distribution supports the City’s AFFH objectives by expanding the potential for lower-income households to access higher-opp ortunity neighborhoods while reducing the relative concentration of future housing capacity in lower-resource geographies.

D. Disproportionate Housing Needs
This section evaluates the housing element sites inventory in relation to indicators of disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk, over crowding, and housing overpayment by renters and homeowners. These indicators help assess whether the sites inventory may concentrate future housing capacity in areas already experiencing housing inst ability, or whether the inventory can help address existing housing needs through new housing opportunities.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-132

Displacement Risk
Figure 3-30 shows the housing element sites in relation to displacement risk. Figure 3-30 shows the following findings:
 43 housing element sites, or 25.7 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas identified as At Risk of Displacement. These sites accommodate 1,672 units, or 13.5 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 548 units are lower-income units, 302 units are moderate- income units, and 822 units are above moderate-income units.  124 housing element sites, or 74.3 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas identified as having Lower Displacement Risk . These sites accommodate 10,756 units, or 86.5 percent of the total RHNA capacity anal yzed. Of those units, 3,526 units are lower-income units, 1,905 units are moderate-income units, and 5,325 units are above moderate-income units.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-133 What does this mean? This distribution supports AFFH objectiv es because the sites inventory does not disproportionately place future housing capacity in areas where existing residents may be more vulnerable to displacement. Although 25.7 percent of housing element sites are located in areas identified as at risk of displacement, these sites accommodate only 13.5 percent of total RHNA capacity. By contrast, the substantial majority of total and lower-income capacity is located in areas with lower displacement risk.

Meaningful Actions: At the same time, the presence of 548 lo wer-income units in areas at risk of displacement is important. Lower-income housing capa city in these areas can help respond to existing housing displacement risks by creating opportun ities for deed-restricted affordable housing in neighborhoods where lower-income residents may otherwise face increasing housing pressure.

The City has already established programs to help re spond to displacement risk and housing affordability pressures. In 2024, the City adopted its first Inclusio nary Housing Ordinance, Title 13, Chapter XVII of the Zoning Code which is intended to increase the production of affordable housing as new residential development occurs. This program is especially relevant for sites located in areas at risk of displacement because it helps ensure that new housing production in cludes affordable units and does not only result in market-rate development.

To support the implementation of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the City has also allocated $2.5 million to an affordable housing trust fund. As part of the adoption of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the City committed to monitoring the effectiveness of the ordinance with the intent to return to City Council for an update on implementation and opportuni ty to consider potential modifications to in-lieu fees, as needed, to strengthen affordable housing outcomes.

Through Program 2A: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance , the City will assess the ordinance for effectiveness and recommend changes, as needed. This work is scheduled to be completed by December 2027 and will be led by the City of Costa Mesa Economic and De velopment Services Department, including the Housing and Community Development Division and Planning Divi sion. This program supports AFFH objectives by helping expand access to affordable housing, including in areas where residents may be vulnerable to displacement or housing cost pressures.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-134

Overcrowding
Figure 3-31 shows the housing element sites in relation to overcrowding rates. Figure 3-31 shows the following findings:
 80 housing element sites, or 47.9 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas where overcrowding is less than 5 percent. These site s accommodate 9,328 units, or 75.1 percent of the total RHNA capacity anal yzed. Of those units, 3,036 units are lower-income units, 1,637 units are moderate-income units, and 4,655 units are above moderate-income units.  60 housing element sites, or 35.9 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas where overcrowding is between 5 and 9.9 percent. These sites accommodate 2,127 units, or 17.1 percent of the total RHNA capacity anal yzed. Of those units, 697 units ar e lower-income units, 402 units are moderate-income units, and 1,028 units are above moderate-income units.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-135  27 housing element sites, or 16.2 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas where overcrowding is 10 percent or greater. These si tes accommodate 973 units, or 7.8 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 341 units are lower-income units, 168 units are moderate-income units, and 464 units are above moderate-income units.

The data shows that most RHNA capacity is located outside areas with higher overcrowding rates.

Approximately 75.1 percent of total RHNA capacity and 74.5 percent of lower-income RHNA capacity are located in areas where overcrowding is less than 5 percent. Only 7.8 percent of total RHNA capacity and 8.4 percent of lower-income RHNA capacity are located in areas where overcrowding is 10 percent or greater.

What does this mean? This distribution indicates that the site s inventory does not disproportionately concentrate housing capacity in areas already experien cing higher levels of overcrowding. At the same time, the inclusion of some housing capacity in area s with higher overcrowding may help address local housing needs by increasing the supply of housing in areas where existing households may be experiencing pressure from limited housing availability.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-136 Housing Overpayment by Renters
Figure 3-32 shows the housing element sites in relation to the percentage of renter households experiencing housing overpayment.
 46 sites, or 27.5 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas where less than 50 percent of renter households are overpayi ng for housing. These sites accommodate 1,164 units, or 9.4 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 417 units are lower-income units, 198 units are moderate-income units, and 549 units are above moderate-income units.  108 sites, or 64.7 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas where 50 to 59.9 percent of renter households are overpaying for housin g. These sites accommodate 10,797 units, or 86.9 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 3,497 units are lower-income units, 1,920 units are moderate-income units, and 5,380 units are above moderate-income units.  13 sites, or 7.8 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas where 60 percent or greater of renter households are overpaying for housing. These sites accommodate 467 units, or 3.8 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 160 units are lower-income units, 89 units are moderate-income units, and 218 units are above moderate-income units.

The renter overpayment data shows that housing co st burden is a widespread issue in Costa Mesa. A substantial majority of the sites inventory is located in areas where at least half of renter households are overpaying for housing. Specifically, 121 housing element sites, or 72.5 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas where renter overpayment is 50 percent or greater. These sites accommodate 11,264 units, or 90.6 percent of the total RHNA capacity an alyzed, including 3,657 lowe r-income units, or 89.8 percent of the lower-income RHNA capacity.

What does this mean? This finding should be framed carefully. The high share of RHNA capacity in areas with renter overpayment does not necessarily indicate that the sites inventory is worsening disproportionate housing needs, because renter overpayment appears to be broadly distributed across the city. Rather, the data indicates that renter cost burden is a citywide housing issue. The inclusion of significant lower-income RHNA capacity in these areas may help address existing affordability needs by increasing opportunities for income-restricted and lower-cost housing. Additionally, increasing the capacity for housing development across the community on Housing Element sites as well as non-Housing Element sites has the potential to increase supply throughout the City, potentially reducing rental prices and overpayment in general.

Housing Overpayment by Homeowners
Additionally, the City analyzed the housing element sites in relation to the percentage of homeowner households experiencing housing overpayment. Key findings included:

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-137  8 housing element sites, or 4.8 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas where homeowner overpayment is less than 20 percent. These sites accommodate 1,041 units, or 8.4 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 336 units are lower-income units, 224 units are moderate-income units, and 481 units are above moderate-income units.  106 housing element sites, or 63.5 percent of th e sites inventory, are located in areas where homeowner overpayment is between 20 and 39.9 percent. These sites accommodate 9,684 units, or 77.9 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 3,176 units are lower-income units, 1,679 units are moderate-income units, and 4,829 units are above moderate-income units.  53 housing element sites, or 31.7 percent of the sites inventory, are located in areas where homeowner overpayment is 40 percent or greate r. These sites accommodate 1,703 units, or 13.7 percent of the total RHNA capacity analyzed. Of those units, 562 units are lower-income units, 304 units are moderate-income units, and 837 units are above moderate-income units.

The data shows that most RHNA capacity is located in areas with moderate levels of homeowner overpayment. Approximately 77.9 percent of total RHNA capacity and 78.0 percent of lower-income RHNA capacity are located in areas where homeowner overpayment is between 20 and 39.9 percent. A smaller share, approximately 13.7 percent of total RHNA capacity and 13.8 percent of lower-income RHNA capacity, is located in areas where homeowner overpayment is 40 percent or greater.

What does this mean? This distribution indicates that the site s inventory does not disproportionately concentrate housing capacity in areas with the highest levels of homeowner overpayment. However, the presence of homeowner overpayment across many areas of the city reinforces the need for a broad housing strategy that includes both rental and owne rship opportunities, affordable housing production, and programs that support housing stability.

Conclusion - What This Means for Fair Housing Choice
Overall, the sites inventory generally does not concentrate RHNA capacity in areas with the highest indicators of disproportionate housing need. A substantial majority of total and lower-income capacity is located in areas with lower displacement risk, lower overcrowding rates, and moderate levels of homeowner overpayment.

Specifically, 86.5 percent of total RHNA capacity and 86.5 percent of lower-income RHNA capacity are located in areas with lower displacement risk, while 75.1 percent of total RHNA capacity and 74.5 percent of lower- income RHNA capacity are located in areas where overcrowding is less than 5 percent.

However, the renter overpayment data shows that housing affordability pressures are widespread throughout Costa Mesa. Approximately 90.6 percent of total RHNA capacity and 89.8 percent of lower- income RHNA capacity are located in areas where at least half of renter households are overpaying for housing. This should not be interpreted as a disproportionate concentration of capacity in a small high- need area; rather, it indicates that renter cost burden is a broad citywide condition. The sites inventory can help respond to this need by crea ting opportunities for new housing, including lower-income housing, in areas where renter households are experiencing affordability pressure.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-138

8. Analysis of Fair Housing Priorities and Goals
To enhance mobility and promote inclusion for protected classes, the chief strategy included in this Housing Element is to provide sites suitable for affordable housing in high-resource, high-opportunity areas, as demonstrated by the analysis of the housing resource sites contained in Chapter 3: Housing Resources .

Other programs that affirmatively further fair housing and implement the AI’s recommendations include:
 PROGRAM 2A: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
 PROGRAM 2B: Affordable Housing Development
 PROGRAM 2C: Supportive Services for Persons with Special Needs  PROGRAM 2D: Facilitate Development of Senior Housing Options  PROGRAM 2E: Encourage Development of Housing Options for Large-Family Households  PROGRAM 2F: Persons with Physical and Developmental Disabilities  PROGRAM 2H: Farmworker Housing
 PROGRAM 4A: Fair Housing
 PROGRAM 4B: Rental Housing Assistance
 PROGRAM 4D: Fair Housing Assistance
 PROGRAM 4E: Low Barrier Navigation Centers
 PROGRAM 4F: Homeless Shelter
The following table also lists fair housing issues identified and relevant programs included in the Housing Plan addressing each.

Local Meaningful Actions
Since adoption of the 2021 Housing Element, the City has initiated and completed several meaningful actions to address land use constraints, expand hous ing opportunities, facilitat e housing production, and affirmatively further fair housing. These actions include updates to zoning, development standards, permit procedures, and local housing programs intended to increase residential capacity, provide greater certainty for housing development, and support a broader distribution of housing opportunities throughout the City.

While these actions are discussed throughout this chapter, they are summarized below to demonstrate the City’s continued progress in implementing the Housing Element and addressing fair housing issues  Community Engagement / Neighborhoods Where We All Belong. The City is conducting extensive community engagement as part of fair housing actions identified in Program 4A. The Neighborhoods Where We All Belong initiative is a comprehensive effort to address housing needs in Costa Mesa. Through this process, the City is engaging the community about future housing opportunities and proposed updates to the Zoning Code, specific plans, General Plan overlays, and creating Objective Design Standards. This outreach is helping to inform the City’s approach to Housing Element implementation, Measure K implementation, and broader changes intended to expand housing opportunities, reduce constraint s, and support fair housing objectives. The initiative was recently recognized by the American Planning Association Orange Section with a 2026

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-139 Award of Merit in the Opportunity and Empowerment category for the Neighborhoods Where We All Belong Round One Community Visioning.
 Inclusionary Housing Program. As part of addressing housing mobility, the City included Programs 2A and 4A to help respond to di splacement risk and housing affo rdability pressures. In 2024, the City adopted its first Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to increase the production of affordable housing as new residential development occurs. This program is especially relevant for sites located in areas at risk of displacement because it helps ensure that new housing production includes affordable units and does not result solely in market-rate development. To support implementation of the Inclusionary Housing Ordina nce, the City has also allocated $2.5 million to an affordable housing trust fund. As part of adopting the ordinance, the City committed to monitoring its effectiveness and returning to the City Council with an implementation update and an opportunity to consider potential modificati ons to in-lieu fees, as needed, to strengthen affordable housing outcomes.
 Voter Initiated Measures. Through Program 3G, the City had committed to evaluating voter- initiated measures such as Measure Y as a constraint on housing. In 2022, Measure K was approved by Costa Mesa voters. Measure K provides an important local framework for expanding housing opportunities in commercial, industrial, and mixed- use areas while preserving existing residential neighborhoods. Through Measure K implementati on, the City is creating opportunities for additional residential and mixed-use development in areas closer to jobs, services, transit, and amenities. This effort supports the City’s fair housing goals by expanding housing choice and creating additional capacity beyond the minimum RHNA obligation.  Mixed-Use Overlay District (MUOD). The City is currently amending the MUOD to facilitate residential and mixed-use development on Housing Element sites and additional Measure K sites.

In April 2026, the City amended th e MUOD to establish specific provisions for Housing Element Opportunity Sites and adopted a revised zoning map to apply the MUOD to those sites. Scheduled for Fall 2026, the City is also advancing a broade r MUOD update to apply the overlay to Measure K sites beyond the Housing Element inventory. Th is phased effort increase s residential capacity, creates clearer development standards, and supports a more comprehensive approach to housing production beyond RHNA compliance.
 Design. As part of completed Program 3S, the City is preparing Objective Design Standards to replace the design review process to provide clea rer, more predictable standards for residential and mixed-use development. These standards are in tended to reduce subjectivity in the review process, provide greater certainty to applican ts, and support streamlined review of housing projects consistent with State law.
 Housing Element Rezoning. As committed in Programs 3C, 3D and 3N, the City completed rezoning actions for Housing Element sites to ensure adeq uate capacity to accommodate the RHNA. These actions included applying the MUOD to Housing Element sites and establishing development criteria intended to encourage and facilitate residential development. The amended sites inventory also results in a broader distribution of Housing Element sites throughout the City, rather than a concentration primarily north of I-405. Lastly, the revised inve ntory identifies capacity for approximately 15,000 units, exceeding the City’s RHNA obligation and providing an approximately

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-140 28 percent buffer. This additional capacity supports the City’s ability to accommodate its RHNA while providing flexibility to account for potent ial changes in site availability, development feasibility, and project timing over the remainder of the planning period.  Development Standards. Pursuant to Program 2M, the City has updated development standards, including standards related to parking, building heig ht, and residential density, to better facilitate housing development. These changes are intended to reduce barriers to residential development and support a broader range of housing types.

Accessory Dwelling Units. The City implemented Programs 3E and 3M to support ADU production as a meaningful component of the City’s housing supply. Although the amended Housing Element no longer relies on projected ADU production to satisfy RHNA capacity, actual ADU permitting has exceeded the assumptions included in the 2021 Housing Element. Continued ADU production supports housing choice in existing residential neighborhoods, including areas where larger multifamily Housing Element sites may be limited.

Please see Chapter 4, Housing Plan, for detailed information on each of the City’s fair housing programs and completed efforts to date.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-141 Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Priority Programs Racial and Ethnic
Segregation

1. Census tract 636.05 is identified as a High
Segregation and Poverty area. It is also rated
the lowest ROI score for people’s assets in
education, the economy, housing,
mobility/transportation, health/environment,
and civic life.

2. Ten census tracts are identified as Racially
Concentrated Areas of Affluence.

3. The Hispanic population experiences higher
levels of poverty according to HUD
Opportunity Indicators.

High PROGRAM 4A: Fair Housing – The City will take meaningful actions, in addition to resisting discrimination, that overcomes patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristic, as defined by California law. The City will explore the feasibility of additional actions to mitigate racial and ethnic segregation, and outreach specifically to low and very low-income residents as wells considered targeted outreach to residents with moderate and high levels of segregation.

PROGRAM 4I: Partnerships with Local Organizations and Community Groups – The Ccity will partner with local community-based organizations, stakeholders and groups who provide supportive resources and programs to further identify specific needs of this community and connect community members with appropriate resources.

Housing
Discrimination

1. The 2020 AI identified housing discrimination
as an impediment to fair housing choice in
the City.

Medium PROGRAM 4A: Fair Housing – The City will take meaningful actions, in addition to resisting discrimination, that overcomes patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristic, as defined by California law. The City will explore the feasibility of additional actions to mitigate housing discrimination, as well as continue contracting with the Fair Housing Foundation.

PROGRAM 4I: Partnerships with Local Organizations and Community Groups – The city will partner with local community-based organizations, stakeholders and groups who provide supportive resources and programs to further identify specific needs of this community and connect community members with appropriate resources.

Unfair Lending 1. The Lending Analysis identified lower rates of home loan approval for moderate, low, and
very low-income residents. Applicants who
identified as Black experienced both lower
rates of home loan approval and purchase
Medium PROGRAM 4A: Fair Housing – The City will take meaningful actions, in addition to resisting discrimination, that overcomes patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristic, as defined by California law. The City will explore the feasibility of

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-142 Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Priority Programs and higher rates of home loan denial,
indicating disparity in access to funding.
additional actions to mitigate unfair lending, as well as continue providing important ownership information on the City’s website.

Access to
Opportunity

1. Two census tracts in the City’s southern
region are rated the lowest ROI score for
people’s assets in education, the economy,
housing, mobility/transportation,
health/environment, and civic life.

2. Three census tracts are identified as Low
Resource areas and one is identified as High
Segregation and Poverty according to TCAC
data.

3. Four census tracts are identified as having
the lowest TCAC Education Outcomes.

High PROGRAM 4I: Partnerships with Local Organizations and Community Groups – The city will partner with local community-based organizations, stakeholders and groups who provide supportive resources and programs to further identify specific needs of this community and connect community members with appropriate resources.

Environmental
Conditions

1. All racial and ethnic groups have low
environmental health indices according to
HUD Opportunity Indicators.

2. Census tract 636.05 has a CalEnviroScreen

3.0 environmental burden of 81 to 90
percent.

Medium PROGRAM 4I: Partnerships with Local Organizations and Community Groups – The city will partner with local community-based organizations, stakeholders and groups who provide supportive resources and programs to further identify specific needs of this community and connect community members with appropriate resources.

Availability of
Accessible
Housing for
Persons with
Disabilities

1. Five census tracts reporting 10 to 20 percent
of their population having at least one
disability.

2. Approximately 86 percent of housing units
were built prior to 1989 before the Fair
Housing Act and State laws regarding
accessibility requirements for persons with
disabilities were adopted.

High PROGRAM 1A: Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation – This program may be used to assist qualified property owners in improving single-family residential properties, including: health and safety repairs such as mechanical, plumbing, electrical, roofing, security, medical emergency requirements, and/or aid the mobility of the physically disabled and/or elderly.

PROGRAM 2C: Supportive Services for Persons with Special Needs – The City will promote information and outreach to local organizations regarding the availability of CDBG funds for special needs populations to secure decent housing and supportive services.

PROGRAM 2F: Persons with Physical and Developmental Disabilities – The City will take actions to accommodate ADA retrofit efforts, ADA compliance and/or other measures to facilitate access to adequate housing for persons with disabilities.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-143 Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Priority Programs

PROGRAM 2N: Reasonable Accommodation – The City will outreach to local organizations to promote access to housing for persons with disabilities and address potential constraints, and review and revise its reasonable accommodations process to be consistent with State and federal housing requirements.

Need for
affordable
housing in new
developments.

1. Ten census tracts are identified as Racially
Concentrated Areas of Affluence.

2. Eight census tracts with 40 to 60 percent
overpayment by homeowners and five
census tracts 60 to 80 percent overpayment
by renters.

3. Three census tracts with overcrowding
greater than 20 percent.

4. Six census tracts reporting Stable/Advanced
Exclusive affordability, one census tract
reporting Becoming Exclusive, and nine
census tracts reporting At Risk of Becoming
Exclusive according to the Urban
Displacement Project.

High PROGRAM 2A: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance – The City will consider the adoption of an inclusionary zoning ordinance within 12 months of adoption of the 6
th Cycle Housing Element.

PROGRAM 2B: Affordable Housing Development – The City will seek funding, coordinate outreach, provide incentives, and publish informational materials to facilitate and promote the development of affordable housing units.

Displacement Risk 1. One census tract reporting Advanced Gentrification and two census tracts reporting
Low-Income/Susceptible to Displacement
according to the Urban Displacement Project.

2. A total of 75 assisted affordable units at risk
of becoming market-rate between 2021 and
2031.

High PROGRAM 1C: Monitoring and Preservation of At-Risk Housing Units – The City will regularly monitor units that have the potential to convert to market-rate, and work with property owners on potential contract and funding extensions.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-144 F. Housing Resources

1. Regional Housing Needs Allocation
This section of the Housing Element provides an overview of the resources available to the City to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The City of Costa Mesa is required to plan for the following 2021-2029 RHNA allocation:

Future Housing Needs
Future housing need refers to the share of the regional housing need that has been allocated to the City.

The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has supplied a regional housing goal to the Southern California Associat ion of Governments (SCAG). SCAG was then required to allocate the housing goal to each jurisdiction within the region th rough a RHNA Plan. In alloca ting the region’s future housing needs to jurisdictions, SCAG is required to take the following factors into consideration pursuant to Section 65584 of the State Government Code:
 Market demand for housing;
 Employment opportunities;
 Availability of suitable sites and public
facilities;
 Commuting patterns;
 Type and tenure of housing;
 Loss of units in assisted housing
developments;
 Over-concentration of lower income
households; and
 Geological and topographical
constraints.

HCD, through a determination process, allocates units to each region across California. It is then up to each region to determine a methodology and process for allocating units to each jurisdiction within that region.

SCAG adopted its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA Plan) in Ma rch 2021. This RHNA covers an 8- year planning period (starting in 2021) and addresses housing i ssues that are related to future growth in the region. The RHNA allocates to each city and coun ty a “fair share” of the region’s projected housing needs by household income group. The major goal of th e RHNA is to assure a fair distribution of housing among cities and counties within the SCAG region, so that every community provides an opportunity for a mix of housing for all economic segments.

Costa Mesa’s share of the SCAG regional growth al location is 11,760 new units for the current planning period (2021-2029). Table 3-36: Housing Needs for 2021-2029, indicates the City’s RHNA need for the stated planning period.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-145 Table 3-36: Housing Needs for 2021-2029
Income Category Percent of Median Family
Income (MFI)
Costa Mesa’s RHNA Allocation for the
2021-2029 Planning Period
Very Low Income 0-50% MFI 2,919 units
Low Income 51-80% MFI 1,794 units
Moderate Income 81-120% MFI 2,088 units
Above Moderate Income >120% MFI 4,959 units
TOTAL 11,760 units
Residential Sites Inventory
Appendix B of the Housing Element includes the required site analysis tables and site information for the vacant and non-vacant properties to meet the City’s RHNA need through the 2021-2029 planning period.

The following discussions summarize the City’s site inventory and adequate sites identification strategy.

Adequacy of Sites for RHNA
The City of Costa Mesa conducted a thorough analysis of all parcels within the City to determine which areas may have the most realistic potential to redevelo p for residential uses within the planning period.

The analysis included an in depth look at the following site characteristics for each parcel within the inventory:
 Address
 Ownership
 Zoning (including Specific Plan areas, Urban Plans, and Overlays, if applicable)  Size (Net developable acres removing known development constraints)  Density
 Vacancy status
 Previous Housing Element identification
 Potential Development Capacity (Dwelling Units) by income category  Description of existing use
Most sites identified meet AB 1397 requirements for size as well as infrastructure requirements for available utility service. There is a further analysis regarding consolidation of small sites as well as the development potential of large sites within Appendix B.

The City of Costa Mesa has a total 2021-2029 RHNA allocation of 11,760 units. The Housing Element update lists sites, including accessory dwelling units, that can accommodate approximately 17,531 additional units.

Table 3-37 shows a summary of the City’s overall capacity to accommodate its RHNA. Overall, the City has adequate capacity to accommodate its 2021-2029 RHNA with a 30% buffer in excess of the City’s RHNA need.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-146 Table B-2: Summary of RHNA Status and Sites Inventory
Very Low
Income* Low Income Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
Total
RHNA (2021-2029) 2,919 1,794 2,088 4,959 11,760
Credit Towards RHNA 274 195 79 95 643
Remaining Unmet RHNA 2,645 1,599 2,009 4,864 11, 117 Overlays and Specific Plans
North Costa Mesa Specific
Plan/MUOD Sub-Area 1,214 1,214 1,405 3,087 6,920
SoBECA MUOD Sub-Area 199 200 240 536 1,175
Mesa West Bluff MUOD Sub-
Area 10 11 110 370 686
19 West MUOD Sub-Area 135 135 122 346 738
Harbor Blvd MUOD Sub-Area 186 186 255 655 1,282
Newport Blvd Specific
Plan/MUOD Sub- Area 92 93 98 272 555
Fairview Developmental Center 0 920 690 690 2300
One Metro West Specific Plan 106 0 851 957
Total Potential Capacity for the
RHNA (Overlays and Specific
Plans)
1,836 2,865 2,920 6,807 14,613
RHNA Capacity
Total Units towards RHNA
(includes Credit towards RHNA
+ Overlays and Specific Plans)
5,167 2,999 6,902 15,256
Total Capacity over RHNA +454 +911 +1,943 +3,496
Buffer 9.6% 43%

39%

30%
*The City’s Extremely Low Income (ELI) housing need is assumed to be 50% of the very low RHNA need for the planning period.

Projects in the Pipeline
Development projects that are in the planning process but have not received approvals or building permits are considered “in the pipeline.” For applications submitted for a land use approval, projects are considered “pending” until the necessary land use approvals are issued, at which point a project is deemed “approved.” Once a building permit is issued, the project is identified as “building permit issued.” When project construction is completed and all necessary building sa fety inspections have been completed a certificate of occupancy or “final building permit” is issued.

While the City has several projects in the development pipeline, it does not rely on pipeline projects to meet its RHNA obligations. Instead, pipeline projects are reviewed to understand prevailing development trends and to inform site selection. The characteristics of submitted projects helped guide the identification of suitable sites for inclusion in the inventory.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-147 Redevelopment of Non-Vacant Sites for Residential Uses
The City of Costa Mesa does not have sufficient va cant land available to accommodate fifty percent of their low/very-low income RHNA and are reliant on non-vacant sites to meet their RHNA need. To accommodate the need at all income levels, the City has analyzed sites within non-residentially zoned areas that permit residential development through Specif ic Plans, Urban Plans, or Overlays. The City also evaluated and included parcels not currently within Urban Plans which will be added when those Urban Plans are amended.

As part of the candidate housing sites analysis, the City has evaluated recent projects that have redeveloped within non-residentially zoned areas that included re sidential units. Those projects, including the zoning, use prior to redevelopment, and a project analysis of the approved development plan, are shown in Table 3-38. The City’s analysis showed that prior uses on these redeveloped sites were similar in nature to the existing uses on sites identified within the sites inventory in Table B-6.

The City has also conducted a parcel specific analysis of existing uses for each of the identified sites. This analysis of existing uses, including indicators of a likelihood that the ex isting use will redevelop within the next eight years, are provided in Table B-9. This analysis is based on information readily available to the City and research that can be found through online research. The City does not always have access to private lease information but has included informatio n that property owners have shared regarding individual sites.

Table B-5 summarizes recent, approved, entitled, and constr ucted residential and mixed-use projects in Costa Mesa to demonstrate local redevelopment pa tterns and the City’s experience converting underutilized commercial, industrial, motel/hotel, office, and vacant sites into housing. The table identifies each project’s location, acreage, unit count, densit y, zoning, prior use, development classification, TCAC/HCD resource area, and relationship to similar sites included in the Housing Element sites inventory.

Together, these examples show that residential development has occurred across multiple areas of the City and that many projects have been built or approved on sites with characteristics similar to those identified in the sites inventory.

Lease Analysis
Existing lease agreements on infill and non-vacant properties present a potential impediment that may prevent residential development within the planning peri od. State law requires the City to consider lease terms in evaluating the use of non-vacant sites, ho wever the City does not have access to private party lease agreements or other contractual agreements am ongst private parties. Additionally, COVID-19 has increased the potential number of vacancies, especially within commercial uses. As part of the sites analysis for very-low and low-income sites, the City conducted discussions with property owners who felt comfortable sharing this information and came forward as interested in developing their properties for housing through the planning period. Notes regarding discussion are found in Table B-9.

Regulatory Incentives
Density bonus is a State law which permits increased density, a lowered parking standard, and concessions for projects which provide a certain percentage of their dwelling units as deed restricted to residents at the

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-148 very-low, low, and moderate-income levels. Projects within infill areas such as Costa Mesa often utilize density bonus provisions to construct affordable units. The City understands that existing land use policy may not necessarily contribute to the development of housing. Therefore, regulatory incentives can be helpful in bringing housing units to the market. The City has committed through Program 2I, to annually update the local density bonus ordinance to be consistent with State law if changes are adopted at the State level.

The City has created programs expressly written to address the analysis and potential development of additional regulatory incentives to incentivize the creation of affordable housing. As stated in Program 2B, these may include, but are not limited to, the following for projects that propose a percentage of their housing units as affordable:
 Deferment of fees
 Priority Processing
 Modified development standards (above and beyond what is permitted under Density Bonus) Development Trends and Current Market Demand for Existing Uses The existing uses within the identified candidate ho using sites are primarily commercial, light industrial, and office/business park. The following excerpts ar e from the Winter 2021 Allen Matkins/UCLA Anderson Forecast Commercial Real Estate Survey.

Office Space Markets
The COVID-19 pandemic took a toll on traditional office uses when the majority of California’s office workforce was required to work from home. This taught employees and employers that remote work was possible and may have sparked a trend of more remote work options in a post-COVID world. An excerpt from the above referenced study indicated that “survey participants are confident about the growth in demand for office space between 2020 and 2023, they are pessimistic abou t the return to investment in new space today.”
8 This indicates that while we may return to a more normal work setting in the short term, there is likely to be less investment going forward in new office space as employers look to downsize the leasable space they occupy and expand flexible work options to keep employees happy and hard costs down. It is likely this trend occurs into the next decade, opening up existing office uses not operating at full occupancy for residential redevelopment opportunities.

Retails Space Markets
In regard to future retail development trends and demand, the above referenced study noted the following observations from their analysis on participant responses. “During the previous economic expansion, retail space struggled. The current recession tripled down on that struggle. First, the loss of household income and the shelter-in-place policies reduced current demand for brick-and-mortar retail. Second, the inability to physically frequent many retail establishments created a new set of online shoppers, and third, increases

8 Allen Matkins/UCLA Anderson Forecast Commercial Real Estate Survey, Winter 2021,

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-149 in the savings rate on the part of households in response to the recession portends less individual consumption. To be sure, some activities will be coming back, particularly personal services and experiential retail. But now, more marginal properties will not fi nd tenants willing to pay sufficient rent to keep the properties in the retail space.”9
While COVID-19 had a large impact on retail in the i mmediate future, overall market trends pointed to a decline in the need for brick-and-mortar retail spaces going back over the past decade. The rise in online retailers such as Amazon a nd the shift in focus to online sales of major retailers like Target, Walmart, and others have kept shoppers in their homes and away from smaller mom and pop retailers as well.

Experiential uses such as restaurants and dining pr ovide more incentive and are likely to bounce back quickly following the removal of COVID-19 protocols. These uses do well in walkable, mixed-use settings with a strong flow of permanent consumers. Resident ial uses, especially at high er densities, present an opportunity to support future commercial growth incl uding supporting smaller mom and pop retailers in infill settings such as Costa Mesa.

Development Trends
State, regional, and local policy direction promoting the development of housing at all levels to meet existing housing shortages, especially for low-income families, has further driven up the demand for housing. The redevelopment of existing non-vacant land, both in residential and non-residential zones, for multi-family rental and for sale housing provides a re alistic opportunity to create affordable housing using the resources available within communities such as Costa Mesa. As a result, much of Costa Mesa’s future growth will be on infill opportunities within the City. To facilitate this, the City has proposed actions to evaluate and revise the development standards and permitted uses within many key areas within the City.

This increases the developable area within the City where residential development can occur and promotes development at densities which may support affordable housing.

As stated previously, much of Costa Mesa’s anticipated future housing growth is expected to occur on infill sites, or sites with existing us es. Development on non-vacant parcels was analyzed to determine a reasonable development capacity based on known cons traints and historic deve lopment patterns within each of the different zones. Table B-9 in Appendix B contains a detailed description of each existing use.

Many of the existing uses were found to be simila r with recent redevelopment examples in Costa Mesa.

Appendix A also includes outreach to property owners and letters of owner support/developer interest for specific parcels identified in the Housing Element.

Accessory Dwelling Unit Productions
Accessory dwelling units, or ADUs) are housing units which may be developed in addition to an existing single- or multi-family residential use. These housin g units can be free-standing or attached to a primary structure and are intended to provide additional housing on an existing residential lot. Often ADUs provide housing for family members or are rented to members of the community.

9 Allen Matkins/UCLA Anderson Forecast Commercial Real Estate Survey, Winter 2021,

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-150 A number of State Assembly and Senate Bills were passed in 2018 and 2019 that promote development of ADUs and remove barriers that may inhibit their development within communities. The following is a summary of those bills:
 AB 68 and 881
o Prohibit minimum lot size requirements
o Cap setback requirements at 4’, increasing the size and location opportunities for ADUs o Prohibit the application of lot coverage, FA R, or open space requirements that would prevent an 800 square foot from being developed on a lot o Remove the need for replacement parking when converting an existing garage to an ADU o Limit local discretion in establishing min and max unit size requirements o Mandate a 60-day review period for ADU applications through a non-discretionary process  SB 13
o Prohibit owner-occupancy requirements for 5 years
o Reduce impact fees applicable to ADUs
o Provide a program for homeowners to dela y compliance with certain building code requirements that do not relate to health and safety
 AB 670
o Prohibits Homeowner’s Associations (HOAs) from barring ADUs As a result of new legislation and an increased effort by the City to promote ADUs, the City has seen an increase in applications since 2021. Over the first four years of the planning period (2021-2025), the City permitted a total of 374 ADUs, significantly exceeding the original annual projection of 50 units per year.

This demonstrates that actual ADU production has outpaced initial expectations, particularly in later years as market familiarity, streamlined regulations, and local incentives have taken effect. Completed units have also increased steadily over time, reflecting a lag between permitting and construction but confirming sustained delivery.

In the 2021 Housing Element, the City relied on AD U production projections to support RHNA capacity, estimating approximately 391 ADUs over the 2021–2029 planning period (or about 50 units annually). These projections were based on observed increases in ADU activity between 2018 and 2021, as well as the anticipated continued impact of recent State legislation and local incentives promoting ADU development.

As part of this amendment, the City no longer relies on projected ADU production to meet RHNA obligations. Instead, ADU production is captured as part of credit towards RHNA reflecting actual permitting and completion reported in the City’s APRs . To assist in reaching the City’s ADU development projections, Costa Mesa has included Program 3E , which explores actions the City will take to promote and incentivize the development of ADUs during the pl anning period. As outlined in the program, these actions may include:
 Coordinating with the County on implementation of a permit-ready ADU program  Waiving specific permitting fees to make ADU development more feasible

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-151  Creating an expedited plan check review process to ease the process for homeowners  Explore potential State and Regional funding sources for affordable ADUs Summary of Sites Inventory and RHNA Obligations
As described in this section and in further detail in Appendix B , the City of Costa Mesa has identified adequate sites to accommodate the 2021-2029 RHNA obligation of 11,760 housing units. These candidate housing sites, in combination with the programs stated in Chapter 4, will help to facilitate the development of future housing within the city.

G. Financial Resources
Providing an adequate supply of decent and affordable housing requires funding from various sources, the City has access to the following funding sources.

1. Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher, CDBG and HOME funds The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program is a Federal government program to assist very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled with rent subsid y payments in privately owned rental housing units.

Section 8 participants are able to choose any housing that meets the requirements of the program and are not limited to units located within subsidized housing projects. They typically pay 30 to 40 percent of their income for rent and utilities. The Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA) administers Section 8 Housing Choice vouchers within the City of Costa Mesa. OCHA reports that as of June 30, 2014, a total of 640 vouchers were granted to Costa Mesa households.

Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program provides annual grants on a formula basis to cities to develop viable urban communities by provid ing a suitable living environments and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for low- and mo derate-income persons (up to 80 percent AMI). CDBG funds can be used for a wide array of activities, including:
 Housing rehabilitation;
 Lead-based paint screening and abatement;
 Acquisition of buildings and land;
 Construction or rehabilitation of public facilities and infrastructure, and:
 Public services for low-income households and those with special needs.

In order to receive CDBG funding, the City of Cost a Mesa is required to approve and implement the 2020- 2024 Consolidated Plan. This is a pl anning document that identifies the City’s housing and community needs and outlines a strategy to a ddress these needs utilizing funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

HUD also requires the City to prepare a One-Year Acti on Plan for each of the five years covered by the Consolidated Plan. For the 2020-2021 fiscal year the City of Costa Mesa received $1,600,000 in CDBG and HOME funding (including public service grants associated with CDBG) are anticipated to be allocated towards:

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-152 (1) Housing Rehabilitation
(2) Tenant-Based Rental Assistance
(TBRA)
(3) HOME Administration
(4) Community Housing Development
Organization (CHDO) Housing Reserve
(5) Special Housing Code Enforcement
(6) Mercy House – Bridge Shelter
(7) City of Costa Mesa Senior Social
Services
(8) Community SeniorServ Meal Programs
(9) Fair Housing Foundation
(10) Youth Employment Services Program
(11) CDBG Administration
(12) Families Forward
HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME)
The HOME program provides federal funds for the development and rehabilitation of affordable rental and ownership housing for households with incomes not exceeding 80 percent of area median income. The program gives local governments the flexibility to fund a wide range of affordable housing activities through housing partnerships with private industry and non- profit organizations. HOME funds can be used for activities that promote affordable rental housing and homeownership by low-income households.

As with CDBG funding, HOME funds require the City complete a Consolidated Plan and a One-Year Action Plan. The 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan identifies the following objectives for HOME funds:

High Priority Need:
 Housing rehab: $275,000
 Tenant Based Rental Assistance:
$150,000
 Community Housing Development
Organization Reserve: $180,365
 Program Admin: $50,582

2. Opportunities for Energy Conservation
The primary uses of energy in urban areas are for transportation lighting, water heating, and space heating and cooling. The high cost of energy demands that efforts be taken to reduce or minimize the overall level of urban energy consumption. Energy conservation is important in preserving non-renewable fuels to ensure that these resources are available for use by future generations. There are also a number of benefits associated with energy conservation including improved air quality and lower energy costs.

Energy Use and Providers
Southern California Gas Company (SCG) provides natura l gas service for the City. Natural gas is a “fossil fuel” and is a non-renewable resource. Most of the major natural gas transmission pipelines within the City are owned and operated by SCG. SCG has the capacity and resources to deliver gas except in certain situations that are noted in state la w. As development occurs, SCG will continue to extend its service to accommodate development and supply the necessary gas lines. Electricity is provided on an as-needed basis to customers within existing structures in the City.

Southern California Edison Company (SCE) is the distribution provider for electricity in Costa Mesa. SCE services an area of 50,000 square miles with a population over 10 million; Costa Mesa represents less than one percent of the population served by SCE. Currently, SCE has no immediate plans for expansion of infrastructure, as most of the City is built out. However, every year SCE expands and improves existing facilities

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-153 according to demand and they have indicated that future growth in Costa Mesa as anticipated in the General Plan is within the parameters of the overall projected load growth which they are planning to meet.

Energy Conservation
The City’s Conservation Element of the General Plan identify and establish goals and policies for preserving and managing natural resources in the City. The element states that solutions to energy problems can be solved through conservation and through the developm ent of alternate energy sources. Energy suppliers are continuously searching for new and expanded sources of conventional fuels such as oil, gas, and coal.

More recently developed fuels, such as nuclear and geothermal, make up a small share of the nation's energy supplies.

The City’s Conservation Element states the City does not operate any local utilities related to energy, however, it partners with and supports energy prov iders to promote sustainabl e practices through local regulations. The Element also reports that while the national consumption of energy has increased by over 50 percent in the last 30 years, the State of California has remained stable due to conservation campaigns by individuals, businesses, utilities companies, and State and local regulations.

Solar energy is the viable alternate energy source for the City of Costa Mesa. As of January 2020, the State of California requires all new single-family and multi-family homes (up to 3 stories high) include a solar photovoltaic (PV) system as a source of electricity. The California Clean Energy Commission determined this mandate increases the cost of sing le-family residences by $8,400, but it saves homeowners and renters about $80 per month on electricity costs. To further promote the swit ch to solar energy, the City of Costa Mesa initiated the Go Green Program which waives permit fees for residential solar installations and electric vehicle charging stations.

The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification is a world-wide rating system which reviews and rates buildings, communities, and cities on their energy efficiency and conservation strategies.

A LEED certified building is rated based on a set of points received and may be rated “certified” at the lowest and “Platinum” at the highest. In 2007, the City of Costa Mesa impl emented a Green Building Program aimed at promoting energy efficiency by expediting the permitting process and waive certain fees for LEED certified projects. The City also became th e first California city to require all new Municipal buildings be LEED Gold certified. LEED certified buildings are recognized for providing the following:
 Improved productivity and morale amongst workers, recruitment, and higher retention rates;  Improved indoor environmental quality and air quality;  Minimized energy and water costs during construction and operation;  Minimized waste output;
 Pollution prevention; and
 Low-impact materials that last longer and may be non-toxic, recycled, and sustainably produced.

In February 2021, the City of Costa Mesa became the first city in California to achieve a LEED Gold for Cities and Communities certification.

Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, Resources, and Fair Housing 3-154 Lastly, the City also abides to Title 24 standards as mandated by the State. Title 24 establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings (new structures and additions) to reduce energy consumption. The standards are updated every three years to achieve greater efficiency and reach for new goals.

Housing Plan
Element Update
Chapter 4
Element Update

Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-1
Housing Plan
The Housing Plan describes the City of Costa Mesa 2021-2029 policy program. The Housing Plan describes the specific goals, policies, and programs to assist City decision makers to achieve the long -term housing objectives set forth in the Costa Mesa Housing Element. This Plan identifies goals, policies, and programs aimed at providing additional housing opportunities, removing governmental constraints to affordable housing, improving the condition of existing housing, and providing equal housing oppo rtunities for all residents. These goals, policies, and programs further the City’s overall housing policy goal is to Inspire a more diverse, sustainable, and balanced community through implementation of strategies and programs that will result in economic ally and socially diversified housing choices that preserve and enhance the special character of Costa Mesa.

Regional Housing Needs Assessment
The S outhern California Association of Governments (S CAG) has conducted a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) to determine the City’s share of the affordable housing needs for the Orange County region. The RHNA quantifies Costa Mesa’s local share housing needs for the region by income category.

Income categories are based on the most current Median Family Income (MFI) for Orange County. The City’s 2021-2029 RHNA growth need is as follows:
• 2,919 units - Very low income (0-50% County MFI)
• 1,794 units - Low income (51-80% of County MFI)
• 2,088 units - Moderate income (81-120% of County MFI) • 4,959 units - Above moderate income (120% or more of County MFI) 11,760 units – Total
A. Guiding Principles
The City of Costa Mesa followed certain “guiding principles” in developing its approach and strategy for accommodating future housing growth. These guiding principles assist with implementation of the housing goals, policies and programs and will aid overall decision making. The guiding principles are rooted in community engagement and local knowledge and input into the planning process. The guiding principles are as follows:
• The City will plan for future housing primarily along major commercial, industrial, and mixed-use corridors within Costa Mesa that are compatible with growth , while preserving established residential neighborhoods.
• Each neighborhood, community, and district within Costa Mesa has its own unique characteristics and needs. Future housing growth will build upon Costa Mesa’s history and complement the diversity and unique characteristics that already exist within each area. • The City will plan for a diverse range of housing forms, types, and densities to address the housing needs of an inclusive and diverse community and provide housing opportunities that meet the needs of all residents, including low-income households, seniors, multi-generational families, larger households, and special needs groups.

Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-2
As identified in Chapter 2, the City will need to address the following findings based on the data presented in this Community Profile:
• The Costa Mesa population is showing aging trends – housing goals should address 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 Spanis h 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 addressed. 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);
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.

Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-3
B. Housing Goals
The City of Costa Mesa has identified the following housing goals as part of this Housing Element Update:

Housing Goal #1: Preserve and enhance the City’s existing housing supply.

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

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

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

The goals listed above are described below and on following pages with accompanying policies and programs to achieve them.

C. Housing Policies and Programs
This Housing Element expresses the Costa Mesa’s overall housing goals and supporting policies, quantified objectives, and the housing programs to achieve the objectives. The stated Housing Programs are based on a review of past performance of the prior 2013-2021 Housing Element, analysis of current constraints and resources, and input from Costa Mesa residents and stakeholders.

Housing Goal #1
Preserve and enhance the City’s existing housing supply.

POLICIES HOU-1
HOU-1.1 Assist low and moderate-income homeowners and renters through housing assistance programs as long as funds are available . Consideration should be given to low and moderate -income homeowners within designated environmental justice area boundaries.

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

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

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

Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-4
HOUSING GOAL 1 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
PROGRAM 1A: Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation
This program is designed to assist qualified property owners to improve single-family residential properties.

Improvements include, but are not limited to, health and safety repairs such as mechanical, plumbing, electrical, roofing, security, medical emergency requirements, and/or aid the mobility of the physically disabled and/or elderly. The program provides rehabilitation loans (up to $50,000) and grants (up to $17,500). The loan offers deferred payment that will accrue zero percent interest and will be fully deferred without principal repayment until the sale or transfer of all or any interest in the property, or the occurrence of any other default by the property owner identified in the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement. Maximum loan-to-value is 85 percent of the current market value.

Objectives:
• Provide informational materials on the Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation program. • Encourage the participation of seniors, veterans, and disabled residents in this program. • Evaluate the effectiveness of this program and, if necessary, modify program characteristics.

Timeframe: Annually market information and evaluate the program’s effectiveness. Any program modifications to be made by December 2023
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Housing and Community Development Division
Funding Source: Federal HOME funds

PROGRAM 1B: Mobile Home Rehabilitation
The City encourages the preservation of mobile homes as an affordable housing resource. Specifically, the City provides financial assistance (up to $ 12,500) as a grant to eligible owner -occupants to rehabilitate existing dwelling units.

Objectives:
• Provide financial assistance as long as funding from HOME funds remains available. • Market information on funding as available.
• In 2025, the City assisted 6 households through this program.

Timeframe: Annually market assistance available and grant funding on a case-by-case basis.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Housing and Community Development Division
Funding Source: Federal HOME Funds

PROGRAM 1C: Monitoring and Preservation of At-Risk Housing Units The City has 1,144 total housing units with affordability covenants. Of these units, none are at risk of converting to market rate between 2021 and 2031 . The Casa Bella Apartments affordability covenant will expire during this period; however, these units are under an agreement with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development , which renews every five -years and mandates project affordability.

Therefore, the Casa Bella Apartments are not at risk of conversion. . All residential developments with affordability covenants are listed in Section 3.E.4 of this Housing Element.

Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-5
Objectives:
• Regularly monitor deed-restricted units that have the potential of converting to market-rate during the planning period.
• Work with the property owners of Casa Bella on potential extensions past the current 2025 agreement.
• Comply with noticing requirements and coordinate with qualified entities to preserve at-risk units. • Assist with funding, as available, or support funding actions for tenant education.

Timeframe: (Completed.) Annually market tenant education information and available assistance.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Housing and Community Development Division and Planning Division
Funding Source: CDBG, Golden State Acquisition Fund (GSAF), Multifamily Housing Program (MHP)

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

POLICIES HOU-2
HOU-2.1 Facilitate the development of housing that meets the needs of all segments of the population including affordable housing and households with specialized needs.

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

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

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

HOUSING GOAL 2 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
PROGRAM 2A: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
As of 2024, the City of Costa Mesa has established an inclusionary housing ordinance. To support this effort, the City has allocated $2.5 million to an affordable housing trust fund. The City will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the inclusionary housing ordinance and will consider potential modifications to in-lieu fees, as needed.

Objectives:
• Assess inclusionary housing ordinance for effectiveness and recommend changes, as needed.

Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-6
Timeframe: To be completed by December 2027.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Housing and Community Development Division and Planning Division
Funding Source: In Kind, General Fund

PROGRAM 2B: Affordable Housing Development
The City understands that there may be local procedures or standards that could impact the development of affordable housing. The development process relies on a number of factors working together, including timing, fees and flexibility in design components required of a project. As such, this program aims to inform and incentivize the development community to develop affordable housing.

Objectives:
• Pursue State and regional funding for affordable housing development. • Pursue local partnerships and annually meet with affordable housing organizations to encourage the development of housing affordable to all segments of the population. • Establish development incentives (i.e. deferment of fees, priority processing, modified development standards, etc.) for affordable housing projects that meet objective evaluation criteria similar to the process for density bonus concessions. The City established a streamlined development review for qualifying projects on Housing Element sites and in the MUOD.

Streamlined development review allows for a ministerial approval consistent with applicable provisions of State Law. Residential construction of two or more stories is subject to development review, which is a ministerial planning division review against applicable objective zoning standards of the Citywide Multifamily Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards.

State Density Bonus Law review has also been modified to Planning Division review authority. • Develop clear instructional materials for achieving incentives and make them publicly available on the City’s website.

Timeframe: Establish incentives and instructional materials by December 2023. Pursue funding and partnership annually. Meet with organizations annually.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/ Housing and Community Development Division and Planning Division
Funding Source: HOME, General Fund, State Department of Housing and Community Development Funds, Low Income Housing Tax Credits and CalHFA

PROGRAM 2C: Supportive Services for Persons with Special Housing Needs The City recognizes special needs groups (as defined in Chapter 2 of this Housing Element) require additional assistance to secure decent housing and supportive services. Through the annual Action Plan process for the CDBG program, the City evaluates the needs of various special needs groups and the allocation of CDBG Public Service dollars accordingly. The City will continue to expend available CDBG funds in a manner that addresses local needs and augments the regional continuum of care system in Orange County.

Objectives:
• Provide information regarding the City’s Annual Action Plan findings regarding special needs groups and the availability and allocation of CDBG funds on the City’s website.

Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-7
• Outreach to local organizations working with special needs populations to receive feedback and provide information on the availability of funding.

Timeframe: Annually outreach to local organizations and provide information online regarding the Annual Action Plan findings regarding special needs populations and availability and allocation of CDBG funds.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Housing and Community Development Division
Funding Source: CDBG

PROGRAM 2D: Facilitate Development of Senior Housing Options Senior residents, generally defined as those over 65 years of age, make up approximately 10.7 percent of the population in Costa Mesa and 7.5 percent of all households within the City are seniors living alone. As part of the candidate housing sites analysis, the City has identified one parcel suitable for the specific development of senior housing. In 2025, the City approved entitlements for a 70 -unit senior housing development at th is site. This program aims to coordinate with the project developer to facilitate the development of senior housing on this parcel . Further, the City will continue to seek other potential opportunities to facilitate the development of senior housing across the City.

Objectives:
• Identify potential opportunities for Senior Housing developments within Costa Mesa, including working with developers who specialize in the development of Senior Housing. • Support the development of senior housing on the Senior Center parcel identified as part of the candidate housing site analysis through developer coordination and letters of support for financing, as needed.

Timeframe: Annually meet with senior housing developers to receive feedback, market housing sites adequate for the development of senior housing and pursue other opportunities for senior housing development.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Housing and Community Development Division
Funding Source: HOME, In Kind

PROGRAM 2E: Encourage Development of Housing Options for Large-Family Households Large households are defined as those consisting of five or more members. In Costa Mesa, approximately 10 percent of all households meet the definition of a large-family household. The majority of large-family households are renter -occupied (62.8 percent) as opposed to owner -occupied (37.2 percent). This is compounded by the fact that single -family detached households, which generally tend to be owner - occupied in Costa Mesa, are more likely to be able to accommodate five or more people while apartment complexes rarely develop units larger than 3 bedrooms.

Objectives:
• Promote and w ork with applicants who propose for -rent residential projects to encourage 4- bedroom units as part of proposed developments.
• Review development standards to determine if any pose an impediment to the development of larger units. If it is found that certain standards present an impediment, the City will adopt amendments to the Zoning Code to alleviate those impediments. In April 2026, the City amended

Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-8
its parking requirements to eliminate standards based on the number of bedrooms, reducing constraints on the development of larger units.

Timeframe: Review development standards for larger units and, if necessary, amend the Zoning Code by Winter 2025. Annually meet with housing developers to encourage the development of larger units.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Housing and Community Development Division
Funding Source: HOME funds, In Kind

PROGRAM 2F: Persons with Physical and Developmental Disabilities As identified in Chapter 2, the City of Costa Mesa has a total of 9,224 persons reported having at least one physical disability. As of May 2021, a pproximately 932 persons with a developmental disability have received services through the Regional Center of Orange County (RCOC). The City understands that people with physical and developmental disabilities may have unique needs when looking for housing accommodations and is committed to assisting residents.

Objectives:
• Take actions to accommodate ADA retrofit efforts, ADA compliance and/or other measures where appropriate through the implementation of Title 24, as well as reviewing and amending its procedures to comply with State Law.
• Review procedures and consider revisions to the reasonable accommodation procedures to provide more flexibility in housing accommodations for persons with physical and developmental disabilities. On April 7, 2026 the city adopted changes to its reasonable accommodates procedure. • City will proactively reach out to developers and other agencies annually to take steps to improve and develop housing for persons with disabilities.

Timeframe: Review procedures to accommodate ADA retrofit efforts, ADA compliance and/or other measures where appropriate, and, if necessary, amend the Zoning Code by Winter 2025 Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Housing and Community Development Division
Funding Source: HOME, CDBG, In Kind

PROGRAM 2G: Safety Element Update and adoption of Environmental Justice Policies SB 1035 requires that the City review and revise the Safety Element to identify new information relating to flood and fire hazards that was not previously available during the previous revision of the Safety Element.

SB 1000 requires that the City incorporate environmental justice policies within the General Plan. In 2025, a study session was held with the City’s Planning Commission to discuss the draft update to the Safety Element. In January 2026, the City received grant funds to support review and recommendations for Environmental Justice revisions to the City’s General Plan.

Objectives:
• Revise and amend the current Safety Element.
• Amend portions of the General Plan to include environmental justice policies in compliance with SB 1000.

Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-9
Timeframe: To be completed by December 2026.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: State and Federal Grant Funds (e.g., SB2 LEAP funds), In Kind, General Fund PROGRAM 2H: Farmworker Housing
Per California Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6, the City is required to permit farmworker housing by-right, without a conditional use permit (CUP), in single-family zones for six or fewer persons and in agricultural zones with no more than 12 units or 36 beds. In March 2026, the City adopted revisions to the Municipal Code related to farmworker housing , also known as employee housing, consistent with State Law.

Objectives:
• Maintain consistency with the California Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6 and any subsequent revisions.

Timeframe: Completed March 2026
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind
PROGRAM 2I: Promote State Density Bonus Incentives
Density bonus is an effective incentive to aid in the development of affordable housing units within Costa Mesa through providing concessions to proposed developments that meet specific affordability criteria.

These concessions may take the form of additional residential units permitted beyond the density allowed in the base zoning, a relaxed parking standard, as well as the ability to deviate from development standards.

Currently, the maximum number of concessions a project can receive through density bonus is three. In January 2026, the City received grant funds to support review and recommendations for revisions to the Density Bonus Ordinance.

Objectives:
• Evaluate and update the Density Bonus Ordinance to comply with State Density Bonus Law.

Timeframe: Adopt revisions to the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance – December 2026 Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind/General Fund
PROGRAM 2J: Transitional and Supportive Housing
California Government Code Section 65583(c)(3) requires transitional and supportive housing to be permitted in all residential zoning districts under the same restrictions as other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. Government Code Se ction 65651(a) also requires permanent supportive housing to be permitted by -right in zones where multi -family and mixed -use development is permitted, including non-residential zones permitting multi -family uses if they meet the Government Code Section requirements. In March 2026 the City adopted revisions to the municipal code consistent with State Law.

Objectives:
• Monitor the inventory of sites appropriate to accommodate transitional and supportive housing.

Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-10
• Proactively engage relevant organizations to meet the needs of persons experiencing homelessness and extremely low-income residents.

Timeframe: Completed March 2026.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind/HOME-ARP
PROGRAM 2K: Planning Application Fees
Residential developers are subject to a variety of fees and exactions to process permits and provide necessary services and facilities as allowed by State Law. Development fees are necessary to implement planning, zoning and building safety laws and to provide the public services and infrastructure necessary to serve City residents. This program seeks to avoid application fees creating constraints to the development of affordable housing and to reduce development costs in other ways, where possible. In March 2026, the City adopted revisions to the Zoning Code, creating by-right permit processing for qualifying residential developments, reducing the overall timing and cost associated with development.

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

Timeframe: Completed March 2026
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind/General Fund

PROGRAM 2L: Development of Housing for Extremely Low and Low-Income Households The City recognizes the importance of supporting the development of housing for low and extremely low income households. It is a primary goal of the Housing Element to increase the feasibility of development of housing for extremely low and low income households. In March 2026, the City approved revisions to the Zoning Code to include a zoning overlay that creates new opportunities for housing to be developed by-right, especially those developments with units affordable to lower income households.

Objectives:
• Subsidize up to 100 percent of the City’s application processing fees for qualifying developments where all units are affordable to 80 percent AMI or lower, as funding is available. • Annually p romote the benefits of this program to the development community by posting information on its webpage and creating a handout to be distributed with land development applications regarding development opportunities and incentives. • Proactively reach out to developers at least once annually to identify and promote development opportunities.
• (Completed)Support funding development applications throughout the planning period for projects proposing units affordable to lower income households.

Timeframe: As funding is available, promote the program and outreach; adopt priority processing and other incentives by December 2024.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind/General Fund

Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-11
PROGRAM 2M: Parking Standards for Residential Developments The City ’s residential off -street parking requirements are provided in Section 3.B.3 of this Housing Element. Parking requirements ensure that there is adequate parking provided for residents and for guests in both single -family and multi -family residences. This program seeks to avoid potential constraints due to parking requirements to facilitate the development of multi-family developments, and specifically affordable housing projects. In April2026, the City approved reduced parking requirements for all multifamily development and no minimum parking required for residential uses on sites identified by the Housing Element .

Objectives:
• Review and revise the Zoning Code’s requirements for residential off-street parking for multi-family projects to facilitate the development of multi-family housing, and specifically affordable housing. • Seek opportunities to reduce off -street parking requirements for residential uses beyond the Housing Element sites.

Timeframe: Review by December 2024; revise Code by Winter 2026.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind/General Fund
PROGRAM 2N: Reasonable Accommodation
The City has completed an analysis of its Reasonable Accommodation process in Section 3 of this Housing Element. By the nature of Reasonable Accommodation requests and the range of potential modifications that could need to be accommodated, the City has to evaluate each request individually. This process is described within the City’s Zoning Code and persons may contact the City’s planning department for assistance with requests. In April 2026, the City approved revisions to its Reasonable Accommodation process to be consistent with State and federal fair housing requirements.

Objectives:
• Review and revise the Reasonable Accommodation procedure to promote access to housing for persons with disabilities, address potential constraints and establish potential objective standards, and provide guidance and amend as necessary to promote greater certainty on how approval findings will be implemented.
• Meet with local organizations and developers to promote access to housing for persons with disabilities and address potential constraints.

Timeframe: Review and revise Code by December 2024. (Completed). Annually review and, if necessary, revise the reasonable accommodations procedures. Annually meet with local organizations and housing developers to promote access to housing for persons with disabilities and address potential constraints.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind/General Fund
PROGRAM 2O: Definition of Single Housekeeping Unit
The City’s definitions of “family” and “single housekeeping unit” within the zoning code do not differentiate between related and unrelated individuals , or between disabled and non -disabled individuals, living together. Notwithstanding, in order to promote flexibility to accommodate residents with different living conditions, in April 2026, the City adopted revisions to its Zoning Code per the objectives below.

Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-12
Objectives:
• Review and revise the definition of “single housekeeping unit” within the zoning code to provide greater flexibility in consideration of accommodating a variety of household situations for related and unrelated individuals living together.

Timeframe: Completed – March 2026.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind/General Fund
PROGRAM 2P: Group Homes
The City has completed an analysis of its regulations applicable to group homes in Section 3 of this Housing Element. Group homes are allowed in all residential zoning districts through a conditional or special use permit. In April 2026, the City approved revisions to its Zoning Code applicable to group homes to affirmatively further fair housing and comply with fair housing laws per the objectives below.

Objectives:
• Review and revise the City’s zoning code and application procedures applicable to group homes to promote objectivity and greater approval certainty similar to other residential uses.

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

POLICIES HOU-3
HOU-3.1 Encourage the conversion of existing marginal , underutilized, or vacant motels, commercial, and/or industrial land to residential, where feasible and consistent with environmental conditions that are suitable for new residential development.

HOU-3.2 Encourage the development of well-planned and designed residential or mixed-use projects which, through vertical or horizontal integration, provide for the development of compatible residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or public uses within a single project , neighborhood, or geographic area within the City.

HOU-3.3 Actively engage and partner with large employers, the Chamber of Commerce, and major commercial and industrial developers to identify and implement programs to balance employment growth with the ability to provide housing opportunities affordable to the incomes of the newly created j ob opportunities.

HOU-3.4 Consider the potential impact o f new housing opportunities and their impacts on existing residential neighborhoods when reviewing development applications affecting residential properties.

Timeframe: Review and revise Code by Winter 2024 (Completed) Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Source: In Kind/General Fund

Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-13
HOU-3.5 Encourage residential and mixed -use development along transportation routes and major commercial/mixed use corridors.

HOUSING GOAL 3 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
PROGRAM 3A: Adequate Sites
The City of Costa Mesa is required to maintain an inventory of vacant and underutilized sites and provide this inventory to interested developers as well as make the information publicly available . To keep this list accurate, t he City will monitor its status of meeting the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) annually and ensure that the City has adequate sites available to accommodate its RHNA. Additionally, the City has completed its rezoning for Housing Element sites to increase residential capacity in key areas across the City.

Objectives:
• Maintain an inventory of vacant and underutilized sites and provide this inventory to interested developers.
• Monitor its status of meeting the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) annually and ensure that the City has adequate sites available to accommodate its RHNA. If the City’s inventory of adequate sites falls below its remaining RHNA, the City will take actions to identify additional capacity to accommodate the shortfall.
• Promote the development of housing, live/work, and mixed -use development on the sites identified within the inventory through actions such as:
o Make information on candidate housing sites readily available through a database available to the public.
o Priority processing for candidate housing sites which provide the amount of affordable housing units at the income levels identified within the housing element for individual candidate sites.
o If funding becomes available, the City shall subsidize up to 100 percent of the City’s application processing fees for qualifying developments that provide the amount of affordable housing units at the income levels identified within the housing element fo r individual candidate sites.

Timeframe: Publish candidate housing sites on the City website by December 2023. Provide priority processing for candidate housing sites that meet the outlined requirements throughout the planning period. Market available funding, as available, for projects on candidate housing sites that meet outlined requirements Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind
PROGRAM 3B: Fairview Developmental Center – State Property Fairview Developmental Center, owned by the State of California, is a 109-acre property located at 2501 Harbor Boulevard in Costa Mesa. This property historically housed adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities but is closed and has been identified as surplus property by the State . The City has engaged with the State Department of General Services regarding the future use of the property as a master planned residential/mixed -use community with a substantial affordable housing component and other community amenities.

Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-14
The City has been coordinating with the State of California Department of General Services (DGS) for future use of the site. The City is considering various zoning strategies permit the residential densities and development of the acreage identified within the candidate housing sites inventory, while also considering expedited permitting.

On June 26, 2022, Senate Bill No. 188 was approved by the State Assembly, which authorized the State to enter into an agreement with the City of Costa Mesa for the City to develop a specific plan for the Fairview Developmental Center property. The State ap propriated $3.5 Million to the State Department of Development Services for allocation to the City to facilitate disposition of the Fairview Developmental Center property, by amending the general plan of the City and any appropriate planning documents and zoning ordinances, completing any environmental review, and addressing the economic feasibility of future development to be utilized for a mixed-use development, including mixed-income housing. Pursuant to the Senate Bill, the development would include and prioritize affordable h ousing, including at least 200 units of permanent supportive housing, and open space.

Objectives:
• Partner with the State to pursue compatible development on the Fairview Development al Center site consistent with the State’s Site Assessment and the Housing Element’s sites analysis to permit residential development at the identified densities.
• Complete land use and rezoning actions at the Fairview Developmental Center through development of a Specific Plan, and/or other appropriate actions necessary to im plement the Specific Plan by the end of 2026. The Specific Plan will be consistent with the residential dwelling units identified in the sites inventory for the site and will be subject to affordability requirements and development process incentives such as expedited processing including a dedicated staff project manager to promote future projects within the Fairview Developmental Center property to include affordable housing. The Specific Plan will include objective development standards to give clear guidance to future development projects with the intent of reducing the time it takes to entitle and develop projects for residential uses. The City will facilitate parceling and site planning at appropriate sizes as part of the Specific Plan implementation. • DGS opened their application portal in January 2026, for the disposition of the site (available as either for sale or long-term lease) to allow interested developers to s ubmit proposals for State consideration for the selection of a master developer for the redevelopment of the Fairview Developmental Center . The City ’s assigned project manager will facilitate and coordinate the review of future development applications with the master developer for any potential entitlements that may be needed and all applicable building permits. • On October 4, 2022, the City approved an agreement with the State of California to fund planning services relating to the Fairview Development al Center. The agreement stipulates that the State will provide up to $3.5 million in funds to the City to support an up to three -year agreement for a City-led local outreach and land planning effort for the FDC site. The funds will be used for the following land use planning activities: extensive community engagement, technical analysis and infrastructure studies, conceptual land use exhibits and Land Use Alternatives, preparation of a Specific Plan and associated gene ral plan and zoning amendment, preparation of the Environmental Impact Report and associated technical studies pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, public hearings and review of the State prepared RFP process for site disposition.

Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-15
• The draft Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were released for public review and c omments in Spring 2026 ; adoption is anticipated in Summer/Fall 2026. The specific plan includes a minimum residential development capacity of 2,300 units up to a maximum of 4,000 units based on the financial feasibility analysis completed as part of the specific plan scope of work.
• Rezoning will be completed to meet all by right requirements pursuant to California Gov Code 65583(h & i)
Timeframe: Adopt the Specific Plan to facilitate future housing development at the Fairview Developmental Center site by December 2026, unless an agreement extension is approved by the State.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa/State of California Funding Sources: State and Federal Grant Funds, In Kind PROGRAM 3C: Update the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
The North Costa Mesa Specific Plan is an existing specific plan located north of the 405 Freeway, containing a mixture of residential, commercial, office, and cultural/arts uses. Development in this area is typically of higher densities/intensities than other areas in Costa Mesa. This area is a key component of the City’s sites strategy for future housing growth.

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

Objectives:
• Complete the required zoning code/Specific Plan amendments to update the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan based on the sites analysis to permit residential development at an allowable density of up to 90 dwelling units per acre. As noted in the program, development capacity is determined by density so effectively there are no total unit caps within the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan.

Rezoning has been completed to meet all by right requirements pursuant to California Gov Code 65583(h & i)
Timeframe: Completed – March 2026 .

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: State and Federal Grant Funds (e.g. SB2 LEAP funds), In Kind, General Fund

Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-16
PROGRAM 3D: Update the City’s Urban Plans and Overlays
The City has adopted Urban Plans and overlays that apply to specific planning areas and corridors within the City. These plans are intended to encourage compatible development through modified development standards and guidelines specific to a localized area of the City.

The City will complete the required Zoning Code amendments to rescind the existing Urban Plans and update the Overlays based on the sites analysis to permit residential development at the densities identified in the candidate housing sites analysis . These updates may include amending the boundary of the Specific Plan area as well as revising development standards. Densities for residential development are anticipated to differ depending on the surrounding context and are listed in Appendix B.

The City has identified the acreage shown below in and around the identified Urban Plan and Overlay areas to be rezoned. Urban Plan and overlays do not change the base zoning of a parcel, but rather add flexibility in development potential, including uses and densities. There are no caps on residential development within the Urban Plan and Overlay areas.

Objectives:
• Complete the required Zoning Code amendments to update the existing Urban Plans and Overlays based on the candidate housing sites analysis to permit residential development at the identified allowable densities:
o 19 West Urban Plan (50 du/ac) . The City will rescind the 19 West U rban Plan, and consolidate the area into a greater Mixed-Use Overlay District (MUOD). o SoBECA Urban Plan (60 du/ac) . The City will rescind the SoBECA Urban Plan , and consolidate the area into a greater MUOD.
o Mesa West Bluff Urban Plan (40 du/ac) . The City will rescind the Mesa West Bluff Urban Plan , and consolidate the area into a greater MUOD.
o Harbor Mixed-Use Overlay (50 du/ac). The City will rescind the Harbor Mixed-Use Overlay, and consolidate the area into a greater MUOD.
• Remove the Mesa West Residential Ownership Overlay. The opportunities established in the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan will be codified in amendments to the Residential Common Interest Development section of the Zoning Code. The urban plan will be rescinded. • Rezoning will be completed to meet all by right requirements pursuant to California Gov Code 65583(h & i)
Timeframe: To be completed by December 2026.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: State and Federal Grant Funds (e.g., SB 2 LEAP funds), In Kind, General Fund

PROGRAM 3E: Promote the Development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Costa Mesa has single-family and multi-family residential neighborhoods which create the environment for accessory dwelling units to be built. As discussed in the analysis in Chapter 3, new State Laws, combined with relaxed development standards (such as waiver of parking requirements along with increased educational efforts by the City) have resulted in an increased number of ADUs being permitted and constructed since 2018. In 2023 and 2025, the City approved updates to the ADU ordinance, consistent with State Law.

Additionally, in January 2025, the City launched a pre approved ADU program to offer homeowners an expedited and efficient path to adding ADUs by selecting pre-approved design plans to ensure a streamlined

Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-17
site plan review process. The City anticipates continued growth in ADU development as the concept becomes more common within Southern California. The City will implement programs with the intent of promoting the development of accessory dwelling units within the 6th cycle including the following.

Objectives:
• Review and revise the City’s ADU ordinance as necessary to comply with State Law. (Completed) • Coordinate with the County on implementation of a permit-ready ADU program. • Post a user-friendly FAQ on the City’s website to assist the public. • Offer permitting fee waivers, as funding is available. • Create an expedited plan check review process to ease the process for homeowners. • Research potential State and Regional funding sources for affordable ADUs and make the information found publicly available to homeowners.
• Engage with residential development applicants regarding ADU opportunities that may not have been considered.

Timeframe: Program components analyzed by December 2023, with implementation by December 2024. Review and revise the ADU ordinance within one year. (Completed) Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind, General Fund

PROGRAM 3F: Motel Conversions, Efficiency Units, and Co-living Housing Types Motel conversions to permanent housing are referenced in the Zoning Code but policies and standards have not been updated for many years and may serve as an impediment to conversions. Participants in the City’s community outreach process expressed that these types of units may meet a need for students, young professionals, seniors, or anyone within the community who may desire smaller housing unit options that are more affordable. Additionally, the City’s analysis in Chapter 2 showed that non-family households made up an estimated 40.2 percent of total households within Costa Mesa in 2018. Co-living or flexibility in housing types may present increased housing options at different affordability levels for this large portion of households in Costa Mesa.

In April 2026, the City approved amendments to the Zoning Code to define “efficiency unit” and “single room occupancy unit” to address the need for development types with small unit sizes and shared facilities.

Further, to address the potential housing need that motels may serve, the City approved an amendment to the Motel Ordinance to ensure that all laws are followed related to the displacement and relocation of residents in the event that a motel is converted.

If an appropriate project becomes available, the City will explore opportunities to implement motel conversions through Project Homekey understanding that it is a competitive grant process that does not guarantee funding. The City has received a grant for two projects under project Homekey and has approved a funding commitment of up to $5.85 million for local match funding for these Homekey projects.

Permits have been issued for these projects totaling 126-units. A qualified /experienced City staff member has been assigned to manage these potential program activities.

Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-18
Objectives:
• Establish definitions of co-living and efficiency housing options within the Costa Mesa Zoning Code (Completed).
• Develop informational materials which outline the City’s process for permitting efficiency unit and co-living housing types and distribute them to interested members of the development community.
• Explore opportunities to implement motel conversions through Project Homekey. • Comply with State and Federal laws related to displacement and relocation of long-term residents when considering motel conversion opportunities.

Timeframe: Completed March 2026
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: State and Federal Grant Funds (e.g., HUD funds, State Project Homekey funds), In Kind

PROGRAM 3G: Address City-wide Vote Requirement in Relation to Housing Element Compliance As it exists upon adoption of the 2021‐2029 Costa Mesa Housing Element, the City’s Municipal Code requires voter approval of certain changes in land use, defined as those projects that amend, change or replace the General Plan, the Zoning Code, a specific plan, or an overlay plan, (collectively, legislative changes) and that involve any one of the foll owing changes: adds 40 or more dwelling units, generates more than 200 additional average daily trips; increases the volume/capacity of an intersection based on specified formulas; changes the intersection capacity utilization or level of service based on specified formulas; adds 10,000 square feet of retail, office or other nonresidential; or, where the proposed project, combined with other projects within 8 years and a half mile of each other, meet the above criteria.

Additionally, voter approval is required for projects that involve one of the above legislative changes and:
changes from public uses to private uses under specified circumstances; land designated as utility right‐of‐ way under specified circumstances; land donated, bequeathed, or otherwise granted to the City; land used or designated for Costa Mesa school property; or land owned, controlled, or managed by the City.

To address this constraint, in November of 2022, the Costa Mesa Voters approved an amendment to the Costa Mesa Zoning Code (Measure K) to revitalize key commercial and industrial corridors by allowing for housing development opportunities. The voter approved initiative provide s flexibility for the City Council to authorize amendments to applicable documents affecting the Measure K sites without the need to receive public voter approval. While the City-wide vote process still exists for those sites not identified by Measure K , this voter initiative creates a clear path to implementing the land use and zoning changes necessary to achieve State‐mandated compliance with the RHNA allocation and State housing requirements.

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

Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-19

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

Complete by August 2022
(3) Inclusion of the proposed measure on the Ballot of Local Election. Complete by November 2022 (4) Creation and adoption of an inclusionary housing ordinance. The Municipal Code exempts “affordable housing proposals required by state or federal law” from the City-wide vote requirement. A City Council- approved inclusionary housing ordinance provides an opportunity to address affordable housing needs City-wide.

Within 12 months of final
adoption of the Housing
Element, consistent with
Program 2A
(5) Engage in a community planning and visioning process. Prepare General Plan amendments, rezones, and revisions to existing specific plans, urban plans, and overlays included as program actions necessary to meet the City’s RHNA allocation as identified within the Housing Element. Complete appropriate technical studies and CEQA compliance documents. Obtain City Council approval.

Complete by December 2026

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

Objective:
• Minimize the constraint of a city-wide vote requirement on creation of housing including affordable housing through the modification of existing City overlays, urban plan areas, and specific plans to rezone candidate housing sites that can accommodate affordable housing and a variety of mixed use/ housing options near jobs and transit. By 2025, initiate a ballot measure, or other alternative option, to provide City Council greater discretion in approving affordable housing and mixed use/ housing options in appropriate locations.

Timeframe: To be completed by Winter 2026.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind/General Fund
PROGRAM 3H: Analyze the Potential of Establishing an Overlay to Permit Residential Uses in the Airport Industrial Area
The airport industrial area presents an opportunity for future housing growth. There are several sites within this area that do not fall within significant noise contours relating to operations at John Wayne Airport. The City has not included any sites w ithin this area within the candidate housing sites analysis in Appendix B but recognizes that this area may be able to accommodate housing within the planning period.

Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-20
Objectives:
• Evaluate the potential to add an overlay to an area in the airport industrial area which would permit residential development.(Completed). As part of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the City evaluated the potential to accommodate additional housing capacity in this area and identified development constraints related to height, density, and noise. Based on these constraints, the City determined that the area is not suitable for additional housing capacity. •
Timeframe: Completed – Spring 2026.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind, General Fund

PROGRAM 3I: Analyze the Potential of Establishing an Overlay to Permit Residential Uses in the 17th Street Corridor Area
The 17th Street corridor has developed into a successful commercial and restaurant hub within the City of Costa Mesa. This area presents the opportunity for focused mixed-use development which would further enliven the corridor through the addition of residential uses. . The City analyzed both Housing Element sites and Measure K sites in this area. The Housing Element sites identified in this area have been rezoned pursuant to State Law, while additional Measure K sites will be rezoned through the Mixed -Use Overlay District (MUOD) in October 2026.

Objectives:
• Evaluate the potential to add an overlay to an area in the 17th Street corridor area which would permit residential development. (Completed)
• Complete a market analysis to determine the potential factors involved with permitting residential uses in the 17th Street corridor area. (Completed).

Timeframe: Apply the MUOD to Measure K sites located in the East and West 17th Street Corridor Area by October 2026.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind, General Fund

PROGRAM 3J: Analyze the Potential of Modifying the Newport Boulevard Specific Plan to Promote Residential Uses along Newport Boulevard
The Newport Boulevard corridor contains a mix of commercial uses includ ing 1980’s-era motels on small lots fronting Newport Boulevard adjacent to SR -55, with established residential communities located in close proximity . This area presents the opportunity for focused mixed -use development which would further enliven the corridor through the addition of strategically located residential uses. The City adopted a Specific Plan for the area in the 1990’s which allows for residential development; however , many of its policies have not been updated. The City analyzed both Housing Element sites and Measure K sites in this area. The Housing Element sites identified in this area have been rezoned pursuant to State Law, while additional Measure K sites will be rezoned through the Mixed-Use Overlay District (MUOD) in October 2026.

Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-21
Objectives:
• Evaluate potential modifications to the Newport Boulevard Specific Plan that would promote quality residential development. (Completed).

Timeframe: Apply the MUOD to Measure K sites located in the area by October 2026.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind, General Fund

PROGRAM 3K: Explore Potential Future Housing Opportunities on Church Sites The City did not identify any church properties as housing opportunity sites within the 2021-2029 Housing Element but believes these partnerships with the local faith -based organizations that serve Costa Mesa could be an important component of the overall process of creating more affordable housing in the community. This program is underway and will be completed as part of the City’s REAP 2.0 grant initiative.

The City is conducting stakeholder meetings in June to better understand opportunities and needs related to faith -based sites. City staff will prepare an inform ational handout for faith -based organizations that explains applicable State Law and available housing opportunities on faith-based sites.Objectives:
• Collaborate with members of the faith -based community to discuss housing and the unique opportunities and challenges faced by faith-based organizations when considering creating housing opportunities on church properties with the potential for wrap around services. • Develop materials outlining the development process and make them available on the City’s website.

Timeframe: Develop online materials on the development process by December 2026 and update, as necessary.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind, General Fund

PROGRAM 3L: Annual Progress Reports
The Annual Progress Report outlines the status of residential development projects within the City at various phases of the development process as well as the City’s progress towards meeting the stated program actions within the Housing Element. The report is due to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) each year within a timeline determined and published by the State.

Objectives:
• Annually complete the required housing status reporting through the City’s Annual Progress Report.

Timeframe: Annually complete and submit an Annual Progress Report to HCD.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind

PROGRAM 3M ADU and JADU Monitoring Program
ADUs and JADUs may be developed in addition to an existing single- or multi-family residential use and can provide a source of affordable housing for family members, students, and other members of the community. As a result of new legislation and an increased effort by the City to promote ADUs, the City has seen an increase in applications in recent years and anticipates growth throughout the planning

Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-22
period, as detailed in Appendix B of this Housing Element. In 202 3, the City launched a new permit application and land management system – the Totally Electronic Self Service Application (TESSA) to help monitor ADU development as well as affordability levels . The City also established a Pre-Approved ADU Program. This program is intended to streamline the ADU review process by allowing homeowners to select from pre -approved ADU plans that meet State and local requirements, thereby reducing review times, costs, and uncertainty for applicant s. The City is currently working with interested architects to review proposed pre -approved ADU plans, and approved plans and vendor information will be made available to the public once finalized.

Objectives:
• Create a monitoring program to track ADU and JADU development and affordability levels throughout the planning period. (Completed)
• As of the 2026 housing element amendment, the City is no longer relying on ADUs to accommodate the RHNA. However, the City has seen strong trends related to ADU development well beyond the projects made in 2021.

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

The City has identified as part of this Housing Element update d vacant and nonvacant sites that were used in previous Housing Elements to meet the current RHNA need. This can be found in Table B -6 in Appendix B.

In April 2026, the City approved an amendment to the Zoning Code to amend an overlay for by right housing for applicable projects on sites used in previous H ousing Elements, consistent with the objectives of this program.

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

Timeframe: Completed March 2026 .

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind

Chapter 4: Housing Plan 4-23

PROGRAM 3O: Water and Sewer Resources
Pursuant to Chapter 727, Statues of 2005 (SB 1087), the City of Costa Mesa is required to deliver its adopted Housing Element and any amendments thereto to local water and sewer service providers. This legislation allows for coordination between the City and water and sewer providers when considering approval of new residential projects. Additionally, cooperation with local service providers will support the prioritization of water and sewer services for future residential development, including units affordable to lower -income households.

Objectives:
• Submit the General Plan amendment and rezone sites to local water and sewer providers for their review and consideration when reviewing new residential projects.

Timeframe: Completed July 2023
Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Planning Division Funding Sources: In Kind
PROGRAM 3P: Federal/State Housing Programs
The City will provide technical assistance to developers, nonprofit organizations, or other qualified private sector interests in the application and development of projects using Federal and State housing programs/grants. Additionally, the City will continue to partner with the OC Housing Finance Trust to identify potential funding sources.

Objectives:
• Provide technical assistance to developers, nonprofit organizations, or other qualified private sector interests in the application and development of projects using Federal and State housing programs/grants.
• Continue to partner with the OC Housing Finance Trust to identify potential funding sources.

Timeframe: Annually market available Federal and State housing programs and grants, when funding is available.

Meet with qualified interested parties annually to provide technical assistance. Partner with the OC Housing Finance Trust throughout the planning period to identify additional potential funding sources.

Responsible Agency: City of Costa Mesa Economic and Development Services Department/Housing and Community Development Division
Funding Sources: State and Federal Grants, OC Housing Finance Trust PROGRAM 3Q: Lot Consolidation
The City of Costa Mesa has identified several candidate housing sites that are smaller than half an acre in size. These sites are identified within Table B-6 under the “Potential Consolidation” column of the table.

Assembly Bill 1397 identifies general size requirements for candidate housing sites of greater than half an acre and less than 10 acres in size. The City has only identified sites smaller than half an acre which show the likelihood of redeveloping in conju nction with other parcels which collectively meet the half acre requirement. In April 2026, the City amended the Zoning Code to streamline residential development application processing, establish staff as the final review authority for more application types, removed the parking minimum for residential projects on Housing Element sites, and reduced the parking minimums required for multifamily housing citywide.